the influence of push and pull factors at korean national parks

Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169–180

The influence of push and pull factors at Korean national parks

Samuel Seongseop Kima,*, Choong-Ki Leeb, David B. Klenoskyc

aDepartment of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Sejong University, 98, Gunja-dong, Gwangjin-ku, Seoul 143-747, South KoreabDepartment of Tourism Management, Kyunghee University, South Korea

cDepartment of Health, Kinesiology, and Leisure Studies, Purdue University, West Lofayette, IN, USA

Received 24 February 2002; accepted 13 June 2002

Abstract

This research examines the influence of push and pull factors on visitors to the National Parks in Korea. During the summer of

1999, 2720 visitors to six different National Parks in South Korea completed a survey instrument designed to assess their reasons for

visiting the park they selected (push factors) and evaluate how well that park performed on a selected set of attributes (pull factors).

The results of a factor analysis identified four push factor domains and three pull factor domains underlying respondents’ push and

pull factor ratings. Additional analyses investigated differences in the push and pull factor domains for different socio-demographic

subgroups; and examined the interrelationships among the push and pull factor domains. The study results hold useful implications

for park managers and researchers interested in studying how push and pull factors impact tourist and visitor behaviour.

r 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Push–pull theory; Tourist/visitor behaviour; Korean National Parks

1. Introduction

National parks around the world have been recog-nized as important tourism and recreational resources tolocal people and out-of-town visitors (Buckley, 2000;Cho, 1988; Uysal, McDonald, & Martin, 1994). In theUS, ever since Yellowstone was designated as the firstnational park in the world in 1872, about 357 USNational Park Service units (including 50 nationalparks) have been established (Nickerson, 1996). Ap-proximately 270 million visits were reported annually(Simon & Doerksen, 1996). The US National Parksprovide visitors with scenic, archaeological, historical,or scientific value (Gunn, 1988). In Australia, the RoyalNational Park was established south of Sydney in 1897and was Australia’s first, and the world’s second,national park. Since then, about 3200 national parks,conservation parks, reserves, and refuges have been setaside in Australia and Tasmania. Several national parksin Australia offer opportunities to experience Aboriginalculture as well as natural resources. According to recentstatistics, more than 4 million people visit Australia’s

national parks each year (http://www.gorp.com/horp/location/australi//park/parks.htm).Likewise, national parks in Korea are important

recreational and tourism attractions to domestic visitorsand international tourists. The first Korean nationalpark was established in 1967 and 19 more parks havebeen added since that time. Of the 20 national parkscurrently operating in Korea, 16 are located inmountainous regions, three near ocean/marine or beachareas, and one among major cultural/historic sites.Compared to the national parks of other countries,those in Korea have several unique aspects. Most of the16 national parks in mountainous regions have specta-cular scenic beauty of mountains, waterfalls, forests andflorae and especially, ancient Buddhist temples withnumerous Buddhism relics. Since Korea acceptedBuddhism in 527 AD (during Shilla Dynasty: 57 BC–935 AD), countless temples have been established.Among them, most of the famous temples are locatedon mountains away from urban areas. The Buddhistculture represents an important resource that attractsvisitors to the mountain-based national parks. Inter-nationally, well known as having the richest historicaland cultural resources in Korea, the Kyungju NationalPark is located in Kyungju city which was oncethe capital of the Shilla Dynasty (during the dynasty’s

*Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.S. Kim), cklee@khee.

ac.kr (Choong-Ki Lee), [email protected] (D.B. Klenosky).

0261-5177/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 5 9 - 6

http://www.gorp.com/horp/location/australi//park/parks.htm

http://www.gorp.com/horp/location/australi//park/parks.htm

1000-year long reign). According to the KoreanNational Parks Authority (1999a,b), this park features103 national treasures and 72 major historical monu-ments. In sum, the Korean National Parks systemprovides domestic and international visitors withimportant opportunities to see and experience uniquenatural, historical and cultural resources.A total of 18 national parks are operated and

managed by the Korean National Parks Authority andtwo by city or provincial administrative units. TheKorean National Parks Authority was established in1987 as a professional organization for park manage-ment and currently operates under the Ministry ofEnvironment. The areas covered by the 20 nationalparks spread over 1600 acres; with land consisting of945:4 acres and ocean areas 654:6 acres: Taken together,the parks occupy 6% of South Korea. About 20 millionvisits to the parks were reported in 1999. Given aKorean population of 52 million, most adult Koreansare likely to visit a national park once or more in a year.Despite the importance of the Korean National

Parks, very little is known about the factors thatinfluence park visitation behaviour in Korea. Thisresearch attempted to fill this void by examining thepush and pull factors that influence decisions to visit thenational parks in Korea. More specifically, the objec-tives were to: (1) identify the push and pull factors thatinfluence decisions to visit Korean National Parks; (2)investigate differences in these push and pull factors fordifferent socio-demographic groups; and (3) examine thepattern of interrelationships among these push and pullfactors.

2. Literature review

The push–pull framework provides a useful approachfor examining the motivations underlying tourist andvisitation behaviour (Dann, 1977; Klenosky, 2002). Inthis framework, push factors refer to the specific forcesthat influence a person’s decision to take a vacation (i.e.,to travel outside of one’s everyday environment), whilepull factors refer to the forces that influence the person’sdecision of which specific destination should be selected.

