EN中文

Journal of Resources and Ecology >

2021 , Vol. 12 >Issue 5: 707 - 714

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

Ecotourism

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

  • CHENG Jinhong ,
  • LI Shuxiao ,
  • CHENG Zhanhong , *
Expand
  • School of Culture Tourism, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Taiyuan 030031, China
*CHENG Zhanhong, E-mail:

Received date: 2021-01-17

  Accepted date: 2021-04-08

  Online published: 2021-11-22

Supported by

The National Natural Science Foundation of China(41571141)

The Planning of Philosophy and Social Sciences in Shanxi Province(2018B072)

The Planning of Philosophy and Social Sciences in Shanxi Province(2020YY118)

The Research Project on Graduate Education Reform in Shanxi Province(2019JG129)

The Research Project on Graduate Education Reform in Shanxi Province(2020YJJG168)

Fold

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

Cite this article

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

1 Introduction

Tourists are the main body of the tourism system and an important part of tourism research. In different scenic spots, the tourists have different characteristics in terms of demographics, types, motivations, environmental attitudes, and so on. Tourists with different characteristics may have different tourism behaviors, which are closely related to changes in the environment of the scenic spots. The demographic characteristics of tourists are the internal factors restricting their behavior, so studying and identifying the characteristics of tourists, especially the internal mechanism between demographic characteristics and behavior characteristics, is the theoretical basis of the proper implementation of tourism management. Therefore, it has important practical significance to the construction of scenic spots and tourism sustainable development, while at the same time, it also helps to improve the theoretical system of tourists in theory.
With the gradual rise of ecotourism, which is regarded as one of the fastest-growing sectors in the global tourism industry (Perkins and Brown, 2012), ecotourists are a special tourism consumer group that has attracted increasing attention in academic and industrial circles. With increasing attention to climate change, solid wastes, over-tourism, and the improved environmental awareness globally, ecotourism has been widely promoted worldwide (Shasha et al., 2020). As a powerful market force, ecotourism is low-impact nature tourism, which contributes directly and indirectly to the maintenance of species and habitats (Castellanos et al., 2016). From a global perspective, developing countries are the destinations of ecotourism, while developed countries are the sources of ecotourists. In 2002, the World Tourism Organization commissioned experts to conduct an in-depth market survey on seven important sources of ecotourism tourists in North America and Europe. This survey was the largest and most extensive survey on the ecotourism market in general, and especially on ecotourists (World Tourism Organization, 2002). So far, there is no definition of ecotourism that is generally accepted.
With the change of people's tourism consumption fashion, the mountain resorts with rich natural resources have attracted the attention of many tourists, especially more urban residents, and the annual number of visitors is rising. However, due to the lack of scientific and effective management, the potential for damage to the ecological environment is increasingly worrying. The special appeal of ecotourism for the tourism environment determines that scenic spots must carry out environmental supervision of the ecotourists from the start, and the foundation of such environmental supervision needs to be an analysis and understanding of the cognition level of tourists for the ecological environment. Although there have been many studies on ecotourists’ environmental cognition, they have not paid sufficient attention to the relationship between ecotourists’ environmental cognition and their demographic characteristics. The research on this aspect can provide the information and premise that the scenic spots must know in order to implement properly environmental supervision of ecotourists.
Luya Mountain National Nature Reserve is located at the northern end of the Lvliang Mountain range in Shanxi Province. It mainly protects the rare animal Crossoptilon mantchuricum and temperate forest vegetation types, among which Larix principis-rupprechtii, Picea asperata, and mountain meadow are particularly unique to North China. It was taken as an example in this study. Through a field survey of tourists, the information of their demographic, tourism motivation, environmental and cognitive characteristics is obtained. By two-way indicator species analysis and detrended correspondence analysis, the cognitive level of ecotourists for the tourism environment is studied and measured, and the relationships between environmental cognitive and related factors are analyzed. The results are of great practical significance for strengthening tourist management.

