lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 33 (2012) 371e379

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

Psychographic insights from a South Carolina protected area

David B. Weaver*

Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hotel and Sport Management, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Southport, Queensland 4222, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 20 October 2010Accepted 30 April 2011

Keywords:VenturesomenessAllocentrismEcotourismProtected areasPsychographicsSouth CarolinaSustainable tourismVisitor segmentation

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 7 5552 9290; faxE-mail address: d.weaver@griffith.edu.au.

0261-5177/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.04.006

a b s t r a c t

An investigation of Francis Beidler Forest, South Carolina, was conducted to identify the psychographiccharacteristics of visitors. Results from 976 survey respondents revealed the expected dominance ofventurers (35%) and near-venturers (54%), and additionally a small but distinctly centric third cluster(11%). Venturesomeness was associated with higher than expected levels of desired services and lowerthan expected risk tolerance, especially among older and female visitors who however were more likelyto seek mental stimulation and learning. Venturesomeness was also associated with higher levels ofeducation, strong site loyalty, ethical/environmentalist intentions, identification with ecotourism, andbird watching skills. However, willingness to engage in ‘higher investment’ activities such as volun-teering, donating and paying a higher entry fee to help the site was not evident. The results indicatequalified support for Plog’s psychographic model within a relatively undeveloped protected area setting.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Psychographics are an increasingly popular basis for predictingtravel preferences, intentions and behaviour, spawning a richliterature since the 1980s that complements more establishedsegmentation criteria such as demographics and geography. Inter-related dimensions that fall under the umbrella of psychographicsinclude attitudes (Anable, 2005; Dallen, 2007), values (Dolnicar &Leisch, 2008; Madrigal, 1995), interests (Marquesa, Reisa, &Menezes, 2010), motivation (Bansal & Eiselt, 2004; Correia, Silva,& Moço, 2008) and lifestyle (Chen, Huang, & Chen, 2009; Lee &Sparks, 2007). Personality is an additional psychographic variablethat has been associated variably with novelty-seeking (Snepenger,1987) and sensation-seeking (Lepp & Gibson, 2008), as well asintra-personal constraints (McGuiggan, 2004), and Jungian influ-ences involvingmaterial, affective, intuitive and logical orientations(Gountas & Gountas, 2000).

Personality-based psychographicmodelling in tourism, however,is most closely associated with Plog (1974, 1990, 2001, 2002), whointroduced the ‘allocentric’ (later referred to as the ‘venturer’, a termused henceforth in this paper due to earlier and differing definitionsgiven to the term ‘allocentric’), ‘mid-centric’ and ‘psychocentric’ (or‘dependable’) personality segments, based on data collected in themid-1960s from 1600 US households. Venturers as an ideal typewere alleged to constitute 4% of the US population (with near-

: þ61 7 5552 8507.

All rights reserved.

venturers at 16%), and are characterised as having low levels ofterritorial boundedness, nogeneralisedanxiety, anda strongsenseofpersonal empowerment. Extroverted, intellectually curious andrelatively risk tolerant, venturers were described by Plog in aninventory of 28 characteristics as preferring novel, off-the-beaten-track destinations, close contact with unfamiliar cultures andpeople, flexible and self-directed itineraries, mentally and physicallystimulating experiences, and small travel groups. Ideal typedependables (estimated at 2.5% of the US population with near-dependables at 16%) exhibit opposite characteristics while thenormative mid-centrics (the term ‘centric’ is used here to avoidredundancy) account for about 60% of the US population.

Such associations between specific segments and distinctivepatterns of travel behaviour constitute a major potential value ofPlog’s normally distributed psychographic profile (McKercher,2005). More specifically, it represents an influential attempt tolink motivations with personality type, and subsequently with thelife cycle positioning of destinations (Huang & Hsu, 2009). Origi-nally conducting the research to understand why certain peoplewere reluctant to fly, Plog argued that venturers function as travelinnovators and explorers who (usually inadvertently) open up newdestinations, giving way in time to near-venturers and thencentrics as the novelty effect recedes and higher levels of predict-ability and servicing attract relatively large numbers from the morerisk-averse personality segments. Venturers, centrics and depend-ables have therefore been linked respectively with the exploration,development and saturation/decline stages of the tourism area lifecycle of Butler (1980).

D.B. Weaver / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 371e379372

1.1. Limitations of Plog’s psychographic model

That Plog’s model has become a fixture of introductory tourismtexts owes more perhaps to its ‘elegant simplicity’ (Litvin, 2006, p.252), ‘strong, intuitive appeal’ (Smith, 1990, p. 40), and ‘intuitivelyappealing’ characteristics (Calantone & Mazanec, 1991, p. 110) thanany robust empirical underpinnings. Goeldner and Ritchie (2006)comment that the model has been ‘often uncritically accepted asthe major approach to tourist motivation’ (p. 254), and Plog (2002)himself acknowledged that ‘little research evidence exists tosupport the overall utility of psychographics’ (p. 245). This lack ofsubstantiation of an otherwise compelling model is one of severalcriticisms noted by Litvin (2006), who also cites the lack of allow-ance for individuals’ different motivations on different trips, theintervention of financial and other external factors that compelpersons of a particular psychographic type to choose a destinationproduct of a different type (e.g. the reality of a nearby and afford-able beach resort instead of the ideal of Antarctica), and the like-lihood that the experience of a US sample may not reflect thesituation in other societies. While McKercher (2005) adds thepossibility of personality changes through one’s own life cycle,Griffith and Albanese (1996) regard personality as relatively stable,although their focus on university undergraduates indicates limitedprogression through the life cycle. Finally, although Plog (1990)maintains that the items and their use have been fully disclosedto ‘serious researchers’ (p. 44), no evidence of these items wasfound in the literature.

Early attempts to test Plog (e.g. Smith, 1990) are thereforelimited by the idiosyncrasies of the instruments and items used tomeasure psychographic tendencies, and furthermore by the prac-tice of treating entire countries or regions as homogeneous‘venturer’ or ‘dependable’ entities. Thus, ‘Hawaii’ is usually desig-nated as a ‘dependable’ destination even though those assigninga rating could have in mind places as diverse as Waikiki (i.e.dependable) or Kahoolawe (i.e. venturesome). McKercher (2005)therefore suggests that the model may not display the allegedcorrelation with the life cycle stages in large, diverse destinations,but could adhere to specific products or locations within thosedestinations. There is considerable agreement that the model isuseful for suggesting where people would like to visit (Litvin, 2006;Liu, Sigauw, & Enz, 2008; Nickerson & Ellis, 1991) but less so forpredicting actual behaviour (Litvin, 2006). Griffith and Albanese(1996) did find it to be a robust predictor of the latter, albeit ina youthful population atypical to the more normative populationsotherwise investigated.

