Protected Area Visitor Willingness to Participate in Site Enhancement Activities

Abstract

Cluster analysis of survey responses from 804 visitors to national parks in Australia’s Gold Coast hinterland indicated variable proclivity to participate in diverse site enhancement activities. The “enthused” (8%) are willing to engage in focused activism such as planting trees, and incidental activism such as opportunistic litter removal. Willingness to donate and pay an entry fee is also evident. Conversely, the “disengaged” (17%) are mostly unsupportive. Intermediate “incidentally enthused” (12%), “amenable” (25%), “casual” (12%), and “incidental” (26%) clusters display decreasing enthusiasm for focused activism but sustained support for incidental activism. Enthusiasm associates with altruistic values, environmental concern, self-empowerment, moral obligation, hard ecotourism tendencies, site loyalty, local residence, and age. The results suggest a small core of potential engagement with conventional volunteer tourism activity, but widespread support for unconventional and convenient activities that may serve as a platform for higher engagement with site enhancement.

Keywords

protected areas sustainable tourism VBN theory volunteer tourism loyalty ecotourism

Introduction

National Parks and other strictly protected areas are essential mechanisms for maintaining the ecological integrity of diminishing natural ecosystems. Their capacity to fulfil this mandate, however, is compromised by rising visitation deriving from population growth, improved accessibility, more sophisticated promotion, and parallel mandates to accommodate compatible recreational activity (Bushell and Eagles 2007). Because government allocations in most countries are increasingly insufficient to facilitate the ecological mandate of protected areas, and institutional constraints often prevent the diversion of appropriate funds for this purpose (James 1999), protected area management is also becoming increasingly dependent on visitor-based revenue (Eagles, McCool, and Haynes 2002). This creates further pressure to increase visitation.

As recognized by Budowski (1976), the relationship between protected areas and visitors is frequently one of conflict, wherein visitor satisfaction is prioritized over ecological integrity, and/or visitor management is otherwise inadequate. Alternatively, coexistence occurs when strategies such as zoning accommodate visitors without producing net negative ecological impacts. This neutral scenario reflects a “status quo” mode of sustainability and a “leave no trace” philosophy that positions visitors as a necessary evil. The optimal scenario is symbiosis, wherein the quality of visitation and biodiversity are mutually reinforced through visitor-related activity that enhances both biodiversity and the wellbeing of visitors. Such activity may become vital to maintaining ecologically viable parks as budgetary situations continue to deteriorate, but its enablement will entail a fundamental shift in perception from visitors as threat, to visitors as opportunity. Weaver (2005a) associates these outcomes with an ethic of “enhancement” sustainability that aspires to improve on the ecological status quo.

Despite its reciprocal desirability, symbiosis-based management is elusive because of revenue-generating priorities, unsustainable visitation growth, inadequate public interest or knowledge, and insufficient research to inform implementation. Nevertheless, there is growing awareness of the potential for protected area visitors to serve as proactive agents of environmental enhancement (Propst, Jackson, and McDonough 2003). This is manifested for example through participation in volunteer tourism (Hawkins, Lamoureux, and Clemmons 2005). Private protected areas such as Costa Rica’s Santa Elena Rainforest Preserve (Wearing 2001) are strongly implicated, as are facilitating organizations such as Earthwatch (McGehee 2002; Weiler and Richins 1995) and Rainforest Expeditions (Brightsmith 2008). Tangible reciprocal benefits through participation in scientific research, habitat restoration, and related activities are documented (Brightsmith, Stronza, and Holle 2008; Davies 2002; Galley and Clifton 2004; Weiler and Richins 1995) and there is evidence that involvement encourages post-experience participation in social and environmental activism (McGehee 2002).

Site enhancement, however, potentially implicates more than conventional in situ volunteer tourism participation. Symbiosis is also facilitated through extra financial contributions to fund park enhancement and expansion. Visitor willingness to make added on-site payments, provided their allocation to environmental enhancement is transparent and effective, has been identified (Davis and Tisdell 1998; Tisdell and Wilson 2005; Weaver and Lawton 2002). Little is known, in contrast, about the proclivity of visitors to engage in more unconventional types of enhancement activity such as making bequests, writing letters of support, removing litter, or reporting perceived problems during recreational visits, confronting misbehavior, or fundraising and attending pro-park rallies. Expressions of willingness do not necessarily predict behavior, but Weaver and Lawton (2002) found that most patrons at two Australian ecolodges would pick up others’ litter, write letters in support of the host park, and confront misbehaving visitors.

These alternative enhancement activities are potentially significant given that direct involvement in in situ volunteering is prohibitive for many because of limitations of health, distance, mobility, time, finances, or motivation. Participation in in situ volunteering, accordingly, is dominated by the young, abled, and middle class. Most protected area visitors, tellingly, display “soft” ecotourism traits such as lower personal commitment to environmental activism, appreciating nature as just one facet of a multipurpose trip, and preference for less strenuous activities confined to well-serviced site-hardened zones (Palacio and McCool 1997; Weaver 2001, 2005b, 2008; Weaver and Lawton 2002). That is, they are more peripherally engaged with the three core ecotourism criteria of experiencing nature-based attractions, learning about these attractions, and having their experiences mediated by management that supports ecologically sustainable outcomes (Blamey 2001). They therefore appear less amenable to in situ volunteering or other enhancement activities, and more likely to engage in practices that reflect the conflict scenario.

The opposite, intuitively, applies to the minority of visitors profiling as “hard” ecotourists—some of them volunteer tourists—who typically display high environmental commitment and environmental skills during specialized trips within relatively undisturbed settings (Weaver 2008). Such attitudes and behavior complement the Values–Beliefs–Norms (VBN) theory of environmental participation (Stern et al. 1999; Stern 2000), which postulates that ecocentric and altruistic values contribute to belief in an ecological worldview where adverse consequences from irresponsible human activity are feared for valued people and/or places; if the individual believes further in their ability to reduce these threats through personal action, then a norm of obligation is established that culminates in proenvironmental behavior that aims to protect these objects of value. Proclivity to act is associated with the perceived severity of the threat (Séguin, Pelletier, and Hunsley 1998). Environmental activism, like hard ecotourism specifically, is also associated with higher education and higher involvement by women (Weaver 2008).

Hard ecotourists, as mentioned, are assumed to accord to the basic VBN sequence. However, they are few, and protected area managers are behoved to promote participation among all visitor types, and especially the great majority demonstrating soft ecotourism tendencies, so that symbiosis can be realized through the attendant economies of scale (Weaver 2005a). A broader implication is that such participation might initiate transformational learning that leads to increased personal cross-spectrum activism (Coghlan and Gooch 2011; McGehee 2002; Mezirow 1991; O’Sullivan 1999). To this effect, it is important to identify whether soft ecotourists adhere to the VBN sequence. The desirability of transforming their behavior has been advocated by Orams (1995) and others, but remains more an ideal than a reality. Yet, despite the challenges, the potential exists for such transformation, given widespread and increasing contemporary public concern over environmental issues such as climate change, and growing support for government and personal mitigation (Scott 2011). It is likely therefore that many soft ecotourists harbor environmental concerns that could alter their values and stimulate participation in acts of environmental amelioration. Gardner and Stern (1996) describe how interventions to change behavior can include religious and moral suasion, direct and indirect incentives, and “community management” that enables shared rules and expectations (e.g., recycling). A fourth option more directly suited to protected areas is education to provide information about environmental problems and their solutions. This is particularly effective when the intervention makes limited cognitive demands and attracts the subject’s attention. Appropriate environmental interpretation, especially if focused on compelling natural attractions, can increase overall participant concern and willingness to provide donations for conservation (Orams 1997; Tisdell and Wilson 2005).

