portuguese protected areas
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
1/27
This article was downloaded by: [85.245.166.2]On: 27 November 2011, At: 16:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sustainable TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20
Profiling the segments of visitors to
Portuguese protected areasCatarina Marques
a, Elizabeth Reis
a& Joo Menezes
b
aDepartment of Quantitative Methods, ISCTE Business School
Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon, PortugalbDepartment 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-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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 representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.497222http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20 -
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
2/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Vol. 18, No. 8, November 2010, 971996
Profiling the segments of visitors to Portuguese protected areas
Catarina Marquesa, Elizabeth Reisa and Joao Menezesb
aDepartment of Quantitative Methods, ISCTE Business School Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon,Portugal; bDepartment of Management, ISCTE Business School Lisbon University Institute,Lisbon, Portugal
(Received 22 July 2009; final version received 23 May 2010)
This study identifies the diversity of domestic visitors to Portuguese protected areas(PPA) based on benefit segmentation. The segments of PPA visitors are also comparedwith other nature-based tourist segments using some empirical benefit segmentationliterature. Data were collected by means of a self-administered questionnaire and mul-
tivariate statistics techniques (principal components, hierarchical and K-means clusteranalyses) were applied. Five distinct segments of visitors were identified based on themotivation for their visit and further characterized by the perceived importance of activ-ities, facilities and services, frequency of visit and socio-demographics. Three segmentsare nature-focused and two are focused on activities or events. Only one segment showsspecific interests and motivations associated with ecotourism and similar characteris-tics to international ecotourists; moreover, the reasons for the visit in one segment areunrelated to any of the motivations of nature-based tourism. Some implications formanagement are also described.
Keywords: tourism in protected areas; nature-based tourism; ecotourism; benefitsegmentation; visitor segment profiles
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
diversification of the tourism supply and increased the relative importance of other moti-vations for tourism, e.g. nature, cultural touring, business, sports and golf. The Portuguese
strategic plan for tourism identified 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: [email protected]
ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 onlineC 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2010.497222
http://www.informaworld.com
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
3/27
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 defined 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 andsocioculturally 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
(Bjork, 2000; Blamey, 1997, 2001; Diamantis, 1999; Fennell, 2001, 2003; Pforr, 2001;
Sirakaya, Sasidharan, & Sonmez, 1999; Weaver, 2001a,b; Weaver & Lawton, 2007). Bjork
(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 eco-
tourism definition, some authors have proposed a continuum from soft to hard, the eco-tourism 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 justifies 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 identified by Weaver (2001a, 2002) and
Weaver and Lawton (2002). Hard ecotourists have a high level of commitment to environ-
mental 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 satisfied 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 definitions 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, learning-focused and environmentally and socioculturally sustainable) of the ecotourism definition
are fulfilled.
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
4/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 973
The second concept of nature tourism1 refers to the observation or contemplation
of fauna, flora 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 nature-
based 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 reflect the overlap which tourist products contain; for example, aproduct may contain both natural and cultural attractions as well as adventurous elements.
Buckleys (2000) classification 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 define management strategies to developtheir 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 first 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 defining 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 studyconducted identifying the motivations behind the decision to visit two of the most-visited
protected areas.
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
5/27
974 C. Marques et al.
The structural demand for nature-based tourist experiences in Portugal is almost ex-
clusively 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 define marketing and communication strategies. It is a first 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 profile 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 benefit segmentation. In particular, a profile 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 specific
activity, e.g. adventure sports and/or activities that require a high degree of concentra-
tion or awareness?
The main interests and motivations of these visitors are clearly associated with nature-
based 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 profiles? 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 benefit segmentation literature, and segments ofPPA visitors are identified 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, andemphasis is given to benefit segmentation. The methodological approach is then described,
and the subsequent section contains a detailed description of the statistical analysis and
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
6/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 975
the results obtained. Discussions of the results and conclusions are presented in the final
section.
BackgroundThe 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 significantly 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 classified 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 classified in the Natura 2000 Network as Special Protection Areas under the BirdsDirective together with 60 sites designated under both the Birds and Habitats Directives.