Another shortcoming in the literature is a failure to considerwhether some (for example) venturesome traits (e.g. desire formental stimulation) are exhibited more strongly than others (e.g.reliance on self) within a basically ‘venturesome’ personality. Oneexception is Weaver and Lawton (2002), who in a survey of 989ecolodge guests in Australia identified a dominant segment of bi-polarised ecotourists who strongly preferred venturesome ‘hard’encounters with the natural environment during the day, butwere equally disposed to dependable ‘soft’ experiences with finefood and comfortable lodgings in the evening. Such mixed andcomplex empirical results evoke parallels with Butler’s (1980)tourism area life cycle S-shaped curve e a similarly iconic andoft-cited ideal type highly compelling by intuition and in theorybecause of its association of intensification with increasednegative impacts, yet limited by a lack of systematic empiricalinvestigation, and challenged nevertheless by the many anoma-lies and disconformities yielded by that research. Plog’s modelmay thus be most appropriately regarded as a theory thatcontributes to rather than encompasses the understanding oftourist motivation.

1.2. Venturers as desirable tourists

Implicit in this debate about the merits of Plog’s model is theapparent desirability and challenge of attracting the venturesometourist, at least for some types of destination. As an ideal type, s/heis a relatively wealthy and educated individual who travels morefrequently (even when their income level is lower), takes trips oflonger duration, is eager to visit new destinations and try newexperiences, and participates in a larger and more diverse array ofactivities during each trip (Plog, 2002). As such, venturers injectrevenue into relatively isolated and obscure destinations andproducts avoided or ignored by more conventional and more risk-averse tourist segments, promoting economic sustainabilitythrough the consumption of ‘authentic’ local goods and services.Although the empirical evidence is less compelling, they are alsoalleged to foster socio-cultural sustainability through respectfuland egalitarian interactions with local residents.

Equated with the ‘alternative tourist’ (Weaver, 2006) and mir-roring the ‘authentic tourist’ (Yeoman, Brass, & McMahon-Beattie,2007) or ‘new tourist’ (Poon, 1993), venturers exemplify theclassic low volume, high yield visitor who accordingly is also morelikely to foster concurrent sustainable outcomes for the localenvironment, economy, society and culture. Plog and relatedstudies, however, do not explicitly ascribe pro- or even neutralenvironmental characteristics to this segment. This is an importantlimitation given accelerating concerns over climate change andother salient environmental problems associatedwith certain kindsof tourist behaviour and the resultant ecological footprint (Hunter& Shaw, 2007). Implicated behaviour includes long-haul travel toremote and exotic destinations by venturers who, however, mayalso display the necessary willingness to offset such effects(Peeters, 2007; Strasdas, 2009).

Also possibly offsetting the otherwise desirable outcomes fordestinations are the venturers’ possible lack of repeat purchaseproclivity and other dimensions of destination loyalty, consequentto their preferences for new places and experiences. Destinationmanagers regard loyalty as an extremely attractive visitor traitbecause of the repeat consumption and longer consumer exposureto product it reflects, the expensive marketing to attract first-timevisitors it reduces, and the positive word-of-mouth (WOM andeWOM) marketing it generates (Chi & Qu, 2008; Lee, Graefe, &Burns, 2007). However, as with environmental attitudes, thisdimension has not been adequately scrutinised in the relevantpsychographic tourism literature even though it has been widelyengaged within the broader tourism marketing field.

2. Objectives

The goal of this exploratory research is to expand and clarify ourcurrently limited understanding of tourist psychographics e andthe venturesome dimension in particular e through an empiricalinvestigation of walk-in visitors at a small-scale nature-baseddestination in South Carolina which was assumed to attractventurers and near-venturers. Visitor profile and behaviour isa critical determining factor that influences the managementapproach for achieving multiple aspirational goals such as highvisitor satisfaction and site sustainability (Leask, 2010). Specificallyfor this research:

� Objective 1 (‘profile’) (O1) is to profile the walk-in visitor pop-ulation at the selected site to identify the extent to which itactually conforms to the expected venturesome personality typeacross traits (items) as well as individuals (cases). This helps toclarify whether personality is an effective predictor of travel

D.B. Weaver / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 371e379 373

behaviour, specifically with respect to destination choice, andidentifies the relative strength of specific venturesome traits.

� Objective 2 (‘demographics’) (O2) is to identify the degree towhich the venturesome personality is associated with higherincome and education, and also distinctive patterns of gender,residency and age. This further clarifies the construct ofventuresomeness with regard to attendant demographic andgeographic associations for target marketing and productdevelopment purposes.

� Objective 3 (‘loyalty’) (O3) is to determine the degree to whichventuresomeness is associated with destination loyalty, withlower proclivities expected due to preferences for new desti-nations and experiences. This is the first known attempt toinvestigate the role of loyalty within the venturesomepersonality type.

� Objective 4 (‘environmentalism’) (O4) is to identify the degreeto which venturesomeness is associated with ethical andenvironmental standards of travel behaviour. High venture-someness is expected to be associated with high standards andintentions. This is similarly the first attempt to examine attri-butes of environmentalism and ethics explicitly within theventuresome personality type.

Themethodology sectionwhich follows describes the case studydestination as well as the questionnaire design, data analysis andquestionnaire distribution. Results are subsequently presented andanalysed.

3. Methodology

3.1. Case study

Francis Beidler Forest Audubon Centre and Sanctuary (FBF),a 6438 ha private protected area in South Carolina, is an appropriatecase study because of its assumed appeal to venturers. Althoughlocated on the outskirts of the greater Charleston urban area, char-acteristics such as relatively poor road access, sparse directionalroad signage, and minimal exposure in regional and local tourismmedia designate it as an off-the-beaten-track site, even for residentsof the local region. Appeal to venturers is further indicated by itsstatus as a mostly undeveloped remnant of old-growth bottomlandhardwood forest harbouring numerous plant and animal species.Consistency in the internal level of physical development meansthat the destination ambiguity of places such as ‘Hawaii’, asdescribed in Section 1.1, is avoided. Facilities are restricted to a smallvisitor centre and two-kilometre wood plank boardwalk, whichtogether attract approximately 10,000 visitors per year.

About one-half are participants in school field trips or (muchless commonly) other organised tours while the remainder areunscheduled ‘walk-ins’ who typically arrive in groups of 2e4individuals for visits of 1e3 h duration after paying an adult entryfee (in 2008e09) of US$8 (personal communication with FBFmanagement). Only about one-third of the walk-ins are repeatvisitors, and it is consistent with the venturesome character of FBFthat walk-ins first found out about the site mainly through WOM(29%), brochures placed by management in local accommodationand attractions (17%), and road signage (13%) (Weaver & Lawton,2011a). Almost all outdoor activity of walk-ins occurs along theboardwalk, with the ubiquitous wetland setting and lack of groundtrails effectively discouraging further dispersal. Walk-ins weretargeted to increase the likelihood of obtaining the desiredventuresome bias in the sample given their status as small-group‘free and independent travelers’ (FITs).