Because the present study is focused on protected area visitors, it is also appropriate to investigate the relationship between targeted activism and destination “loyalty,” which has behavioral (e.g., visitation frequency) and affective or attitudinal (e.g., emotional attachment) dimensions (Kyle, Mowen, and Tarrant 2004; Niininen, Szivas, and Riley 2004). In nontourism contexts, willingness to lobby against local environmental threats has been related to strong place attachment among vacation home owners by Stedman (2002) and among local residents more generally by Vorkinn and Riese (2001). The only identified investigation of protected area visitors found that urban residents who were most interested in volunteering to support a nearby park were frequent visitors to that park with household members who were also frequent visitors (Weaver and Lawton 2008). This suggests the influence of social representations theory wherein attitudes and behavior are influenced by the attitudes and behavior of friends and family.

Goal, Objectives, and Contribution

This research aspires to symbiosis by assessing the willingness of protected area visitors to participate in activities that enhance the environmental integrity of the visited sites and by identifying the relationship between willingness and values, beliefs and norms (as per the VBN model), ecotourism affiliation, site loyalty, and demographics. This is significant because the ideal of symbiosis remains elusive and empirical research that comprehensively investigates this core issue of willingness is lacking. It innovates through the philosophical perspective that visitors are a powerful latent opportunity for protected areas rather than an inherent threat. Moreover, it investigates willingness across a spectrum of possible activities that includes conventional in situ volunteering but also various ex situ, opportunistic, and monetary options. Prior studies have not comprehensively identified the factors that associate with willingness to participate in these diverse activities in the context of a specific visited site, nor attempted to focus on the potential involvement of all protected area visitors rather than just the hard ecotourists. It may well be that soft ecotourists will not pick up a shovel, but if sufficiently motivated will participate in “softer” options such as donating from home or opportunistically removing litter. The findings from such cohorts may subsequently inform strategies to involve nonvisitors from adjacent communities.

Methods

The objectives were achieved by surveying visitors at Lamington and Springbrook National Parks, in the southeast Queensland hinterland of Australia’s Gold Coast. Both entities protect relatively undisturbed rainforests, which occupy just 0.3% of Australia (UNESCO 2003) but are hyper-diverse ecosystems accommodating 60% of Australia’s endemic plant species and one-third of its bird and mammal species (IFA 2005). Rainforests otherwise directly benefit Australia by attracting international tourists and yielding economically useful organisms. Indirect benefits include watershed and microclimate regulation. Although most remaining Australian rainforests are protected, they are threatened by increasing visitation resulting from their proximity to urban agglomerations and tourism gateways such as Sydney and Brisbane, which also generate higher risks of air and water pollution, fire, and invasive exotic species. Much of Australia’s rarest and most threatened ecosystem, accordingly, is located within one of Australia’s most ecologically stressed contexts—the urban–rural fringe—thereby posing serious and complex sustainability challenges. Opportunities, however, derive from large local populations well positioned to visit frequently and develop loyalty to nearby protected areas (Dwyer and Edwards 2000; Weaver and Lawton 2001, 2004).

Lamington and Springbrook, more specifically, belong to the World Heritage listed Gondwana Rainforests of Australia (UNESCO 2003) and as IUCN Category II “National Parks” are dually mandated to protect resident subtropical rainforest and accommodate compatible recreation. Approximately 300,000 domestic and international visits, mostly day-only, were made to each park in 2010 (personal communication, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency), reflecting their status as major regional tourist attractions. Such levels result from proximity to metropolitan Brisbane (two million residents) and the major tourism city of Gold Coast (600,000 residents), which accommodates about 11 million stayover and excursionist visits per year. Almost all visitors from Brisbane and Gold Coast are “tourists,” residing far enough from park trailheads to qualify as “day visitors” who must complete a round trip of 50 kilometers or more and spend at least four hours away from home (including transit) to access either park (Tourism Research Australia 2012). Residents of proximate neighborhoods such as Springbrook and Upper Beechmont, moreover, regard other Gold Coast and Brisbane residents as tourists (personal communication). Although identified by UNESCO (2003, p. 15) as sites where “inappropriate recreation and tourism activities” are a prevailing strategic management issue along with “uncontrolled or inappropriate use of fire,” “invasion by pest species,” and “loss of biodiversity,” the parks are included in the Commonwealth government’s Green Cauldron initiative to promote additional tourist visitation (Australia 2008). The two entities, finally, provide a small number of well-defined gateways and trailheads in each park to facilitate the interception of visitors for sampling.

Questionnaire Design and Distribution

Questionnaire design was informed by the VBN framework, modified to assess willingness to participate rather than actual behavior since many of the solicited activities are hypothetical. Lamington and Springbrook national parks position as the potential “valued places” (Figure 1). Respondent values were assessed by two ecocentrism items (“Australia can support a much larger population than it currently has” and “Technology will solve present and future environmental threats” [both oppositionally worded]) and two altruism items (motivation = “to help make this park a better place for others” and motivation = “to leave a positive mark on the world”). Four items, also 5-point Likert scaled, captured relevant dimensions of belief (“I am not worried about the environment” [oppositionally worded], “Climate change is a serious threat to Australia,” “Australia’s environment is seriously endangered,” “population growth in SE Queensland is a serious threat to the hinterland national parks,” and “belief that I cannot make a difference” as a barrier). Obligation norms were represented by two items (motivation = “to fulfil a moral obligation to help the environment” and motivation = “to carry out my civic duty”). Twenty hypothetical in situ and ex situ enhancement activities were identified through the literature (including Séguin, Pelletier, and Hunsley 1998) and consultation with relevant academic experts. Willingness to pay an entry fee was included because Queensland National Parks do not presently charge such fees. The 17 behavioral and affective loyalty items pertaining to the focus park were informed by Weaver and Lawton (2008). Nine ecotourism items derive from Weaver (2008). Respondents, at the end of the questionnaire, were given the opportunity to provide open-ended comments about any aspect of their willingness.

Figure 1.

Modified VBN (values, beliefs, norms) framework for the study.

Two versions of the final eight-page questionnaire were prepared, differing only in the insertion of the applicable park name. Pilot testing clarified the content and wording, and yielded a near 50% valid response rate despite the absence of an incentive, which it was felt could bias the sample. On randomly designated days balanced appropriately between weekdays (30%) and weekends or holidays (70%), the research assistant approached all individuals appearing to be 18 or older as they exited the park at the trailhead. If they qualified as adults and Australian residents, they were invited to fill in the questionnaire on site or at home with return by a postage-paid envelope. Most opted for the home option. Email or postal contact details for follow-up reminding were not sought from those agreeing to complete the questionnaire, as this was felt to be intrusive, and the good return rate during pilot testing was obtained without this practice.