In all, the terrestrial areas classified 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
specific characteristics: parks embracing living areas, working landscapes and urban areas,
closely reflecting 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-Geres National Park and the natural reserves have significant surface areas
with total protection classification, 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-Geres National Park signed the EUROPARCs European Charter for Sus-
tainable Tourism in Protected Areas in 2002, along with the Serra de S. Mamede NaturalPark. Nowadays, another three natural parks are currently candidates in the Charter Process.
In addition to this certification, 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 significant rise in the number of domestic
visitors to natural and rural spaces for tourism and recreation, and to protected areas inparticular. People travel daily and at weekends to areas of ecological interest or withbeautiful
landscapes to engage in activities or enjoy a singular leisure experience. At the same time,
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
7/27
976 C. Marques et al.
local communities have begun to realize the economic benefits 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 com-
panies 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 qualifica-
tion of the tourism offer and the diversification of tourism activity (Resolucao de Conselho
de Ministros, 1998). Specific legislation (Decree Law 47/99) was also approved to define
the concept.
It should be noted that the preservation of natural values is required for tourism in pro-tected 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 specified by the NPNT and categorized
into three types: environmental interpretation, nature-based sports and recreational activi-
ties. Environmental interpretation activities provide visitors with not only general knowl-
edge of the protected areas heritage in interpretation centers and/or through observationin loco of geological formations, flora, fauna and their habitats but also an understanding
of aspects related to the local communities and their lifestyles. Activities such as exhi-
bitions, conferences and environmental education courses are included in this category.
Nature-based sports activities are practiced in contact with nature but without damag-
ing nature conservation. This category also includes adventure sports and outdoor games.
Examples of accepted adventure sports are hiking, mountaineering, rock climbing, ori-
enteering, caving, mountain biking, ballooning, paragliding, hang gliding, diving, sailing,
surfing, windsurfing, 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 diversified, integrating these activities with other resources ofprotected 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 inter-
pretation 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 ondemand from visitors. Only environmental interpretation activities are available in all of
them as they are offered by the ICNB.
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
8/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 977
Benefit segmentation in nature-based tourism
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 varietyof 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, benefits 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).
Benefit segmentation examines consumer purchase motivations and is linked to the
consumer behavior field of marketing (Weinstein, 1994). Haley (1968) first introduced this
approach based on the idea that the benefits 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 defines their attributes and helps enhance product strengths and overcome
weaknesses. In the tourism market, benefit segmentation means attempting to establish how
the tourist benefits 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 benefits. Palacio and McCool (1997) identified
four distinct segments of Belize visitors based on the perceived benefits 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 recreationalexperiences 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 benefit domains; they indicated that the reasons for
their visit were unrelated to the Belize nature-based experiences.
Bricker and Kerstetter (2002) defined 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 theenvironmental and sociocultural aspects of the experience as important. Moreover, Eco-
Family Travelers placed importance on being with family and/or friends; Culture Buffs
identified the sociocultural as the only important domain, and all motives were important
to Eclectic Travelers.
Weaver and Lawton (2002) identified 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 identified a large anddistinctive group
of Structured Ecotourists who combined hard and soft characteristics. These Structured
Ecotourists resemble the Harder Ecotourists in terms of their environmental and ecotourism-
related behavior and attitudes, whereas they resemble the Softer Ecotourists in factors
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
9/27
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) identified 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 profile was then
made for each segment. The Ecotourist segment included those who most valued mixed
educational and holistic benefits 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 notall the nature-based tourists may be classified as ecotourists, even though they have been
sampled in well-known ecotourism settings in all these studies. This confirms 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 definitions 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 profiled according to the importance
given to park activities, facilities and services, frequency of visits and socio-demographics;and they are compared to those identified in the benefit segmentation literature. Two com-
parisons are made with the PPA segments: the first is based on the classification 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 poten-
tial participants with this profile, specific 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 popu-
lation and access to information. Given the time and financial 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 five sections measuring aspects such as socio-demographic characteristics and psychographics, occupation of leisure time and travel
habits, environmental attitudes and several aspects of the PPA characteristics (peoples
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
10/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 979
perceptions of the biological, cultural and economic importance of the PPA and the im-
age 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 defined 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 stratification was used where each selected element
must simultaneously fulfill 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 ex-
plained 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 approxi-
mately 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 significant differ-
ences 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 dis-
tribution of the highest level of education variable differs from the population distribution
as a result of the difficulty in getting answers from those with lower academic qualifications.
