Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2021, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (5): 707-714.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.05.013
• Ecotourism • Previous Articles
CHENG Jinhong, LI Shuxiao, CHENG Zhanhong*()
Received:
2021-01-17
Accepted:
2021-04-08
Online:
2021-09-30
Published:
2021-11-30
Contact:
CHENG Zhanhong
Supported by:
CHENG Jinhong, LI Shuxiao, CHENG Zhanhong. Measurements of the Cognitive Level of Ecotourists for the Tourism Environment in the Mountain Resorts[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(5): 707-714.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.05.013
Item | Index | Value | Item | Index | Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 1 | Cognition of nature reserve function | Conservation of natural resources | 1 |
Female | 2 | Providing entertainment and enjoyment | 2 | ||
Age (yr) | < 19 | 1 | Education and research | 3 | |
20-30 | 2 | Serve the local economy | 4 | ||
31-40 | 3 | Other | 5 | ||
41-50 | 4 | Cognition of negative impact | Great influence | 1 | |
51-60 | 5 | Some influence | 2 | ||
> 60 | 6 | Unclear | 3 | ||
Degree of education | Primary school | 1 | Not much | 4 | |
Junior high school | 2 | No influence | 5 | ||
High school or technical secondary school | 3 | Cognition of environmental quality | Very satisfied | 1 | |
Junior college or university | 4 | Satisfied | 2 | ||
Above university level | 5 | Relatively satisfied | 3 | ||
Monthly income (yuan) | < 1000 | 1 | Unsatisfied | 4 | |
1000-2000 | 2 | Very dissatisfied | 5 | ||
2000-3000 | 3 | Cognition of environmental problems | Strongly agree | 1 | |
3000-5000 | 4 | Agree | 2 | ||
> 5000 | 5 | Uncertainty | 3 | ||
Number of trips | Once | 1 | Disagree | 4 | |
Twice a year | 2 | Strongly disagree | 5 | ||
Thrice a year | 3 | ||||
More than three times a year | 4 |
Table 1 The assigned values for the attribute characteristics of ecotourists
Item | Index | Value | Item | Index | Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 1 | Cognition of nature reserve function | Conservation of natural resources | 1 |
Female | 2 | Providing entertainment and enjoyment | 2 | ||
Age (yr) | < 19 | 1 | Education and research | 3 | |
20-30 | 2 | Serve the local economy | 4 | ||
31-40 | 3 | Other | 5 | ||
41-50 | 4 | Cognition of negative impact | Great influence | 1 | |
51-60 | 5 | Some influence | 2 | ||
> 60 | 6 | Unclear | 3 | ||
Degree of education | Primary school | 1 | Not much | 4 | |
Junior high school | 2 | No influence | 5 | ||
High school or technical secondary school | 3 | Cognition of environmental quality | Very satisfied | 1 | |
Junior college or university | 4 | Satisfied | 2 | ||
Above university level | 5 | Relatively satisfied | 3 | ||
Monthly income (yuan) | < 1000 | 1 | Unsatisfied | 4 | |
1000-2000 | 2 | Very dissatisfied | 5 | ||
2000-3000 | 3 | Cognition of environmental problems | Strongly agree | 1 | |
3000-5000 | 4 | Agree | 2 | ||
> 5000 | 5 | Uncertainty | 3 | ||
Number of trips | Once | 1 | Disagree | 4 | |
Twice a year | 2 | Strongly disagree | 5 | ||
Thrice a year | 3 | ||||
More than three times a year | 4 |
Group | Total | Sample |
---|---|---|
Group Ⅰ | 74 | 1, 2, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28, 30, 34, 37, 40, 41, 45, 48, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 65, 66, 67, 73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 84, 88, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 115, 118, 122, 123, 127, 130, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138, 143, 144, 145, 152, 154, 155, 156, 164, 167, 168 |
Group Ⅱ | 43 | 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 19, 22, 24, 27, 33, 38, 39, 42, 43, 47, 49, 50, 55, 59, 62, 68, 72, 75, 89, 98, 114, 120, 121, 125, 128, 134, 140, 141, 146, 147, 148, 149, 157, 159, 160, 161 |
Group Ⅲ | 31 | 26, 29, 32, 36, 44, 46, 61, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 77, 78, 81, 85, 87, 91, 94, 103, 111, 116, 117, 119, 126, 129, 142, 158, 165, 166, 169 |
Group Ⅳ | 21 | 4, 6, 12, 31, 35, 51, 82, 83, 86, 99, 102, 113, 124, 131, 133, 139, 150, 151, 153, 162, 163 |
Table 2 The classification results of TWINSPAN
Group | Total | Sample |
---|---|---|