Interpretive signage and tours, a mission statement focused onthe ‘preservation of the ecosystem and of the native plant and

animal life in perpetuity’, and multiple strict protected areadesignations (e.g. National Natural Landmark, Important Bird Area,and Ramsar Wetland of International Importance) all mark FBF asa specialised ecotourism attraction as per the three core criteria ofBlamey (2001), i.e. (i) a primary focus on wildlife and its relativelyundisturbed natural habitat, (ii) the facilitation of learning oppor-tunities, and (iii) management in concert with the principles andbest practice of environmental sustainability. As such, it is unlikelythat the assumed venturesome clientele will be superseded bycentrics seeking more services and activities as per the progressionof the tourism area life cycle of Butler (1980), although thecontinued growth of the greater Charleston area will make FBFmore accessible to centrics and other visitors. Finally, an earlierpublication by Weaver and Lawton (2011b) identified four loyalty-related clusters for FBF visitors which thereby provided a basis forcomparing the psychographic profile against a loyalty profile.

3.2. Questionnaire design

An eight-page questionnaire was designed to solicit informationabout site usage and loyalty as well as respondent characteristicsand overall travel proclivities. The latter section included 10 items,mixed among environmental and other items, identifying variousventuresome tendencies for evaluation on a 5-point Likert scalewhere ‘5’ and ‘1’ respectively indicate strong agreement and strongdisagreement. The venturesome item setwas necessarily ad hoc dueto the absence in the literature of the four (and later five) specificitems Plog (1990) claimed to use to identify his original basicsegments, and the lack of any consistent instrument use or scalereplication. Smith (1990) states that he used ‘21 statements’ to testPlog’s model, but does not disclose them. Accordingly, other studies(e.g.Weaver& Lawton, 2002)were consulted to develop 10 items, asfollow, which capture core venturesome leanings (with accompa-nying questionnaire statements).While the relevance of the seventhitem e ‘pre-travel self-reliance’ e is arguably being eroded by theincreasingly ubiquitous personal use of the Internet in the travelplanning stage, the continuing popularity of adaptable store-fronttravel agencies and package tour options attest to the persistenceof intermediaries as an important elementwithin the contemporarytourism industry (Lawton & Weaver, 2009).

� physical challenge (I am willing to inconvenience myself physi-cally to see something that interests me when I travel),

� off-the-beaten-track destinations (I often travel to out-of-the-way places to observe rare or unusual attractions),

� spontaneity (When I travel, I tend to be open to unplanned orspontaneous experiences),

� physical activity (I like to be physically active when I travel),� curiosity (It is important to me to learn as much as possible aboutthe places I visit),

� self-reliance during travel (I don’t expect a lot of services when Itravel),

� pre-travel self-reliance (I prefer to make all of my travelarrangements myself),

� novelty (I prefer to visit places that I have never visited before),� mental stimulation (Mental stimulation is an important reasonwhy I travel), and

� relatively high risk tolerance (I like to experience an element ofrisk when I travel).

3.3. Investigation of objectives

Cross-trait differentiation, as per O1 (‘profile’), was examined bycalculating and ranking in descending order the overall means for

D.B. Weaver / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 371e379374

the 10 psychographic items. To differentiate across cases, hierar-chical cluster analysis (Ward’s method) was used to identifydistinct psychographic visitor segments with maximum intra-group homogeneity and inter-group heterogeneity on the 10items (or, if warranted, the dimensions of same as obtained throughfactor analysis). The selection of an acceptable cluster solution wasbased on considerations of significant statistical differentiation ofthe clusters, interpretability, cluster size, and dendogram analysis(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995).

The remaining three objectives were investigated usingcomparison-of-means tests (with post hoc analysis) or chi-squaredtests, as appropriate, to compare the selected cluster solutionagainst the relevant variables collected elsewhere in the ques-tionnaire. O3 (‘loyalty’) additionally entailed the use of thechi-squared test to compare membership in the psychographicclusters (as per O1) with membership in the loyalty clusters iden-tified in the same sample by Weaver and Lawton (2011b). In orderof decreasing site loyalty, members of these clusters were respec-tively labelled as ‘exclusive loyalists’, ‘non-exclusive loyalists’,‘referral and repeat loyalists’, and ‘ambivalent loyalists’. Thefollowing four Likert-scaled travel proclivities statements wereused to assess the ethical and environmental dimension, as per O4:

� I strive to be an ethical traveler.� When I travel, I do whatever I can to minimize my negativeenvironmental impacts.

� I prefer to visit unspoiled natural environments.� I consider myself to be an ‘ecotourist’.

Visitors were also asked about their perceived level of expertiseas a bird watcher, thereby providing a relevant measure of personalinvolvement in a core ecotourism-related activity. A positive rela-tionship between venturesomeness and birding expertise wasdeemed likely given the preferences for mental stimulation, will-ingness to go out of the way to observe attractions of interest(wherein a skilled bird watcher would be more likely to achievea sighting), and transferability of the associated skills to diverseecotourism destinations.

3.4. Questionnaire distribution

The questionnaire was distributed for on-site completion to asmany adult (18 or older) walk-ins as possible during the periodfromMay 1, 2008 toMay 31, 2009, following a one-month period of

Table 1Overall and cluster means on 10 psychographic items included in cluster analysis.

Item OverallN ¼ 976

1. I am willing to inconvenience myself physicallyto see something that interests me when I travel

4.41

2. When I travel, I tend to be open to unplannedor spontaneous experiences

4.36

3. I often travel to out-of-the-way places to observerare or unusual attractions

4.31

4. It is important to me to learn as much as possibleabout the places I visit

4.25

5. I like to be physically active when I travel 4.176. I prefer to make all of my travel arrangements myself 4.157. Mental stimulation is an important reason why I travel 4.108. I prefer to visit places that I have never visited before 3.999. I don’t expect a lot of services when I travel 3.3110. I like to experience an element of risk when I travel 2.97

Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .724

Bolded and underlined values designate respectively a statistically significant higher anda Difference in mean between the allocentric and centric clusters.

pilot testing which resulted in cosmetic changes to wording anddistribution procedures. Walk-ins were approached at thecompletion of their visit in the visitor centre, which is the onlypoint of entrance and exit to the boardwalk. During the distributionperiod, all eligible visitors were asked to fill out a questionnaire on-site, but offered the alternative opportunity for off-site completionand mail return. As an incentive, a free FBF postcard was offered toall who agreed to participate.