Higher-qualified individuals were much more motivated to collaborate.8 To analyze this
bias and its impact on visitor profiles, 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-significant 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
profiled in terms of activity preferences, importance given to park facilities and services,
frequency of visit and socio-demographics.9
Principal component analysesPCA was used for data reduction purposes. Three groups of variables10 visit motives,
activity preferences and the perceived importance of facilities and services were reduced
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
11/27
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 coefficient
to assess the consistency of each dimension, the Cronbachs alpha coefficient, 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 significant Bartletts test of sphericity indicating significant
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 correlationpatterns 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 individ-ual allocation within each cluster.11 The squared Euclidean distance was chosen as the
dissimilarity measure.
The clustering variables were examinedfor each cluster to assign a name which describes
its nature. One-way ANOVA or KruskalWallis tests12 and chi-square goodness-of-fit tests
were used to evaluate differences between groups, both to assess predictive validity and to
profile 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 pre-
sented in Table 2.
The results show significant 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 profile 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 thevisitor 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
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
12/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 981
Table 1. Frequency of visits.
%
Sometimes (once a year) 63.3Often (two or three times per year) 21.9
Regularly (more than three times per year) 14.7Total 100.0
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics.
Visitors (%) Non-visitors (%) Pearson chi-square
SexFemale 52.9 54.0Male 47.1 46.0 0.095
Age groups1519 years 7.2 11.6
2024 years 12.2 15.32534 years 30.9 20.63544 years 22.2 18.04559 years 21.9 23.360 or more years 5.5 11.1 22.714
Highest level of educationUp to primary school completed 6.2 15.3 Ninth grade completed 15.5 18.3Secondary school completed 29.9 32.0BA/B.Sc. 8.5 7.4Higher education 39.9 27.0 27.723
Living with
Other adults 53.3 59.5Other adults and children 39.9 30.4Other 6.8 10.2 8.881
Do you have a car?Yes 84.1 69.9 No 15.9 30.1 21.532
OccupationEmployed 75.2 63.4Student 16.2 21.7Other 8.6 14.9 19.672
Net household income (monthly)400 euros 6.2 9.9
4011000 euros 28.
9 39.
510012000 euros 36.4 27.220013500 euros 19.0 16.7>3500 euros 9.5 6.8 15.264
Region (NUTS III)Cavado 6.0 2.4Ave 7.5 12.4Greater Oporto 15.7 17.7Tamega 4.2 9.3Baixo Vouga 4.5 4.5Baixo Mondego 4.7 4.2Pinhal Litoral 3.5 1.3Oeste 6.2 5.3
Greater Lisbon 30.4 24.3Setubal Peninsula 10.0 12.2Algarve 7.2 6.3 26.470
Significant at the 0.01 level; significant at the 0.05 level.
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
13/27
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 ubal Peninsula;
this percentage is approximately the same for the non-visitor group (54%). However, less
populated and more rural regions present significant differences. The percentage of visitors
in regions with a protected area nearby is higher, indicating that proximity to a protected
area might influence 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 find 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 significant correlations with any other variables resulting in a one-variable PC;by contrast, the latter had the highest number of significant correlations ensuing in high
loadings in several PC.
Seven dimensions were identified 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 influence, personal ful-
fillment, 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 Cronbachscomponents Variables Loadings Variance (%) alpha
Participation intraditionalevents
Visit to arts and crafts fairs 0.827 12.7 0.762Participation in religious festivals 0.782Participation in traditional games 0.718Regional gastronomy 0.545
Enjoyment ofnature
Observing fauna and flora 0.798 12.5 0.740Enjoyment of contact with nature 0.737Personal, physical and mental
harmony0.711
Physical wellbeing 0.527
Photography 0.524Sports Adventure sports (active tourism) 0.836 9.8 0.773
Participation in competitive sports 0.778Social influence As a result of family participation 0.823 8.6 0.641
As a result of friends/colleaguesparticipation
0.748
Social contact with friends/family 0.585Personal
fulfillmentA lifestyle 0.791 8.3 0.613Gives the appearance of good taste 0.665Cultural fulfillment 0.562
Proximity andconvenience
Close to residence 0.906 8.1 0.788Close to holiday location 0.852
Participation inplanned events Participation in corporate events 0.602 6.8 0.686Participation in cultural events 0.560
a Bartletts test of sphericity is statistically significant at the 0.01 level; KMO value of 0.790.