2.1. Push factors

Push factors have been conceptualized as motiva-tional factors or needs that arise due to a disequilibriumor tension in the motivational system. That is, as factorsthat motivate or create a desire to travel (Crompton,1979; Dann, 1977, 1981; Iso-Ahola, 1982, 1989; Pearce& Caltabiano, 1983; Pyo, Mihalik, & Uysal, 1989; Uysal& Hagan, 1993; Yuan & McDonald, 1990).Iso-Ahola (1982,1989) suggested that it is a central

basis in tourist behaviour study to identify motivational

factors that are the reasons for and direction ofbehaviour. He suggested two basic motivational dimen-sions of leisure or tourism behaviour, escaping andseeking, which simultaneously influence people’s leisurebehaviour. For example, a tourist may want to make atrip to escape from his/her personal or interpersonalenvironment (e.g., ‘escape from routine everyday life’)and to seek out psychological (intrinsic) rewards in thepersonal or interpersonal dimensions (e.g., ‘adventure orfriendship building’). Thus, these motivational factorsexplain why tourists make a trip and what type ofexperience, destination or activity they want (Ryan,1991).Most tourism motivation studies have been conducted

in the context of a broad tourist region or else onespecific tourism destination (Botha, Crompton, & Kim,1999; Cha, McCleary, & Uysal, 1995; Fakeye &Crompton, 1991; Oh, Uysal, & Weaver, 1995; Turnbull& Uysal, 1995; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994; Yuan &McDonald, 1990). The common push factors found inthese studies were ‘escape from everyday environment’,‘novelty’, ‘social interaction’, and ‘prestige’.However, some studies have focused on motivations

of visitors to national parks (Fielding & Pearce, 1992;Grafe, 1977; Jeong, 1997; Kim, 1993; Kim, Kim, &Kong, 1989; Loker-Murphy, 1996; Snepenger, Peterson,& Bench, 1989; Uysal, McDonald, & Martin, 1994). Forexample, Grafe (1977) investigated motivations ofrecreationists who participated in a float trip at BigBend National Park in the United States. He foundeight motivational domains such as ‘learning aboutnature’, ‘stress release/solitude’, ‘challenge/adventure/achievement’, ‘self-awareness’, ‘status’, ‘intra-groupaffiliation’, ‘enjoyment’, and ‘autonomy’. Enjoymentwas the most important motivation, while the leastimportant motives were status and self-awareness.Similarly, Uysal, McDonald, and Martin (1994)

examined Australian visitors to the US National Parksand natural areas. Results of factor analysis of 30motivation items produced five domains: ‘relaxation/hobbies’, ‘novelty’, ‘enhancement of kinship relation-ship’, escape, ‘prestige’. ‘Novelty’ was the most im-portant motivational factor, followed by ‘prestige’,‘enhancement of kinship relationships’, ‘relaxation/hobbies’, and ‘escape’. In comparison to relativeimportance of motivation factors between park andnon-park visitors, those who had no experience withvisiting the US National Parks showed a higher level onthe ‘novelty’ and ‘relaxation/hobbies’ factors than thosewho had the experience.Loker-Murphy (1996) identified a motivation-based

segmentation using domestic and foreign backpackers innational parks of Australia. Among the motivationalfactors examined, the primary factors were ‘excitement/adventure’ and ‘meeting local people’. Results of acluster analysis using the motivational factors produced

S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169–180170

four clusters: achievers, self-developers, social/excite-ment seekers and escapers/relaxers. The motivationclusters were significantly different in age and educa-tional level, destinations visited, preferred experience oractivity and usage of word of mouth promotion.Prior research conducted in Korea found the major

motivational factors influencing visits to KoreanNational Parks to be ‘health enhancement’, ‘climbing’,‘friendship building’, ‘escaping from everyday life’,‘nature appreciation or study’ and ‘learning about one’sreligious heritage’ (Ahn & Kim, 1996; Jeong, 1997; Kim,1993; Kim et al., 1989; Lee, Kim, & Kwon, 1987). Inseveral of these studies, the relative importance of themotivational forces was found to differ across gender,age, and income groups (Kim, 1993; Jeong, 1997).In sum, visitors to national parks have been found to

be influenced by a number of push factors including‘challenge or adventure’, ‘enjoyment’, ‘social interac-tion’ (building friendship or family togetherness),‘novelty’, and religious heritage (especially for KoreanNational Park visitors). Further, the relative importanceof these motivational forces has been found to vary as afunction of visitors’ socio-demographic characteristics.

2.2. Pull factors

Pull factors, in contrast to push factors, have beenconceptualised as relating to the features, attractions, orattributes of the destination itself, such as ‘beaches’ and‘water/marine-based resources’, ‘mountains and beauti-ful scenery’, or ‘historic and cultural resources’. Severalinvestigations of pull factors have been reported in thetravel and tourism literature.Fakeye and Crompton (1991) identified six pull

factors domains from 32 attribute items using a sampleof visitors to a well-known winter destination in Texas.The pull factors identified included ‘social opportunitiesand attractions’, ‘natural and cultural amenities’,‘accommodations and transportation’, ‘infrastructure,foods, and friendly people’, ‘physical amenities andrecreation activities’ and ‘bars and evening entertain-ment’. In their study, perceived importance on theattribute domains differed among nonvisitors, first-timers and repeaters. Hu and Ritchie (1993) exploredthe relative importance of 16 destination attributes incontributing to the attractiveness of a travel destination.The relative importance of many of these attributes wasfound to vary across groups that differed in terms oftheir travel purpose and destination familiarity. Turn-bull and Uysal (1995) found six pull factors including‘heritage/culture’, ‘city enclave’, ‘comfort-relaxation’,‘beach resort’, ‘outdoor resources’ and ‘rural andinexpensive’. They identified differences in perceivedimportance of the pull factors examined among visitorsfrom different nationalities. Kim, Crompton, and Botha(2000) reported four domains of destination attributes,

such as ‘entertainment’, ‘infrastructure’, ‘physical en-vironment’ and ‘high profiles entertainment opportu-nities’. Subsequent analyses revealed respondentsubgroups that differed in terms of the importanceattached to each of these pull factor items.In the context of national parks in Korea, Jeong

(1997) investigated the relative importance of six pullfactors perceived by visitors to a mountain-basednational park. The pull factors included ‘naturalresources’, ‘historical and cultural resources’, ‘climbingor good walking facilities’ and ‘facilities for rest andrecreational activities’, ‘information and conveniencefacilities’ and ‘commercial and accommodation facil-ities’. The pull factors are consistent with those ofstudies undertaken in setting of Korean National Parks(Ahn & Kim, 1996; Kim, 1993; Kim et al., 1989; Leeet al., 1987). In his study, visitors perceived ‘naturalresources’ and ‘historical and cultural resources’ to bethe most important attractions at the national park.Male and lower income visitors perceived higher level ofsatisfaction on the ‘commercial and accommodationfacilities’ than female and higher income groups did.In sum, pull factors of national parks are likely to be

different between countries or their locations. Never-theless, the important pull factors associated with mostnational parks referred to ‘natural resources’ and/or‘historical or cultural resources’. As noted earlier,Korean National Parks are unique, compared to thoseof other countries, in that they often have Buddhisttemples and other cultural and historical resources asprominent park features. And, as in the case of pushfactors, the relative importance of pull factors has beenfound to differ for visitors in different socio-demo-graphic subgroups.