4. Results

The project yielded 988 valid questionnaires, representing 21%of the 4940 adult walk-in visitors recorded during the distributionperiod. Factors that inhibited participation included expected highrates on non-interception during busy weekends and holidays,respondent fatigue and attrition related to questionnaire length,a 50% non-return rate among the 10% of visitors who opted fora mail-in package, a practice among some groups (notably coupleswith young children) to designate one adult member to fill out thequestionnaire, and a small number of outright refusals to partici-pate. The overall number, nevertheless, was well in excess of the357 minimally necessary to represent the 5000 walk-ins, assumingsample randomness.

Demographically, the sample was homogeneous with regard torace (95.1% described themselves as ‘white, non-Hispanic’) andnational residence (95.6% lived in the USA). Gender bias, as inmany other protected and natural area settings (Catlin & Jones,2010; Diamantis, 1999; Lemelin, Fennell, & Smale, 2008; Weaver& Lawton, 2002), is evident in the 57.5% female component.‘Local tourists’ (i.e. from within the greater Charleston area andother adjacent counties) accounted for 38% of the sample. Theaverage age was 51.2, with one-quarter younger than 42 and one-quarter older than 62. ‘Baby boomers’, those born from 1945 to1965, comprised about 52% of all respondents. Almost one-half(44.6%) reported a household income exceeding US$75,000 (vs.26.8% for USA overall), while almost two-thirds possessed eithera bachelor’s (32.7%) or postgraduate (31.4%) qualification (vs. 17.2%and 9.9% respectively for the USA overall). These figures areconsistent with venturesomeness (Plog, 1991, 2002) as well asprotected area visitors (Beh & Bruyere, 2007; Hvenegaard &Dearden, 1998; Lawton & Weaver, 2008; Weaver & Lawton,2002; Zografos & Allcroft, 2007), but may also reflect incomelevels sufficient to access such relatively isolated sites throughvehicle ownership.

Venturern ¼ 344

Near-venturern ¼ 521

Centricn ¼ 111

Gapa

4.84 4.38 3.24 (1.60)

4.76 4.28 3.54 (1.22)

4.79 4.28 2.93 (1.86)

4.66 4.13 3.53 (1.13)

4.74 3.98 3.29 (1.45)4.44 4.15 3.25 (1.19)4.61 3.92 3.34 (1.27)4.22 3.93 3.60 (.62)3.80 3.09 2.88 (.92)3.56 2.69 2.39 (1.17)

lower mean in comparison with the other two clusters.

D.B. Weaver / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 371e379 375

4.1. Psychographic profile (O1)

As intended and anticipated given the characteristics of the siteand the targeting of walk-ins, the sample displayed clear venture-some tendencies with 7 of 10 clustered items yielding overallmeans above 4.00 (with another at 3.99) (Table 1). Less expected,however, were the remaining items related to self-sufficiency(services expectations) and risk tolerance, which scored withincentric parameters. Twelve questionnaires lacked a completeresponse set to the 10 psychographic items, and therefore only theremaining 976 were included in the cluster analysis. Initial inten-tions to cluster analyse the factor scores of the item dimensionswere abandoned when the factor analysis (with varimax rotation)failed to produce a solution that was ‘clean’ (i.e. with minimalcross-dimensional item loadings) or amenable to interpretation.Cluster analysis was therefore undertaken instead on the original10 items, which produced an acceptable level of reliability, orinternal consistency, given the exploratory nature of the research(Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .724).

A three-cluster solution was accepted that divided the sampleinto statistically well-differentiated venturesome (n ¼ 344, 35% ofthe sample), near-venturesome (n ¼ 521, 54%) and centric (n ¼ 111,11%) segments (Table 1). The two-cluster solution differentiatedonly between a venturesome and a slightly weaker venturesomecluster, while the four-cluster solution merely further divided theventuresome cluster into two similar segments displaying statis-tically significant mean differentials on just three items. In theselected three-cluster solution, all clusters were significantlydifferent from each other except for item #9 (expectation ofservices), where there was no difference between the near-venturers and centrics. This item, along with item #8 (preferencefor never-before visited places) displayed the smallest mean gapbetween the venturers and centrics, while items #3 and #1 (out-of-the-way places, and physical inconvenience) most strongly differ-entiated the clusters.

Table 2Segmentation of clusters by selected variables.

Variable All Clustera Sig.

1Venturer

2Near-venturer

3Centric

DemographicsGender (n ¼ 974) [% female] 57.5 56.1 57.7 61.8 .572Age (n ¼ 969) [mean] 51.2 49.22 52.81 50.3 .002Residence (n ¼ 970)

[% local region]37.9 38.0 36.8 43.1 .466

Education (n ¼ 935)[% No college degree] 35.9 32.1 36.8 43.5[% Bachelors] 32.7 35.5 29.6 38.9 .007[% Graduate degree] 31.4 32.4 33.6 17.6

Household income(n ¼ 735) [% >$75k]

44.6 48.7 43.8 35.1 .094

Site interactions% Repeat visitors (n ¼ 976) 31.7 29.9 32.2 34.2 .640# Of visits per year (n ¼ 241) 1.62 1.87 1.55 1.32 .331# Of years since last

visit (n ¼ 276)3.46 3.24 3.52 3.81 .887

Hours spent at FBF thisvisit (n ¼ 969) [mean]

2.33 2.31 2.35 2.31 .804

Group size (n ¼ 972) 2.66 2.60 2.65 2.95 .063Entry fee amount willing

to payb (n ¼ 268) [$]10.27 10.38 10.20 10.11 .872

a Mean for superscripted cluster(s) is significantly different, based on Tukey’s test.b Adult standard entry fee ¼ US$8 during survey period; statement used was ‘I

would be willing to pay a higher entrance fee to help Beidler Forest. (If you circled ‘4’or ‘5’, please indicate how much you would be willing to pay $_____.)

4.2. Demographic profile (O2)

The results (Table 2) corroborate a strong relationship betweenventuresomeness and education, with venturers almost twice aslikely as centrics to have a graduate degree. An association withhousehold income is not revealed at the 95% level of probability,although the gap between venturers and centrics (48.7% vs. 35.1%)does suggest a relationship. Age is also significant but unexpectedlyindicated only between the venturers and near-venturers ratherthan centrics. No significant relationships with gender or residence(local region residence vs. other residence) are identified in thecomparison of clusters.

