ARTICLE IN PRESS
Tourism Management 25 (2004) 491–498
Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using a behavioral approach
Deborah L. Kerstettera,*, Jing-Shoung Houb, Chung-Hsien Lina
a
School of Hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Management, Penn State University, 201 Mateer Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA
b
Department of Landscape Architecture, Tunghai University, Taichung 407, Taiwan
Received 10 October 2002; accepted 23 May 2003
Abstract
Researchers interested in ecotourists have explored their sociodemographic and travel characteristics and/or the benefits they seek
from an ‘‘ecotourism’’ experience. Few have attempted to address why ecotourists travel to natural resource areas and whether their
travel is accompanied by environmentally responsible behavior, especially after the travel experience. The purpose of this study was
to develop a motivational and behavioral profile of a distinct segment of ecotourists—individuals who visited coastal wetlands
located in Taiwan. The results indicated that tourists’ motivations for visiting coastal wetlands vary and include motives (e.g.,
pursuit of physical health) not traditionally identified in studies conducted with tourists in the Western Hemisphere. Further, based
on a profile of environmentally responsible behavior, three types (i.e., experience-tourists, learning-tourists, and ecotourists) of
tourists were identified. However, only one of the three types of tourists fit the traditional definition applied to ‘‘ecotourists.’’
r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ecotourist; Motivation; Wetlands
1. Introduction
What is ecotourism and why is it of interest to tourism
professionals? According to Meric and Hunt (1998),
ecotourism is an activity that is defined by the
‘‘ecotourist.’’ Boyd and Butler (1993, p. 12) define it as
something that is ‘‘dynamic, flexible, and prone to
change within the variety of destination settings’’. The
International Ecotourism Society (2002, p. 1) forwards
the following definition: ‘‘responsible travel that conserves natural environs and sustains the well-being of
local people’’. Regardless of how it is defined, Sirakaya
and McLellan (1998) suggest that ecotourism, or
tourism to natural areas, continues to be of interest to
tourism professionals because it is considered a sustainable alternative to mass tourism or other forms of
economic development (Buckley, 1994; Jacobson &
Robles, 1992; Lee, Lee, & Han, 1998; Prosser, 1992).
Other researchers argue that the rising interest in
ecotourism is a result of the negative impacts mass
tourists have had on the environment (Caldwell, 1994;
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-814-863-8988; fax: +1-814-8634257.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.L. Kerstetter), hou08@mail.
thu.edu.tw (J.-S. Hou), [email protected] (C.-H. Lin).
0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00119-5
Eagles, 1992; Meric & Hunt, 1998; Nelson, 1994;
Palacio & McCool, 1997).
A second equally compelling question is, ‘‘who are
ecotourists?’’ Fennell and Eagles (1990) referred to
individuals visiting a natural setting as ‘‘ecotourists.’’
Others (e.g., Eagles, 1992; Palacio & McCool, 1997;
Valentine, 1993; Wight, 1996a, b) challenged this
assumption and argued that ecotourists are individuals
who spend a predetermined number of days engaged in
environmentally based activities, have unique motives
for visiting natural areas, etc. They are, as Eagles and
Cascagnette (1995, p. 22) suggested, individuals who
‘‘ytravel with the intent of observing, experiencing and
learning about nature’’. However, Wight (1996a) contended that it is difficult to define ecotourists because
their motivations overlap with those of other types of
tourists, nor can ecotourists be solely defined by the
products in which they express interest. The results of a
recent study by the Travel Industry Association of
America (TIA, 2002) and National Geographic Traveler
(‘‘Geotourism study examines,’’ 2002) support Wight’s
view: there are 55 million tourists in the United States
who are attracted to destinations where the environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage, and well-being of its
residents are sustained or enhanced by tourism.
Adopting a descriptive approach, Ballantine and
Eagles (1994) found that ecotourists tend to be middle
ARTICLE IN PRESS
492
D.L. Kerstetter et al. / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 491–498
aged, have relatively high incomes and levels of
education, and express an interest in learning about
the environment. They also differ from mass tourists in
terms of the benefits they seek from nature (Pratt, 1992;
Squire, 1994; Zurick, 1995). Interestingly, little is known
about the behavior of ecotourists. According to
Brandon (1993) and Wallance (1993), the most important
characteristic of ecotourism and through extension, the
ecotourist, is the maintenance of the natural resource.