2.3. Relationship between push and pull factors

Push and pull factors have generally been character-ized as relating to two separate decisions made at twoseparate points in time—one focusing on whether to go,the other on where to go (Klenosky, 2002). Dann (1981)noted that ‘once the trip has been decided upon, whereto go, what to see or what to do (relating to the specificdestinations) can be tackled. Thus, analytically, andoften both logically and temporally, push factorsprecede pull factors’ (Dann, 1981, p. 207; see alsoDann, 1977, p. 186).In contrast to this perspective, other researchers have

suggested that push and pull factors should not beviewed as being entirely independent of each other butrather as being fundamentally related to each other(Klenosky, 2002). In particular, it has been noted thatwhile the internal forces push people to travel, theexternal forces of the destination itself simultaneouslypull them to choose that particular destination(Cha et al., 1995; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994). Similarly,

S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169–180 171

Dann (1981) has pointed out, ‘potential tourists indeciding ‘‘where to go’’ may also take into considerationvarious pull factors which correspond adequately totheir motivational push’ (Dann, 1981, p. 206).Research examining the interrelationship between

push and pull forces has only recently been reported inthe travel and tourism literature (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996;Klenosky, 2002; Oh et al., 1995; Pyo et al., 1989; Uysal& Jurowski, 1994). Each of these prior efforts hasfocused primarily on visitors to international andoverseas tourism destinations. Researchers are yet toexamine the relationship between push and pull factorsin settings that involve more commonplace domestictravel decisions, such as residents’ decisions to visit anature-based resource such as a national park. Further-more, researchers are yet to examine how the relation-ship among these push and pull factors might differ as afunction of socio-demographic variables.

3. Methodology

3.1. Study site and data collection

The data used in this study were collected fromvisitors to six national parks located in South Korea.The national parks selected differed in that some werelocated in urban locations, some in the mountainregions, others near historic or cultural resources, andothers featured key natural resources such as famousmaple trees, beaches, and other marine/water settings.Twelve motivational items (push factors) and 12attribute items (pull factors) were generated based ona review of the tourism and recreation literature. Apretest, involving a sample of undergraduate students,was conducted to refine the list of push and pull factoritems.The primary data collection effort involved an on-site

self-administered questionnaire at six national parks inSouth Korea. Study respondents were asked a series ofscreening questions to make sure that they were familiarwith the resources available at Korean National Parksand at least 18 years of age. The questionnaires weredistributed to national park visitors during the summervacation season (July–August) in 1999. A total of 2720usable questionnaires were collected during this period.

3.2. Measurement of push and pull factors

The push factor items were measured by havingrespondents indicate their agreement–disagreement withstatements describing their potential reasons for visitinga given national park. More specifically, respondentswere told: ‘Here we are interested in your reasons forvisiting this National Park. For each statement below,circle the number that best describes your reasons for

visiting here’. For example, one push factor item was‘to get away from everyday life’. Then, respondentswere presented with a 5-point Likert-type scale [stronglydisagree (1), moderately disagree (2), neutral (3),moderately agree (4), strongly agree (5)]. The pull factoritems were measured using a similar procedure. In thissection respondents were told: ‘Here we are interested inyour view about what makes this National Parkattractive. For each statement below, circle the numberthat best describes how you feel about this park on thefollowing 12 attributes’. An example of pull factor itemwas ‘appropriate area for children’s study on naturalresources.’ The same 5-point Likert scale was used toassess these pull factor items.

3.3. Analysis

Each set of 12 push and pull factor items werefactor analyzed in order to delineate the underlyingdimensions. According to Kaiser’s (1974) criterion,only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 wereretained; and only items with factor loadings andcommunalities of greater than 0.4 were included in thefinal factor structure. Reliability alphas within eachdimension were computed to confirm the factor’sinternal consistency.To examine the overall difference between levels of

socio-demographic variables in push and pull factors, amultivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) proce-dure was conducted. If statistical significance was found,follow up one-way ANOVA tests with Bonferronimultiple comparisons correction or t-tests were subse-quently undertaken to examine the significant differencesbetween socio-demographic subgroups (representingdifferent levels of age, occupation, gender and income)on the push and pull factors. When significant differ-ences in one-way ANOVA tests were found, Duncan’smultiple range test was used to examine the source ofdifferences across the respondent subgroups. Finally,Pearson’s correlation coefficients were computed toidentify the degree of interrelations among the pushand pull factor dimensions both for the entire sampleand the socio-demographic subgroups.

4. Results

4.1. Demographic profile of respondents

Table 1 summarizes the demographic profile of thestudy respondents. Most of the respondents were male(65.0%), in the less than 29 (37.3%) or 29–39 (31.4%)age groups, worked as a company employee (30%), hadat least a university degree (60.8%), and had a house-hold income between 10 million and 19.99 million won(42%).


4.2. Factor analyses of the push and pull factor scales

To examine the dimensions underlying the push andpull factor scales, a principal component factor analysiswith varimax rotation was undertaken. The 12 pushfactor items yielded four factors with eigenvalues greaterthan 1.0 (Table 2). These factors explained 58% of thevariance and were labelled: ‘family togetherness andstudy;’ ‘appreciating natural resources and health;’‘escaping from everyday routine;’ and ‘adventure andbuilding friendship’. All 12 items had factor loadings ofover 0.46. The reliability alphas, which are designed tocheck the internal consistency of items within eachdimension, were greater than 0.68. These coefficientswere higher than or close to the standard of 0.70recommended by Nunnally (1978).A similar principal component factor analysis for the

12 pull items resulted in four pull factors which hadeigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Table 3). The factorsaccounted for 56% of the variance and were termed:‘key tourist resources’, ‘information and convenience of

facilities’ and ‘accessibility and transportation’. Factorloadings for the 12 items ranged from 0.42 to 0.88. Thereliability alphas for the three dimensions were greaterthan 0.70, indicating that Nunnally’s (1978) criterionwas met.