To gain more insight, t-tests were performed for males andfemales against all 10 original psychographic items. These revealedmales to score significantly higher on the element-of-risk item(M3.08 vs. F2.88, t ¼ 2.94, r � .003) and females on the learn-as-much-as-possible item (F4.32 vs. M4.17, t ¼ 3.04, r � .002). Thesame exercisewas performed on age by constructing a new variabledividing the sample between ‘younger’ (under 60) and ‘older’ (60and older) respondents. Risk similarly provided the greatestdifferentiation (Y3.11 vs. O2.68, t ¼ 5.968, r � .001) while olderrespondents were more likely to emphasise learning (O4.33 vs.Y4.22, t¼�2.201, r� .028) andmental stimulation (O4.17 vs. Y4.05,t ¼ �1.908, r � .050). When those younger than 40 were separatedinto a third group, the age effect on risk was evenmore pronounced(<40 ¼ 3.34, 40e59 ¼ 2.99, >59 ¼ 2.68, F ¼ 26.315, r � .001).

4.3. Loyalty (O3)

No significant inter-cluster differences were identified at the95% level on any of the site interaction dimensions of FBF loyalty(Table 2). Venturers are no more likely than near-venturers orcentrics to be repeat visitors, visit more frequently ormore recently,spend more time there, or pay a higher entry fee to assist with themanagement of the site. Though not significant at the 95% level,there is an indication that venturers travel in smaller groups thancentrics, even allowing for the sample bias towards small-group FITwalk-ins.

The attitudinal and intentional loyalty dimensions of Weaverand Lawton (2011b) produce clearer cluster differentiation(Table 3). This is most evident in the attitude factor (‘positive atti-tudes’), six items which display the same degree of differenceevident in the original 10 psychographic items. Venturers, accord-ingly, are somewhat more likely than near-venturers and far morelikely than centrics to show strong affective attitudes towards FBF,including being upset if they knew they could no longer visit,visiting as much as possible, and expressing the personal impor-tance of the site. Exclusive loyalty (enjoying the experience ofnature at FBF more than any other place, emotional attachment,and agreeing that no other place offers the same experience) is notas strongly expressed, though here again the strongest sentiment egravitating towards weak agreement e is expressed amongventurers.

The three intentional loyalty factors show mixed differentiationresults. Referral and repeat visit intentions are very strong amongall groups although venturers are almost unanimously in strongagreement with the statements. Conversely, there is little enthu-siasm to participate in on- or off-site volunteer activity to help FBF,though venturers are significantly less unenthusiastic than near-venturers or centrics. Of the three ‘advocacy and financialsupport’ items, willingness to write a letter to a relevant official inresponse to a threatening proposal was most strongly exhibitedamong venturers who, however, were ambivalent about paying anentrance fee or making an occasional donation to assist the site.

Table 3Segmentation of clusters by selected statements.

Item Mean Clustersa Sig.

Venturern ¼ 344

Near-venturern ¼ 521

Centricn ¼ 111

Attitude factor 1: ‘positive attitudes’ά ¼ .874 (n ¼ 296)I would be upset if I knew that I could never visit FBF again 4.40 4.69 4.38 3.75 >.001The existence of FBF is important to me 4.34 4.61 4.31 3.75 >.001FBF means a lot to me 4.30 4.59 4.23 3.83 >.001It would be difficult to change my beliefs about FBF 3.90 4.23 3.86 3.22 >.001I like to visit FBF as often as I can 3.62 4.04 3.55 2.86 >.001No other place offers the experience that FBF offers 3.59 3.773 3.633 2.9412 >.001I enjoy experiencing nature at FBF more than any other place 3.36 3.503 3.36 3.031 .048I feel an emotional attachment to FBF 3.34 3.74 3.23 2.75 >.001

Intention factor 1: ‘referral & repeat’ά ¼ .790 (n ¼ 976)I would tell other people positive things about FBF 4.84 4.92 4.83 4.60 >.001I would recommend FBF to people who seek my advice 4.81 4.90 4.81 4.55 >.001I would visit FBF again 4.69 4.82 4.68 4.38 >.001I would go out of my way to recommend FBF to other people 4.41 4.65 4.37 3.87 >.001

Intention factor 2: ‘volunteering’ά ¼ .852 (n ¼ 976)I would be interested in doing volunteer work at FBF 2.01 2.2123 1.871 2.011 >.001I would be interested in doing volunteer work for FBF frommy home or elsewhere

1.97 2.152 1.871 1.84 .002

Intention factor 3: ‘advocacy & financial support’ά ¼ .634 (n ¼ 976)If I found out about a development proposal that could negativelyaffect FBF, I would be willing to write a letter expressing myconcerns to a relevant politician

4.00 4.12 3.88 3.56 >.001

I would be willing to pay a higher entrance fee to help FBF 2.96 3.123 2.97 2.4412 >.001I would consider making an occasional donation to help FBF 2.61 2.83 2.55 2.18 >.001

Bolded and underlined values designate respectively a statistically significant higher and lower mean in comparison with the other two clusters.a Mean for superscripted cluster(s) is significantly different, based on Tukey’s test.

D.B. Weaver / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 371e379376

To gain further insight into the relationship between loyalty andventuresomeness, membership in the three psychographic clustersidentified in this research were compared against membership inthe four loyalty clusters identified in Weaver and Lawton (2011b)(Table 4). Over one-third of venturers were also ‘exclusive loyal-ists’ who showed strong attachments to FBF as a uniquely suitablesite for outdoor recreation. This compares with just one-fifth and6.3% of near-venturers and centrics respectively. Conversely, 44.4%of centrics are also ‘ambivalent loyalists’ who do not displayanything more than mildly positive agreement (and oftendisagreement) on any loyalty items with the exception of thoserelated to referral and repeat visitation. The near-venturer andventurer clusters, respectively, allocated 36.1% and 8.3% of theirmembership to the ambivalent loyalty cluster. Expressed from theperspective of the loyalty clusters, venturers comprise one-half ofthe exclusive loyalty cluster but only 16% of the ambivalent loyaltyþ cluster, while centrics account respectively for 6% and 42% of themembership of those two clusters.

Table 4Psychographic and loyalty cluster cross-distribution.