Thus, behaviors such as volunteering with a conservation
association, compliance with ecotourism principles, and
consuming local products may be more telling of who is
and is not a ‘‘true’’ ecotourist (Horwich, 1993).
Because there is no definitive agreement about who or
what is an ecotourist, the primary purpose of this study
was to develop a profile of a distinct segment of
ecotourists—individuals engaged in responsible travel
that conserves natural resource areas in Taiwan.
According to the Taiwan Tourism Bureau (2002a),
there has been a small increase in domestic tourists who
travel to nature-based attractions (e.g., national park,
national scenic area, scenic area, and forested area) in
recent years. Further, the development of ecotourism is
now considered to be one of the country’s most
important governmental policies (Taiwan Tourism
Bureau, 2000b). Hence, given the potential ecotourism
has for Taiwan and the fact that very little empirical
research exists on Asian ecotourists, this study was
conducted. The following research questions guided the
study.
1. Why do individuals (i.e., ecotourists) visit natural
resource areas?
We chose to study the motives of individuals
visiting one type of natural resource area (i.e., coastal
wetland). While motivation studies have been conducted previously (see Eagles & Cascagnette, 1995),
focusing on the motives of individuals visiting one
type of natural resource area is unique. Further, the
fact that the sample was drawn from an Asian
population is compelling. To date, few studies have
attempted to document the motives of Asian ‘‘ecotourists.’’
2. What ‘‘types’’ of ecotourists visit natural resource
areas?
Given the fact that there appear to be multiple
motives for visiting natural resource areas (e.g., Eagles
& Cascagnette, 1995; Wight, 1996a), we thought it
prudent to assess whether types of ecotourists could be
grouped together based on motives for visiting a
natural resource areas.
3. Do ‘‘types’’ of ecotourists (based on their motives for
visiting) differ in terms of their intended behavior
(e.g., spending money in the local area, maintaining
local environmental quality, joining the conservation
association)?
Horwich (1993) argued that the environmental
behavior of individuals may provide more insight to
who is and is not a true ecotourist. Thus, we chose to
discriminate between ‘‘types’’ of tourists based on
their intended behavior.
2. The study sites
According to a survey conducted by National Taiwan
University (1998), there are 22 coastal wetlands located
predominantly along the western coastline of Taiwan.
The coastal wetlands are situated on estuaries and their
ecosystems consist of terrestrial and marine organisms.
During the summer and winter, birds migrate to the
wetlands serving as an attraction to a variety of people.
Three (i.e., Guan-Du, Gao-Mei and Ghi-Gu) of the 22
wetlands were chosen as study sites (Fig. 1). Inclusion of
a site was based on geographic location (i.e., southern,
central and northern locations) and the uniqueness of its
attributes (e.g., having endangered species).
Guan-Du, located in the north, is ecologically diverse.
In the summer and winter, the mangroves located on the
estuary attract birds from the Russian Federation.
Gao-Mei, centrally located on the island, is also one
of the main habitats for winter birds. Additionally, it
attracts calling crabs and littoral organisms such as
Hygrophila Progonocalyx Hayata, a floating plant
considered to be an endangered species in Taiwan.
Ghi-Gu wetland, the third study site located in the south
of the island, is popular because of its fabulous salt fan
landscape and lagoon. It is also home to the black-faced
spoonbill, a bird listed on the endangered species red list.
3. Methods
We systematically surveyed individuals 18 years of
age and older who were visiting one of the three study
sites on a weekend day during July 2001. Sampling took
place on weekends only because the vast majority of
visitation occurs then. Interviewers used an equalinterval timing method to obtain the sample. Specifically, every 15 minutes interviewers approached a visitor
and asked if she/he would agree to complete the on-site
interview.