The study was confined to Australian residents for language comprehension reasons and also because it was assumed that foreign visitors are less likely to cultivate loyalty to an Australian protected area. Both issues became apparent during the pilot, when approached nonresident visitors (from Asia in particular) displayed poor or nonexistent English language skills, and/or declined to participate, perceiving the survey to be personally irrelevant. A web-based option was not provided, because of evidence of differential bias in paper and online survey results (Dolnicar, Laesser, and Matus 2009). Because of unprecedented inclement weather, distribution continued beyond the intended one-year period. Between August 2010 and March 2012, a total of 2,375 questionnaires were distributed equally between the two parks over 105 days. Every three months, the evolving database was examined to assess the similarity of responses between the two parks and between previous three-month collection periods. The Lamington distribution originally included the Green Mountains trailhead (O’Reilly’s ecolodge), but this was abandoned since almost all those intercepted were visiting an adjacent private canopy walkway rather than the National Park itself.

Data Analysis

Aggregate sample characteristics were identified. Participants were then cluster analyzed against the enhancement activity items. “Natural” willingness subgroups within the population cannot be assumed, but clustering is justified to identify relatively uniform subgroups. Ordinal data clustering is not universally recommended (Dolnicar and Leisch 2008), but this is a convention in tourism that yields interpretable outcomes supported by affiliated independent variables (Davis, Allen, and Cosenza 1988; Fredline and Faulkner 2000; Weaver and Lawton 2004, 2008). With no a priori knowledge about the optimum cluster number, the “best” solution emerges from the collective assessment of dendograms, cluster sizes, intercluster comparison of clustered item means, and interpretability (Hair et al. 1995). The clusters were then compared, and their characteristics clarified, against selected demographic, ecotourism, and site loyalty variables. Chi-square and comparison of means tests, as warranted, identified statistically significant intercluster differences. As per Weaver and Lawton (2002), means significantly higher than all other clusters are bolded while significantly lower means are underlined. Principal components analysis of the activities assisted with interpretation, but the resulting factor scores were not used for clustering since these may not accurately represent the data structure (Hair et al. 1995).

Results

By March 31, 2012, a total of 889 questionnaires were returned of which 804 were valid, for an effective response rate of 33.9%. The length may have contributed to the high attrition rate, which contradicted the pilot results. The sample was 53.2% female, 52.1% university-qualified, 28.9% first-time visitors, 50.3 years old on average, and mainly regional residents (35.5% Gold Coast and 37.1% Brisbane). Day-only and weekend visits accounted respectively for 82.2% and 68.9% of the sample. The average group size was 3.79 and the group mode was two. Overall satisfaction was high (mean of 4.49). These outcomes, according to managers, are indicative of visitation at both parks, and no significant differences were identified between the two parks on any of the above variables except for residency; as expected, respondents visiting Lamington National Park, because of greater proximity, were much more likely to be residents of greater Brisbane (49.2%) than those visiting Springbrook National Park (29.6%) (χ² = 35.03, p <.001). No significant differences in response patterns were noted between the three-month questionnaire distribution periods.

Principal components analysis segregated the 20 activities into three factors that accounted for 61.6% of the variance and respectively identified “focused activism” (carried out as main intentions of visits), “incidental activism” (opportunistically carried out during regular visits, and writing letters of support), and “monetary commitments” (Table 1). The focused activism factor captures activities that are traditionally associated with on-site volunteer tourism but also incorporates various off-site options. The incidental activism items, however, yielded by far the highest overall means and the only ones exceeding the neutral threshold of 3.00. Highest willingness pertained to reporting suspicious activity and removing litter while least willingness involved bequests and involvement in interpretation, tour guiding, and helping with off-site fundraising events.

Table 1.

Willingness to Engage in Site Enhancement Activities: Overall and Cluster Means by Factor.

	Clusters
		1	2	3	4	5	6
Items	N = 804	n = 66 (8.2%)	n = 99 (12.3%)	n = 199 (24.8%)	n = 97 (12.1%)	n = 210 (26.2%)	n = 133 (16.5%)
Focused activism willingness (factor 1) 47.3%, Cronbach’s alpha = .945
Z scores	0.000	1.801	0.814	0.542	−0.444	−0.730	−0.833
Encourage others to participate in activities that support the park	2.94	4.61	3.96	3.28	3.29	2.39	1.47
Help remove invasive nonnative vegetation in the park	2.66	4.44	3.61	3.29	2.47	2.00	1.33
Attend events that raise funds to help the park	2.66	4.15	3.55	3.12	2.74	2.15	1.32
Help restore native vegetation in the park	2.58	4.65	3.63	3.25	2.39	1.71	1.30
Participate in on-site scientific research projects	2.54	4.41	3.71	2.91	2.49	1.92	1.19
Work directly with native wildlife	2.54	4.76	3.51	3.20	2.52	1.68	1.09
Help maintain the trails in the park	2.48	4.44	3.34	3.03	2.35	1.72	1.30
Join an organization that actively supports the park	2.39	4.38	3.56	2.68	2.35	1.79	1.11
Attend a rally in Brisbane to support the park	2.25	3.92	3.47	2.24	2.68	1.72	1.07
Serve occasionally as a nature interpreter for park visitors	2.05	4.18	3.11	2.35	1.92	1.32	1.03
Help with off-site fundraising events	2.05	3.42	3.11	2.38	2.02	1.47	1.05
Serve occasionally as a tour guide	2.05	4.12	2.97	2.49	1.79	1.31	1.01
Design interpretive material for park visitors	2.00	3.62	2.86	2.36	1.69	1.48	1.05
Incidental activism willingness (factor 2) 8.6%, Cronbach’s alpha = .737
−Z scores	0.000	0.576	0.190	0.011	0.597	0.133	–1.089
Report to park managers an illegal or suspicious activities that I see during my visits	4.15	4.82	4.51	4.27	4.52	4.20	3.01
Remove litter that I see while walking the trails	4.07	4.89	4.43	4.29	4.40	3.96	2.99
Confront people who are engaging in environmentally harmful activity within the park	3.48	4.62	3.96	3.58	3.75	3.37	2.35
Write a letter of concern to a relevant politician if I found out about a threat to the park	3.32	4.64	4.17	3.47	3.85	3.25	1.53
Monetary commitment willingness (factor 3) 5.7%, Cronbach’s alpha = .572
−Z scores	0.000	0.362	0.778	−0.127	0.517	−0.144	–0.717
Pay an entry fee if I knew the money would be used to help the park	2.98	3.65	3.71	2.54	4.01	2.90	2.15
Make an occasional donation to help the park	2.89	3.77	3.70	3.15	3.58	2.45	1.68
Leave some money to the park in my will	1.87	2.76	2.83	2.12	1.64	1.54	1.02

Note: Values based on a 5-point semantic scale where 5 = “definitely willing” and 1 = “definitely not willing.” Bolding indicates mean that is significantly higher than all other clusters for that item. Underlining indicates mean that is significantly lower than all other clusters for that item. Cronbach’s alpha for all 20 items = .927; overall mean for all 20 items = 2.70. Cluster 1 (“enthused”) = 4.21; cluster 2 (“incidentally enthused”) = 3.59; cluster 3 (“amenables”) = 3.00; cluster 4 (“casually engaged”) = 2.82; cluster 5 (“incidentals”) = 2.22; cluster 6 (“disengaged”) = 1.50.