Psychographic clusters Loyalty clusters (repeat visitors only, n ¼Exclusive loyalists Non-exclusive lo

% Distribution, venturers (number) 34.4 (33) 38.5 (37)% Distribution, near-venturers (number) 18.2 (30) 32.1 (53)% Distribution, centrics (number) 11.1 (4) 8.3 (3)

Overall % distribution (number) 22.6 (67) 31.3 (93)Χ2 ¼ 56.561, r � .001

4.4. Ethical/environmental profile (O4)

Responses to inquiries about ethical behaviour may be influ-enced more by political correctness and a desire to be perceived asethical, than by actual behaviour (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001).Accordingly, the absolute responses to these questions are lessimportant than the relative differences in the cluster means.Venturers are almost unanimous in strongly agreeing that theystrive to be ethical travelers, whilst centrics are more likely toexpress ambivalence (Table 5). An ‘unspoiled’ natural environmentis also far more important for members of this cluster, as is thesentiment to do whatever one can during travel to minimise one’snegative environment impacts. The venturesome respondent isparticularly distinguished from the other clusters in self-identifyingas an ‘ecotourist’, no definition of which was provided in thequestionnaire. There is also a significant association with level ofbirding skill, venturers being far more likely than centrics inparticular to identify as a ‘serious’ or ‘dedicated’ birder.

297) Total

yalists Referral & repeat loyalists Ambivalent loyalists

20.8 (20) 6.3 (6) 100.0 (96)40.0 (66) 9.7 (16) 100.0 (165)36.1 (13) 44.4 (16) 100.0 (36)

33.3 (99) 12.8 (38) 100.0 (297)

Table 5Ethical/environmental item responses.

Items Mean (n ¼ 976) Clustersa Sig.

Venturer n ¼ 344 Near-venturer n ¼ 521 Centric n ¼ 111

I strive to be an ethical traveler 4.49 4.82 4.47 3.58 >.001I prefer to visit unspoiled natural environments 4.43 4.75 4.36 3.78 >.001When I travel, I do whatever I can to minimize my negative environmental impacts. 4.17 4.54 4.05 3.60 >.001I consider myself to be an ‘ecotourist’ 3.81 4.30 3.65 3.07 >.001Birding skills (n ¼ 963)[% ‘Not a birder’ or ‘casual birder’] 78.6 75.2 79.3 86.0 .050[% ‘Serious or dedicated birder’] 21.5 24.8 20.7 14.0

Bolded and underlined values designate respectively a statistically significant higher and lower mean in comparison with the other two clusters.a Mean for superscripted cluster(s) is significantly different, based on Tukey’s test.

D.B. Weaver / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 371e379 377

5. Discussion

New psychographic insights, in particular into the phenomenonof venturesomeness, are revealed in this research, which basicallysupports the relevance of Plog’s psychographic model to the plan-ning, management and marketing of nature-based tourist desti-nations. In the first instance, the 10-item psychographic scale isinternally reliable andmay prove useful as the first such instrumentfor facilitating the systematic follow-up investigation of visitorpsychographics, allowing that visitor attractions tend to be highlyindividualistic in their visitor profiles (Leask, 2010). As per O1,personality appears to be a good predictor of destination choicegiven the expected dominance of venturers and near-venturersamong FBF walk-ins.

Considerable cross-item and cross-case variability, however, isalso evident. The most notable cross-item divergence, i.e. theambivalence/centrismdisplayed by venturers and near-venturers onservice expectations and risk, perhaps reflects broader trends ofhigher visitor expectations with respect to service and product(Leask, 2010). It is also again reminiscent of Weaver and Lawton(2002), who identified a ‘structured ecotourist’ cluster in a sampleof guests at two Australian ecolodges. Such guests exhibit ‘hard’ecotourism proclivities during the day in their preference forunspoiled semi-wild settings for interacting with nature, but ‘soft’ecotourism proclivities in their evening/night time preferences forluxurious accommodation and gourmet food. That research waslikely influenced by the nature of the sample (ecolodge guests)whereas there were no overnight accommodation options at FBF tocreate comparable biases. It may be that the construct of venture-someness needs to be reconsidered in terms of the ‘caution’ and‘comfort’ dimensions, possibly reflecting the dominance of an aging‘baby boom’ cohort (note the average sample age of 51.2 years) stillyoung enough to engage in physically challenging encounters withnature, but old enough to benefit from high quality ‘off-time’recovery so that hard ecotourism activities can be repeated thefollowing day. What is uncertain, however, is whether futuregenerations (e.g. ‘gen-x’, ‘gen-y’, ‘millennials’) will demonstratesimilar alleged proclivities when they reach the same age bracket astoday’s baby-boomers.

Pending corroboration of this possibility, managers of sites suchas FBF should consider combining the maintenance of a pristineoutdoor setting with a high level of intermediating services andfacilities, all adhering to rigorous and transparent sustainabilitystandards (given that the venturers, like structured ecotourists, alsoindicated very high levels of ethical and environmental sensitivity).High end accommodations and restaurants within the local region,moreover, may constitute a lucrative outlet for marketing placessuch as FBF, especially given the high level of household incomesamong FBF walk-in visitors as a whole.

Meriting further analysis is the small but distinct centric cluster,which is associated with neither a higher level of local residency

nor lower satisfaction levels with FBF services and facilities. Thatthese visitors do not display the ‘classic’ centric profile is indicatedby an education level (56.5% with Bachelor’s qualifications orhigher) twice as high as the general adult US population, and someopenness (mean of 3.54) to unplanned or spontaneous experiences.Do centrics who visit a ‘venturesome’ nature-based attractiontherefore constitute a distinctive type of centric personality? Andwhy is there a strong gap between centrics and other clusters onthe question of traveling often to out-of-the-way places (mean of2.93 for centrics but 4.79 for venturers), when FBF can itself bedescribed as such? Efforts to crystallise the centric component ofsites such as FBF are important because (a) centrics representamajority of the population and thus a large potential market in theface of low repeat visitation rates, and (b) exurban encroachmentand regional population growth mean that the site is likely tobecome less isolated in future and thus more accessible andattractive to centric visitors whose preferences and behaviourmight differ from the venturers and near-venturers. Centrics, forexample, may warrant marketing through intermediaries such astravel agencies and tour operators, and may require extra siteinformation at the time of their arrival given reduced proclivitiesfor pre-visit information search. This information could includeways of easily accessing notable wildlife or vegetation, taking intoaccount relative unwillingness to be inconvenienced.

Demographically, the relationship between higher educationand venturesomeness is corroborated as per O2. Household incomeeffects are not demonstrated within similarly conventional signif-icance parameters though it appears as if the centrics lag wellbehind the combined venturer/near-venturer group. Given thenarrow gaps in average age between the three clusters, it is likelythat the ‘significance’ of these differences is spurious. Females areoverrepresented in the overall sample but not at a significant levelwithin any particular cluster, thereby supporting the female-skewed findings about ecotourism but not finding the same forventurers. However, the scrutiny of individual items showed thatyounger and male venturers appear to be more risk tolerant whileolder and female venturers place relatively more emphasis onmental stimulation and learning. Efforts therefore could bemade toprovide more detailed pre-trip and site interpretation, withina secure environment, to the latter group, and adventure-typeopportunities for the former, acknowledging again that theseapparent age-related proclivities may not apply to future genera-tions when they attain these ages.