The study instrument (i.e., a questionnaire) consisted
of four sections, three of which were referenced for this
study. The first section, which focused on individuals’
motives for visiting a wetland, included 16 separate
items. These items were developed based on work done
by Eagles (1992), Eagles and Cascagnette (1995), Palacio
and McCool (1997), and Wight (1996b). Individuals
were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each
of the 16 items using a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.L. Kerstetter et al. / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 491–498
493
Fig. 1. Study site locations.
The second section of the questionnaire comprised a
nine-item intended behavior scale which included
management (3 items), consumer behavior (3 items),
and participating behavior (3 items) items. Individuals
were asked to respond to each item using a 6-point
Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree). These items were developed based on
the works of Grenier, Kase, Miller, and Mobley (1993),
Horwich (1993), Valentine (1993), Wallance (1993), and
Wight (1993).
Prior to data analysis the questionnaire was translated
from Chinese to English by one of the authors. His
translation was verified by a colleague who also speaks
both Chinese and English. Data were analyzed using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
4. Results
A total of 450 individuals were asked to participate in
the survey, 93% agreed.1 Approximately 54% of the
respondents were male. Most (61%) respondents were
between the ages of 19 and 34, educated (73% had at
1
Reasons for non-response were not collected and as such represents
a limitation of this study.
least a college degree), and relatively prosperous (45%
reported personal average household incomes in excess
of $30,000) (see Table 1). The demographic profile of
respondents is consistent with the profile of domestic
tourists in Taiwan (Taiwan Tourism Bureau, 2000).
When asked why they were visiting a wetland, the
largest percentage of visitors indicated: ‘‘to be in a
natural setting,’’ ‘‘to observe the ecological landscape,’’
‘‘to be with my (our) family or friends,’’ and ‘‘to
improve my physical health.’’ They were least likely to
agree that the pursuit of fashion or conducting a survey
or research were important motives for their visit
(Table 2).
A two-step approach was adopted to document
whether distinct types of ecotourists existed based on
motives for visiting a wetland. The first step involved
a principal axis factor analysis of the 16 motivation
items to discover underlying factors. According
to convention, only items with factor loadings of 0.40
or greater were retained for analyses. Using this
criterion the following three items were dropped from
further analyses: ‘‘to pursue the fashion,’’ ‘‘to memorize
the past experience,’’ and ‘‘to accept someone’s
invitation.’’ In addition, only those factors with
eigenvalues equal to or greater than 1.0 were extracted
(Child, 1970).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
494
D.L. Kerstetter et al. / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 491–498
Table 1
Sociodemographic profile of respondents
Table 3
Motivation factors
Sociodemographic variable
Percentage
Motivation item
Gender
Male
Female
54.2
45.8
To have an adventurous
experience
To be away from other people
for the solitude
To search for self ego
To be with others who enjoy
the same
To conduct a survey
To educate the children
To learn about new things or
nature
To be with my (our) family and
friends
To be in a natural setting
To improve my physical health
To observe the ecological
landscape
Eigenvalue
Cronbach’s alpha
Variance explained
Cumulative variance explained
Grand mean of factor
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
statistic=0.80
Age
Younger than 19 years
19–24
25–34
35–50
51 and older
5.1
31.6
39.0
19.9
4.4
Education
Grade school
Secondary school
High school diploma
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s or doctorate degree
2.0
4.7
20.2
61.6
11.6
Personal average household income
o$30,000
$30,001–$50,000
$50,001–$100,000
$100,001 or over
54.7
31.5
11.3
2.5
Factor 1
Adventure
Factor 2
Education
Factor 3
Holistic
0.789
0.087
0.057
0.666
0.165
0.333
0.641
0.629
0.400
0.352
0.160
0.042
0.475
0.043
0.206
0.460
0.803
0.699
0.113
0.115
0.134
0.075
0.522
0.430
0.085
0.142
0.018
0.117
0.039
0.439
0.827
0.784
0.603
3.979
0.74
19.9%
19.9%
3.16
1.787
0.70
19.0%
38.9%
4.10
1.349
0.70
15.9%
54.8%
4.93
Table 2
Mean scores and standard deviations of the 16 motivation items
Motivation items
Number of
respondents
Mean
SD
To be in a natural setting
To observe the ecological landscape
To be with my (our) family or friends
To improve my physical health
To kill time
To experience the tranquility
To learn more about new things or
nature
To get away from other people for the
solitude
To memorize the past experience
To accept someone’s invitation
To educate the children
To be with others who enjoy the same
To search for self ego
To have an adventurous experience
To conduct a survey or research
To pursue the fashion
408
406
406
408
407
406
407
5.07
4.98
4.91
4.75
4.31
4.30
4.09
0.79
0.87
1.01
0.97
1.24
1.31
1.34
408
3.90
1.37
406
407
407
407
408
408
408
408
3.75
3.69
3.64
3.42
3.40
3.00
2.86
2.40
1.42
1.42
1.66
1.39
1.37
1.32
1.37
1.10
Note: Individuals were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a
6-point Likert scale ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 6—strongly
agree.
