Environmental Attitudes and Tourist Satisfaction in Overloaded Natural Protected Areas

Abstract

Positive attitudes toward the natural environment are supposedly associated with higher levels of satisfaction in the visitation of natural protected areas. However, this relationship has not yet been thoroughly investigated. A reasonable alternative hypothesis can be considered in the case of overloaded natural protected areas (i.e., with high levels of visitation and infrastructure). Too many people and abundant facilities in natural areas could eliminate the effect of the pro-environmental attitude on satisfaction. Environmentalist visitors might feel the area has been spoilt by crowds and overconstruction, or simply they might not find the close contact with nature they were looking for. These concurrent hypotheses were tested using data from 434 interviews conducted with long-haul tourists visiting the Iguaçu National Park in Brazil. The results showed that, despite the crowds and large-scale infrastructure in the park, environmentalists are still more satisfied than nonenvironmentalists with the visitation experience. Managerial implications are discussed.

Keywords

satisfaction natural protected areas overcrowding Iguaçu National Park Brazil

Introduction

Tourist visitation to natural protected areas (NPA) can bring about positive outcomes such as the provision of services to society—by offering leisure and education opportunities—and revenues to manage and support conservation programs (Leung et al. 2018). Balmford et al. (2015) estimated that natural protected areas (NPA) around the world receive roughly 8 billion visits every year, generating approximately US$600 billion of revenues and US$250 of consumer surplus. The increasing awareness of these benefits has led scholars and practitioners to emphasize the importance of visitation to NPAs. In this context, and following the tendency observed in other services, much attention has been paid to the analysis of visitor satisfaction with NPAs (Akama and Kieti 2003; Hwang, Lee, and Chen 2005; Rathnayake 2016; Thapa and Lee 2017). Satisfaction is important because it is an indicator of the quality of leisure and education services provided to society. Moreover, satisfaction is essential to boost demand since it increases intention to revisit and recommend the NPA to friends and relatives (Lee, Graefe, and Burns 2004; Rodger, Taplin, and Moore 2015; Taplin, Rodger, and Moore 2016), and to make online positive reviews (Hosany et al. 2016; Prayag et al. 2015).

Visitation to natural areas is an experience associated not only with objective aspects, but also with symbolic elements influenced by psychological, social, cultural, moral, and aesthetic factors. The ideal natural protected area is different in each person’s mind (Tuan 1990). These differences among individuals lead to different desires and expectations related to the visitation experience (Beh and Bruyere 2007; Galloway 2002; Gu et al. 2018; Jensen, Li, and Uysal 2017; Jurowski, Uysal, and Noe 1993). Consequently, visitors of a specific NPA have varied levels of satisfaction, which result from the combination of opportunities offered by the NPA, and the profile and expectations of visitors.

Different variables can be employed to differentiate, segment, and understand visitor satisfaction with NPA, including sociodemographic and motivational aspects (Fennell 2014; Formica and Uysal 2001). Psychographic is another segmentation approach that has provided useful insights into the tourist behavior and satisfaction (Iversen, Hem, and Mehmetoglu 2016). Studies have shown that environmental beliefs, values, and attitudes explain a large share of differences among individuals regarding nature visitation (Blamey and Braithwaite 1997; Formica and Uysal 2001; Jani 2018; Mehmetoglu 2007b; Zografos and Allcroft 2007).

However, research on the relationship between environmental attitudes and visitation to natural areas has focused on visitor motivation and demographic characteristics. Studies have shown that pro-environmental attitudes of individuals is, in fact, a relevant factor in understanding the difference between truly ecotourists and mere visitors to natural areas (Cheung and Fok 2014a, 2014b; Chiu, Lee, and Chen 2014; Kil, Holland, and Stein 2014). Much of the existing research has focused on the demographic profile of individuals (e.g., Formica and Uysal 2001) and on visit or travel motivation (e.g., Luo and Deng 2008). The possible relationships between environmental attitudes and post-visit variables, such as satisfaction, memory, and intention to revisit and recommend, have not been yet been thoroughly investigated. In particular, the relationship between visitors’ environmental attitude and satisfaction with the visitation to natural areas is interesting because of the variety of possible results. Environmental attitudes of tourists are heterogeneous, with segments in favor of limiting tourism to the carrying capacity of nature and, at the other extreme, those who believe that human needs take precedence over environmental concerns (Luo and Deng 2008; Uysal et al. 1994).

Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between environmental attitudes and visitor satisfaction with overloaded NPAs. For this purpose, data were collected from visitors to the Iguaçu National Park (INP), Brazil, one of the most visited protected areas in the country and with the largest infrastructure (Gândara et al. 2013). The INP is considered to be overloaded because of its extensive visitation infrastructure and its massive number of visitors, features that are opposed to the usual image of a natural area (Mehmetoglu 2007a; Fennell 2014). The research analyzed data from a sample of 434 long-haul tourists using structural equation modeling.

Environmental Attitudes and Tourists

Growing concern about the environment and the limits of the Earth, especially since the 1970s, had a strong impact on individuals’ beliefs, culture, and behavior (WCED 1987). Environmentalism has thus become an important characteristic of part of the population, used as a segmentation variable in many studies (Corraliza and Berenguer 2000; Sharma and Bansal 2013). Pro-environmental worldview was conceptualized from different perspectives, including beliefs, values, and attitudes toward nature (Pirages and Ehrlich 1974). The relationship between environmental attitudes and visitation of natural areas has been the subject of research aimed at understanding how this worldview relates to motivation and behavior (e.g., Luo and Deng 2008; Uysal et al. 1994). Some of the most relevant studies in this field are discussed in the following to elucidate how environmental attitudes might be related to NPAs’ visitor satisfaction.