Clusters

A six-cluster solution best addressed the designated assessment criteria. Members of the first cluster represent 8.2% of the sample and rate positively on both the focused and incidental activism, usually at a value significantly exceeding all other clusters (Table 1). Especially strong relative performance on the focused activism items is reflected in the very high overall factor score of 1.801. Indications of general willingness among these “enthused” respondents include a 35-year-old Gold Coast woman who stated in the open-ended question that “If you organise any programs to help the NP I will be happy to participate” and a 51-year-old Brisbane woman claiming “I would love to help, if I was aware of specific activities in advance so I could plan to be involved. It [Lamington] is a magical place.” Enthusiasm for ex situ engagement was expressed by a 42-year-old Brisbane woman who stated that “even though we are regular visitors I’d prefer to do something I can do from home. The idea of designing material for visitors really appeals to me, being creative as well as having experience with creating documents for an international company.” The entry fee and donation items are weakly positive and bequests weakly negative, but members can still be described as “enthused” because of their overall performance.

By contrast, the “incidentally enthused” (12.3% of the sample) are so named because of positive results on the incidental activism items but more ambivalent means on the focused activism items. Monetary commitment item means are similar to those of the enthused, with one 61-year-old out-of-region woman declaring that she was “happy to pay entry fees, happy to support government initiatives, probably would donate.” Intriguingly, a 63-year-old woman from the Gold Coast believed that while personally unable to volunteer, she was “all for contributing financially to support those who can,” again expressing a preference for ex situ participation.

Members of the third cluster (24.8%) retain a more limited enthusiasm for incidental activism and are ambivalent or negative about focused activism and monetary commitments. As such, they can be labeled as “amenables” with potential to engage in a broader array of activities. One 47-year-old Gold Coast woman stated that “it is easy to report to the ranger [a reference to reporting suspicious activity]. Other tasks are difficult, due to lack of my knowledge in how/who to be involved with.” A 36-year-old Gold Coast man qualified his ambivalence by stating that “I would help in an area that I’m capable and able and passionate about, e.g., media awareness.” One 28-year-old Gold Coast woman supported the extension of opportunistic litter removal into a focused activity, stating “I would like to see designated clean up days for the littering.” However, it was unclear whether she herself would volunteer in such an event. A 52-year-old Brisbane woman reflected that “it [volunteering and donating] would only be worthwhile if Qld government is committed to the park.” Similarly, a 58-year-old Gold Coast woman stated that “I prefer to see professionals looking after the park and to that end think entry fees are a good idea. But if entry fees are introduced and the park is NOT presented well, I’d be very annoyed.”

The fourth cluster (12.1%) is demonstrably negative about focused activism (except for encouraging others) but retains positive attitudes toward incidental activism and ambivalence toward monetary commitment (except for entry fees). Members are therefore described as “casually engaged.” Notably, they display the highest proclivity of any group to pay an entry fee, with a 30-year-old out-of-region woman supporting “nominal fees for park access, [to] support maintenance of environment and help us to remember to value the environment.” Another, a 47-year-old Brisbane woman, asked “Why doesn’t the Queensland government charge a permit fee like NSW or Tasmania to raise adequate revenue for the park?” An interesting form of vicarious engagement was expressed by a 57-year-old Brisbane woman, who said “I love knowing others are caring for this magnificent environment while I spend my time involved in other community work.”

The fifth cluster (26.1%) lacks this monetary proclivity and retains some willingness for incidental activism, but is strongly negative on focused activism and monetary commitments. Hence, members are labeled as “incidentals.” One 55-year-old Brisbane man opined that “Volunteers should not be a substitute for well trained, suitably renumerated staff,” while a 58-year-old Brisbane woman said that she was “happy to help national parks in Queensland but why Springbrook in particular? Maybe if I lived very close I might be more committed to this particular park but there are other issues closer to my home which are more pressing.” A novel form of incidental involvement was expressed by a 53-year-old Brisbane man, who stated that “getting people to form and share personal opinions is sometimes just as valuable as offering hands for involvement.” Another respondent, a 58-year-old out-of-region female, indicated sensitivity to external threats by declaring that she “would protest against closing or a drop in funding for NP.”

Finally, the “disengaged” (16.5%) yielded means significantly lower than the other five clusters on all items as well as the incidental activism and monetary commitment factor scores. Perceptions that park maintenance was a government responsibility were common. Ambivalence was the most positive assessment, and this was directed only to reporting suspicious behavior and picking up litter. One 22-year-old Gold Coast man, for example, stated that “if I see litter I pick it up, but I am not likely to volunteer.” Others felt that they already contributed through their tax dollars, with a 46-year-old Gold Coast man stating that “I contribute a significant amount to tax. I do not feel it necessary to ‘help’ Springbrook NP.” Another “disengaged,” a 48-year-old Gold Coast female, may have been discouraged by a bad past park experience, where “I felt unsafe and did not confront a large group of drunk people and their dogs early in the morning—I did not know who to report this to.”

Figure 2 summarizes the prevailing tendencies for all six clusters on each factor. The “enthused” and “incidentally enthused” can together be described as a “supportive” cohort accounting for about 20% of the sample, while the “amenables” and “casually engaged” together constitute an “ambivalent” cohort representing 37%. Finally, the “incidentals” and “disengaged” form a “nonsupportive” cohort containing 43% of respondents, demonstrating an overall pattern skewed toward unwillingness to participate.

Figure 2.

Cluster synopsis.

Respondent Characteristics

Neither gender nor university qualifications significantly distinguish the clusters (Table 2). Age differences are significant, though the actual range between clusters remains narrowly confined to the “boomer” cohorts. Residence is also significant, with differences being most pronounced among the “disengaged” (cluster 6), where Gold Coast and “rest of Australia” residents are respectively least and most represented. The “incidentally enthused” are also distinctive for high Brisbane and low “rest of Australia” representation.

Table 2.

Respondent Values, Beliefs, and Obligation Norm.

		Clusters
		1	2	3	4	5	6
Variables	N = 804	n = 66 (8.2%)	n = 99 (12.3%)	n = 199 (24.8%)	n = 97 (12.1%)	n = 210 (26.2%)	n = 133 (16.5%)	Test
Value items (ecocentric)
Australia can support a much larger population than it currently has^a	2.75	2.48	2.70	2.82	2.73	2.79	2.74	F = 0.71
Technology will solve present and future environmental threats^a	2.38	2.36	2.46	2.39	2.24	2.37	2.44	F = 0.62
Value items (altruism)
To help make this park a better place for others^b	3.36	4.47	3.96	3.66	3.59	3.04	2.24	F = 67.54**
To leave a positive mark on the world^b	3.03	4.23	3.61	3.40	3.32	2.57	1.96	F = 52.72**
Beliefs
I am not worried about the environment^a	1.96	1.64	1.72	1.94	1.87	2.05	2.26	F = 3.98**
Climate change is a serious threat to Australia^a	3.70	4.20	4.05	3.72	3.94	3.57	3.18	F = 8.96**
Australia’s environment is seriously endangered^a	3.69	4.41	3.98	3.75	3.97	3.53	3.09	F = 16.52**
Population growth in SE Queensland is a serious threat to the hinterland national parks^a	3.52	4.23	3.63	3.64	3.61	3.38	3.07	F = 9.75**
Barrier = “I cannot make a difference”^c	1.86	1.41	1.77	1.91	1.74	1.92	2.05	F = 4.31**
Norm (obligation)
Motivation = “to fulfil a moral obligation to help the environment^b	3.28	4.48	3.92	3.54	3.61	2.91	2.14	F = 62.74**
Motivation = “to carry out my civic duty”^b	2.63	3.41	3.20	2.88	2.72	2.35	1.84	F = 34.10**

Note: Bolding indicates mean that is significantly higher than all other clusters for that item. Underlining indicates mean that is significantly lower than all other clusters for that item.