4.3. Comparison of push and pull factors for different age

groups

The differences in the importance of the push andpull factors for the four age groups were first examinedusing a MANOVA procedure. In this analysis, the fourpush factors and three pull factors were dependentvariables (i.e., multivariate) and age was used as theindependent variable. The results indicated that age hada significant effect on both the push ðpo0:001Þ and pullfactors ðpo0:001Þ: Based on this result, follow-upunivariate analyses, using the Bonferroni multiplecomparisons correction, were then conducted. The meanscores in the four age groups on the dependent variablesare given in Table 4 along with the outcome of theunivariate tests.Significant differences were observed for the age

groups on all the push and pull factors. Two of theage groups (29–39 and 40–49), most of which were eithernewly married or had young children, showed thehighest mean scores on the family togetherness pushfactor. In contrast, those in age group 1 ðo29Þ; whotended to be single people, had the lowest mean score onthis factor. Those in Group 4 (age 50 or above) rated‘appreciating natural resources and health’ an influentialfactor that leads them to travel to the national parks.Thus, they seem to have leisure time to appreciatenatural resources of the national parks and have deepconcern about their health status. Conversely, the pushfactor of ‘appreciating natural resources and health’ wasthe lowest strength/importance for the youngest visitorgroup (those under 29).Groups 1 and 2 rated ‘escaping from everyday

routine’ as a more important push factor in visitingNational Parks than did other older groups. Membersof these groups appeared to dissipate high stressfrom their workplace, family life, and study throughtravelling to national parks. Group 1 regarded ‘adven-ture and building friendship’ as a more importantfactor for visiting the National Parks than oldergroups did. This is understandable as young peopleare likely to prefer adventure, and try to buildfriendships by sharing experiences during theirtravelling schedule (Korean National Parks Authority,2000).On the three pull factors, the two older respondent

groups generally viewed the ‘key tourist resources’,‘information and convenience of facilities’ and ‘accessi-bility and transportation’ factors as more importantcompared to the two younger respondent groups.

Table 1

Description of survey respondents ðN ¼ 2235Þ

Socio-demographic variables Percent (%)

Gender

Male 65.0

Female 35.0

Age

Less than 29 37.3

29–39 31.4

40–49 20.0

50 and above 11.4

Occupation

Company employee 30.0

Businessman 16.8

Civil servant 8.5

Professional 10.3

Housewife 12.8

Student 21.4

Educational level

Primary school 1.2

Junior high school 5.5

Senior high school 32.1

University or above 60.8

Household income

Less than 10 million won 18.4

(less than US $8333)

10 million won–19,99 million won 42.0

(US $8334–16,666)

20 million won–29.99 million won 24.2

(US $16,667–24,999)

30 million won or more 15.4

(US $25,000 or more)


Table 2

Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation for push factors

Push factor domains and items Factor loadings Communalities Item means

1 2 3 4

Family togetherness and study

To have a time for natural study for children 0.79 0.64 2.39

To have enjoyable time with family 0.69 0.63 3.27

To observe rare wildlife 0.67 0.59 2.38

To appreciate historic/cultural resources 0.61 0.52 2.72

Grand mean 2.81

Appreciating natural resources and health

To enjoy natural resources 0.80 0.66 3.19

To enhance health 0.80 0.67 3.12

To appreciate beautiful natural resources 0.51 0.40 2.71

Grand mean 3.10

Escaping from everyday routine

To take a rest 0.77 0.67 3.80

To get away from everyday life 0.75 0.59 3.56

To avoid hot weather 0.46 0.40 2.74

Grand mean 2.77

Adventure and building friendship

To enjoy adventure 0.78 0.66 2.30

To build friendship 0.72 0.57 2.33

Grand mean 2.95

Eigenvalue 2.26 1.75 1.54 1.43

Variance explained 18.8 14.6 12.8 11.9

Reliability coefficient 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.68

Table 3

Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation for pull factors

Pull factor domains and items Factor loadings Communalities Item means

1 2 3

Key tourist resources

Appropriate area for children’s study on natural resources 0.81 0.66 3.08

Rare fauna and flora (or aquatic plants/animals) 0.75 0.57 2.59

Beautiful natural resources 0.70 0.54 3.79

Tranquil rest areas 0.58 0.46 3.11

Cultural and historic resources 0.51 0.45 2.74

Well-conserved environment 0.42 0.45 2.21

Grand mean 2.68

Information and convenience of facilities

Well-organized tourist information system 0.72 0.56 2.81

Convenient facilities (e.g., restroom, drinking stand) 0.70 0.55 2.87

Convenient parking lots 0.65 0.44 2.78

Clean and comfortable accommodations 0.61 0.48 2.63

Grand mean 3.32

Accessibility and transportation

Easy accessibility 0.88 0.79 2.83

Convenient transportation 0.85 0.75 2.09

Grand mean 3.43

Eigenvalue 2.62 2.41 1.64

Variance explained 21.84 20.1 13.7

Reliability coefficient 0.78 0.70 0.73


4.4. Comparison of push and pull factors for different

occupation groups

The results of a similar MANOVA analysis con-ducted to examine differences in the push and pullfactors among the six occupation groups, indicateda significant overall effect on the push ðpo0:001Þ andpull factors ðpo0:001Þ: Subsequent univariate analyseswere then conducted. These results are reported inTable 5.All push and pull factors were significantly different

across the six occupation groups at either the 0.001 levelor 0.1 level of significance. On the push factor of ‘familytogetherness and study’, Group 5 showed the highestmean score, indicating housewives tended to pursuetravelling to the national parks for promoting familyharmony and study for their children. However,compared to other groups, Group 4 (the professionals)did not perceive ‘family togetherness and study’ to be animportant motive pushing them to visit the national

parks. For this group, ‘escaping the daily routine’ hadthe highest mean score. The ‘appreciating naturalresources and health’ factor appeared to be a strongmotive to all except the students. This indicates thatstudent groups do not recognize this push factor asinfluential in motivating them to travel to parks.Although the ‘escaping from everyday routine’ factorhas high mean scores for all age groups, Groups 4 and 1,in particular, considered this factor to be a moreimportant push factor than any other group. The resultshows that company employees and professionals arelikely to prefer a trip to the national parks to avoideveryday routine life, to get refreshed and to renew theirenergy. Group 6 indicated that the ‘adventure andbuilding friendship’ factor as being more important forvisiting the national parks compared to those in any ofthe other groups. This result is similar to those reportedpreviously, in that young students tend to be moststrongly motivated to pursue adventure experiences andrelationships.