In a pioneering study, Uysal et al. (1994) used the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978; Dunlap et al. 2000) to examine the relationship between environmental attitudes and demographic and behavioral characteristics of tourists. The results showed significant demographic and behavioral differences as a function of environmental attitudes. In particular, the study revealed that the more environmentally concerned individuals are more interested in expanding the preservation efforts in the park, while the more anthropocentric group prefers that improvements be made to the beaches.

Formica and Uysal (2001) segmented visitors based on environmental attitudes. Drawing on the NEP scale, three groups were identified: conservationists, anthropocentrics, and optimists. Conservationists have a strong sense that natural resources are limited, but they believe that humans can manage them properly. Anthropocentrics also believe in man’s ability to act on nature, but without a clear notion of the limits of natural resources. Finally, optimists recognize that humans do not have full control over nature, but they believe in the endless capacity of nature to renew itself. The results showed significant differences in terms of destinations visited and travel behavior. Conservationists presented a strong tendency to choose nature-based destinations.

Zografos and Allcroft (2007) analyzed a sample of visitors to different natural areas of Scotland. The authors identified four segments with varying mixes of four distinct values: criticisms of current human attitudes and action toward nature, confidence in the ability of human ingenuity to control nature, belief in species equality, and concern with the limits of natural resources. The study found behavioral differences in visitation to natural areas between the segments. For example, those who are not concerned about the limits of natural resources and trust in human ingenuity to act upon nature tend to be more engaged in physical activities such as hiking, while others tend to nature contemplation.

Mehmetoglu (2007b) collected data from visitors to nature-based attractions in Norway. Three consumer segments were identified according to trip activity: (1) culture and pleasure activity oriented, (2) nature activity oriented, and (3) low activity oriented. There were significant differences in travel motivations. The nature activity–oriented segment, for example, showed a greater tendency toward physical activity motivation, while individuals in the culture and pleasure segment were more motivated by social contact and novelty.

Luo and Deng (2008) examined the relationship between environmental attitudes and motivations of visitors to a National Park in China. The level of environmental concern was measured using the NEP scale. The authors found that individuals who are more supportive of limits to growth and concerned about the ecological crisis tend to have a greater desire to be close to nature, to learn about nature, and to escape from routine, and issues associated with cities.

Iversen, Hem, and Mehmetoglu (2016) investigated the relationship between individual values and travel motivations. Six different values were considered: materialism, uncertainty avoidance, horizontal individualism (search for individual nonhierarchical differentiation), vertical individualism (search for hierarchical individual differentiation, i.e., status), horizontal collectivism (search for harmonious relationships between individuals), and vertical collectivism (search for hierarchical relationships between social groups). The authors identified three segments of the consumer market: (1) nature and novelty, (2) status, and (3) relaxation. The segments varied significantly in behavioral intentions and evaluated the destination differently. In particular, the segment called “nature and novelty” evaluated the Norwegian fjords more positively and showed a greater tendency to recommend the region than other segments.

Human Interference in Nature and Visitor Satisfaction

The basic motivation for visiting NPAs is the opportunity to enjoy outstanding views (Eagles 1992; Kim et al. 2015), visit specific attractions of the biotic and abiotic environment (Eagles 1992), and to have contact with nature (Mehmetoglu 2007a; Normann and Mehmetoglu 2013). There is a wide range of nature-based tourism activities, with a corresponding variety of visitor profiles. Visitors choose natural settings with different levels of man-made infrastructure to mediate their enjoyment of the tourist experience, or according to their needs or limitations. In this context, different tourist profiles interested in NPAs (Cini, Leone, and Passafaro 2010; Fennell 2014; Luo and Deng 2008; Meric and Hunt 1998)—and even of occasional visitors—emerge. The variety in demand, as well as different policies and strategies for environmental conservation and use in different countries and over time, gave rise to NPAs intended for public use with different levels of interference in the environment.

On the supply side, visitor infrastructure in NPAs varies in terms of intensity and magnitude of man-made alterations. Facilities are built as a result of increased demand, to respond to the growth of visitation as a natural area becomes popular (Fennell 2014; Tyrväinen et al. 2014). This was the case of Plitvice Lakes National Park in Croatia (Iankova 2014; Sremac, Božičević, and Marković 2012) and Pamukkale Travertines in Turkey (Altunel and D’Andria 2019; Simsek et al. 2000). The two sites, similarly to the INP, are natural sites inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List that have become world-class destinations (Conradin, Engesser, and Wiesmann 2015; Cravidão et al. 2018). In these and other cases, an increase in visitation might be detrimental to conservation goals and in which case two types of measures can be taken. One type is increasing restrictions on the use of the environment. In both Plitvice and Pamukkale, access to natural pools for bathers was restricted, in whole or in part, to reduce the impacts of visitation. The second type of measure is to change the visitation infrastructure. In the mentioned parks, structural expansion strategies were adopted to accommodate an increasing number of visitors, and the range of services provided to tourists increased.

While these strategies can be considered positive, both to protect the environment (Leung et al. 2018) and to improve the quality of experience for users of natural areas (Sandifer, Sutton-Grier, and Ward 2015), it can also have a detrimental effect on some groups of visitors. More environmentally friendly tourists and even adventure tourists—who can be classified as allocentric or venturer tourists in Plog’s scale (Plog 1974, 2002), based on the definition by Hashimoto (2016)—who seek closer and less mediated contact with the destination, can be more dissatisfied with popular, overbuilt NPAs, which fail to conform to their “ideals of nature” (Waitt, Lane, and Head 2003).