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
14/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 983
The previous seven dimensions, together with the standardized variables of Health rea-
sons and Environmental education, were then used as clustering variables. The inclusion
of these two variables is justified due to their importance as visit motivation to PPA. Con-
cerning the former, the practice of going on holiday to a thermal spa specifically 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 five clusters) were identified from
the results of the hierarchical analysis and then profiled to inspect for the distinguishable
characteristics in each cluster. Differences between the two solutions were large enoughacross the set of clustering variables to justify the choice of the five-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 five 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 fulfilment aspects and nature enjoyment, regardless of
the distance covered. They are the least influenced by visits of family or friends and theydo 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-fulfilled.
Segment 2 (about 25% of all visitors), named Occasional Visitors, gives more impor-
tance 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 influenced by family and friends and to enjoy the
contact with nature. These visitors give the least importance to personal fulfillment, 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 %
Segments1 77 19.22 97 24.23 53 13.2
4 125 31.25 49 12.2
Total 401 100.0
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
15/27
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 Ex-
cursionists and includes those who visit parks influenced by family and friends and to
achieve personal fulfilment. 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 fifth segment are motivated by the enjoyment of the natural environ-
ment and scenery. They also visit parks for health reasons, environmental education and
personal fulfilment and as a result of their friends and family visits since they are the
most influenced by others. They are willing to travel large distances to reach the parks as
they scored low in the proximity dimension, finding it of least importance. Due to their
interest in the natural environment and the high scores for influence of family/friends, this
segment was labeled Sociable Naturalists. This is the smallest group with only 12% of
visitors.These five 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 find the underlying dimensions of the variables of
activity preferences and the importance of facilities and services. PCA results are shownin Tables 5 and 6. The three dimensions identified for the activities, named Recreational
Events/Activities, Environmental Interpretation Activities and Sport and Organized
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
16/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 985
Table 5. PCA results for protected area activities.a
Principal Cronbachscomponents Variables Loadings Variance (%) alpha
Recreational Activities related to gastronomy 0.820 29.4 0.851
events/activities Traditional games 0.790Religious festivals 0.744Art and craft fairs 0.712Shows/cultural activities 0.577
Environmentalinterpretationactivities
School activities about nature 0.839 18.6 0.751Environmental education courses 0.718Photographic activities 0.602
Sports andorganizedactivities
Organized treks with guide 0.741 17.0 0.646Radical sports 0.734Exhibitions/lectures/conferences 0.616
a Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization; 65.0% of variance explained; Bartletts test of sphericity
is statistically significant at the 0.01 level; KMO value of 0.892.
Activities, are analogous although not exactly equal to the NPNT classification. For the
facilities and services variables, six dimensions were identified: 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 Cronbachscomponents Variables Loadings Variance (%) alpha
Facilities for Camp sites 0.829 13.4 0.811accommodationand food
Picnic sites 0.786Accommodation 0.704Restaurants/cafes 0.667
Information andservices
Availability of charts, maps andinformation
0.771 13.0 0.792
Park rangers 0.737Information signposts about nature,
historical and cultural sites to visit0.628
Organized and signposted trails 0.596
Maintenance 0.524Observation and
study sitesObservatories 0.846 12.8 0.835Viewpoints 0.805Local museums 0.741Interpretation centers 0.535
Basic facilities WC 0.818 12.1 0.793Medical posts 0.723Recycle bins 0.698Security 0.540
Receptionfacilities
Information centers 0.778 9.8 0.694Car park 0.727
Child support
services
People who take care of children 0.783 7.7 0.714
Child play area 0.627a Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization; 68.8% of variance explained; Bartletts test of sphericityis statistically significant at the 0.01 level; KMO value of 0.863.