Table 4

ANOVA for comparison of push and pull factors by age group

Push and pull factor domains Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 F -value p-value

ðn ¼ 760Þ ðn ¼ 640Þ ðn ¼ 410Þ ðn ¼ 227Þ

Push factors

(1) Family togetherness and study 2.40a 2.96c 2.96c 2.70b 64.20 0.000

(2) Appreciating natural resources and health 3.14a 3.36b 3.57c 3.84d 50.27 0.000

(3) Escaping from everyday routine 3.47b 3.50b 3.35a 3.30a 6.46 0.000

(4) Adventure and building friendship 3.06b 2.57a 2.62a 2.59a 40.41 0.000

Pull factors

(1) Key tourist resources 2.97a 3.15b 3.25c 3.26c 19.72 0.000

(2) Information and convenience of facilities 2.71a 2.77ab 2.85b 2.84b 4.06 0.007

(3) Accessibility and transportation 2.75a 2.96b 3.17c 3.38d 28.00 0.000

Note: For the push factors, statistically significant at po0:013 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a ¼ 0:05=4).For the pull factors, statistically significant at po0:017 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a ¼ 0:05=3). a, b, c,and d indicate the source of significant differences. Group 1: under 29 years old, Group 2: 29–39 years old, Group 3: 40–49 years old, Group 4: 50

years old or above.

Table 5

ANOVA for comparison of push and pull factors by occupation group

Push and pull factor domains Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 F -value p-value

ðn ¼ 583Þ ðn ¼ 326Þ ðn ¼ 163Þ n ¼ ð204Þ n ¼ ð249Þ n ¼ ð416Þ

Push factors

(1) Family togetherness and study 2.76bc 2.77bc 2.87c 2.32a 3.15d 2.68b 33.64 0.000

(2) Appreciating natural resources and health 3.32b 3.39bc 3.50c 3.40bc 3.43bc 3.07a 10.61 0.000

(3) Escaping from everyday routine 3.49bc 3.37ab 3.35a 3.60c 3.39ab 3.39ab 4.45 0.000

(4) Adventure and building friendship 2.71ab 2.70ab 2.57a 2.84b 2.55a 3.25c 25.59 0.000

Pull factors

(1) Key tourist resources 3.14bcd 3.05ab 3.23cd 3.11bc 3.24d 2.97a 6.78 0.000

(2) Information and convenience of facilities 2.77ab 2.72a 2.80ab 2.71a 2.88b 2.76ab 1.95 0.083

(3) Accessibility and transportation 2.97b 2.96b 3.10b 2.94ab 3.02b 2.78a 3.45 0.004

Note: For the push factors, statistically significant at po0:013 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a ¼ 0:05=4).For the pull factors, statistically significant at po0:017 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a ¼ 0:05=3). a, b, c,and d indicate the source of significant differences. Group 1: company employee, Group 2: businessman, Group 3: civil servant, Group 4:

professional, Group 5: housewife, Group 6: student.


An examination of the pull factors across the sixoccupation groups indicated that Group 3 (civilservants) and Group 5 (housewives) had the highestmean scores for the three pull factors. These groups gavethe highest mean score to ‘key tourist resources’ whilestudent group had the lowest mean score. Compared toother groups, the student group had low mean scores on‘accessibility and transportation’ to the national parks,suggesting that for this group transportation may becostly and difficult to arrange.


gender groups

As before, the results of a MANOVA indicated asignificant overall effect for gender on the pushðpo0:001Þ and pull factors ðpo0:001Þ: The univariateanalyses conducted to explore these differences areshown in Table 6.

As the table shows, significant differences (po0:05)between males and females were found for three of thepush factors and one of the pull factors. Femalerespondents placed more importance on the push factorof ‘family togetherness and study’, whereas malerespondents emphasized factors of ‘appreciating naturalresources and health’, and ‘adventure and buildingfriendships’. On the pull factor of ‘key tourist resources’,those in the female group tended to perceive the keytourist resources at the national parks to be moreimportant compared to those in the male group.


income groups

A final MANOVA procedure indicated a significanteffect due to income on the push ðpo0:001Þ and pullfactors ðpo0:001Þ: The results of the univariate analysesconducted to explore this effect are provided in Table 7.

Table 6

T-test for comparison of push and pull factors by gender group

Push and pull factor domains Male Female T-value p-value

ðn ¼ 1439Þ ðn ¼ 771Þ

Push factors

(1) Family togetherness and study 2.63 2.78 �3.78 0.000

(2) Appreciating natural resources and health 3.34 3.26 2.07 0.039

(3) Escaping from everyday routine 3.43 3.42 0.07 0.945

(4) Adventure and building friendship 2.90 2.76 3.20 0.001

Pull factors

(1) Key tourist resources 3.08 3.15 �2.49 0.013

(2) Information and convenience of facilities 2.76 2.80 �1.43 0.150

(3) Accessibility and transportation 2.96 2.95 0.25 0.806

Note: For the push factors, statistically significant at po0:013 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a ¼ 0:05=4).For the pull factors, statistically significant at po0:017 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a ¼ 0:05=3).