Therefore, an examination is needed for issues addressed in the literature on travel motivations and ecotourist preferences. As an example, in a study in Hong Kong, Cheung and Jim (2013) found that the most influential factors in destination choice were high ecological value and good environmental management. Site facilities and accessibility were considered less important. Another highlight was the concern of young people interviewed with the impact of the activities carried out. In a larger study in West Virginia, Deng and Li (2015) found that 22.2% (12 million) visitors to the state self-identified as ecotourists. They were found to be more environmentally concerned and responsible, more dedicated to nature, as well as more likely to patronize environmentally committed companies. A third example, Queiroz, Guerreiro, and Ventura (2014) surveyed visitors to the Azores archipelago, identifying that 41.1% were attracted by the natural attributes of the islands. Of these, the majority (95.55%) preferred to keep the comforts of an urban life, which was observed by the type of accommodation chosen. This aspect indicates a possible trend reversal in the profile of tourists interested in NPAs in some destinations, ranging from allocentric to psychocentric of Plog’s continuum.

Furthermore, the tourism management of NPAs should also be examined. Drawing on domestic examples, the Brazilian guidelines define that it is acceptable to have large tourism facilities in NPAs, considering that these should commensurate with the flow of visitors (Turismo 2010). The same approach is followed by the government of Queensland, Australia, which defines the nature and scale of tourism operations in small, medium, or large NPAs according to the supply and demand characteristics of the area visited (Department of National Parks 2015). Following the same line of the local conceptual framework, but going further in analyzing the consequences of visitor facilities, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) admits the possibility of using more robust infrastructures in NPAs (Leung et al. 2018). In these and other cases, it is necessary to make the visitation infrastructure compatible with the tourist demand for NPA. On the other hand, the expansion of the infrastructure itself ends up serving as a stimulus to increase the volume of visitors. In these cases, the situation of a protected natural area overloaded with visitors can be observed, which goes beyond the discussion of the tourist carrying capacity (Lück 2002; Fennell 2014). This is because increases in the number of visitors, even within the acceptable visitation limits, can generate a feeling of crowding among the visitors, especially in a natural area where expectations are often more linked to isolation than to crowds (Luo and Deng 2008).

However, the IUCN warns about the negative environmental impacts of this practice, such as increased pollution and habitat fragmentation. It also recommends the adoption of management strategies to produce good experiences of visitation with the least possible degree of interference, so as not to degenerate the visited environment. When this is not possible or when robust infrastructure already exists, it is suggested that the carrying capacity be determined so as to avoid overcrowding and harming the quality of visitor experience (Leung et al. 2018). In fact, large-scale visitor infrastructure is found in several protected areas around the world, such as the case under study—INP, with 1.9 million visitors in 2018—the aforementioned Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia), which received 1.7 million visitors in 2017 (Croatia Ministry of Tourism 2018), and Yellowstone National Park—the first NPA of this category created in the world— which received little over 4 million visitors annually between 2015 and 2018 (US National Park Service 2019). It is important to note that such volume of visitors does not define these and other similar destinations as mass tourism since other motivational and behavioral aspects must be considered in the analysis of large-scale tourism in NPAs (Lück 2002).

Turning the focus to visitors, no correlations were found between the intensity and quantity of visitor infrastructure and its direct impact on satisfaction. This might be explained by the fact that current generations of tourists interested in NPAs—although falling into the allocentric type (Fennell 2014)—are more accustomed to other levels of comfort in their everyday urban environments (Mehmetoglu 2007a), living in a highly technological society, and having access to multiple services and entertainment options. This raises the possibility that by giving up technology and daily comfort, such consumers may feel that they are leaving their urban environment and, in that way, they are returning to a more primitive way of life. In this context, visiting an overloaded NPA may not be as problematic as it was a few decades ago. If confirmed, this trend shows a change in the profile of the tourist interested in NPAs, as to their customs, preferences, and tolerance to anthropogenic transformations.

Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

The main objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between consumers’ environmental attitudes and satisfaction with visitation to natural areas. Based on the initial analysis of the conceptual relationship between the two variables the first research hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis 1a: Visitors with pro-environmental attitudes tend to be more satisfied with the experience at overloaded natural protected areas.

However, in some contexts, this relationship can be challenged or refuted. Particularly, it can be assumed that the positive relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and satisfaction decreases in overloaded NPAs, with large-scale visitor infrastructure and many visitors. In this case, one might think that the natural character of the area is degraded by human intervention. The area becomes less natural, and therefore less attractive to environmentally concerned individuals. In addition, excessive human interference can generate a negative reaction because of visitors’ normative expectations. In other words, individuals with pro-environmental attitudes can be less satisfied because of perceived aggression to the environment caused by excessive visitors and facilities. These instrumental and expressive negative factors can affect satisfaction (Noe and Uysal 1997), leading the effect of pro-environmental attitudes on visitor satisfaction to be the opposite of that stated in hypothesis 1a. In this way, an alternative hypothesis is presented for the specific case of overloaded natural areas.

Hypothesis 1b: Visitors with pro-environmental attitudes tend to be less satisfied with the experience at overloaded natural protected areas.