Group Ⅰ | 74 | 1, 2, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 28, 30, 34, 37, 40, 41, 45, 48, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 65, 66, 67, 73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 84, 88, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 115, 118, 122, 123, 127, 130, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138, 143, 144, 145, 152, 154, 155, 156, 164, 167, 168 |
Group Ⅱ | 43 | 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 19, 22, 24, 27, 33, 38, 39, 42, 43, 47, 49, 50, 55, 59, 62, 68, 72, 75, 89, 98, 114, 120, 121, 125, 128, 134, 140, 141, 146, 147, 148, 149, 157, 159, 160, 161 |
Group Ⅲ | 31 | 26, 29, 32, 36, 44, 46, 61, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 77, 78, 81, 85, 87, 91, 94, 103, 111, 116, 117, 119, 126, 129, 142, 158, 165, 166, 169 |
Group Ⅳ | 21 | 4, 6, 12, 31, 35, 51, 82, 83, 86, 99, 102, 113, 124, 131, 133, 139, 150, 151, 153, 162, 163 |
Serial number | Indicator items | Group Ⅰ | Group Ⅱ | Group Ⅲ | Group Ⅳ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Human beings have the right to change the natural environment | 2.34 | 1.98 | 4.00 | 3.76 |
2 | Animals and plants exist because of human needs | 1.80 | 2.81 | 4.27 | 4.14 |
3 | Man is destined to be the master of nature | 1.97 | 1.98 | 4.20 | 3.90 |
4 | Man is abusing resources and trampling on the environment | 4.14 | 3.56 | 4.43 | 2.19 |
5 | Tourist activities will harm the environment | 4.15 | 2.79 | 3.77 | 3.05 |
6 | The buildings in the scenic spot will spoil the natural beauty of the landscape | 3.76 | 2.93 | 4.00 | 3.24 |
7 | The balance of nature is very fragile, and it is difficult to restore it after being destroyed | 4.19 | 3.91 | 4.27 | 3.95 |
8 | Man's destruction of nature will inevitably lead to disastrous consequences | 4.31 | 4.02 | 4.30 | 3.77 |
9 | Man must live in harmony with nature to survive | 4.41 | 4.30 | 4.50 | 4.29 |
10 | Human beings have the responsibility to protect animals and plants so that they can survive and develop like human beings | 4.45 | 4.37 | 4.37 | 4.43 |
Table 3 The differences among different types in their attitudes toward the tourism environment cognitive indicators
Serial number | Indicator items | Group Ⅰ | Group Ⅱ | Group Ⅲ | Group Ⅳ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Human beings have the right to change the natural environment | 2.34 | 1.98 | 4.00 | 3.76 |
2 | Animals and plants exist because of human needs | 1.80 | 2.81 | 4.27 | 4.14 |
3 | Man is destined to be the master of nature | 1.97 | 1.98 | 4.20 | 3.90 |
4 | Man is abusing resources and trampling on the environment | 4.14 | 3.56 | 4.43 | 2.19 |
5 | Tourist activities will harm the environment | 4.15 | 2.79 | 3.77 | 3.05 |
6 | The buildings in the scenic spot will spoil the natural beauty of the landscape | 3.76 | 2.93 | 4.00 | 3.24 |
7 | The balance of nature is very fragile, and it is difficult to restore it after being destroyed | 4.19 | 3.91 | 4.27 | 3.95 |
8 | Man's destruction of nature will inevitably lead to disastrous consequences | 4.31 | 4.02 | 4.30 | 3.77 |
9 | Man must live in harmony with nature to survive | 4.41 | 4.30 | 4.50 | 4.29 |
10 | Human beings have the responsibility to protect animals and plants so that they can survive and develop like human beings | 4.45 | 4.37 | 4.37 | 4.43 |
Variables | Gender | Age | Degree of education | Monthly income | Number of trips | Cognition of nature reserve function | Cognition of negative impact | Cognition of environmental quality | Cognition of environmental problems |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The first axis of DCA | 0.167* | 0.187* | ‒0.191* | ‒0.047 | 0.170* | 0.191* | 0.081 | ‒0.079 | 0.018 |
The second axis of DCA | 0.126 | ‒0.123 | ‒0.125 | ‒0.029 | ‒0.055 | 0.098 | 0.059 | 0.001 | ‒0.060 |
Table 4 Correlations between the attribute characteristics and the DCA ordination axes
Variables | Gender | Age | Degree of education | Monthly income | Number of trips | Cognition of nature reserve function | Cognition of negative impact | Cognition of environmental quality | Cognition of environmental problems |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The first axis of DCA | 0.167* | 0.187* | ‒0.191* | ‒0.047 | 0.170* | 0.191* | 0.081 | ‒0.079 | 0.018 |
