Using Tourist Typologies for Ecotourism Research

Abstract

Research to identify ecotourists or segment ecotourists from other tourist types has not occurred in a consistent manner, reducing potential comparability to studies at other times and places. Ecotourists have been identified using a variety of techniques, broadly categorised as tourist typologies that are cognitive-normative and interactional. This paper tests the level of congruency among four versions of these tourist typologies (ie. researcher-based,respondent-based, activity-based, and motivation-based), using a case study from a national park in northern Thailand. Based on the considerable consistency found, several pragmatic conclusions are presented. IntroductionAs refinements are made to the definitions and conceptual frameworks for ecotourism (e.g. Björk, 2000;Blamey, 1997;Diamantis & Ladkin, 1999;Hvenegaard, 1994), a major problem in ecotourism research remains. Research to identify ecotourists or segment ecotourists from other tourist types has not occurred in a consistent manner. It is necessary to include situation-specific information in this process, but this may lead to results that are not comparable with studies at other times and places. Such comparability is necessary to generalise about studies that deal with important ecotourism issues such as environmental impacts (Blane & Jaakson, 1994), community impacts (Lindberg et al., 1996), conservation involvement (Hvenegaard & Dearden, 1998), motivations (Eagles, 1992, and demographics (Eagles & Cascagnette, 1995).Attempts to define tourist types have also been called segmentation, classification, and clustering. Identifying distinct tourist types is beneficial for the planning, management, and marketing of tourism (Smith & Smale, 1980;Taylor, 1986). Tourist typology information allows managers to address different motivations, experiences, and impacts of tourist types (Diamantis, 1998;Eagles, 1992) and to understand which tourist types are more likely to be found at different stages in the evolution of tourism areas (Duffus & Dearden, 1990). Moreover, in terms of sustainability, it is necessary to use a tourism typology to match tourism types to resource capabilities (Wall, 1993).A variety of techniques are available to identify ecotourists or to distinguish ecotourists from other tourist types (Blamey, 1997;Bottrill & Pearce, 1995). For example, many studies consider tourists entering a particular site to be ecotourists (e.g. Lindberg et al., 1996;Tobias & Mendelsohn, 1991). Other studies consider all tourists engaging in particular activities (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1991) or participating in certain tours to be ecotourists (e.g. Diamantis, 1998;Eagles, 1992). Some studies use both site and activity criteria (e.g. Wall, 1994 Only a few studies use motivational information to identify ecotourists. For example, Ballantine and Eagles (1994) define ecotourists as respondents who:answer 'very important' or 'somewhat important' to 'learning about nature' as a motivation when planning a trip; and answer 'very important' or 'somewhat important' to 'wilder...

Tourists' perceptions of environmentally responsible innovations at tourism businesses

“…The three clusters differed with respect to several trip motives, demographic characteristics and trip characteristics. Laarman and Durst (1987) also developed an activity-based typology of nature-based tourists, as did Hvenegaard (2002). Eagles (1992) and Ceballos-Lascurian (1991) developed activity-based segments of nature-based tourists as well.…”

Visitor segmentation for a park system using research and managerial judgement

“…As well as assisting in identifying suitable management practices, including the provision of infrastructure as outlined above, segmentation also highlights the range of visitors that frequent protected areas and assist managers in better understanding the experience visitors are seeking at a particular destination. Additionally, providing the cluster membership per park surveyed provides an indication as to whether the resource capabilities actually match or suit the visitor clusters frequenting that park (Hvenegaard, 2002).…”

“…Awareness of this diversity in visitors can assist planners and managers in becoming cognisant of the development of more appropriate planning and marketing strategies (Beh & Bruyere, 2007;Marques, Reis, & Menezes, 2010). Attempts to define this diversity and develop tourist or visitor types have been called typologies, clustering, classification and segmentation (Hvenegaard, 2002).…”

“…The benefits of segmenting customers include the more efficient use of limited resources, better communication with target customers, increased customer satisfaction and strengthened competitive position (Choi et al, 2011;McCool & Reilly, 1993). For managers of tourism and leisure areas, market segmentation can be used to target the provision of facilities and services, planning, marketing and communication for more cost-effective and efficient management (Galloway, 2002;Hvenegaard, 2002;Konu & Kajala, 2012;Palacio & McCool, 1997).…”

Typologising nature-based tourists by activity—Theoretical and practical implications

“…There are also approaches adopted for specific research purposes, such as that of Lang and O'Leary (1997), who consider nature-based tourists simply as those who travel to nature areas or destinations. Hvenegaard (2002) classifies the above definitional and typological approaches into four main empirical categories: researcher-based, respondent-based, motivation-based and activity-based. Researcher-based typologies represent those studies in which the investigator defines different types of nature-based tourists.…”