Factors influencing decisions to visit private parks:
The case of Araluen Botanic Park WA
Sean Lee. Curtin University. [email protected]
Ian Phau. Curtin University. [email protected]
Vanessa Quintal*. Curtin University. [email protected]
Keywords: Push-pull framework, private parks, visitor motivation
Abstract
This paper closes an inherent gap in the literature on research on private parks. Specifically,
the aim of the study is threefold: (a) identify the push and pull factors that influence decisions
to visit private parks; (b) examine differences in these push and pull factors for different
socio-demographic groups; and (c) investigate the interrelationships among these push and
pull factors. Data were collected from 228 visitors intercepted at various locations at a private
park. The survey instrument assessed the reasons for push and pull factors. The results of a
factor analysis revealed three push factors and three pull factors. A general correlation
analysis on the interrelationship among push and pull factors was also conducted. This study
provides useful managerial and practical implications for park managers, policy makers and
communications strategists to gain an understanding of how push and pull factors affect
tourists and their destination choice of private parks.
Introduction
The disquieting pace at which the natural environment is being destroyed has created a need
for more innovative methods of conservation (Langholtz et al., 2000; McNeely et al., 1990).
Studies have shown that vast areas of natural wilderness are left under protected or
unprotected (Machlis & Tichnell, 1985; Western, Wright, & Strum, 1993). Other studies
suggest that even in protected areas, current approaches to conservation are difficult to
implement and have proven to be less effective than expected (Kramer, Van Schaik, &
Johnson, 1997; Wells & Brandon, 1992). A key contributor to this lack of effectiveness in
conservation efforts is the fact that inefficient and overburdened governmental conservation
bodies which lack the financial and human resources are responsible for protecting vast tracts
of natural bushland (Darcy & Wearing, 2009). Studies (e.g. Wilson, Nielson, and Buultjens,
2009) have suggested that one way to improve the efficiency of conservation initiatives is
through public-private partnerships where governments work with the private sector to
protect, conserve and manage nature reserves. These collaborations also help increase levels
of innovation, flexibility and entrepreneurialism (Dudley et al., 1999).
In Australia, a trend of public-private partnerships in the management of nature based parks
is emerging across the nation (Wilson et al., 2009). As private lessees are responsible for
much smaller areas of parkland, more efficient marketing of the park is also possible. Despite
the great potential of these smaller „private parks‟, little is known about the factors that
influence park visitation behaviour. This study attempts at filling this void by examining the
push and pull factors that influence park visitation to these smaller private parks. More
specifically, the objectives of this research are to: (1) identify the push and pull factors that
influence decisions to visit private parks; (2) examine differences in these push and pull
factors for different socio-demographic groups; and (3) investigate the interrelationships
among these push and pull factors.
The Push-pull Framework
The push-pull framework is commonly used in tourism as a means to identifying underlying
touristic motivations and visitation behaviour (e.g. Jurowski, 1993; Baloglu & Uysal, 1996).
Push factors are internal drivers that energise an individual to participate in touristic
behaviours. In other words, these motivations „push‟ the tourist to travel outside of his/her
everyday environment. Pull factors, on the other hand are forces that drive an individual
tourist to select a specific tourist destination. The most common push factors identified are
„escape from daily routine‟, „social opportunities‟, „prestige‟ and novelty‟ (Kim, Lee, and
Klenosky, 2003). For example, Baloglu and Uysal (1996) examined the motivations of
tourists from West Germany who visited tourism destinations outside of Europe and the
Mediterranean. The results revealed four categories of tourists such as „sports/activity
seekers‟, „novelty seekers‟, „urban-life seekers‟ and „beach/resort‟ seekers‟. Each of the
groups was also examined in relation to socio-demographic characteristics such as age,
marital status, education background and income. Significant differences were found across
the different demographic groups.
Pull factors, on the other hand are a result of the attractiveness of the features, attributes and
attractions of a particular tourist destination. These pull factors include tangible resources
such as beaches, resorts and historical or cultural artefacts, as well as a traveller‟s perception
ad expectation of the destination such as benefit expectations and marketed destination image
(Baloglu &McLeay, 1999; Baloglu & Uysal, 1996).Turnbull and Uysal (1995) explored the
relative importance of 54 destination attributes for German overseas tourists visiting North
America, Latin America and the Caribbean. Six factor groupings for pull forces were
identified. These factors were named „heritage/culture‟, „city enclave‟, comfort-relaxation‟,
„beach resort‟, „outdoor resources‟, and „rural and inexpensive‟. The relative importance of
these pull factors was found to vary across various groups that differed in terms of
information sources and destination choice.