Table 7

ANOVA for comparison of push and pull factors by income group

Push and pull factor domains Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 F -value p-value

ðn ¼ 387Þ ðn ¼ 877Þ ðn ¼ 506Þ ðn ¼ 322Þ

Push factors

(1) Family togetherness and study 2.42a 2.67b 2.86c 2.83c 21.75 0.000

(2) Appreciating natural resources and health 3.23a 3.27a 3.42b 3.42b 6.06 0.000

(3) Escaping from everyday routine 3.39 3.43 3.44 3.48 0.89 0.444

(4) Adventure and building friendship 2.98b 2.78a 2.69a 2.69a 7.40 0.000

Pull factors

(1) Key tourist resources 3.02a 3.10ab 3.16b 3.12ab 2.52 0.053

(2) Information and convenience of facilities 2.75 2.76 2.78 2.78 0.26 0.855

(3) Accessibility and transportation 2.91 2.96 3.01 2.94 0.67 0.572

Note: For the push factors, statistically significant at po0:013 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a ¼ 0:05=4).For the pull factors, statistically significant at po0:017 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a ¼ 0:05=3). a, b, and cindicate the source of significant differences. Group 1: under 10 million won (under US $8333), Group 2: 10–19.99 million won (US $8334–16,666),

Group 3: 20–29.99 million won (US $16,667–24,999), Group 4: 30 million won or more (US $25,000 or more).


An inspection of the mean scores indicates that threeof the four push factors were found to be significantlydifferent at the 0.001 level of significance, while one ofthe pull factors was significant at the 0.1 level ofsignificance. Respondents with higher incomes reportedthat ‘family togetherness and study’, and ‘appreciatingnatural resources and health’ were more important pushfactors in travelling to the national parks thanrespondents with lower incomes. Group 1 (the lowestincome group) reported the highest mean score on the‘adventure and building friendship’ factor compared tothe other income groups.

4.7. Relationship between push factors and pull factors

Table 8 shows the results of the Pearson bivariatecorrelation analysis conducted to examine the relation-ship among the push and pull factor domains identifiedin this research. The results indicated that the pullfactors, ‘key tourist resources’ and ‘information andconvenience of facilities’ both, had significant positivecorrelations with all four of the push factors, although itshould be noted that in some cases these correlationswere extremely low. For instance, while the correlationinvolving the pull factor ‘key tourist resources’ and thepush factor ‘family togetherness and study’ wererelatively high (0.44), the correlation with this pullfactor and the push factor ‘adventure and buildingfriendships’ was significant but close to zero (0.05).The pull factor ‘information and convenience of

facilities’ was correlated with the push factors ‘familytogetherness and study’ (0.23), ‘appreciating naturalresources and health’ (0.19), and ‘escaping from every-day routine’, but not to ‘adventure and buildingfriendships’. Interestingly, the pull factor ‘accessibilityand transportation’ was significantly correlated to onlyone push factor, ‘appreciating natural resources andhealth’, resulting in a correlation coefficient of 0.23. Thissuggests that the desire to experience nature andenhance one’s health may be facilitated by the avail-ability of accessibility and transportation options at aparticular national park. This is clearly an importantissue for future research.

In order to examine whether the relationshipsobserved among the push and pull factors were affectedor moderated by the socio-demographic variables,correlations were computed for each pair of push andpull factors for each socio-demographic subgroup.These results are summarized in Table 9.As can be seen in the table, although there were some

exceptions, the correlations involving the first two pushfactors, ‘family togetherness and study’ and ‘appreciat-ing natural resources and health’, and the first two pullfactors, ‘key tourist resources’ and ‘information andconvenience of facilities’, remained consistent across thedifferent respondent subgroups. In contrast, the correla-tions involving the other push and pull factors variedsomewhat depending on the subgroup involved. Look-ing at the correlations for the age subgroups, it isnotable that whereas the correlations involving the firstthree groups were relatively strong, the correlations forthose in the 50 or above group, were generally lower.One exception that stands out, i.e., that was highestfor those in the 50 or above group compared to theother groups, was the correlation between the pushfactor ‘adventure and building friendship’ and the pullfactor ‘key tourist resources’. This finding suggests thatthe resources at the national parks may be particularlyvaluable for helping the older members of the popula-tion build and maintain friendships. For the occupationsubgroups, the correlations involving the third pushfactor ‘escaping from everyday routine’ and the first twopull factors ‘key tourist resources’ and ‘information andconvenience of facilities’ were significant for the firstsubgroup ‘company employees’ and the last subgroup‘students’ but not for the other four subgroups. Alsonotable were the correlations for the housewife sub-group involving the pull factor ‘accessibility andtransportation’ and the first and third push factors.These findings demonstrate that different pull factorsmay attract different park visitors for the same under-lying reason—in this case to ‘escape one’s daily routine’.In terms of gender, while the pattern of correlations wasgenerally similar, there were a few across-genderdifferences. In particular, males were more likely torelate the pull factor ‘information and convenience of

Table 8

Correlation analysis of push and pull factors

Pull factor domain Pull factor domain

(1) Family

togetherness and

study

(2) Appreciating

natural resources

and health

(3) Escaping from

everyday routine

(4) Adventure and

building friendship

(1) Key tourist resources 0.44nn 0.35nn 0.14nn 0.05n

(2) Information and convenience of facilities 0.23nn 0.19nn 0.07nn 0.04

(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.01 0.23nn 0.01 0.03

nSignificant at the 0.05 level.nnSignificant at the 0.001 level.