The second axis of DCA | 0.126 | ‒0.123 | ‒0.125 | ‒0.029 | ‒0.055 | 0.098 | 0.059 | 0.001 | ‒0.060 |
[1] | Carvache F M, Segarra O M, Carrascosa L C. 2019. Segmentation and motivations in ecotourism: The case of a coastal national park. Ocean & Coastal Management, 178:1-8. |
[2] | Castellanos V M, Vega V M, Oviedo G M A, et al. 2016. The relevance of psychological factors in the ecotourist experience satisfaction through ecotourist site perceived value. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124(15):226-235. |
[3] | Cheng S W, Zhang J, Lu S J, et al. 2011. Influence of tourists’ environmental tropisms on their attitudes to tourism and nature conservation in natural tourist destinations: A case study of Jiuzhaigou National Park in China. Chinese Geographical Science, 21(3):377-384. |
[4] | Choi Y E, Oh C O, Chon J. 2021. Applying the resilience principles for sustainable ecotourism development: A case study of the Nakdong Estuary, South Korea. Tourism Management, 83:104237. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104237. |
[5] | Diamantis D. 1999. The characteristics of the UK’s ecotourists. Tourism Recreation Research, 24(2):99-102. |
[6] | Goodwin R D, Chaudhary S K. 2017. Ecotourism dimensions and directions in India: An empirical study of Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Commerce and Management Thought, 8(3):436-451. |
[7] | Huete A N, Martinez R M P, Víctor R L, et al. 2019. Archeological tourist destination image formation: Influence of information sources on the cognitive, affective and unique image. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:2382. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02382. |
[8] | Hunt C A, Durham W H, Driscoll L, et al. 2015. Can ecotourism deliver real economic, social, and environmental benefits? A study of the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(3):339-357. |
[9] | Jesisca M, Hafid S. 2020. Ecotourism potential development of Bukit Barisan forest park in Karo Regency. Advances in Management, 13(2):17-23. |
[10] | Kerstetter D L, Hou J S, Lin C H. 2004. Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using a behavioral approach. Tourism Management, 25(4):491-498. |
[11] | Kim H, Stepchenkova S. 2015. Effect of tourist photographs on attitudes towards destination: Manifest and latent content. Tourism Management, 49:29-41. |
[12] | Kong H Y. 2014. Are tour guides in China ready for ecotourism? An importance-performance analysis of perceptions and performances. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 19(1):17-34. |
[13] | Kuuder C J W. 2021. Women empowerment in Sirigu through ecotourism in the Kasena-nankana east district of Ghana. Gender and Behavior, 18(3):934-948. |
[14] | Lee J H, Lee D J. 2015. Nature experience, recreation activity and health benefits of visitors in mountain and urban forests in Vienna, Zurich and Freiburg. Journal of Mountain Science, 12(6):1551-1561. |
[15] | Li Y Q. 2006. Validity analysis of a new ecotourist classification index. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 26(6):764-771. (in Chinese) |
[16] | Li Y Q. 2009. An analysis of eco-tourist cultivation model based on the interaction of EI, NEP, and VIS. Geographical Research, 28(6):1572-1582. (in Chinese) |
[17] | Lu A C C, Gursoy D, Chiappa G D. 2016. The influence of materialism on ecotourism attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Travel Research, 55(2):176-189. |
[18] | Meric H J, Hunt J. 1998. Ecotourists’ motivational and demographic characteristics: A case of North Carolina travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 36(4):57-61. |
[19] | Naah J B S N. 2020. Exploitation of ethnoecologically important wild trees by two ethnic groups in a community-based hippopotamus sanctuary in northwestern Ghana. Journal of Environmental Management, 255:109917. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109917 |
[20] | Nahuelhual L, Carmona A, Aguayo M, et al. 2014. Land use change and ecosystem services provision: A case study of recreation and ecotourism opportunities in Southern Chile. Landscape Ecology, 29(2):329-344. |
[21] | Neleman S, de Castro F D. 2016. Between nature and the city: Youth and ecotourism in an Amazonian ‘forest town’ on the Brazilian Atlantic Coast. Journal of Ecotourism, 15(3):261-284. |