The final results of the factor analysis indicated three
motivation dimensions, accounting for 55% of the
variance explained. The dimensions were named,
‘‘Adventure’’ (e.g., to have an adventurous experience,
to be away from other people for the solitude, to search
for self ego, to be with others who enjoy the same, to
pursue the fashion, and to conduct a survey); ‘‘Education’’ (e.g., to educate the children, to learn about new
things or nature, to memorize the past experience, and
to be with my (our) family and friends); and, ‘‘Holistic’’
(e.g., to be in natural setting, to improve my physical
health, and to observe the ecological landscape) (see
Table 3). Factor 3, ‘‘Holistic,’’ was the most important
motivation dimension, with a grand mean of 4.93.
The second step, cluster analysis, was utilized to
identify distinct groups of respondents based on their
response to the three motivation dimensions. Initially
Ward’s hierarchical clustering method was used to
determine the appropriate number of clusters. The
dendrograms and agglomeration coefficients suggested
three clusters, the number used in a follow-up nonhierarchical (K-means) cluster analysis (Fig. 2). The three
clusters were labeled: Experience-tourists (cluster 1),
Learning-tourists (cluster 2), and Ecotourists (cluster 3)
(see Table 4). The first cluster, ‘‘Experience-tourists,’’
was so named because of the importance members
placed on the ‘‘Adventure’’ factor. This cluster consisted
of 26% of the total sample. The second cluster,
‘‘Learning-tourists,’’ was most likely to agree with the
‘‘Education’’ factor when all factors were considered. It
represented 34% of the sample. The third cluster, ‘‘Ecotourists,’’ was most likely to agree with the ‘‘Education’’
and ‘‘Holistic’’ factors and comprised 40% of the total
sample.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.L. Kerstetter et al. / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 491–498
With respect to the intended behavior of respondents,
they were most likely to agree that they would be
‘‘ywilling to accept the control policy not to enter the
wetland,’’ and ‘‘yto maintain the local environmental
quality.’’ The intended behavior with which they were
least likely to agree was, ‘‘I will touch the fauna or flora
in order to have fun’’ (Table 5).
Analysis of variance with a Scheffe post hoc
procedure was employed to determine whether the three
types of tourists (i.e., Experience-tourists, Learningtourists, and Ecotourists) differed in their response to
the nine intended behavior variables. They did (see
Table 6). Learning-tourists were significantly more likely
than Ecotourists to ‘‘accept the control policy not to
enter the wetlands’’ and ‘‘touch the flora and fauna in
order to have fun.’’ They were significantly less likely to
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
Adventure
Experience-touriists
Education
Holistic
Learning-tourists
Eco-tourists
Fig. 2. A comparison of the three factor scores associated with the
three types of tourists. Note: The scale on the Y-axis (i.e., 1.5 to 1)
represents the minimum and maximum standardized factor scores for
the three factors.
495
indicate that they would ‘‘join the conservation association and actively play a volunteer role.’’ Experiencetourists were significantly less likely than Ecotourists to
agree that they would ‘‘help maintain the local environmental quality’’ or ‘‘help tourists to learn about the
wetland.’’ Experience-tourists were significantly more
likely than Ecotourists, however, to indicate that they
would ‘‘touch the fauna and flora in order to have fun.’’