Table 9

Correlation analysis of push and pull factors by age, occupation, and income

Pull factor domain Push factor domain

(1) Family (2) Appreciating (3) Escaping (4) Adventure

togetherness natural resources from everyday and building

and study and health routine friendship

Age group

(1) Less than 29 (1) Key tourist resources 0.43nn 0:40nn 0.08n 0.04

(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:24nn 0:25nn 0.05 0:09nn

(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.05 0:14nn 0.03 0.01

(2) 29–39 (1) Key tourist resources 46nn 0:30nn 0:18nn 0:09n

(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:22nn 0:19nn 0:09n 0.02


(3) 40–49 (1) Key tourist resources 0:49nn 0:34nn 0:17nn 0:14nn

(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:20nn 0:10n 0.07 0.07

(3) Accessibility and transportation 0:13nn 0:29nn 0:11n 0.03

(4) 50 or above (1) Key tourist resources 0:28nn 0:14nn 0:10n 0:16nn

(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:19nn 0.02 0.05 0.07


Occupation group

(1) Company employee (1) Key tourist resources 0:44nn 0:39nn 0:16nn 0:10n

(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:20nn 0:14nn 0:12nn 0:09n


(2) Businessman (1) Key tourist resources 0:39nn 0:32nn 0.09 0.06

(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:21nn 0:19nn 0.09 0.05


(3) Civil servant (1) Key tourist resources 0:54nn 0:33nn 0.07 0.05



(4) Professional (1) Key tourist resources 0:48nn 0:37nn 0.07 0.06



(5) Housewife (1) Key tourist resources 0:37nn 0:33nn 0.06 0.08


(3) Accessibility and transportation 0:17nn 0:22nn 0:16nn 0.04

(6) Student (1) Key tourist resources 0:43nn 0:32nn 0:12nn 0.04

(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:23nn 0:31nn 0:13nn 0.06


Gender group

(1) Male (1) Key tourist resources 0:49nn 0:38nn 0:14nn 0.01

(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:23nn 0:17nn 0:09n 0:07n


(2) Female (1) Key tourist resources 0:38nn 0:34nn 0:08n 0.05


(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.03 0:15nn 0:08n 0.06

Income group

(1) Less than 10 million won (1) Key tourist resources 0:32nn 0:27nn 0:11n 0.09

(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:13n 0.09 0:20nn 0:12n

(3) Accessibility and transportation 0:12n 0:26nn 0.03 0.09

(2) 10–19.99 million won (1) Key tourist resources 0:49nn 0:39nn 0:14nn 0.05



(3) 20–29.99 million won (1) Key tourist resources 0:49nn 0:37nn 0:23nn 0.04



(4) 30 million won or above (1) Key tourist resources 0:39nn 0:31nn 0:16nn 0.09

(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:27nn 0:18nn 0:11n 0.05


nSignificant at the 0.05 level.nnSignificant at the 0.001 level.


facilities’ to the push factors ‘escape the everydayroutine’ and ‘adventure and building friendships’.Meanwhile, females were more likely to relate the pullfactor ‘accessibility and transportation’ to the ‘escape’push factor. Finally, looking at income, one observationthat sticks out is that, compared to the other subgroups,those in the first subgroup ‘less than 10 million won’,were more likely to relate the pull factor ‘informationand convenience of facilities’ to the push factors‘escaping from everyday routine’ and ‘adventure andbuilding friendships’ and ‘‘family togetherness andstudy’’ and less likely to relate the same pull factor tothe push factor ‘appreciating natural resources andhealth’. This suggests that this aspect of the KoreanNational Parks appeal to those with lower incomes indifferent ways compared to those with higher incomes.Taken together these results provide evidence of themoderating effect of socio-demographic variables onthe interrelationship between the push factors thatmotivate travel decisions and the pull factors thatinfluence destination selection.

5. Implications and conclusions

The purpose of this study was to (1) identify the pushfactors and pull factors that influence decisions to visitKorean National Parks; (2) investigate differences inthese push and pull factors for different socio-demo-graphic groups; and (3) examine the pattern of inter-relationships among these push and pull factors. Afactor analysis of the 12 push factor items resulted infour underlying domains: ‘family togetherness andstudy’, ‘appreciating natural resources and health’,‘escaping from everyday routine’ and ‘adventure andbuilding friendship’. The most important push factorswere ‘appreciating natural resources and health’ðmean ¼ 3:10Þ; and ‘adventure and building friendship’ðmean ¼ 2:95Þ; ‘family togetherness and study’ ðmean ¼2:81Þ; and ‘escaping from everyday routine’ ðmean ¼2:77Þ were followed. These results suggest that visitors tonational parks in Korea are likely to consider the parksto be valuable recreational resources that provideimportant opportunities to appreciate natural resourcesor enhance health or build friendship, which isconsistent with results of 1999 Report of KoreanNational Travel.A factor analysis of the 12 pull factor items produced

three domains: ‘key tourist resources’, ‘information andconvenience of facilities’, and ‘accessibility and trans-portation’. Visitors to national parks relatively highlyrated on ‘accessibility and transportation’ ðmean ¼ 3:43Þand ‘information and convenience of facilities’ ðmean ¼3:32Þ: This finding reflects the fact that the nationalparks in Korea are relatively accessible and located closeto most residential and work areas.

The analysis of the differences in these push and pullfactor domains for different socio-demographic sub-groups indicated a number of important differences.Park managers need to understand these differences inorder to enhance visitor satisfaction and encouragerepeat visitation. For example, the results of thisresearch suggest that for student groups, there is a needto develop facilities or routes where they can enjoyadventure and share their friendship. Additionally, theymight need inexpensive accommodation such as acamping site or youth hostel. In contrast, for olderpeople (50 years of age or above) park administratorsshould consider developing a walking trail that helpsthem appreciate the natural resources of the parks, andprovide and operate health enhancement facilities.The study results indicated that respondents who were

aged 40 or above, female, and with 20–29 million wonincome, perceived national parks to have attractiveresources, while those who were 29 years of age orbelow, students, male, and low income earners (under 10million won) showed more disagreement on this item.This suggests the need to promote the quality ofnational park resources to young people and students.For example, national parks may consider providingprogrammes that would promote a better understandingof natural resources, perhaps by using an adopt-a-facility program that would match those in youthgroups with a particular park.Although several studies have examined the relation-

ship between push and pull factors, these priorinvestigations have all focused on doing so in thecontext of travel to international and overseas destina-tions. This research instead examined the relationshipbetween push and pull factors for a domestic sample ofpark visitors. In this analysis, significant correlationswere observed among the majority of push and pullfactor dimensions. The results supported the findings ofthe study by Uysal and Jurowski (1994) who identified arelationship between push and pull factors, even thoughthe values of correlation coefficients between push andpull factors in this study were lower than those reportedin their study. Additional analyses conducted toexamine how push and pull factor correlations wereimpacted by key socio-demographic characteristicsyielded useful insight into the moderating role of thesecharacteristics on push and pull factors relationships.The findings of the study confirmed that push or pullfactors were different in socio-demographic variables asreported by other researchers (Loker-Murphy, 1996;Ahn & Kim, 1996; Jeong, 1998; Kim, 1993; Lee et al.,1987).Since this study was conducted in the setting of

Korean National parks using sample of domesticvisitors, it will be helpful to understand tourismresources offered by Korean National Parks and whatnational parks mean to Koreans. Especially, it would be


interesting to compare results of this study with those ofstudies conducted in national parks in other countries.As the number of outbound Korean tourists is becom-ing greater due to their increasing disposable income,more Koreans are expected to make trips to nationalparks in other countries. Thus, results of this studyprovide management of national parks in othercountries with valuable information in understandingKorean’s motivation to visit national parks. Futureresearch is needed to explore the role of othermoderating factors on push–pull relationships. Forexample, it might be interesting to examine differencesin push and pull factors among first-time versus repeatvisitors or among domestic and international visitors.