The test of the alternative hypothesis on the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and visitor satisfaction with overloaded natural areas is at the heart of the present study. However, this relationship can be affected by other variables. It should be recognized that natural areas can be visited for different reasons, leading to different levels of satisfaction (Devesa, Laguna, and Palacios 2010; Jensen, Li, and Uysal 2017; Ross and Iso-Ahola 1991; Yoon and Uysal 2005). Visiting the natural area can be the main or only a secondary reason for traveling. Individuals whose main motivation of the trip was the visitation of the natural area tend to be more satisfied with this experience than those whose visitation was only an offshoot of a trip motivated by other elements. elements. On the other hand, environmental attitudes are often associated with the visitation or travel motivation (Iversen, Hem, and Mehmetoglu 2016; Luo and Deng 2008; Mehmetoglu 2007b). Individuals with pro-environmental attitudes are more likely to visit the natural area as their main travel motivation. Thus, people with pro-environmental attitudes are likely to be more satisfied with the visitation of a natural area because of the motivation effect. In other words, motivation is likely to mediate the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and satisfaction with the visitation of an NPA. This indirect effect can offset the possible direct negative effect of pro-environmental attitudes on satisfaction. Thus, the mediating variable of motivation is included in the measurement model of the relationship between environmental attitudes and satisfaction, as presented in Figure 1. It is worthy to stress that this model describes a particular context where NPAs are overloaded, that is, with high levels of visitation and infrastructure.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of visitor satisfaction with overloaded natural areas.

Location and Method of Data Collection

To test the relationship between environmental attitudes, nature-related travel motivations, and visitor satisfaction with overloaded natural areas, a survey was conducted with visitors to INP in Brazil. This national park was chosen as study area because of its large-scale visitor infrastructure. Created in 1939, the park houses the Iguaçu Falls, a group of more than 250 waterfalls on the border between Brazil and Argentina. Recognized as a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the INP received almost 1.9 million visitors in 2018, including more than 870,000 foreigners.

The INP is a rare example of an overloaded protected natural area, with large-scale visitor infrastructure, in Brazil. Man-made elements in the landscape do not go unnoticed. At the entrance of the park, there is a visitor center with ticket office, parking lot, souvenir shop, cafeteria, restrooms, banking station, cultural space, park bus, and other facilities. The 11-km distance between the visitor center and the park attractions is made by bus along a paved road. The main trail is the Path of the Falls. It is a 1.2 km long concrete paved trail, with wooden and metal safety railings. Along its length, there are stairways and viewpoints to the falls, ending on a walkway that approaches the main fall, the Devil’s Throat. The trail facilities include two kiosks, three souvenir shops, a fast food outlet, a café, and a restaurant. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate aspects of the existing facilities in the INP.

Figure 2.

Ticket office in the Iguaçu National Park (INP).

Figure 3.

Devil’s Throat walkway.

Visitors to INP were surveyed with a self-administered questionnaire. The target population consisted of long-haul tourists to try to include only those whose main objective was to visit the INP. The Brazilian, Argentine, and Paraguayan visitors were left out because their visit to the INP frequently is an offshoot of a trip taken for other purposes. In this way, tourists more involved with the visit were prioritized. Also, by targeting long-haul tourists, the study sought to minimize the interference of the regional culture, aiming at favoring generalization of the results.

Paper questionnaires were distributed in 2017 by a single researcher at the departure lounge of the airport of the city of Foz do Iguaçu, the exit gate for the vast majority of international tourists. Only individuals aged 18 years and older who visited Foz do Iguaçu for leisure purposes were interviewed. Data collection took 45 nonconsecutive days, and the response rate was about 90%. Regarding the visit to the INP, only those who had visited the Path of the Falls Trail were selected. A total of 434 questionnaires were collected.

The questionnaire included a few sociodemographic questions and measurement items of constructs. The environmental attitudes were measured by a four-item scale adapted from the NEP scale reviewed by Dunlap et al. (2000). It should be noted that the NEP scale is one of the most widely used measures of pro-environmental beliefs (Hawcroft and Milfont 2010). Satisfaction was measured by a three-item scale suggested in the review conducted by Bruner II (2009). Pro-environmental attitudes and satisfaction were measured in 5-point Likert scales from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The nature-based travel motivation was measured using the scale developed by Mehmetoglu (2007b). This scale consisted of three items on a 5-point scale ranging from “not at all important” to “very important.” It is relevant to stress that the high overload condition was objective rather than subjective. The INP is highly visited and full of infrastructure as compared to other Brazilian and even foreign NPAs. Thus, rather than a variable, overload was a circumstance affecting all observations. Analyzing satisfaction under objective overload, rather than the subjective perception of overload, is relevant because it is what managers will decide on (i.e., number of visitors and facilities).

Analysis of the Results

Of the 434 participants in the survey, 61% were men. Tourists from 31 different countries were surveyed, 65% from Europe, 14% from North America, 10% from Asia, and 11% from other parts of the world.

The first stage of data processing sought to identify and eliminate multivariate outliers. The Mahalanobis distance was calculated for each case and those with a probability of less than 0.001 were excluded. A total of 30 cases were excluded. Kurtosis values above 7 for the second item of the satisfaction scale indicates non-normality (West, Finch, and Curran 1995).

A summated rating scale was calculated for the environmental attitudes items. A two-step cluster analysis revealed the existence of 3 groups, which could be called environmentalists ( $\bar{x}$ = 19.8), nonenvironmentalists ( $\bar{x}$ = 12.5), and moderates ( $\bar{x}$ = 16.6). The environmentalist group corresponds to 51% of the sample, the nonenvironmentalist to 23%, and the moderate to 26%.