5. Discussion
Our results indicated that there are distinct types of
ecotourists in Taiwan. With respect to individuals who
visited coastal wetlands, an important nature-based
attraction in Taiwan, we found that they are primarily
motivated by their interest in the natural setting,
including the ecological landscape, being with their
family or friends, and the chance to enhance their
physical health. The first two motives are not surprising
and have been identified in the literature (see Ballantine
& Eagles, 1994; Eagles, 1992; Eagles & Cascagnette,
1995; Meric & Hunt, 1998; Wight, 1996a). The latter
item, however, is intriguing given that the setting in
which this study was conducted is not one which would
traditionally be thought to attract individuals interested
in enhancing their physical health. Further, when the
factor analysis was conducted, the physical health item
loaded with the items, ‘‘to be in a natural setting’’ and
‘‘to observe the ecological landscape,’’ and represented
the most important motive dimension to individuals
visiting a wetland in Taiwan.
Table 4
Classification results based on the three factor scores
Group
Adventure
Education
Holistic
Number
Cluster 1—Experience-tourists
Cluster 2—Learning-tourists
Cluster 3—Ecotourists
0.851
0.238
1.214
0.918
0.293
0.486
0.076
0.096
0.388
105 (26%)
137 (34%)
157 (40%)
Table 5
Mean scores and standard deviations of the nine intended behavior variables
Behavioral variable
Number of respondents
Mean
SD
I am willing to accept the control policy not to enter the wetland
I will help to maintain the local environmental quality
I will express my opinion to local administration if I find the phenomenon
of environmental pollution or destruction
I will spend my money in the local area
I will actively help tourists to learn about the wetland
I will purchase local souvenirs
I will purchase products consisting of attributes from the ecological environment
I will join the conservation association and actively play a volunteer of role
I will touch the fauna or flora in order to have fun
408
408
408
5.16
4.63
4.31
0.91
0.92
1.08
408
408
406
406
408
408
4.26
4.19
4.12
4.12
4.03
3.20
1.23
1.08
1.21
1.21
1.06
1.39
Note: Means were derived from a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 6—strongly agree.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
496
D.L. Kerstetter et al. / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 491–498
Table 6
Scheffe results: Intended behavior by type of ecotourist
Behavioral variable
Cluster 1
Experience
(n ¼ 105)
Cluster 2
Learning
(n ¼ 137)
Cluster 3
Eco
(n ¼ 157)
F -ratio
Sig. level
I am willing to accept the control policy not to enter the wetland
I will help to maintain the local environmental quality
I will express my opinion to local administration if I find the phenomenon
of environmental pollution or destruction
I will spend my money in the local area
I will actively help tourists to learn about the wetland
I will purchase local souvenirs
I will purchase products consisting of attributes from the ecological environment
I will join the conservation association and actively play a volunteer of role
I will touch the fauna or flora in order to have fun
4.90p
4.42p
4.11p
5.41q
4.71pq
4.32p
5.15p
4.71q
4.43p
10.025
3.979
2.856
0.000
0.019
0.059
4.24p
3.92p
4.06p
3.96p
3.90p
3.20pq
4.31p
4.19pq
4.07p
4.15p
3.87p
3.50p
4.24p
4.39q
4.24p
4.22p
4.29q
2.96q
0.174
6.266
0.950
1.513
7.373
5.670
0.840
0.002
0.388
0.221
0.001
0.005
Note: Means were derived from a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 6—strongly agree.
Items with different superscripts indicate significant differences. For example, members of Cluster 2 (see superscript q) differed significantly from
Clusters 1 and 3 (see superscripts p) in their response to the statement, ‘‘I am willing to accept the control policy not to enter the wetland.’’ Clusters 1
and 3 did not differ significantly from one another.
Significant at 0.05 level.
Significant at 0.01 level.
Significant at 0.001 level.
Why are these results important? First, earlier work
on ‘‘types’’ of ecotourists has indicated that they are
generally focused on experiencing and learning about
nature (Ballantine & Eagles, 1994; Eagles, 1992; Eagles
& Cascagnette, 1995; Meric & Hunt, 1998; Wight,
1996a; Valentine, 1993). Our result challenges this
contention. Ecotourists visiting a wetland in Taiwan
may simply be engaged in what Ryan, Hughes and
Chirgwin (2000) refer to as an affective or emotional
experience—one that allows for admiration and enjoyment of the ‘‘space,’’ but does not lead to intellectual
curiosity about the history of the area, the flora and
fauna that exist in the area, etc.