Statements based on a 5-point scale where 5 = “strongly agree,” 4 = “agree,” 3 = “neutral/not sure,” 2 = “disagree,” 1 = “strongly disagree.”

Motivations based on a 5-point scale where 5 = “strong motivation” and 1 = “no motivation at all.”

Barrier based on a 5-point scale where 5 = “major factor” and 1 = “no factor at all.”

p < .05, **p < .01.

Values, Beliefs, and Norm

Value item responses indicate ambivalent to weakly positive ecocentrism overall (Table 3). However, ecocentric values do not differentiate the clusters while altruistic values yield very strong differentiation, with the “enthused” strongly motivated to help make the park better for other people and to leave a positive mark on the world, and the “disengaged” proportionally unmotivated. Regarding beliefs, respondents worry about the environment and regard climate change as a serious national threat, Australia’s environment as seriously endangered, and population growth in southeastern Queensland as a serious threat to the target parks. Cluster differentiation is highly significant on all these items, although the “enthused” are especially concerned about the impact of regional population growth. Overall responses about making a personal difference reveal high levels of self-empowerment, with the “enthused” again especially positive. With respect to norms, fulfilling a moral obligation to help the environment is more strongly perceived than carrying out one’s civic duty, although the “disengaged” are not motivated by either and the “enthused” are very highly motivated on moral obligation.

Table 3.

Respondent Demographic and Residence Characteristics.

	Clusters
	1	2	3	4	5	6
Variable	n = 66	n = 99	n = 199	n = 97	n = 210	n = 133	Test
Age (mean years)	50.2	46.7	46.0	50.8	53.2	54.3	F = 9.313**
% Female	57.6	51.5	49.2	58.8	54.3	52.6	χ² = 3.192
% University qualifications	53.0	61.6	52.8	56.7	48.6	45.5	χ² = 7.856
Residence
% Gold Coast	43.9	38.4	40.7	34.0	33.5	25.6
% Brisbane	31.8	46.5	36.2	41.2	37.8	30.1	χ² = 33.536**
% Other Australia	24.2	15.2	23.1	24.7	28.7	44.4

p < .05, **p < .01.

Ecotourism Affiliation

Nine items extracted from throughout the survey captured respondent affiliation with soft or hard dimensions of ecotourism. As depicted in Table 4, relationships between ecotourism affiliation and participation in park activism are, conditionally, most salient at the poles of the six-cluster continuum. The “enthused,” accordingly, are far more likely to have participated on the survey distribution date in the typical ecotourism activities of “wildlife viewing/nature study” and “bird watching,” and to identify as a “serious bird watcher.” They are no more likely than most other respondents, however, to have taken a “long bush walk,” which park managers define as at least one hour. Regarding venues, the “enthused” are far more likely to prefer an “undeveloped natural setting” for daytime national park visits and somewhat more likely to not enjoy visiting a big city as much as a national park. Higher sustainability proclivities are also evident in the strong claims to being “an environmentally responsible traveller” and less strong but still positive claims to be an “environmental activist.” Finally, regarding allegations that hard ecotourists eschew services and facilities, the “enthused” are more likely to disagree with the statement about enjoying “creature comforts” during travel, though not to any significantly greater extent than “incidentally enthused,” “amenables,” and “casuals.” At the other extreme of the continuum, the “disengaged” are far less likely than others to have taken a long bush walk, and as similarly negative as the “incidentals” in the eight remaining ecotourism variables.

Table 4.

Respondent Ecotourism Characteristics.

		Clusters
		1	2	3	4	5	6
Items	N = 804	n = 66 (8.2%)	n = 99 (12.3%)	n = 199 (24.8%)	n = 97 (12.1%)	n = 210 (26.2%)	n = 133 (16.5%)	Test
% Taking a long bush walk (>1 hour)	62.1	69.7	72.7	61.3	66.0	62.9	47.4	χ² =19.35**
% Taking wildlife viewing/nature study	24.8	50.0	27.3	23.1	28.9	19.5	18.0	χ² = 30.39**
% Bird watching	13.3	31.8	8.1	14.1	17.5	1.05	8.3	χ² = 27.93**
I prefer an undeveloped natural setting for daytime activities when visiting a national park	3.98	4.74	4.07	4.03	4.14	3.73	3.74	F = 12.76**
I am an environmentally responsible traveler	3.87	4.44	4.02	3.86	3.92	3.75	3.66	F = 7.64**
I enjoy my “creature comforts” when I travel	3.23	2.85	2.94	3.23	3.09	3.39	3.52	F = 7.41**
I do not enjoy visiting a big city as much as I enjoy visiting national parks^a	3.09	3.65	3.13	3.02	3.41	2.90	2.95	F = 4.73**
I consider myself to be an environmental activist	2.42	3.48	2.87	2.51	2.45	2.08	1.92	F = 25.77**
I would describe myself as a serious bird watcher	2.11	2.94	2.15	2.23	2.22	1.90	1.71	F = 13.53**

Note: Values based on a 5-point scale where 5 = “strongly agree,” 4 = “agree,” 3 = “neutral/not sure,” 2 = “disagree,” 1 = “strongly disagree.” Bolding indicates mean that is significantly higher than all other clusters for that item. Underlining indicates mean that is significantly lower than all other clusters for that item.

Reverse coded.

p < .05, **p < .01.

Site Loyalty

High behavioral site loyalty in the overall sample is exhibited especially in recommendation and repeat visit intentions, and in the precursor variable of visit satisfaction, with high means for all clusters (Table 5). In contrast, interest in looking into ways to assist the target park is polarized, and corroborates the cluster outcomes in displaying descending means from a significantly higher “enthused” pole to a significantly lower “disengaged” pole. Polarity, though less pronounced, is also evident in the statement on wanting to visit the park as often as possible. The more supportive clusters also demonstrate high behavioral loyalty on the site interaction variables of repeat visitation, engaging in an “all day” visit on the day of survey distribution, and having walked “most of the trails in this park.” Opposite tendencies occur in the two “nonsupportive” clusters.

Table 5.

Respondent Site Loyalty Characteristics.