The analysis of variance of satisfaction means across the three groups of environmental attitudes revealed significant differences (p < 0.001). However, the t-test applied to the difference between nonenvironmentalist and moderate groups showed no differences (p = 0.936). Conversely, there was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) difference in satisfaction between moderates and environmentalists. Thus, the first analysis suggests that the level of pro-environmental attitudes is relevant to explain visitor satisfaction, environmentalists being more satisfied than moderates and nonenvironmentalists.

A more consistent test of the main hypothesis was conducted using structural equation modeling. The data were tested for multivariate normality by using multivariate kurtosis (Mardia 1970, 1974). A statistic of 171 showed nonfulfillment of this condition, requiring the estimation of the structural equation model with the asymptotic distribution-free (ADF) estimator of Browne (1984).

A measurement model was estimated to assess both the convergent and the discriminant validity of the scales. The convergent validity of the three scales was supported by the statistical significance of all relationships between the items and their respective latent constructs at the 0.001 level (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Discriminant validity was assessed by constraining the correlation of each pair of constructs to 1 and comparing the chi-square value of each restricted model to the complete model (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The values obtained in the restricted models were significantly higher, confirming the discriminant validity of the scales.

In the following step, a structural model was estimated according to the conceptual model presented in Figure 1. The model achieved good fit indices: root mean square residual = 0.024; goodness of fit index = 0.965; adjusted goodness of fit index = 0.940; normed fit index = 0.925; incremental fit index = 0.985; Tucker–Lewis index = 0.979; comparative fit index = 0.985; parsimony ratio = 0.711; parsimonious normed fit index = 0.658; parsimonious comparative fit index = 0.700; root mean square error of approximation = 0.024. Thus, the results obtained indicate the validity of the model. Estimates of the relationships between the items of each scale and their latent construct are presented in the appendix. Table 1 shows the estimates of the relationships between the model constructs.

Table 1.

Relationships between Constructs.

Relationship	Standardized Regression Weight	StandardDeviation	p Value
Environmental attitudes → Satisfaction	0.262	0.0601	<0.01
Environmental attitudes → Motivation	0.286	0.0505	<0.01
Motivation → Satisfaction	0.326	0.0622	<0.01

The estimated relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and satisfaction is positive and significant, providing support to hypothesis 1a and rejecting hypothesis 1b. Therefore, despite large-scale visitor infrastructure in the INP, and consequent distancing of visitors from nature, individuals with higher pro-environmental attitudes were more satisfied with the visiting experience than those with lower pro-environmental attitudes.

The estimated relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and nature-based motivations to visit the INP is positive and significant, consistent with expectations and with findings of previous research (Iversen, Hem, and Mehmetoglu 2016; Luo and Deng 2008; Mehmetoglu 2007b). Finally, the relationship between nature-based motivations and visitor satisfaction is also positive and significant. Therefore, tourists more motivated by nature-related issues tend to be more satisfied with visiting the INP. It is important to note that, even if the direct standardized effect of environmental attitudes is 20% smaller than the effect of motivation, the environmental attitudes are more important in total terms. The total standardized effect of environmental attitudes is 20% larger than the effect of motivation.

Pro-environmental attitudes have a direct influence on satisfaction, but also an indirect relationship mediated by motivation. The direct effect is characterized by a tendency toward visitor satisfaction due to pro-environmental attitudes. The indirect effect refers to visitor satisfaction of environmentalists due to their tendency to have nature-based motivations. The indirect effect of pro-environmental attitudes through motivation increases the total observed effect, allowing inattentive overestimations of the actual direct effect. This is why including motivation in the model was so important. The standardized direct effect (0.262) accounts for 74% of the total effect (0.355), while the remaining 26% is attributed to the indirect effect.

In order to assess the possible influence of response bias related to cultural and linguistic diversity of the sample, the model was re-estimated with a subsample of 209 visitors from English-speaking countries. The statistical results were very similar and all qualitative conclusions derived from estimates were the same. Therefore, despite the cultural heterogeneity of the sample, findings showed to be robust.

Discussion and Implications

Visitor satisfaction in NPAs is in itself a benefit to society. Besides, natural areas that satisfy their visitors are able to attract more visitors and revenues, which can be used for maintenance costs, preservation activities, and others. Therefore, understanding the antecedents of satisfaction in this context can help managers of NPAs to achieve better results.

Psychographic profiles are important factors in explaining attitudes toward and behavior in natural areas. However, the relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and visitor satisfaction had not yet been fully studied. Although this relationship seems obviously positive, a reasonable alternative hypothesis could be considered in the case of natural areas with a high level of human intervention and presence. Large-scale visitation and visitor infrastructure in NPAs could lead to a negative relationship between pro-environmental attitudes and satisfaction, not only due to an actual reduction of natural elements in the area but also because of the normative judgments made by environmentalists. Believing that the natural environment should not be heavily modified by humans, environmentalists could be less satisfied than nonenvironmentalists with visiting overloaded natural areas.

These two alternative hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling on data from an INP visitors survey. The model also included nature-related motivations to assess its mediation of the attitudes’ effect. The results showed that, despite the high level of overload of the INP, environmentalists are still more satisfied than nonenvironmentalists with the visitation experience. This is true even when only the direct effect of pro-environmental attitudes is considered. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis was rejected.