Second, in Asia the pursuit of physical health is
integrally tied to the natural environment (Han, 2001,
2002). Various authors (e.g., Kao, 1995; Lee, 1994; Lin
& Huang, 2000) have documented that physical health is
perceived to be a primary benefit of travel for Asians.
Thus, if we are to continue to study and document the
motives of ecotourists we must account for cultural
differences worldwide.
The cluster analysis results lend additional support to
our argument that there are distinct types of ecotourists,
especially within the Asian market. It is interesting to
note that the largest cluster (i.e., Ecotourists) comprised
individuals who responded to a blend of holistic and
educational benefits associated with visiting a naturebased attraction (i.e., wetland).
The fact that the three types or clusters of ecotourists
differed in their response to statements about their
intended behavior was also intriguing. Individuals who
were ‘‘Experience’’ seekers (i.e., Experience-tourists),
e.g., were less likely overall to exhibit what is often
deemed ‘‘environmentally friendly’’ behavior; they were
significantly less likely to accept policies, purchase
environmentally friendly products, help maintain local
environmental quality, or help others to learn about the
wetland. ‘‘Eco’’ seekers, on the other hand, were most
likely to indicate that they would support local
initiatives (i.e., purchase local products/souvenirs, maintain local environmental quality, help others to learn
about the wetlands, join the local conservation association). These results are important because they support
Horwich’s (1993) contention that ecotourists true
difference may lie in their behavior.
The fact that ecotourists did not strongly agree that
they would be willing to spend money in the local area,
purchase local souvenirs, or purchase environmentally
friendly products is surprising. Fennell and Eagles
(1990) and Wight (1993) indicated that ecotourism has
the potential to act as a force for community development. Our results do not lend support to their
contention. Instead, our results suggest that domestic
tourists may not view sustainability of local resources,
including local businesses, as their responsibility. The
potential ramifications of such thinking are quite
disturbing (Wheeller, 1993). Without the development
of a plan that includes strategies for educating tourists
about their responsibilities as ‘‘agents of change,’’ the
managing agency may expose the natural resource to
greater and more harmful types of visitation, experience
a greater leakage of dollars out of the local area, lose
political support from the community, etc. (Butler,
1990).
What do these differences mean for management?
First, according to The Ecotourism Society (1990),
‘‘ecotourism is responsible travel that conserves natural
environs and sustains the well-being of local people.’’
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D.L. Kerstetter et al. / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 491–498
Based on our results, Taiwan has a sizeable percentage
(i.e., 40%) of individuals who ascribe to the tenets of
ecotourism. The challenge that lies ahead, however, is
how to modify the behavior of the remaining 60% who
are more interested in ‘‘experiencing’’ or ‘‘learning’’
about the environment and not in sustainable activities/
behaviors. One way management can do this is to build
upon the strengths and/or weaknesses of the different
types of ecotourists. For example, management can
focus on Experience-tourists—individuals who are not
currently expressing support for or exhibiting environmentally friendly behavior. According to our findings,
Experience-tourists are likely to be visiting natural
resource areas for the ‘‘adventure.’’ Hence, managers
must think about ways they can help Experience-tourists
to recognize that if they do not behave in an
environmentally friendly way, the adventure of visiting
natural resource areas may not be available to them in
the future. Educating Experience-tourists cannot be
done in a traditional way, however. Because they are on
an ‘‘adventure’’ the delivery of information must be fun
and exciting.
Additionally, Ecotourists want to ‘‘help tourists to
learn about the wetland.’’ Thus, it would behoove
management to solicit them for promotional as well as
programmatic purposes. For example, testimonial from
these individuals may help others (i.e., Experience- and
Learning-tourists) to recognize the fragility and beauty
of the environment. Or, management could ask Ecotourists to act as volunteer interpreters or guides, which
might potentially impact the way in which they look at
and respond to fragile natural environments such as
wetlands. If management is forced to focus on limited
numbers of tourists due to, e.g., budgetary or political
constraints, targeting ecotourists who will ‘‘leave no
trace’’ is important.