		Clusters
		1	2	3	4	5	6
Items	N = 804	n = 66 (8.2%)	n = 99 (12.3%)	n = 199 (24.8%)	n = 97 (12.1%)	n = 210 (26.2%)	n = 133 (16.5%)	Test
Behavioral loyalty items
I would tell other people positive things about this park	4.72	4.91	4.88	4.72	4.75	4.65	4.57	F = 6.40**
I would recommend this park to people who seek my advice	4.70	4.92	4.85	4.69	4.72	4.66	4.56	F = 6.64**
I would visit this park again if I could	4.69	4.92	4.86	4.69	4.74	4.65	4.47	F = 7.93**
I would go out of my way to recommend this park to other people	3.92	4.65	4.36	4.06	4.02	3.77	3.17	F = 28.81**
I like to visit this park as often as I can	3.65	4.53	4.12	3.73	3.58	3.40	2.85	F = 23.44**
I would like to look into ways to help this park	3.25	4.58	4.03	3.51	3.18	2.85	2.17	F = 73.67**
I have walked most of the trails in this park	3.22	4.27	3.59	3.22	3.29	2.97	2.48	F = 12.12**
% First-time visitor	28.9	24.2	17.2	25.3	27.8	30.6	48.9	χ²=33.85**
% “All day” visit	22.3	36.4	33.3	22.2	21.6	19.6	12.0	χ²=46/02**
Mean overall satisfaction	4.49	4.66	4.50	4.54	4.49	4.43	4.41	F = 2.28*
Attitudinal loyalty item
I would be upset if I knew that I could not visit this park again	4.32	4.94	4.60	4.43	4.21	4.25	3.52	F = 17.99**
The existence of this park is important to me^a	4.11	4.73	4.57	4.17	4.04	3.86	3.55	F = 11.91**
This park means a lot to me	3.99	4.78	4.37	4.09	4.01	3.75	3.22	F = 24.33**
I feel emotional attachment to this park^a	3.92	4.67	4.35	3.89	3.99	3.65	3.45	F = 13.12**
I feel a sense of commitment to this park^a	3.80	4.61	4.18	3.94	3.72	3.45	3.28	F = 14.73**
This park is a special place for me	3.49	4.65	4.02	3.61	3.39	3.10	2.70	F = 28.99**
I enjoy experiencing nature at this park more than at any other park	2.80	3.37	3.02	2.91	2.89	2.55	2.33	F = 10.51**
No other place offers the experience that this park offers	2.73	3.51	3.16	2.88	2.63	2.40	2.13	F = 16.88**
No other park can compare with this park	2.58	3.14	2.89	2.68	2.56	2.39	1.39	F = 12.85**
This park is an important part of who I am	2.48	3.53	3.06	2.57	2.34	2.10	1.78	F = 24.28**

Reverse coded

p < .05. **p < .01.

The attitudinal loyalty items exhibit nonexclusive and exclusive dimensions. The former attract generally positive support from all clusters, and especially on statements about being upset if they knew they could not visit the park again, and regarding the park’s existence as personally important. In all these items, however, the “enthused” and “incidentally enthused” yield the strongest positive results. This pattern holds true for the exclusive loyalty items, albeit at a less positive level; the “enthused” array between neutral and positive, the “incidentally enthused” are ambivalent, and the remaining clusters more or less negative.

Discussion

Eight main salient outcomes emerged from this study. First, three factors respectively group the hypothetical activities into (a) focused activism items that amalgamate conventional parameters of in situ volunteering with various ex situ opportunities, (b) incidental activism items that combine options opportunistically pursued during “regular” park visits, and (c) monetary commitment items. Second, overall support for focused activism and monetary commitments is low—particularly for tour guiding and interpretation—but overall support for incidental activism is high. Third, internal differentiation is effectively captured in a six-cluster solution wherein the first two clusters (“enthused” and “incidentally enthused”), constituting about 20% of the sample, are generally supportive of participation, while the last two clusters (“incidentals” and “disengaged” = 43%) are nonsupportive. The two intermediate clusters (“amenables” and “casuals”) are ambivalent and account for about 37% of the sample. Focused activism is strongly supported only by the 8% of respondents who constitute the polar “enthused” cluster. Fourth, the VBN model is supported to the degree that altruistic values, environmental concern, self-empowerment, and sense of obligation diminish in tandem with reduced willingness to participate. Ecocentric tendencies remain consistently ambivalent to weakly positive.

Fifth, the relationship between enthusiasm to participate and ecotourism affiliation is most apparent at the poles, with the “enthused” and “disengaged” respectively showing the most identification with selected hard and soft ecotourism traits. Sixth, site recommendation and repeat visitation parameters of behavioral loyalty are high across the clusters but highest among the two supportive clusters; usage parameters, as with the overall activity pattern, array from strongly positive to negative. Seventh, nonexclusive attitudinal loyalty items are positively assessed across the continuum, but to the highest degree in the two supportive clusters; the exclusive attitudinal loyalty items are negatively perceived overall, with the supportive clusters yielding only weakly positive or ambivalent evaluations. Eighth, age and residency significantly differentiate the clusters, although the overall sample is dominated by baby boomers and residents of the local region.

The Enthused

This study reveals that willingness to participate in conventional in situ protected area volunteering activities such as planting native species, removing exotic plants, maintaining trails, and assisting with scientific research is confined to a small cohort of park visitors who tend to live in the local region and display high levels of behavioral and attitudinal site loyalty (but higher for nonexclusive than exclusive items) as well as the characteristics of hard ecotourists. This association with locality and site loyalty corroborates Stedman (2002), Vorkinn and Riese (2001), and Weaver and Lawton (2008). The “enthused” also support the VBN model (Stern et al. 1999) by displaying strong altruism and concern about local and national environmental issues, believing additionally that they can make a difference through their personal actions, and have a moral environmental obligation to do so. These results indicate a latent core of potential volunteers who could “seed” a more proactive strategy to initiate visitor involvement in direct site enhancement, beyond those already participating in advocacy organizations such as the Lamington Natural History Association.

The enthused, however, are just as ambivalent or weakly positive as other clusters on the two ecocentric items, being for example somewhat undecided about Australia’s capacity to accommodate a much larger population. Altruism therefore seems to be a better predictor of environmental concern, obligation, and willingness than ecocentrism, based on this item array at least. Not all focused activism options, moreover, are equally embraced by the “enthused,” who are notably less willing (though still receptive) to participating in less conventional focused activism involving tour guiding, interpretation, rallies, and fundraising. As evidenced in several of the quotes, this relative reluctance may relate to perceptions that the former require special skills and organization (even though respondents were told in the questionnaire to “assume that training & other support, as appropriate, would be provided”). Park managers, accordingly, could call for visitors with relevant skill sets to participate in these specialized activities.

Another salient issue is age. According to a 63-year-old “enthused” man from Brisbane, “There is an urgent need for renewal of volunteer organisations affiliated with the park—we are mostly grey beards.” Indeed, the average age of the “enthused” was 50. Notably, the volunteer tourism literature focuses on younger adult participants (commonly those in their late teens to late 20s). The results from this study suggest that younger volunteer tourists will persist in their engagement as they age, at least if sufficient parameters of locality and site loyalty are present, and it should be a priority of managers and volunteer organizations to target recruiting the young. One 23-year-old Gold Coast–based enthusiast suggested that this could be facilitated through greater social media (Facebook) exposure, while a 60-year-old nonregional “enthused” man believed strongly that “visits should be encouraged by schools to encourage better understanding by younger generations.”

The Others

The remaining clusters also provide support for the VBN model, with diminishing willingness to participate in all activities being associated with reductions in altruism, environmental concern, perceived ability to reduce environmental threats, sense of obligation to do so, site loyalty, and hard ecotourism affiliation. Levels of diminishment, however, are uneven. An important observation is the extent to which willingness to participate in incidental activism, depicted as a salient in Figure 1, is retained, as per earlier findings of Weaver and Lawton (2002) in Lamington National Park. Even many of the “disengaged” express at least some interest. This salient may serve as a “spearhead of opportunity” in support of Weaver’s (2005a) call to promote symbiosis on a large scale through the expansion of park activism to the large number of “soft ecotourists”—that is, it indicates an opening for almost all visitors to initiate involvement through activities that entail little personal risk, cognitive challenge, or investment of time and other resources, as per the recommendations of Gardner and Stern (1996).