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
17/27
986 C. Marques et al.
Table 7. Mean scores for segments on activity dimensions.
Recreational Environmental Sports and Segments events/activities interpretation activities organized activities
(1) Self-centered Visitors 0.0668 0.0361 0.2475
(2) Occasional Visitors 0.1859 0.0393 0.2881(3) Urban Visitors 0.2288 0.0217 0.3362(4) Excursionists 0.0567 0.3377 0.0366(5) Sociable Naturalists 0.1601 0.7035 0.0888KW Statistic 7.823 37.878 14.742
Significant 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 first 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 andservices, 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 Setubal Peninsula and in the North, in Greater Oporto
and Cavado.
Table 8. Mean scores for segments on facilities and services dimensions.
Accommodation Information Observation Child and food and and study Basic Reception support
Segments facilities services sites facilities facilities services
(1) Self-centeredVisitors
0.1863 0.0989 0.0620 0.1326 0.0064 0.1791
(2) OccasionalVisitors
0.1764 0.1594 0.0244 0.1256 0.0117 0.2887
(3) Urban Visitors 0.0897 0.0550 0.0598 0.0429 0.1239 0.5064(4) Excursionists 0.1133 0.0789 0.1952 0.1010 0.0425 0.0439(5) Sociable
Naturalists
0.2484 0.3020 0.3843 0.2458 0.0588 0.1457
KW Statistic 7.869 14.200 14.386 6.887 2.014 23.884
Significant at the 0.01 level.
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
18/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 987
Table 9. Frequency of visits by segment.
Frequency of visits
Segments Sometimes (%) Often (%) Regularly (%)
(1) Self-centered Visitors 54.5 23.4 22.1(2) Occasional Visitors 60.8 22.7 16.5(3) Urban Visitors 69.8 11.3 18.9(4) Excursionists 72.8 21.6 5.6(5) Sociable Naturalists 51.0 30.6 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 chil-dren and 15% live alone. This is the group where individuals have higher education lev-
els 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 below2000 euros, though 11% have over 3500 euros) and the lowest percentage of employed
persons.
Visitors in the fifth segment, the Sociable Naturalists, value environmental interpre-
tation 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: approx-
imately 50% visit them often or with some regularity. Most of them live in Greater Lisbon,
Greater Oporto and Setubal Peninsula. It is the second youngest group (the mean age is
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 profile of segments of domestic visitors
to PPA, a theme where little empirical research has been conducted to date. Five segments
of visitors were identified based on the motivation for their visit and characterized by
the perceived importance of activities, facilities and services, visit frequency and socio-
demographics. Self-centered Visitors, Urban Visitors and Sociable Naturalists are
clearly committed to the natural environment and have the most typical characteristicsof 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
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
19/27
988 C. Marques et al.
Table 10. Socio-demographic characteristics of visitor segments.
PearsonSegmentsa 1 2 3 4 5 chi-square
Gender (%)
Female 49.4 58.8 54.7 52.0 46.9Male 50.6 41.2 45.3 48.0 53.1 2.537
Age groups (%)1519 years 5.2 7.2 3.8 9.6 8.22024 years 9.1 15.5 11.3 12.8 10.22534 years 36.4 29.9 39.6 24.0 32.73544 years 19.5 26.8 26.4 19.2 20.44559 years 27.3 15.5 17.0 24.8 24.560 or more years 2.6 5.2 1.9 9.6 4.1 20.799
Age (mean) 36.5 35.1 35.6 37.7 35.5 1.498b
Highest level of education (%)Up to primary school completed 1.3 8.2 1.9 12.0 0.0
9th grade completed 16.9 23.7 5.7 15.2 8.2Secondary school completed 18.2 30.9 24.5 32.8 44.9BA/BSc 10.4 7.2 9.4 7.2 10.2Higher education 53.2 29.9 58.5 32.8 36.7 36.302,c