The survey results are consistent with theories of NPA management (Fennell 2014; Leung et al. 2018) that argue that natural-area management should not shy away from providing visitation infrastructure when site attractions are capable of attracting large crowds. There is no doubt that, on the one hand, this infrastructure enhances the visitor experience by providing comfortable and safe conditions (Leung et al. 2018). However, what the present study found is that this infrastructure and the extended presence of man in the landscape do not even undermine the experience of those with high pro-environmental attitudes. Human transformation of highly attractive environments does not make environmentalists less satisfied compared to nonenvironmentalists since the former are more pleased by the natural aspects than the latter.

Therefore, in cases like the INP, managers should not seek to reduce or prevent the expansion of visitation infrastructure to avoid lowering the quality of visitor experience. In the case of increased demand, expanding the infrastructure seems to be a better alternative, both for visitor satisfaction and for conserving nature. Offering more comfort and safety seems to have no negative impact on satisfaction, while increasing the infrastructure contributes to environmental protection. Without this increase, impacts on nature would be greater because the facilities are not prepared to deal with a larger number of visitors.

Future studies could examine how the relationship between environmental attitudes and visitor satisfaction varies across NPAs with different levels of overload. Infrastructure and human presence could be seen as a moderating variable of this relationship. This alternative perspective could also show how the satisfaction of each visitor segment according to their environmental attitudes change according to the overload level of the area. Finally, it is relevant to stress that our results are formally restricted to the INP, an NPA at the top range of the overload scale. Therefore, studying this relationship in other contexts might provide useful information to help to understand these issues in a more general frame.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix.

Scales and Regression Weights.

Construct	Item	Standardized Regression Weight	Standard Deviation	p Value
Environmental attitudes	The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.	0.765	0.0318	<0.01
	The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.	0.911	0.0233	<0.01
	Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.	0.773	0.0297	<0.01
	Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.	0.671	0.0349	<0.01
Motivation	Being close to nature in Iguaçu Falls	0.866	0.0385	<0.01
	Experience nature in Iguaçu Falls	0.859	0.0393	<0.01
	Viewing the scenic beauty of Iguazu Falls	0.434	0.0495	<0.01
Satisfaction	I am satisfied with my decision to visit this place.	0.554	0.0616	<0.01
	Visiting Iguaçu National Park was not a good choice.	0.585	0.0698	<0.01
	I am very satisfied with my experience in Iguaçu National Park.	0.670	0.0555	<0.01

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ana Cristina Rempel de Oliveira

Glauber Eduardo de Oliveira Santos

Author Biographies

Ana Cristina Rempel de Oliveira is a Master in Tourism Postgraduate Program – School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities from the Universidade de São Paulo (Brazil) and Master in Technologies, Management and Sustainability Postgraduate Program – Engineering and Exact Sciences Center from the Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná (Brazil).

Glauber Eduardo de Oliveira Santos is a PhD in Tourism and Environmental Economics from the Universidad de les Illes Balears (Spain) and PhD in Management from the Universidade de São Paulo (Brazil). Professor at the School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities of the Universidade de São Paulo. Editor-in-Chief of the Brazilian Journal of Tourism Research (RBTUR).

Heros Augusto Santos Lobo is a PhD in Geosciences and Environment from the São Paulo State University (Unesp). Professor at the Department of Geography, Tourism and Humanities of the Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar).

References

Akama

J. S.

Kieti

D. M.

2003. “Measuring Tourist Satisfaction with Kenya’s Wildlife Safari: A Case Study of Tsavo West National Park.” Tourism Management 24 (1): 73–81.

Altunel

D’Andria

2019. “Pamukkale Travertines: A Natural and Cultural Monument in the World Heritage List.” In Landscapes and Landforms of Turkey: World Geomorphological Landscapes, edited by Kuzucuoğlu

Çiner

Kazancı

, 219–29. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–23.

Balmford

Green

J. M. H.

Anderson

Beresford

Huang

Naidoo

Walpole

Manica

2015. “Walk on the Wild Side: Estimating the Global Magnitude of Visits to Protected Areas.” PLoS Biology 13 (2): e1002074.

Beh

Bruyere

B. L.

2007. “Segmentation by Visitor Motivation in Three Kenyan National Reserves.” Tourism Management 28 (6): 1464–71.

Blamey

R. K.

Braithwaite

V. A.

1997. “A Social Values Segmentation of the Potential Ecotourism Market.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5 (1): 29–45.

Browne

M. W.

1984. “Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures”. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37(1), 62–83.

Bruner

G. C.

2009. “Marketing Scales Handbook: a compilation of multi-item measures for consumer behavior & advertising research”. Carbondale: GCBII.

Cheung

L. T.

Jim

C. Y.

2013. “Ecotourism service preference and management in Hong Kong”. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 20(2), 182–194.

10.

Cheung

L. T. O.

Fok

2014a. “Assessing the Role of Ecotourism Training in Changing Participants’ Pro-environmental Knowledge, Attitude and Behaviour.” Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 19 (6): 645–61.

11.

Cheung

L. T. O.

Fok

2014b. “The Motivations and Environmental Attitudes of Nature-Based Visitors to Protected Areas in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 21 (1): 28–38.

12.

Chiu

Y.-T. H.

Lee

W.-I.

Chen

T.-H.

2014. “Environmentally Responsible Behavior in Ecotourism: Antecedents and Implications.” Tourism Management 40:321–29.

13.

Cini

Leone

Passafaro

2010. “Promoting Ecotourism among Young People: A Segmentation Strategy.” Environment and Behavior 44 (1): 87–106.

14.

Conradin

Engesser

Wiesmann

2015. “Four Decades of World Natural Heritage—How Changing Protected Area Values Influence the UNESCO Label.” Journal of the Geographical Society of Berlin 146 (1): 34–46.