That such latent potential exists, at least among regional residents, is further supported by widespread altruism and concerns about the environment in all the remaining clusters except the “disengaged,” claims in all clusters of being an environmentally responsible traveler, and very high behavioral loyalty related to recommendations and revisitation intentions. Are most of these other visitors therefore latent or “pre-enthused”? And if so, which of the above variables provide the best intervention opportunities to inaugurate the transformation? One possibility, in accordance with Séguin, Pelletier, and Hunsley (1998), is to provide on-site interpretation relating broader environmental threats to the visited protected areas, thereby “visceralizing” the problem. This could be pursued in conjunction with content that appeals to the altruistic inclinations of most visitors and their elevated sense of self-empowerment. Another promising arena, borrowing from the emerging concepts of “serendipitous travel” (Langley and Breese 2005) and the “tourist moment” (Hom Cary 2004), involves facilitating the accidental discovery of volunteering opportunities through encounters with other visitors’ formal or informal participation. In this way, more than through persuasion-oriented techniques, visitors take ownership of the idea and internalize it as a valued part of their travel experience.

Once a habit and new personal benchmark of incidental activism is established through repeated participation, such individuals may become more receptive to personal engagement at the higher level of focused activism, again conditioned on the aforementioned issues of locality and loyalty. As suggested in one comment, converting a form of incidental activism (picking up others’ litter during walks) into a form of low-level focused activism (having a formal litter removal day) may facilitate such a transition, there being no fundamental change in the core activity. Another approach could involve the matching of opportunities with talents of individual visitors, given that several respondents conditioned their willingness accordingly. Such strategies are already being employed to good effect for participants as well as host communities within the broader volunteer tourism sector (Atkins 2012). The age structure of the sample also indicates latent potential for higher levels of involvement as respondents approach retirement and will have time to pursue new activities. As expressed by a 64-year-old Brisbane “casually engaged” visitor, “Reasonably serious (i.e. willingness to help the NP), just getting used to retirement and what I will do.” Concomitantly, the risk implications of incidental and other forms of in situ activism must also be considered. One 47-year-old Brisbane “enthused” man described how “while walking in the park, a person was walking his dog . . . even when told this is not permitted, the person’s thought was ‘piss off.’” Accordingly, it may be appropriate to advise visitors not to initiate such confrontations but to report (and if possible document) misbehavior to authorities.

With regard to entry fees and donations, some respondents were unconditional in their support. Most, however, were conditional, expecting a high standard of management in exchange for their treasure. Universal unwillingness to consider a bequest may therefore owe not only to the much higher financial commitment that would involve, but uncertainty as to how the funds would be disbursed (as well as personal inability to monitor this). For the “disengaged” in particular, unwillingness to pay (and to volunteer) might relate more to perceptions that indirect payment is already being made than to lack of concern about the park. Notably, out-of-state residents were more supportive of an entry fee than Gold Coast residents, who as Queensland residents subsidize the parks through their taxes (F = 5.06, p < .01).

Conclusion

The outcomes, pragmatically, provide a useful first step toward the designation of some existing protected areas in Australia and elsewhere as ecotouriums where research involving willingness to participate in enhancement activities would be incorporated into park mandates and management, as advocated by Fennell and Weaver (2005). Limitations of a sort relate to the exclusion of those residing in the broader regional urban and peri-urban communities near the parks who have never visited the latter. Their direct and indirect support, arguably, is also crucial for the long-term viability of such protected areas. It was further assumed that non-Australian visitors would lack willingness, and they were therefore excluded as well on the basis of pilot test outcomes—hence the current study does not actually focus on “all” visitors. Future studies, clearly, need to engage with both segments as well as visitors less than 18 years old who will dictate future outcomes.

Other limitations include the omission of employment or income questions, which yielded high nonresponse rates and negative reactions on the pilot test. The long period of collection (a 19-month period) increased the likelihood of physical changes in the parks that might skew response patterns, although a comparison of all responses between the first and second halves of the distribution period yielded no statistically significant differences. Confinement of sampling to major trailheads, moreover, excluded “outliers” accessing the park by obscure entrances who may have contributed greater diversity (on both extremes) to the results. Low response rates also merit reflection, given the need to compromise between information richness and respondent tolerance. Indeed, 10 respondents criticized the survey length in the open-ended final question. Attrition of impatient or frustrated individuals may have created a sample bias, increasing the likelihood that the sample is not representative of all domestic park visitors. An incentive might have increased the response rate, but was rejected because of its own bias susceptibilities, attracting for example those interested more in the incentive than the survey topic per se. A viable alternative might have been the presentation of a small gift (e.g., university pen) at the time of distribution. The open-ended comments succeeded in enriching the quantitative responses, but a broader process of interrogating respondents was rejected because of limited finances. Finally, the assessment of altruistic and ecocentric values as per the VBN model was limited to four items, but substantial differences between the two types of value in the response indicate the need to pursue this aspect with a larger set of items.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for support from the Australian Research Council and thanks Chelsea Northrope for her dedication and effectiveness as Research Assistant.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Australian Research Council funded this research under Project DP1093557.

Author Biography

David Bruce Weaver is a professor of tourism research in the Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management at Griffith University, Gold Coast campus, Southport, Queensland, Australia. His areas of focus include sustainable tourism, ecotourism, destination life cycles, and effects of war on tourism.

References

Atkins

Stephen

. (2012). “Smartening-up Voluntourism: SmartAid’s Expansion of the Personality-focused Performance Requirements Form (PPRF).” International Journal of Tourism Research, 14: 369-90.

Australia. (2008). Nature-based tourism boost for Green Cauldron. http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/garrett/2008/mr20081006.html (accessed October 12, 2008).

Blamey

Russell

. (2001). “Principles of Ecotourism.” In Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, edited by Weaver

David

. Wallingford, UK: CABI, pp. 5-22.

Brightsmith

Donald

. (2008). “Rainforest Expeditions and Earthwatch as Funding Partners for Macaw (Ara spp.) Research in Southeastern Peru.” Ornitologia Neotropical, 19: 173-81.

Brightsmith

Donald

Stronza

Amanda

Holle

Kurt

. (2008). “Ecotourism, Conservation Biology, and Volunteer Tourism: A Mutually Beneficial Triumvirate.” Biological Conservation, 141: 2832-42.

Budowski

Gerardo

. (1976). “Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict, Coexistence or Symbiosis?” Environmental Conservation, 31: 27-31.

Bushell

Robyn

Eagles

P. Paul

(eds.). (2007). Tourism and Protected Areas: Benefits beyond Boundaries. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Coghlan

Alexandra

Gooch

Margaret

. (2011). “Applying a Transformative Learning Framework to Volunteer Tourism.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19: 713-28.

Davies

Jenny

. (2002). “Exploring Open Spaces and Protecting Natural Places.” Journal of Ecotourism, 1: 173-80.

10.