Living with (%)Other adults 55.3 55.2 58.5 52.8 41.7Other adults and children 40.8 36.5 28.3 41.6 54.2Other 3.9 8.3 13.2 5.6 4.2 11.442c
Occupation (%)Employed 84.0 72.0 81.1 67.2 81.6Student 13.3 18.3 13.2 16.8 18.4Other 2.7 9.7 4.8 16.0 0.0 19.456,c
Net household income (monthly) (%)400 euros 2.8 6.0 6.4 9.0 4.54011000 euros 29.6 32.1 19.1 31.5 25.010012000 euros 36.6 40.5 36.2 32.4 38.620013500 euros 18.3 14.3 29.8 16.2 25.0>3500 euros 12.7 7.1 8.5 10.8 6.8 13.210
Region (NUTS III) (%)Cavado 2.6 9.3 5.7 5.6 6.1Ave 6.5 5.2 7.5 9.6 8.2Greater Oporto 10.4 22.7 9.4 12.8 24.5Tamega 1.3 3.1 0.0 8.0 6.1Baixo Vouga 5.2 3.1 3.8 4.8 6.1Baixo Mondego 6.5 1.0 1.9 7.2 6.1
Pinhal Litoral 2.6 2.1 7.5 4.0 2.0Oeste 6.5 4.1 5.7 9.6 2.0Greater Lisbon 36.4 26.8 45.3 24.8 26.5Setubal Peninsula 9.1 15.5 7.5 7.2 10.2Algarve 13.0 7.2 5.7 6.4 2.0 41.663,c
a Segment names: (1) Self-centered visitors; (2) Occasional visitors; (3) Urban visitors; (4) Excursionists; (5)Sociable naturalists.bChi-square statistic of KruskalWallis test.cCategories aggregation was needed to verify the chi-square test assumption of no more than 20% of expectedcount less than 5.Significant at the 0.01 level; significant at the 0.05 level.
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
20/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 989
Excursionists the reasons for the visit are unrelated to any of the motivations of nature-
based tourism.
Regarding the second research question, it can be concluded that there is domestic
demand for contact with nature with specific interests and motivations; however, it is very
incipient, as demonstrated by the small size of the Sociable Naturalists segment. This
suggests that visits with specific 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 confirmed 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 specifically about enjoying nature or nature-
related 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 specifications due to substantial differences in target populations,
questionnaires, sample sizes, sampling and statistical methodologies, and in venue charac-
teristics, similarities were identified among the PPA visitor segments and other nature-basedtourist markets within the benefit segmentation literature. Figures 2 and 3 present a com-
parison 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 benefits 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 profiles are consistent with Ryan et al.s
(2000) argument about the differences between people visiting natural areas. Whereas somemay enjoy and admire the area in a general context without any motivation other than the
Nature-based TouristsBenefitSegmentation
Studies
SampledPopulation
Ecotourists Nature Tourists AdventureTourists
Other Type ofTourists
Palacio andMcCool (1997)n = 206
General travelers atthe Belizeinternational airport
Ecotourists (18%)Nature Escapists(22%)ComfortableNaturalists (33%)
PassivePlayers (27%)
Bricker andKerstetter
(2002)n = 350
Participants innature-tour of thirty-
four Fiji Islandoperators
Ecotourists (21%)Eco-Family Travelers
(25%)Culture Buffs (20%)Eclectic Travelers
(19%)a
Weaver andLawton (2002);Weaver (2002)n = 1180
Overnight guests attwo ecolodges inthe LamingtonNational Park(Australia)
Harder Ecotourists(34%)Softer Ecotourists(27%)StructuredEcotourists (39%)
Kerstetter etal. (2004)n = 408
Domestic tourists toone of threechosen CoastalWetlands in Taiwan
Ecotourists (40%) Learning-tourists(34%)
Experience-tourists (26%)
PPA visitorsegmentationn
= 401
Residents inPortuguese
mainland
Sociable Naturalists(12%)
Urban Visitors(13%)
Self-centeredVisitors (19%)
Excursionists(31%)
OccasionalVisitors (25%)
a Total of segments does not equal 100%.
Figure 2. Comparison of benefit segmentation within nature-based tourism.