[22] | Palacio V, McCool S F. 1997. Identifying ecotourists in Belize through benefit segmentation: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(3):234-243. |
[23] | Pegas F D V, Castley J G. 2014. Ecotourism as a conservation tool and its adoption by private protected areas in Brazil. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(4):604-625. |
[24] | Perkins H E, Brown P R. 2012. Environmental values and the so-called true ecotourist. Journal of Travel Research, 51(6):793-803. |
[25] | Pooley J A, Moira O C. 2016. Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environment & Behavior, 32(5):711-723. |
[26] | Qiu Q H, Zheng T X, Xiang Z, et al. 2019. Visiting intangible cultural heritage tourism sites: From value cognition to attitude and intention. Sustainability, 12(1):132. DOI: 10.3390/su12010132. |
[27] | Ranjith M. 2021. To examine the potential and scope of ecotourism in Kerala with a special focus on tourists to ecotourism destinations. Journal of Tourism & Hospitality, 9(4): 433‒445. |
[28] | Serenari C, Peterson M N, Wallace T, et al. 2017. Private protected areas, ecotourism development and impacts on local people’s well-being: A review from case studies in Southern Chile. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(10-12):1792-1810. |
[29] | Shasha Z T, Geng Y, Sun H P, et al. 2020. Past, current, and future perspectives on eco-tourism: A bibliometric review between 2001 and 2018. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(19):23514-23528. |
[30] | Snyman S L. 2017. The role of private sector ecotourism in local socio-economic development in Southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism, 16(3):247-268. |
[31] | Sun Y H, Zhou H J, Wall G, et al. 2017. Cognition of disaster risk in a tourism community: An agricultural heritage system perspective. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(4):536-553. |
[32] | Wang H, Li L. 2018. The impact of ecotourism involvement and group norms on tourists’ willingness of environmentally friendly behavior: A case study of bird watchers. Tourism Science, 32(1):86-95. (in Chinese) |
[33] | Weaver D B, Lawton L J. 2002. Overnight ecotourist market segmentation in the Gold Coast Hinterland of Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3):270-280. |
[34] | Wight P A. 1996. North American ecotourists: Market profile and trip characteristics. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4):2-10. |
[35] | World Tourism Organization. 2002. The French ecotourism market. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization. |
[36] | Wu W, Zhang X, Yang Z, et al. 2017. Creating a low carbon tourism community by public cognition, intention and behavior change analysis a case study of a heritage site (Tianshan, Tianchi, China). Open Geosciences, 9(1):197-210. |
[37] | Yeboah T. 2021. Dynamics of ecotourism benefits distribution. Tourism Planning and Development, 2:1-16. |
[38] | Yuan Q, Song H J, Chen N, et al. 2019. Roles of tourism involvement and place attachment in determining residents’ attitudes toward industrial heritage tourism in a resource-exhausted city in China. Sustainability, 11:5151. DOI: 10.3390/su11195151. |
[39] | Yun C, Kihwan S, Min K, et al. 2017. Transformation planning for resilient wildlife habitats in ecotourism systems. Sustainability, 9(4):487. DOI: 10.3390/su9040487. |
[40] | Zhang H J, Gao Y, Hua Y W, et al. 2019. Assessing and mapping recreationists’ perceived social values for ecosystem services in the Qinling Mountains, China. Ecosystem Services, 39:101006. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101006. |
[41] | Zhang J T. 2004. Quantitative ecology. Beijing, China: Science Press. (in Chinese) |
[42] | Zhang K, Chen Y, Li C L. 2019. Discovering the tourists’ behaviors and perceptions in a tourism destination by analyzing photos’ visual content with a computer deep learning model: The case of Beijing. Tourism Management, 75:595-608. |
[43] | Zhang Y L, Zhang J, Zhang H L, et al. 2015. The impact of the cognition of landscape experience on tourist environmental conservation behaviors. Journal of Mountain Science, 12(2):501-517. |
No related articles found! |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||