Davis

Duane

Allen

Jeff

Cosenza

Robert

. (1988). “Segmenting Local Residents by Their Attitudes, Interests and Opinions toward Tourism.” Journal of Travel Research, 27 (2): 2-8.

11.

Davis

Duane

Tisdell

Clem

. (1998). “Tourist Levies and Willingness to Pay for a Whale Shark Experience.” Tourism Economics, 5: 161-74.

12.

Dolnicar

Sara

Laesser

Christian

Matus

Katrina

. (2009). “Online versus Paper: Format Effects in Tourism Surveys.” Journal of Travel Research, 47: 295-316.

13.

Dolnicar

Sara

Leisch

Friedrich

. (2008). “An Investigation of Tourists’ Patterns of Obligation to Protect the Environment.” Journal of Travel Research, 46: 381-91.

14.

Dwyer

Larry

Edwards

Deborah

. (2000). “Nature-based Tourism on the Edge of Urban Development.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8: 267-87.

15.

Eagles

Paul

McCool

Stephen

Haynes

Christopher

. (2002). Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN – World Conservation Union.

16.

Fennell

David

Weaver

David

. (2005). “The Ecotourium Concept and Tourism-Conservation Symbiosis.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13: 373-90.

17.

Fredline

Elizabeth

Faulkner

Bill

. (2000). “Host Community Reactions: A Cluster Analysis.” Annals of Tourism Research, 27: 763-84.

18.

Galley

Georgina

Clifton

Julian

. (2004). “The Motivational and Demographic Characteristics of Research Ecotourists: Operation Wallacea Volunteers in Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia.” Journal of Ecotourism, 3: 69-82.

19.

Gardner

Gerald

Stern

Paul

. (1996). Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

20.

Hair

Joseph

Anderson

Rolf

Tatham

Ronald

Black

William

. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

21.

Hawkins

Donald

Lamoureux

Kristen

Clemmons

David

. (2005). “Voluntourism as a Catalyst for Developing the Potential of Tourism Destinations.” TedQual, 7 (1): 13-17.

22.

Hom Cary

Stephanie

. (2004). “The Tourist Moment.” Annals of Tourism Research, 31: 61-77.

23.

IFA. (2005). Conservation and Management of Rainforests – IFA Forestry Policy Statement No. 1.1. http://www.forestry.org.au/pdf/pdf-public/policies/Statement-v1-1-Rainforests.pdf (accessed June 28, 2012).

24.

James

Alexander

. (1999). “Institutional Constraints to Protected Area Funding.” Parks, 9 (2): 15-26.

25.

Kyle

Gerard

Mowen

Andrew

Tarrant

Michael

. (2004). “Linking Place Preferences with Place Meaning: An Examination of the Relationship between Place Motivation and Place Attachment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24: 439-54.

26.

Langley

Crolyn

Breese

Jeffrey

. (2005). “Interacting Sojourners: A Study of Students Studying Abroad.” Social Science Journal, 42: 313-21.

27.

McGehee

Nancy

. (2002). “Alternative Tourism and Social Movements.” Annals of Tourism Research, 29: 124-43.

28.

Mezirow

Jack

. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29.

Niininen

Outi

Szivas

Edith

Riley

Michael

. (2004). “Destination Loyalty and Repeat Behaviour: An Application of Optimum Stimulation Measurement.” International Journal of Tourism Research, 6: 439-47.

30.

Orams

Mark

. (1995). “Towards a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism.” Tourism Management, 16: 3-8.

31.

Orams

Mark

. (1997). “The Effectiveness of Environmental Education: Can We Turn Tourists into ‘Greenies’?” Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3: 295-306.

32.

O’Sullivan

Edmund

. (1999). Transformative Learning: Education Vision for the 21st Century. London: Zed Books.

33.

Palacio

Vincent

McCool

Stephen

. (1997). “Identifying Ecotourists in Belize through Benefit Segmentation: A Preliminary Analysis.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5: 234-43.

34.

Propst

Dennis

Jackson

Dayle

McDonough

Maureen

. (2003). “Public Participation, Volunteerism and Resource-based Recreation Management in the U.S.—What Do Citizens Expect?” Society and Leisure, 26: 389-415.

35.

Scott

Daniel

. (2011). “Why Sustainable Tourism Must Address Climate Change.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11: 17-34.

36.

Séguin

Chantal

Pelletier

Luc

Hunsley

John

. (1998). “Toward a Model of Environmental Activism.” Environment and Behavior, 30: 628-52.

37.

Stedman

Richard

. (2002). “Toward a Social Psychology of Place: Predicting Behavior from Place-Based Cognitions, Attitude, and Identity.” Environment and Behavior, 34: 561-81.

38.

Stern

Paul

. (2000). “Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.” Journal of Social Issues, 56: 407-24.

39.

Stern

Paul

Dietz

Thomas

Abel

Troy

Guagnano

Gregory

Kalof

Linda

. (1999). “A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmental Concern.” Human Ecology Review, 6: 81-97.

40.

Tisdell

Clem

Wilson

Clevo

. (2005). “Perceived Impacts of Ecotourism on Environmental Learning and Conservation: Turtle Watching as a Case Study.” Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7: 291-302.

41.

Tourism Research Australia. (2012). March 2012 Quarterly Results of the National Visitor Survey. http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/tra/National%20Visitor%20Survey/Travel-by-Australians-March-2012.pdf (accessed August 27, 2012).

42.

UNESCO. (2003). Australian National Periodic Report. Section II: Report on the State of Conservation of the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves of Australia. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/periodicreporting/APA/cycle01/section2/368.pdf (accessed January 14, 2009).

43.

Vorkinn

Marit

Riese

Hanne

. (2001). “Environmental Concern in a Local Context: The Significance of Place Attachment.” Environment and Behavior, 33: 249-63.

44.

Wearing

Stephen

. (2001). Volunteer Tourism: Experiences That Make a Difference. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

45.

Weaver

David

. (2001). “Ecotourism as Mass Tourism: Contradiction or Reality?” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42 (2): 104-12.

46.

Weaver

David

. (2005a). “Comprehensive and Minimalist Dimensions of Ecotourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 32: 439-55.

47.

Weaver

David

. (2005b). “Mass and Urban Ecotourism: New Manifestations of an Old Concept.” Tourism Recreation Research, 30 (1): 19-26.

48.

Weaver

David

. (2008). Ecotourism, 2nd ed. Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.

49.

Weaver

David

Lawton

Laura

. (2001). “Resident Perceptions in the Urban-Rural Fringe.” Annals of Tourism Research, 28: 439-58.

50.

Weaver

David

Lawton

Laura

. (2002). “Overnight Ecotourist Market Segmentation in the Gold Coast Hinterland of Australia.” Journal of Travel Research, 40: 270-80.

51.

Weaver

David

Lawton

Laura

. (2004). “Visitor Attitudes toward Tourism Development and Product Integration in an Australian Urban-rural Fringe.” Journal of Travel Research, 42: 286-96.

52.

Weaver

David

Lawton

Laura

. (2008). “Perceptions of a Nearby Exurban Protected Area in South Carolina, USA.” Environmental Management, 41: 389-97.

53.

Weiler

Betty

Richins

Harold

. (1995). “Extreme, Extravagant and Elite: A Profile of Ecotourists on Earthwatch Expeditions.” Tourism Recreation Research, 20 (1): 29-36.