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
21/27
990 C. Marques et al.
nitseretnIGradational Interest in NatureAdventure
Main Motivationin Visit
Basic orOccasional
Interest in Nature
Advanced orFrequent Interest
in Nature
Deep or RegularInterest in Nature
Radical Sports inNature
Ecotourists
Nature Escapists
Palacio and
McCool (1997)stsilarutaNelbatrofmoC
Culture Buffs Eco-FamilyTravelers
EcotouristsBricker andKerstetter (2002)
a
Eclectic Travelers
Softer Ecotourists Harder EcotouristsWeaver andLawton (2002);Weaver (2002) Structured Ecotourists
Kerstetter et al.(2004)
Learning-tourists Ecotourists Experience-tourists
PPA visitorsegmentation
Urban Visitors Self-centeredVisitors
Sociable Naturalists
aThis 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 benefit segments within nature-based tourism.
immediate satisfaction of being there, others have specific intellectual reasons related
with flora, 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 significance for
the Ecotourists and Nature Escapists of Palacio and McCool (1997) and the Eco-FamilyTravelers of Bricker and Kerstetter (2002).
Third, the socio-demographic profile of the nature-focused visitors is also similar to the
ecotourists profile 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 Por-
tuguese case, no segment was identified 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 specifically with hard ecotourism.
Fifth, there is no cultural segment like that of the Fiji Culture Buffs (Bricker & Kerstetter,
2002), although Occasional Visitors identified 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 Ex-
cursionists or Occasional Visitors may be classified as mass tourism markets. However,
Weaver and Lawton (2002) have classified 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 profiles: they
are the oldest and focused on social contacts.
Finally, there are different degrees of interest/commitment in nature; this finding isalready pointed out in some ecotourism literature related to the hardsoft ecotourism
spectrum (Weaver, 2002; Weaver & Lawton, 2002).
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
22/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 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 profiles 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 identified 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 andsocioculturally 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 five segments in the ecotourismspectrum. 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 Visitorsand 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
Sociable Naturalists
Self-centered Visitors
Urban Visitors
Nature-based Learning-focused
Sustainability
Sociable Naturalists
Self-centered Visitors
Urban Visitors
Sociable Naturalists
Self-centered Visitors
Urban Visitors
Figure 4. Representation of PPA nature-focused segments on the three ecotourism dimensions.
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
23/27
992 C. Marques et al.
HardHard SoftSoft
The Ecotourism SpectrumThe Ecotourism Spectrum
E
xcursionists
Sociable
Naturalists
S
elf-centered
Visitors
UrbanVisitors
Occasional
Visitors
HardHard SoftSoft
The Ecotourism SpectrumThe Ecotourism Spectrum
E
xcursionists
Sociable
Naturalists
S
elf-centered
Visitors
UrbanVisitors
Occasional
Visitors
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 fit ecotourists expectations and pref-
erences. This is particularly true for PPA visitor segments with ecotourism characteristicssimilar 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 in-
terpretation 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 fit the needs andcharacteristics
of these segments, each of which requires differentiated marketing strategies. The findings
provide some insights into the structure of the tourism market in PPA and the followingthree management implications are noted.14
First, the potential of nature-focused segments is very attractive given their composition
(i.e. visitors with more educational qualifications and higher monthly incomes) and behav-
iors. 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 di-
verse types of information (e.g. signposts, internet, leaflets) 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 attractboth this group and the Urban Visitors.
Second, the interests of Occasional Visitors could be satisfied 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 benefit 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 specific (activities and experiences) conditions for visitors with no particular interests
and motivations, both for domestic and foreign markets visiting Portugal for other reasons.
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
24/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 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 specific 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 difficult due to the quota sampling process. Second,
as a result of time and financial constraints, the sample size is small with only 401 visitors.
However, these two limitations do not cause a serious distortion in the final results. With
regard to sampling representativeness, the results of the cluster analysis matched the empir-
ical experience almost perfectly, which gives some confidence 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-specific
marketing programs may not be justified.
Notes on contributors
Catarina Marques is a Doctoral Researcher at the ISCTE Business School of the Lisbon UniversityInstitute, 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 ResearchUnit at ISCTE Business School of the Lisbon University Institute.
Joao Menezes is Associate Professor of Business Management at ISCTE Business School of theLisbon University Institute and was the President of the Portuguese Government Agency for theConservation 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 thanpractitioners since it describes the product or principal attraction of ecotourism, without refer-ence to the management issues (Buckley, 2008).