Generally, in tourism research, research often investigated push and pull factors as separate
constructs- two different decisions made at different points in time (Kim, Lee & Klenosky,
2003; Dann, 1981; Crompton, 1979). However, some researchers suggest that push and pull
factors should not be viewed as two independent forces, but rather, regarded as being
fundamentally related to each other (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; Jurowski, 1993; Yuan &
Mcdonald, 1990).
Research Methods
The private park site chosen to conduct the study is Araluen Botanic Park located at
Rolleystone, Western Australia. The management of developed gardens are managed by a
private foundation (The Araluen Botanic Park Foundation) while the conservation the
bushland is carried out by the Department of Environment and Conservation. Araluen is well
known for its gardens, native flora and fauna. Primary data collection was carried out through
an on-site self-administered questionnaire at various vantage points within the park.
Respondents were given a brief introduction of the purpose of the study and were asked to
complete their questionnaires individually to reduce response bias. Nine motivational factors
(push factors) and 12 destination attribute items (pull factors) identified through focus groups
and in-depth interviews were used in the questionnaire.
The push factors items were measured by getting respondents to indicate the importance of
the various possible reasons for visiting the park. More specifically, the respondents were
given the instructions: “Please rate the importance of the following reasons in regard to
visiting Araluen Botanic Park”. For example, for one of the push items, „to have an enjoyable
time with family‟, respondents were asked to rate the item based on a 7-point Likert-type
scale ranging from 1 (not important) to 7 (very important). For pull factor items, respondents
were asked to rate the degree to which they agree or disagree with various statements
regarding the attributes of the park. The instructions for this section read: “Please rate the
extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements in regards to Araluen
Botanic Park”. As an example, for the pull item „convenient parking lots are available‟, a
similar 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was presented
and respondents were asked to rate the item.
Results
Most of the respondents were male (52.6%), in the over 30 (44.3%) age group, were single
(37.0%), had completed high school or a college/TAFE course (21.9% respectively) and
earned an income of less than $ 35,000 (51.1%). A principal component factor analysis with
varimax rotation was done to analyze the underlying dimensions for the push and pull factors.
The 9 push items revealed 3 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 (Table 1). These factors
explained 48% of the variance and were labeled „Escape, family togetherness and health‟,
„appreciating cultural and natural resources‟, and „curiosity and weather‟. Factor loadings for
the 9 push items ranged from 0.33 to 0.846. The first and second yielded reliability factors
close to the standard of 0.7 recommended by Nunally (1978).
Table 1: Principal Component Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for Push Factors
Item
Push Factor Domains and Items
Factor Loadings
Communalities Means
1
2
3
Escape, family togetherness and health
To get away from everyday life
0.846
0.774
5.11
To take a rest
0.75
0.743
5.02
To enhance health
0.488
0.604
4.53
To enjoy time with family
0.333
0.4
5.37
Appreciating cultural and natural
resources
To appreciate cultural resources
To enjoy natural resources
Curiosity and weather
To have time for natural study
To fulfil curiosity
To avoid hot weather
Eigenvalue
Variance explained (cumulative %)
Reliability coefficient
0.781
0.566
3.279
31.149
0.735
1.435
42.351
0.621
0.641
0.595
0.339
1.028
47.867
0.546
0.747
0.677
4.31
5.19
0.69
0.625
0.483
3.33
4
3.71
A principal component factor analysis for the 12 pull items resulted in 3 pull factors which
had eigenvalues greater than 1 (Table 2). The factors accounted for 61.4% of variance and
were named „easy access to educational resources‟, „destination information and facilities‟,
and „relaxation and nature appreciation‟. Factor loadings for the 12 items ranged from 0.51 to
0.82. The reliability alphas for the three dimensions were greater than 0.70, indicating that
Nunally's ( 1978) criterion was met.