Based on the results of our study we see numerous
directions for future research. First, cultural and
geographical contexts of ecotourism deserve more
discussion and attention. For example, the results of
this study suggest that the motives of ecotourists vary
from west (i.e., US and Canada) to east (i.e., Asia).
Hence, cultural factors should be considered in all
studies of ecotourism. In addition, most of the ecotourism research has been conducted with visitors to
undisturbed or protected wilderness areas in the
Western Hemisphere. This approach is limiting our
understanding of ecotourism and ecotourists. In developed and developing countries such as Taiwan and
China, there are numerous examples of natural resource
areas located in the middle of large, urban cities. Do
these areas attract the same type of individual as more
remote, undeveloped areas? To answer this question and
develop a broader understanding of ecotourism and the
individuals who are attracted to such an endeavor, we
must begin to conduct more comprehensive studies of
497
the various types of natural resource areas that attract
responsible travelers who are interested in sustaining the
well-being of local people.
Further, a behavioral rather than a descriptive
approach to studying ecotourism may be beneficial to
the formulation of theories associated with ecotourism.
To date, most research has utilized a descriptive
approach to ecotourism instead of a behavioral framework. In the future, researchers may want to consider
what factors contribute to individuals’ interest in
traveling to natural resource areas. In this study we
found that ‘‘Eco’’ seekers were environmentally conscious and more interested in conservation. Is this true
of their life overall? Is there a propensity for certain
‘‘types’’ of individuals to be interested in visiting distinct
natural resource areas, or are they interested in all things
environmental? A more systematic, behavioral approach
to studying ecotourists might provide the answers to
these questions. Such an approach might also lead to a
more profound understanding of what is necessary to
create a truly sustainable form of tourism (Ryan et al.,
2000).
References
Ballantine, J. L., & Eagles, P. F. (1994). Defining Canadian
ecotourists. Journal of Sustainable Touism, 2(4), 210–214.
Boyd, S. W., & Butler, R. W. (1993). Review of the development of
ecotourism with respect to identifying criteria for Northern Ontario.
Sault Ste Marie, Ontario: Natural Resources Canada and Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resource.
Brandon, K. (1993). Basic steps toward encouraging local participation in nature tourism projects. In K. Lindberg, & D. Hawkins
(Eds.), Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers
(pp. 134–151). North Bennington, VT: The Ecotourism Society.
Buckley, R. (1994). A framework for ecotourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 21(3), 661–669.
Butler, R. (1990). Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse.
Journal of Travel Research, 29(3), 40–45.
Caldwell, L. K. (1994). Sustainable development: Viable concept and
attainable goal? Environmental Conservation, 21(3), 193–195.
Child, D. (1970). The essentials of factor analysis. New York: Holt.
Eagles, P. F. (1992). The travel motivations of Canadian ecotourists.
Journal of Travel Research, 31(2), 3–7.
Eagles, P. F., & Cascagnette, J. W. (1995). Canadian ecotourists: Who
are they? Tourism Recreation Research, 20(1), 22–28.
Fennell, D. A., & Eagles, P. F. (1990). Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A
conceptual framework. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, 8(1), 23–34.
Grenier, D., Kase, B. C., Miller, M. L., & Mobley, R. W. (1993).
Ecotourism, landscape architecture and urban planning. Landscape
& Urban Planning, 25, 1–16.
Han, K. (2001). A review: Theories of restorative environments.
Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture, 12, 30–43.
Han, K. (2002). Restorative effects of natural environments on health.
Scientific Agriculture, 59(3/4), 209–218.
Horwich, R. H. (1993). Ecotourism and community development: A
view from belize. In K. Lindberg, & D. Hawkins (Eds.),
Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers (pp. 152–168).
North Bennington, VT: The Ecotourism Society.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
498
D.L. Kerstetter et al. / Tourism Management 25 (2004) 491–498
Jacobson, S. K., & Robles, R. (1992). Ecotourism, sustainable
development, and conservation education: Development of a tour
guide training program in Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Environmental
Management, 16(6), 701–713.