2. The number of overnight stays in lodging facilities managed by the Governmental Agency forthe Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity and the number of visitors who participated inguided tours and/or requested information in protected areas reception centers and headquartersaccount 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 IUCNcategories 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; until2007 it was known as the ICN.
6. The NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) is a territory division system withinthe European Union with the purpose of generating regional statistics. NUTS provides threeaggregation levels: NUTS I, NUTS II and NUTS III. The last divides the Portuguese mainlandinto 28 regions; only 11 of these were chosen in this study: Cavado, Ave, Great Oporto, Tamega,Baixo Vouga, Baixo Mondego, Pinhal Litoral, Oeste, Great Lisbon, Setubal Peninsula andAlgarve.
7. It appeals to the underlying assumption of representativeness in quota sampling: if the samplecomprises those who are representative of the target population on certain characteristics byfilling quotas, the sample may also match the target population on the quantities or opinions thatare being measured (Davies, 2004; Vicente, Reis, & Ferrao, 2001).
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
25/27
994 C. Marques et al.
8. On this bias, Cochran (1977) argues, The quota method seems likely to produce samples thatare biased on characteristics such as income, education, and occupation, although it often agreeswell 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 coefficient as a heterogeneity measure. The allocation of individ-uals to groups stops when the successive coefficient values between steps show a substantialincrease in heterogeneity.
12. The KruskalWallis test is used to compare groups when the normality assumption of ANOVAis not verified.
13. The p-values from these tests should be considered as approximations to the true p-values sincethe clusters are non-random.
14. These suggestions are likely to be implemented. Some actions are being put into practice in orderto 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)finances 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
Bjork, P. (2000). Ecotourism from a conceptual perspective, an extended definition of a unique tourismform. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 189202.
Blamey, R. (1997). Ecotourism: The search for an operational definition. Journal of SustainableTourism, 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: Benefit segmentationand experience evaluation. Travel and Tourism Research Association. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ttra.com/pub/ uploads /020.pdf
Buckley, R. (2000). Neat trends: Current issues in nature, eco- and adventure tourism. InternationalJournal 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 ProtectedAreas]. 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 Office, Prime Ministers Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office.
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 definitions. 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). Benefit segmentation: A decision-oriented research tool. Journal of Marketing, 30,
3035.Instituto do Ambiente. (2005). Relat orio do Estado do Ambiente 2005 [Report of the State of
Environment 2005]. Lisbon, Portugal: Author.Institute of the Nature Conservation. (2002). Estrat egia nacional de conservacao da natureza e dabiodiversidade [National strategy of conservation of nature and biodiversity]. Lisbon, Portugal:Author.
-
8/3/2019 Portuguese Protected Areas
26/27
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 995
Institute of the Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (ICNB). (2009). Visitors contactsin PPA. Retrieved from http://portal.icnb.pt/NR/rdonlyres/D18F8D54-154C-4B49-BCD8-2E62D1DF8F26/0/visitantescontactaramAP96a07.xls
Instituto Nacional de Estatstica. (2002).Recenseamento da populacao e habitac ao2001 [Populationand housing census 2001]. Lisbon, Portugal: Author.
Instituto Nacional de Estatstica. (2008). Estat sticas 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 na-tional parks and protected areas. Retrieved from http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/unlist/2003UN LIST.pdf
Kerstetter, D.L., Hou, J.-S., & Lin, C.-H. (2004). Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using a behaviouralapproach. Tourism Management, 25, 491498.
Kish, L. (1992). Weighting for unequal Pi . Journal of Official Statistics, 8(2), 183200.Lawton, L.J. (2001a). A profile 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 encyclopediaof 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 benefit segmentation:
A preliminary analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(3), 234243.Pforr, C. (2001). Concepts of sustainable development, sustainable tourism, and ecotourism: Def-
initions, principles, and linkages. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1(1),6871.
Reis, E. (2000). A analise de clusters e as aplicacoes as ciencias empresariais uma visao crtica dateoria dos grupos estrategicos [Cluster analysis and applications to business science a critical