Table 2 : Principal Component Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for Pull Factors
Pull Factor Domains and Items
Factor Loadings
Communalities
Item Means
1
2
3
Easy access to educational
resources
Children's study
0.823
0.745
4.79
Rare flora and fauna
0.64
0.632
4.8
Ease of access
0.562
0.568
4.77
Cultural and historic resources
0.506
0.589
4.46
Destination Information and
facilities
Convenient restrooms
Tourist Information
Adequate BBQ facilities
Relaxation and nature appreciation
Tranquil rest areas
Beautiful natural resources
Well-conserved environment
Eigenvalue
Variance explained (cumulative %)
Reliability coefficient
0.72
0.701
0.619
4.427
32.83
0.798
1.739
43.366
0.755
0.661
0.62
0.612
1.204
49.347
0.708
0.664
0.645
0.599
4.66
4.5
4.94
0.679
0.696
0.622
5.29
5.48
5.39
The differences in the importance of push and pull factors were examined using an ANOVA
procedure. The Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at
α=0.05/3 (p<0.01). The results revealed that age recorded significant differences (p<0.017) in
the importance ratings of all pull factors but only two push factors (Escape, family
togetherness and health and appreciating cultural and natural resources). Significant
differences were also observed for the age groups on all the pull factors.
The ANOVA analysis revealed only one push factor and one pull factor to be significant
(p<0.017) amongst visitors with different marital status. Only „Escape, family togetherness
and health‟ showed significant differences between groups for marital status.
Only three of the push and pull factors were found to be statistically significant (p<0.017)
between different income groups. On the push factor of „Escape, family togetherness and
health‟, higher income groups reported the highest mean score followed by middle and lower
income groups. For the pull factors, two factors, „easy access to educational resources‟ and
„destination information and facilities‟, revealed significant differences between income
groups.
A T-test was conducted to examine the differences for the importance placed on push and
pull factors by gender. No statistical significance (p<0.017) was found for differences
between genders for both push and pull factors. It is important to note however, that the
female respondents showed a higher mean score for the importance ratings on all the push
and pull factors compared to their male counterparts.
Table 3: Correlation Analysis of Push and Pull
Push factor domain
(1) Escape, family togetherness and
health
(2) Appreciating cultural and natural
resources
(3) Curiosity and weather
** Significance at the 0.01 level (2tailed)
Pull factor domain
(1) Easy access to
educational
resources
0.054
(2) Destination
Information and
facilities
0.301**
0.198**
0.302**
0.218**
0.467**
0.196**
0.426**
-0.06
(3) Relaxation and
nature appreciation
Table 3 shows the results from the Pearson bivariate correlation analysis conducted to
examine the relationships among the push and pull factors identified in this study. The results
indicated that the push factor „appreciating cultural and natural resources‟ had significant
correlations with all three pull factors, with a strong correlation with „relaxation and nature
appreciation‟ (0.47) but only a moderate and weak correlation for „easy access to educational
resources‟ (0.30) and „destination information and facilities‟ (0.21) respectively. In addition,
the pull factor „destination information and facilities‟ also showed significant correlations
with all of the push factors. A strong relationship is shown for „destination information and
facilities‟ to „curiosity and weather‟ (0.43), with a moderate correlation for „Escape, family
togetherness and health‟ (0.30), while only a weak relationship was apparent for the push
factor „appreciating cultural and natural resources‟. The results also provide evidence of the
moderating effect of socio-demographic variables on the interrelationship between push
factors that motivate travel decisions and the pull factors that influence destination selection.
Concluding Comments
Private parks depend on gate sales and other support groups to maintain their existence. As
such, it is important to have attractive and meaningful events and activities to draw the
crowds to these parks. These must be enhanced by the careful choice (noting the small budget
available) of relevant marketing and communication initiatives to promote to the target
groups of visitors. The understanding of the relevant push and pull factors is probably the
first step to build a campaign.
The factor analysis revealed three underlying push factors: „escape, family togetherness and
health‟, „appreciating cultural and nature resources‟ and „curiosity and weather‟. These
results show that visitors to parks are likely to perceive parks as an important resource which
allows them to escape from their routine, build and strengthen relationships with their
families, and also serve as a recreational facility to improve or maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Meanwhile the factor analysis resulted in three pull factors: „easy access to educational
resources‟, „destination information and facilities‟, and „relaxation and nature appreciation‟.