The loyalty and education findings support the additional val-orisation of venturers as quality visitors who are happy to givepositive WOM referrals and are conscientious about behaving in anethical and environmentally sustainable manner. Moreover, despitetheir generic preference for novel places and experiences, they alsoexhibit relatively high levels of exclusive loyalty (based on thequestions I enjoyexperiencing nature at FBFmore than anyother place,and No other place offers the experience that FBF offerse see Table 3),

D.B. Weaver / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 371e379378

regardless of residence. A possible explanation for at least some ofthis sentiment is that strong seasonal differences in the landscapecreate a perception of sites such as FBF as three or four discretedestinations each having its own ‘feel’ and providing novel repeatexperiences. This needs to be further investigated, as it may revealexplicit strategies for managers to foster and promote their place asa seasonally (or diurnally/nocturnally) differentiated ‘multi-desti-nation’ attractive to more tourists and tourist segments. Someventurers in the local region, in addition, may develop exclusiveloyalty due to an inability (for financial or other reasons) to accessmore distant sites despite a desire to do so, as per Litvin (2006).

Very high expressions otherwise of non-exclusive site loyalty(e.g. The existence of FBF is important to me) by venturers mayindicate a ‘pan loyalty’ dimension wherein all such relativelyundisturbed nature-based sites evoke strong feelings andmeaningsfor what they represent and provide. This may help to explain whyventurers, as in other protected area settings (Ballantyne, Packer, &Hughes, 2009), are mostly unwilling to participate in volunteeractivity on- or off-site specifically to help FBF, despite their strongexpressions of site loyalty, interest in novel experiences, and highenvironmental sensitivities. Interest in volunteering, which is moreinvestment-intensive than mere referrals can perhaps be stimu-lated by offering challenging opportunities and by appealing to theuniversal symbolism (e.g. ‘wilderness’, ‘sanctuary’, etc.) of specificsites as well as the broader environmental and personal growthbenefits to be obtained from participation. As noted by Ballantyneet al. (2009), the parallel needs of protected areas and their visi-tors are more likely to be met when visitors are cultivated asconservation partners, with volunteerism representing a particu-larly strong form of commitment.

Finally, venturesomeness is positively related to self-identification as an ‘ecotourist’. Whilst venturers are more likelyto describe themselves also as a serious or dedicated birder, the factthat only one in four identifies as such suggests that the construct of‘ecotourist’ is construed more in terms of environmentalist atti-tudes and behaviour than skill in an ecotourism activity. Strongagreement, moreover, suggests that venturers are not confused bythe meaning of the term, compared with centrics and theirambivalent responses to the ecotourism question.

6. Conclusion

This exploratory research, focussing on a relatively small andhomogeneous nature-based protected area, has yielded severaltheoretical contributions to the psychographic tourism literature.First, personality is supported as a good predictor of behaviour basedon the venturesome-leaning nature of the FBF sample. However,secondly, it was found that not all venturesome dimensions wereevident in equal measure, with risk tolerance and low servicesexpectations being relatively weakly expressed. This requires a re-assessment of what it means to be ‘venturesome’. Third, the find-ings support the positive relationship between venturesomenessand education whilst demonstrating the importance of additionaldemographic variables in differentiating amongst venturers.Specifically, younger males appeared to be more risk tolerant whilstolder females were more strongly focused on learning and mentalstimulation. Fourth, this is the first study to explore the destinationloyalty dimension, finding a positive relationship between venture-someness and loyalty that appears at first to contradict the allegedpreference for new experiences and destinations. Sixth, a positiveassociation with pro-environmental and ethical attitudes was alsorevealed, as well as with self-identification as an ‘ecotourist’.

Among the attendant practical implications of these tentativefindings, an internally reliable scalehasbeenproduced tomeasure thepsychographic characteristics of visitors in protected area and other

settings. It is apparent thatnature-baseddestinations, including thoseoriented explicitly to ecotourists, need to provide for the comfort ofeven the more venturesome visitors through the provision ofappropriate services. Targetmarketingandproductplacement shouldaccordingly consider the provision of adventure-type activities foryounger and male visitors, and mentally stimulating learningopportunities particularly for older and female visitors. Higher levelsof site and general loyalty could perhaps be cultivated throughpromotion of the seasonally variable ‘multi-destination’, whilstattention to the site’s environmental sustainability is imperative notonly to fulfil their biocentric mandate, but also to satisfy the strongethical and environmental sensibilities of venturesome visitors.

Study limitations that qualify the theoretical and practicalimplications include possible non-response bias associated withthe 20% participation rate, and the restriction of the study to walk-ins, who account for only about one-half of all visitors. Futureinvestigations, as described below, could address these particularshortcomings through various tactics, including the inclusion oftour group participants, provision of a more substantive incentive,more thorough training and monitoring of volunteer staff, and theuse of a shorter questionnaire to discourage mid-completionattrition. The provision of supervised play facilities during periodsof heavy family visits would also address the commonly reportedpractice of having one partner fill out the survey whilst the otherminded the children. Regarding other limitations, no ‘road-tested’psychographic scale was available from the literature, so there isless confidence that the 10 selected items encompass the full rangeof critical and discrete venturesome traits. Questionnaire spacelimits (the eight-page size may have already dissuaded manypotential participants) precluded the inclusion of additional ques-tions related to broader travel patterns, ethical/environmentalattitudes and behaviour, and other potentially relevant extraneousvariables such as the influence of the global financial crisis andfluctuating petrol costs.

Follow-up research priority should be assigned to the afore-mentioned attitudes and behaviour given the well-known attitude/behaviour gap in this regard, and the concomitant emphasis thatcontemporary destinations are placing on fostering tourism activitythat complements the goal of environmental and socio-culturalsustainability. Do venturers actually behave in ways that fostersuch outcomes, and how can they be influenced to increase suchbehaviour? In addition, there needs to be further investigation ofthe still ambiguous relationship between venturesomeness per seand constituent traits such as mental stimulation, risk aversion andself-reliance, and possible associated traits such as concern aboutthe environment. The latter may be as much or more a function ofeducation (which in turn is related to income), whilst gender andage may for example influence the level of risk aversion.

Acknowledgement

The author gratefully recognises the management of FrancisBeidler Forest for assisting with the design of the survey andorganising the survey distribution and collection process.

Appendix. Supplementary material

Supplementary material related to this article can be foundonline, at doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2011.04.006.

References

Anable, J. (2005). ‘Complacent car addicts’ or ‘aspiring environmentalists’? Identi-fying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transport Policy, 12,65e78.