15.

Corraliza

J. A.

Berenguer

2000. “Environmental Values, Beliefs, and Actions: A Situational Approach.” Environment and Behavior 32 (6): 832–48.

16.

Cravidão

Nossa

Santos

Casellas

M. D. V.

Costa

N. C.

Serrallonga

S. A.

2018. “Tourism at World Heritage Sites.” In Tourism Management at UNESCO World Heritage Sites, edited by Ascaniis

S. D.

Gravari-Barbas

Cantoni

, 23–29. Lugano, Switzerland: Università Della Svizzera Italiana.

17.

Croatia Ministry of Tourism. 2018. Tourism in Figures: 2017. Zagreb, Croatia: Ministry of Tourism.

18.

Deng

2015. “Self-identification of ecotourists”. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23(2), 255–279. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2014.934374.

19.

Department of National Parks, S. a. R. 2015. “Best Practice Ecotourism Development Guidelines”. State of Queensland (Australia): Department of National Parks, Sport and Racing.

20.

Devesa

Laguna

Palacios

2010. “The Role of Motivation in Visitor Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence in Rural Tourism.” Tourism Management 31:547–52.

21.

Dunlap

R. E.

Van Liere

K. D.

1978. “The ‘New Environmental Paradigm.’” Journal of Environmental Education 9 (4): 10–19.

22.

Dunlap

R. E.

Van Liere

K. D.

Mertig

A. G.

Jones

R. Emmet

. 2000. “Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 425–42.

23.

Eagles

P. F. J.

1992. “The Travel Motivations of Canadian Ecotourists.” Journal of Travel Research 31 (2): 3–7.

24.

Fennell

D. A.

2014. Ecotourism: An Introduction. London: Routledge.

25.

Formica

Uysal

2001. “Segmentation of Travelers Based on Environmental Attitudes.” Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 9 (3/4): 35–49.

26.

Galloway

2002. “Psychographic Segmentation of Park Visitor Markets: Evidence for the Utility of Sensation Seeking.” Tourism Management 23 (6): 581–96.

27.

Gândara

J. M.

Chim-Miki

A. F.

Ruiz

T. C. D.

Biz

A. A.

. 2013. “La competitividad turística de Foz do Iguaçu según los determinantes del ‘Integrative Model’ de Dwyer & Kim: analizando la estrategia de construcción del futuro.” Cuadernos de Turismo 31:105–28.

28.

X.-P.

Lewis

B. J.

Niu

L.-j.

D.-p.

Zhou

W.-m.

Gong

Z.-C.

Tai

Z.-j.

Dai

L.-M.

2018. “Segmentation by Domestic Visitor Motivation: Changbai Mountain Biosphere Reserve, China.” Journal of Mountain Science 15 (8): 1711–27.

29.

Hashimoto

2016. “Allocentric and Psychocentric.” In Encyclopedia of Tourism, edited by Jafari

Xiao

, 25–26. Cham: Springer.

30.

Hawcroft

L. J.

Milfont

T. L.

2010. “The Use (and Abuse) of the New Environmental Paradigm Scale over the Last 30 Years: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2): 143–58.

31.

Hosany

Prayag

Van Der Veen

Huang

Deesilatham

2016. “Mediating Effects of Place Attachment and Satisfaction on the Relationship between Tourists’ Emotions and Intention to Recommend.” Journal of Travel Research 56 (8): 1079–93.

32.

Hwang

S.-N.

Lee

Chen

H.-J.

2005. “The Relationship among Tourists’ Involvement, Place Attachment and Interpretation Satisfaction in Taiwan’s National Parks.” Tourism Management 26 (2): 143–56.

33.

Iankova

2014. “Planning for Tourism, Leisure and Sustainability: International Case Studies.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22 (5): 840–42.

34.

Iversen

N. M.

Hem

L. E.

Mehmetoglu

2016. “Lifestyle Segmentation of Tourists Seeking Nature-Based Experiences: The Role of Cultural Values and Travel Motives..” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 33 (suppl): 38–66.

35.

Jani

2018. “Segmenting Tourists Using Sustainable Values: A Cluster Analysis of Tanzanian Inbound Tourism.” Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 19 (3): 322–40.

36.

Jensen

Ø.

Uysal

2017. “Visitors’ Satisfaction at Managed Tourist Attractions in Northern Norway: Do On-Site Factors Matter?” Tourism Management 63:277–86.

37.

Jurowski

Uysal

Noe

F. P.

1993. “U.S. Virgin Islands National Park.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 1 (4): 3–31.

38.

Kil

Holland

S. M.

Stein

T. V.

2014. “Structural Relationships between Environmental Attitudes, Recreation Motivations, and Environmentally Responsible Behaviors.” Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 7/8:16–25.

39.

Kim

Lee

Uysal

Kim

Ahn

2015. “Nature-Based Tourism: Motivation and Subjective Well-Being.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32 (suppl): S76–S96.

40.

Lee

Graefe

A. R.

Burns

R. C.

2004. “Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intention among Forest Visitors.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 17 (1): 73–82.

41.

Leung

Y.-F.

Spenceley

Hvenegaard

Buckley

2018. Tourism and Visitor Management in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Sustainability. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

42.

Lück

2002. “Large-Scale Ecotourism—A Contradiction in Itself?” Current Issues in Tourism 5 (3/4): 361–70.

43.

Luo

Deng

2008. “The New Environmental Paradigm and Nature-Based Tourism Motivation.” Journal of Travel Research 46 (4): 392–402.