The findings revealed provide many practical implications in terms of the marketing of
private parks. Park managers will have an understanding of what motivates visitors to visit
the park and what kind of park attributes and facilities are important to them. This
information is vital in the development of effective marketing and brand awareness
campaigns. Promotional materials should effectively communicate the kinds of visitor needs
that can be satisfied through the various park facilities. These should be made available
through the various platforms such as websites and the relevant print and broadcast media.
Moreover, in the case of public-private partnerships, the reach of these promotional materials
can be increased through the use of existing governmental marketing channels or alliances
with relevant bodies. The findings of the role of socio-demographic differences amongst park
visitors offers an ideal basis for the segmentation of park visitors, providing vital information
on the relative importance of various elements of the park to park visitors of different ages,
income groups, marital status and gender.
As for the limitations of the study, it only focused on one private park, the Araluen Botanic
Park. Future studies should be done on other private parks to generalize the results of this
study to encapsulate a different array of attractions, attributes and facilities. It can be
expected that motivations to visit private parks would differ due to the various idiosyncratic
characteristics of different park attractions. Further research is needed to compare the results
of this study to other private parks both within Australia and other countries to examine the
differences that arise due to variances in park characteristics. Furthermore, the types of
visitors who visit the park may vary throughout the year. Araluen Botanic Park not only
offers basic park amenities such as flower gardens, waterfalls, barbecue and picnic facilitates,
but also a wide range of seasonal attractions and festivals throughout the year such as the
Tulip Festival which is only held in spring. There are also many areas which are open for hire
for various types of events such as weddings, concerts and seminars. Therefore motivations
for visiting the park and the related facilities would vary depending on the time of the year
and the particular events being held at the park. It would therefore be difficult to generalize
visitor motivations for visiting the park.
References
Baloglu, S., & Mccleary, K., 1999. A model of destination image. Annals of Tourism
Research (26-4), 868-897.
Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M., 1996. Market segments of push and pull motivations : A canonical
correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management (8-3), 32-38.
Crompton, J., 1979. Motivations for pleasure tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 6, 408424.
Dann, G. M., 1981. Tourist motivation: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, (8-2),
187-219.
Darcy, S., & Wearing, S., 2009. Public – private partnerships and contested cultural heritage
tourism in national parks: a case study of the stakeholder views of the North Head Quarantine
Station ( Sydney , Australia ). Journal of Heritage Tourism (4-3), 181-199.
Dudley, N., Biksham, N., Jackson, B., Jeanrenaud, J., Oviedo, G., & Phillips, A., 1999.
“Challenges for protected areas in the 21st century”. In Solton, S. & Dudley, N. (Eds.),
Partnerships for protection: New strategies for planning and management for protected areas.
Earthscan, London, pp. 3-12.
Jurowski, C., 1993. Testing the push and pull factors. Annals of Tourism Research (21-4),
844-846.
Kim, S. S., Lee, C. K., & Klenosky, D. B., 2003. The influence of push and pull factors at
Korean national parks. Tourism Management (24-2), 169-180.
Langholtz, J. a, Lassoie, J. P., Lee, D., & Chapman, D., 2000. Economic considerations of
privately owned parks. Ecological Economics 3, 173-183.
Machlis, G., & Tichnell, D., 1985. The state of the World‟s Parks: An International
assessment for resource management, policy and research. Westview, Boulder, CO.
McNeely, J., Miller, K., Reid, W., Mittermeier, R., & Werner, T., 1990. Conserving the
World‟s Biodiversity. World Bank, Washington DC.
Nunally, J. C., 1978. Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York.
Turnbull, D. R., & Uysal, M., 1995. An exploratory study of German visitors to the
Caribbean: Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing (4-2), 85-92.
Wells, M., & Brandon, K., 1992. People and parks: Linking protected area management with
local communities. International Bank for Reconstruction, Washington DC.
Wright, M., & Strum, S., 1993. Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based
conservation. Island Press, Washington DC.
Yuan, S., & Mcdonald, C., 1990. Motivational determinates of international pleasure time.
Journal of Travel Research (29-1), 42-44.