References

Ahn, K., & Kim, S. (1996). A study on visitors’ behaviour in Korean

National Park. Journal of Korean Landscape, 24(1), 32.

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.

Botha, C., Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S. (1999). Developing a revised

competitive position for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Journal of

Travel Research, 37, 341–352.

Buckley, R. (2000). Neat trends: Current issues in nature, eco- and

adventure tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2,

437–444.

Cha, S., McCleary, K. W., & Uysal, M. (1995). Travel motivations of

Japanese overseas travellers: A factor-cluster segmentation ap-

proach. Journal of Travel Research, 34(2), 33–39.

Cho, G. (1988). Conservation and management in Jervis Bay

Australia. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosys-

tems, 8, 701–717.

Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacations. Annals of

Tourism Research, 6(4), 408–424.

Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals

of Tourism Research, 4, 184–194.

Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourism motivation: An appraisal. Annals of

Tourism Research, 8(2), 187–219.

Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between

prospective, first time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande

Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30, 10–16.

Fielding, K.-A., & Pearce, P. L. (1992). Climbing Ayres Rock:

Relating visitors motivation, time perception and enjoyment.

Journal of Tourism Studies, 3(2), 110–120.

Grafe, A. (1977). Elements of motivation and satisfaction in the float trip

experience in Big Bend National Park. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Gunn, C. A. (1988). Tourism planning (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor &

Francis.

Hu, Y., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). Measuring destination attractive-

ness: A context approach. Journal of Travel Research, 32, 25–34.

Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of

tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 12,

256–262.

Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1989). Motivation for leisure. In E. L. Jackson, &

T. L. Burton (Eds.), Understanding leisure and recreation:

Mapping the past charting the future (pp. 247–279). State College:

R. A. Venture Publishing.

Jeong, I. (1997). A study on attributes of attractions of the Bukhansan

National Park and visitors’ attitudes. Thesis, Hanyang University,

Seoul.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrics,

39, 31–36.

Kim, S., Crompton, J. L., & Botha, C. (2000). Responding to

competition: A strategy for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Tourism

Management, 21, 33–41.

Kim, S., Kim, Y., & Kong, Y. (1989). Studies on the use characteristics

and satisfaction in Kayasan National Park, Korea. Applied

Ecosystem Studies in Korea, 3(1), 107–113.

Kim, Y. (1993). The analysis of visitor’s behaviour in Sobaeksan

National Park. Applied Ecosystem Studies in Korea, 6(2), 218–228.

Klenosky, D. B. (2002). The pull of tourism destinations: A means-end

investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 40(4), 385–395.

Korean National Parks Authority (1999a). 1999 report of Korean

National Parks. Seoul: Korean National Parks Authority.

Korean National Parks Authority (1999b). National Parks of Korea.

Seoul: Korean National Parks Authority.

Korean National Parks Authority (2000). 2000 Survey report of

Korean National Parks. Seoul: Korean National Parks Authority.

Lee, M., Kim, Y., & Kwon, Y. (1987). Visitors’ use patterns and

characteristics in a Bukhansan National Park of Korea. Applied

Ecosystem Studies in Korea, 1(1), 66–67.

Loker-Murphy, L. (1996). Backpackers in Australia: A motivation-

based segmentation study. Journal of Travel and Tourism Market-

ing, 5(4), 23–45.

Nickerson, N. P. (1996). Foundations of tourism. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometeric theory (2nd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hall.

Oh, H. C., Uysal, M., & Weaver, P. A. (1995). Product bundles and

market segments based on travel motivations: A canonical

correlation approach. International Journal Hospitality Manage-

ment, 14(2), 123–137.

Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. (1983). Inferring travel motivations

from travellers’ experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2),

16–20.

Pyo, S., Mihalik, B. J., & Uysal, M. (1989). Attraction attributes and

motivations: A canonical correlation analysis. Annals of Tourism

Research, 16(2), 277–282.

Ryan, C. (1991). Recreational tourism: A social science perspective.

New York: Routledge.

Simon, B. M., & Doerksen, H. (1996). Entry fees in the National

Parks. In A. L. Lundgren (Ed.), Recreation fees in the National

Park Service: Issues, policies, and guidelines for future action (pp.

15–26). Minnesota Extension Service Pub. No. BU6767. St. Paul,

MN: Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Department of Forest

Resources, University of Minnesota.

Snepenger, D. J., Peterson, D. L., & Bench, J. L. (1989). Projecting

visitation to Yellowstone National Park after the fire of 1988.

Journal of Travel Research, 28(1), 39–40.

Turnbull, D. R., & Uysal, M. (1995). An exploratory study of German

visitors to the Caribbean: Push and pull motivations. Journal of

Travel and Tourism Marketing, 4(2), 85–92.

Uysal, M., & Hagan, L. A. R. (1993). Motivation of pleasure travel

and tourism. In M. Khan, M. Olsen, & T. Var (Eds.), Encyclopedia

of Hospitality and Tourism (pp. 798–810). New York: VNR.

Uysal, M., & Jurowski, C. (1994). Testing the push and pull factors.

Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 844–846.

Uysal, M., McDonald, M., & Martin (1994). Australian visitors to US

national parks and national area. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 6(3), 18–24.

Yuan, S., & McDonald, C. (1990). Motivational determinants

of international pleasure time. Journal of Travel Research, 24(1),

42–44.


the influence of push and pull factors at korean national parks

Documents