D.B. Weaver / Tourism Management 33 (2012) 371e379 379

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Hughes, K. (2009). Tourists’ support for conservationmessages and sustainable management practices in wildlife tourism experi-ences. Tourism Management, 30, 658e664.

Bansal, H., & Eiselt, H. (2004). Exploratory research of tourist motivations andplanning. Tourism Management, 25, 387e396.

Beh, A., & Bruyere, B. (2007). Segmentation by visitor motivation in three Kenyannational reserves. Tourism Management, 28, 1464e1471.

Blamey, R. (2001). Principles of ecotourism. In D. Weaver (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofecotourism (pp. 5e22). Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Butler, R. (1980). The concept of a tourism area cycle of evolution: implications formanagement of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24, 5e12.

Calantone, R., & Mazanec, J. (1991). Marketing management and tourism. Annals ofTourism Research, 18, 101e119.

Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer e do ethicsmatter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18, 560e577.

Catlin, J., & Jones, R. (2010). Whale shark tourism at Ningaloo Marine Park:a longitudinal study of wildlife tourism. Tourism Management, 31, 386e394.

Chen, J., Huang, Y., & Chen, J. (2009). Vacation lifestyle and travel behaviors. Journalof Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26, 494e506.

Chi, C., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image,tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: an integrated approach. TourismManagement, 29, 624e636.

Correia, A., Silva, J., & Moço, C. (2008). Portuguese charter tourists to long-hauldestinations: a travel motive segmentation. Journal of Hospitality & TourismResearch, 32, 169e186.

Dallen, J. (2007). Sustainable transport, market segmentation and tourism: the LooeValley branch line railway, Cornwall, UK. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15,180e199.

Diamantis, D. (1999). The characteristics of UK’s ecotourists. Tourism RecreationResearch, 24(2), 99e102.

Dolnicar, S., & Leisch, F. (2008). An investigation of tourists’ patterns of obligation toprotect the environment. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 381e391.

Goeldner, C., & Ritchie, J. (2006). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies (10thed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Gountas, J., & Gountas, S. (2000). A new psychographic segmentation method usingJungian MBTI variables in the tourism industry. Tourism Analysis, 5, 151e156.

Griffith, D., & Albanese, P. (1996). An examination of Plog’s psychographic travelmodel within a student population. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 47e51.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4thed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Huang, S., & Hsu, C. (2009). Travel motivation: linking theory to practice. Interna-tional Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3, 287e295.

Hunter, C., & Shaw, J. (2007). The ecological footprint as a key indicator ofsustainable tourism. Tourism Management, 28, 46e57.

Hvenegaard, G., & Dearden, P. (1998). Ecotourism versus tourism in a Thai nationalpark. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 700e720.

Lawton, L., & Weaver, D. (2008). Factors associated with non-visitation by area toCongaree National Park, South Carolina. Journal of Park and Recreation Admin-istration, 26(4), 66e82.

Lawton, L., & Weaver, D. (2009). Travel agency threats and opportunities: theperspective of successful owners. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Adminis-tration, 10, 68e92.

Leask, A. (2010). Progress in visitor attraction research: towards more effectivemanagement. Tourism Management, 31, 155e166.

Lee, J., Graefe, A., & Burns, R. (2007). Examining the antecedents of destinationloyalty in a forest setting. Leisure Sciences, 29, 463e481.

Lee, S., & Sparks, B. (2007). Cultural influences on travel lifestyle: a comparison ofKorean Australians and Koreans in Korea. Tourism Management, 28, 505e518.

Lemelin, R., Fennell, D., & Smale, B. (2008). Polar bear viewers as deep ecotourists:how specialised are they? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(1), 42e62.

Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2008). Sensation seeking and tourism: tourist role,perception of risk and destination choice. Tourism Management, 29, 740e750.

Litvin, S. (2006). Revisiting Plog’s model of allocentricity and psychocentricity .one more time. Cornell Hotel & Recreation Administration Quarterly, 47, 245e253.

Liu, Z., Siguaw, J., & Enz, C. (2008). Using tourist travel habits and preferences toassess strategic destination positioning: the case of Costa Rica. Cornell Hospi-tality Quarterly, 49, 258e281.

McGuiggan, R. (2004). A vacation choice model incorporating personality andleisure constraints theory. Tourism Analysis, 8, 187e191.

McKercher, B. (2005). Are psychographics predictors of destination life cycles?Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19, 49e55.

Madrigal, R. (1995). Personal values, traveler personality type, and leisure travelstyle. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 125e142.

Marquesa, C., Reisa, E., & Menezes, J. (2010). Profiling the segments of visitors toPortuguese protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 971e996.

Nickerson, N., & Ellis, G. (1991). Traveler types and activation theory: a comparisonof two models. Journal of Travel Research, 29(Winter), 26e31.

Peeters, P. (Ed.). (2007). Tourism and climate change mitigation: Methods, greenhousegas reductions and policies. Breda, Netherlands: NHTV.

Plog, S. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. Cornell Hotel &Recreation Administration Quarterly, 14(4), 55e58.

Plog, S. (1990). A carpenter’s tools: an answer to Stephen L. J. Smith’s review ofpsychocentrism/allocentrism. Journal of Travel Research, 28(4), 43e45.

Plog, S. (1991). Leisure travel: Making it a growth market e again! Chichester, UK:John Wiley.

Plog, S. (2001). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity: an update ofa Cornell Quarterly classic. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly,42(3), 13e24.

Plog, S. (2002). The power of psychographics and the concept of venturesomeness.Journal of Travel Research, 40, 244e251.

Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitive strategies. Wallingford, UK: CABInternational.

Smith, S. (1990). A test of Plog’s allocentric/psychocentric model: evidence fromseven nations. Journal of Travel Research, 28(4), 40e43.

Snepenger, D. (1987). Segmenting the vacation market by novelty-seeking role.Journal of Travel Research, 19, 8e14.

Strasdas, W. (2009). Sustainable transportation guidelines for nature-based touroperators. In S. Gössling, C. M. Hall, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Sustainable tourismfutures: Perspectives on systems, restructuring and innovations (pp. 258e281).New York: Routledge.

Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable tourism: Theory and practice. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2002). Overnight ecotourist market segmentation in theGold Coast hinterland of Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 270e280.

Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2011a). Information sources for visitors’ first awareness ofa low profile attraction. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28, 1e12.

Weaver, D., & Lawton, L. (2011b). Visitor loyalty at a private South Carolina pro-tected area. Journal of Travel Research, 50, 335e346.

Yeoman, I., Brass, D., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2007). Current issue in tourism: theauthentic tourist. Tourism Management, 28, 1128e1138.

Zografos, C., & Allcroft, D. (2007). The environmental values of potential ecotourists:a segmentation study. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(1), 44e66.