Kao, C. H. (1995). A three-factor model of leisure benefits. Journal of
Outdoor Recreation Study, Taiwan, 8(1), 15–28.
Lee, S. C. (1994). Canonical analysis: The interrelationship of
paddlers’ specialization levels, motivations and preferences for site
attributes. Journal of Outdoor Recreation Study, Taiwan, 7(3), 39–62.
Lee, C. H., Lee, J. H., & Han, S. Y. (1998). Measuring the economic
value of ectourism resources: The case of South Korea. Journal of
Travel Research, 36(4), 40–47.
Lin, J. S., & Huang, W. C. (2000). Tourists’ perception cognition and
participation in Eco-tours: An application of structural equation
modeling. Journal of Outdoor Recreation Study, Taiwan, 13(2), 45–65.
Meric, H. J., & Hunt, J. (1998). Ecotourists’ motivational and
demographic characteristics: A case of North Carolina travelers.
Journal of Travel Research, 36(4), 57–61.
Nelson, J. G. (1994). The spread of ecotourism: Some planning
implications. Environmental Conservation, 21(3), 248–255.
Palacio, V., & McCool, S. F. (1997). Identifying ecotourists in Belize
through benefit segmentation: A preliminary analysis. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 5(3), 234–243.
Pratt, M. (1992). Imperial eyes: Travel writing and transculturation.
London, UK: Routledge.
Prosser, R. F. (1992). The ethics of tourism. In D. E. Cooper, & J. A.
Palmer (Eds.), The environment in question: Ethics and global issues
(pp. 37–50). London, UK: Routledge.
Ryan, C., Hughes, K., & Chirgwin, S. (2000). The gaze, spectacle and
ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 148–163.
Sirakaya, E., & McLellan, R. W. (1998). Modeling tour operator’s
voluntary compliance with ecotourism principles: A behavior
approach. Journal of Travel Research, 36(3), 42–55.
Squire, S. (1994). Accounting for cultural meanings: The interface
between geography and tourism studies re-examined. Progress in
Human Geography, 18(1), 1–16.
Taiwan Tourism Bureau. (2000). Statistical report of the domestic
tourists. TP: Government Printing Office.
Taiwan Tourism Bureau. (2002a). Statistical abstract of the
domestic tourists. http://www.tbroc.gov.tw/tourism report2001/
chinese/index 03.htm, viewed 3/8/02.
Taiwan Tourism Bureau. (2002b). The abstract of tourism policies.
http://www.tbroc.gov.tw/tbroc99 3w/wpage/chp61/61 1.htm, viewed
4/8/02.
The International Ecotourism Society. (2002). The definition of
ecotourism. http://www.ecotourism.org/index.htm, viewed 1/8/02.
The National Taiwan University. (1998). The coastal wetlands
survey of Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: The National Taiwan
University.
Travel Industry Association of America and National Geographic
Traveler. (2002). Geotourism study examines the travel habits
of 55 million Americans classified as sustainable or geotourists. http:// www.hotel.online.com/neo/new/pr2002 1st/mar02
geotourism.html
Valentine, P. S. (1993). Ecotourism and nature conservation: A
definition with some recent developments in Micronesia. Tourism
Management, 14(2), 107–115.
Wallance, G. N. (1993). Visitors management: Lessons from Galapagos National Park. In K. Lindberg, & D. Hawkins (Eds.),
Ecotourism: A guide for planners and managers (pp. 55–81). North
Bennington, VT: The Ecotourism Society.
Wheeller, B. (1993). Sustaining the ego. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 1(2), 121–129.
Wight, P. (1993). Ecotourism: Ethics or eco-sell? Journal of Travel
Research, 31(3), 3–9.
Wight, P. (1996a). North American ecotourists: Market profile and
trip characteristics. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 2–10.
Wight, P. (1996b). North American ecotourism markets: Motivations,
preferences, and destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 35(1),
3–10.
Zurick, D. (1995). Errant journeys: Adventure travel in a modern age.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.