Measurements of the Cognitive Level of Ecotourists for the Tourism Environment in the Mountain Resorts

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.05.013

Abstract

Abstract:

Tourists are the main body of tourism activities, and studying the environmental cognition of tourists is beneficial for the environmental management of scenic spots. In this article, data obtained by questionnaire were used to compose a data matrix of 169×10 dimensions, and the cognitive level of ecotourists for the tourism environment was measured by two-way indicator species analysis (TWINSPAN) and detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) in Luya Mountain Nature Reserve. This analysis revealed three main points. (1) TWINSPAN divided all the samples into the strict environment protection type, the ordinary environment protection type, the occasional environment protection type, and the natural enjoyment type. Both the strict and ordinary environment protection types agreed with biocentrism and had a consciousness regarding the protection of nature, but the former advocated that tourism activities should be restricted in nature reserves, while the latter did not agree with restrictions on tourism activities. The occasional environment protection types denied biocentrism; on the one hand, they thought that nature should serve human beings, but on the other hand, they showed a tendency toward environmental protection. The natural enjoyment type argued that natural resources should be maximized to meet human needs. (2) There were significant correlations between the first axis of the DCA and gender, age, education, number of trips, and cognition of nature reserve function, and the second axis of DCA was significantly correlated with gender, age, and education level. Under the impact of all the factors in the DCA figure, ecotourist types transitioned gradually from the first type to the second, the third, and the fourth types along the diagonal line, and accordingly, their cognitive level for the tourism environment was reduced slowly. (3) For nature reserves, the strict environment protection type had 74 people, who was the most popular. The ordinary and occasional environment protection types had 43 people and 31 people, respectively, who should be strived to raise environmental awareness. The natural enjoyment type had 21 people, who must be systematically educated.

Key words: ecotourists, the cognitive level for tourism environment, Luya Mountain

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.

Figures/Tables 5

References 43

[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.

Item	Index	Value	Item	Index	Value
Gender	Male	1	Cognition of nature reserve function	Conservation of natural resources	1
Gender	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

Item	Index	Value	Item	Index	Value
Gender	Male	1	Cognition of nature reserve function	Conservation of natural resources	1
Gender	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

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