44.

Mardia

K. V.

1970. “Measures of Multivariate Skewness and Kurtosis with Applications.” Biometrika 57 (3): 519–30.

45.

Mardia

K. V.

1974. “Applications of Some Measures of Multivariate Skewness and Kurtosis in Testing Normality and Robustness Studies.” Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series B (1960-2002) 36 (2): 115–28.

46.

Mehmetoglu

2007a. “Nature-Based Tourism: A Contrast to Everyday Life.” Journal of Ecotourism 6 (2): 111–26.

47.

Mehmetoglu

2007b. “Typologising Nature-Based Tourists by Activity—Theoretical and Practical Implications.” Tourism Management 28 (3): 651–60.

48.

Meric

H. J.

Hunt

1998. “Ecotourists’ Motivational and Demographic Characteristics: A Case of North Carolina Travelers.” Journal of Travel Research 36 (4): 57–61.

49.

Noe

F. P.

Uysal

1997. “Evaluation of Outdoor Recreational Settings: A Problem of Measuring User Satisfaction.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 4 (4): 223–30.

50.

Normann

Ø.

Mehmetoglu

2013. “The Link between Travel Motives and Activities in Nature-Based Tourism.” Tourism Review 68 (2): 3–13.

51.

Pirages

D. C.

Ehrlich

P. R.

1974. Ark II: Social Response to Environmental Imperatives. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

52.

Plog

S. C.

1974. “Why Destination Areas Rise and Fall in Popularity.” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 14 (4): 55–58.

53.

Plog

S. C.

2002. “The Power of Psychographics and the Concept of Venturesomeness.” Journal of Travel Research 40 (3): 244–51.

54.

Prayag

Hosany

Muskat

Del Chiappa

2015. “Understanding the Relationships between Tourists’ Emotional Experiences, Perceived Overall Image, Satisfaction, and Intention to Recommend.” Journal of Travel Research 56 (1): 41–54.

55.

Queiroz

Guerreiro

Ventura

2014. “Demand of the tourists visiting protected areas in small oceanic islands: the Azores case-study (Portugal)”. Environment, Development & Sustainability, 16(5), 1119–1135.

56.

Rathnayake

R. M. W.

2016. “Willingness to Pay for a Novel Visitor Experience: Ecotourism Planning at Kawdulla National Park in Sri Lanka.” Tourism Planning & Development 13 (1): 37–51.

57.

Rodger

Taplin

R. H.

Moore

S. A.

2015. “Using a Randomised Experiment to Test the Causal Effect of Service Quality on Visitor Satisfaction and Loyalty in a Remote National Park.” Tourism Management 50:172–83.

58.

Ross

E. L. D.

Iso-Ahola

S. E.

1991. “Sightseeing Tourists, Motivation and Satisfaction.” Annals of Tourism Research 18 (2): 226–37.

59.

Sandifer

P. A.

Sutton-Grier

Ward

B. P.

2015. “Exploring Connections among Nature, Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health and Well-Being: Opportunities to Enhance Health and Biodiversity Conservation.” Ecosystem Services 12:1–15.

60.

Sharma

Bansal

2013. “Environmental Consciousness, Its Antecedents and Behavioural Outcomes.” Journal of Indian Business Research 5 (3): 198–214.

61.

Simsek

Günay

Elhatip

Ekmekçi

2000. “Environmental Protection of Geothermal Waters and Travertines at Pamukkale, Turkey.” Geothermics 29 (4): 557–72.

62.

Sremac

Božičević

Marković

2012. “Plitvice Lakes National Park (Central Croatia)—More Than 50 Years of Continuous Monitoring of Natural and Human Influence.” European Geologist 34 (1): 12–16.

63.

Taplin

R. H.

Rodger

Moore

S. A.

2016. “A Method for Testing the Effect of Management Interventions on the Satisfaction and Loyalty of National Park Visitors.” Leisure Sciences 38 (2): 140–60.

64.

Thapa

Lee

2017. “Visitor Experience in Kafue National Park, Zambia.” Journal of Ecotourism 16 (2): 112–30.

65.

Tuan

Y.-F.

1990. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values. New York: Columbia University Press.

66.

Turismo

M. d.

2010. Ecoturismo: orientações básicas. Brasília: Ministério do Turismo.

67.

Tyrväinen

Uusitalo

Silvennoinen

Hasu

2014. “Towards Sustainable Growth in Nature-Based Tourism Destinations: Clients’ Views of Land Use Options in Finnish Lapland.” Landscape and Urban Planning 122:1–15.

68.

US National Park Service. 2019. “NPS Stats.” https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/.

69.

Uysal

Jurowski

Noe

F. P.

McDonald

C. D.

1994. “Environmental Attitude by Trip and Visitor Characteristics: US Virgin Islands National Park.” Tourism Management 15 (4): 284–94.

70.

Waitt

Lane

Head

2003. “The Boundaries of Nature Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 30 (3): 523–45.

71.

WCED. 1987. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

72.

West

S. G.

Finch

J. F.

Curran

P. J.

1995. “Structural Equation Models with Nonnormal Variables: Problems and Remedies.” In Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, edited by Hoyle

R. H.

56–75. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

73.

Yoon

Uysal

2005. “An Examination of the Effects of Motivation and Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A Structural Model.” Tourism Management 26 (1): 45–56.

74.

Zografos

Allcroft

2007. “The Environmental Values of Potential Ecotourists: A Segmentation Study.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15 (1): 44–66.