2 Literature review

At present, scholarly research on ecotourism is comprehensive and involves a wide range of topics. Some studies are about the concept, nature, functions and characteristics of ecotourism itself (Hunt et al., 2015). Some studies are longitudinal explorations from the development strategy (Choi et al., 2021) or the prospect of ecotourism (Pegas and Castley, 2014). There is also horizontal extension of different ecotourism types based on wildlife (Yun et al., 2017), forest parks (Jesisca and Hafid, 2020), craft cultures (Kuuder, 2021), youth (Neleman and Castro, 2016), or community (Naah, 2020). However, there has not been an in-depth independent study on ecotourism of mountain types, which are usually combined with forests or national parks (Lee and Lee, 2015).
Along with the development of the research process, the relationships and interactions between ecotourism and human beings are becoming increasingly important. Research related to people is emerging, such as the role of stakeholders in the process of ecotourism (Snyman, 2017), the dynamic benefit mechanisms of different stakeholders in ecotourism (Yeboah, 2021), and the ecotourism service system (Nahuelhual et al., 2014). The study of ecotourists has also become a more important aspect of ecotourism research (Ranjith, 2021).
Early investigations and research of ecotourists mainly concentrated on the developed countries, and there are two major categories. One category is the tourists travelling from the developed countries to developing countries and regions for the destination tourist behavior research, such as the survey of tourists who travelled from the Western Hemisphere to Taiwan (Kerstetter et al., 2004), and the survey of tourists who went from developed countries to Andhra Pradesh (Goodwin and Chaudhary, 2017). The second category is the studies on the characteristics of tourists whose destination and source are both in developed countries, such as a survey of ecotourists in North Carolina (Meric and Hunt, 1998) and a survey of tourists in Australian national parks (Weaver and Lawton, 2002). However, there is still a lack of research on ecotourists in developing countries and regions.
As for the research on the characteristics and attributes of ecotourists, the early studies mainly focused on the differences between ordinary tourists and natural tourists (Wight, 1996), and then they gradually shifted to the internal differentiation of ecotourists (Weaver and Lawton, 2002). Just like the richness and complexity of ecotourism, ecotourists not only have specific connotations but also are not homogeneous as a group. The heterogeneity of the ecotourism market is closely related to the demographic characteristics, tourism motivations, environmental cognition, behavior, tourist loyalty, and other factors of the tourists (Palacio and McCool, 1997; Diamantis, 1999; Kerstetter et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2016; Pooley and Moira, 2016). In fact, due to the close correlations between ecotourism and the tourism environment and ecological responsibility, scholarly research on ecotourists has been focused on the tourism environment, ecological responsibility, and some related factors. There are many studies on ecotourism in foreign countries, such as the perceived benefit evaluation model for ecotourists (Zhang et al., 2019), the impact of ecotourism activities on the ecosystem (Naah, 2020) and local people (Hunt et al., 2015; Serenari et al., 2017), tourist environmental education (Kong, 2014), and the motivations and demand for ecotourists based on functional theory (Carvache et al., 2019). In China, many scholars have carried out case studies on ecotourists (Li, 2006; Wang et al., 2018). Most importantly, to effectively identify the characteristics of ecotourists, Li also constructed the “ecotourism interest scale” index (2006) and proposed the cultivation model of ecotourists based on the interactions of EI, NEP, and VIS (2009).
Research on tourism cognition has been extensive, including explorations of tourists (Zhang et al., 2019), tourism communities (Sun et al., 2017), destination residents (Yuan et al., 2019) and so on. Among them, the research on tourist cognition has also involved a wide range of topics. According to the different types of tourism, there were studies on heritage tourism cognition (Qiu et al., 2019), archeological tourism cognition (Huete et al., 2019), rural tourism cognition (Sun et al., 2017), low-carbon tourism cognition (Wu et al., 2017), and ecotourism cognition (Cheng et al., 2011). This research included measurement analysis (Wu et al., 2017), case study (Qiu et al., 2019), and exploration of influencing factors (Cheng et al., 2011; Kim and Stepchenkova, 2015; Zhang et al., 2015; Huete et al., 2019; Yuan et al., 2019). However, at present, information on the cognition of tourists regarding the ecological environment is still scarce. Among the cognitive studies of tourists in different types of scenic spots, the cognition of tourists in mountain resorts is usually based on the perspective of tourism safety, and the cognition for the overall ecological environment has not been studied yet.

3 Research data and methods

3.1 Data source

There are rich ecotourism resources in Luya Mountain National Nature Reserve, and tourism activities there began in the 1990s. Because it belongs to the temperate mainland climate, tourism has obvious seasonal characteristics. With the development of ecotourism, its tourism industry is growing. The total income was 7.3 million yuan in 2016, and more than 150 thousand tourists were received.
For this study, a sample survey was conducted among tourists in Luya Mountain Nature Reserve by issuing questionnaires to obtain relevant data. From a total of 180 questionnaires distributed, 169 valid questionnaires were recovered, for a recovery rate of 93%. The survey items included not only the demographic characteristics of the respondents, such as gender, age, educational level, income, and number of trips, but also their understanding of the function of nature reserves and the impact of tourism, as well as indicators of their cognition of the tourism environment. Among them, there are 10 indicators on the cognition of the tourism environment, which are: human beings having the right to change the natural environment; animals and plants exist because of human needs; human beings are destined to be the masters of nature; man is abusing resources and trampling on the environment; tourist activities can destroy the environment; the buildings in the scenic spot will spoil the natural beauty of the landscape; the balance of nature is very fragile, and it is difficult to restore it after it is destroyed; man's destruction of nature will inevitably lead to disastrous consequences; man must live in harmony with nature to survive, and human beings have the responsibility to protect animals and plants so that they can survive and develop like human beings. For each of these cognitive indicators, the degree of agreement is answered on a 5-level Likert scale.

3.2 Research methods

In this article, the degree of agreement for each cognitive indicator, was indicated as either strongly disagree, disagree, uncertain, agree, and strongly agree, which are assigned respectively as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The assignments of related attribute characteristics of ecotourists are detailed in Table 1.
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
Two-way indicator species analysis (TWINSPAN) can classify all samples according to the indicator factors, and detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) can arrange all samples by certain rules according to the attribute characteristics of all samples. Both of these methods can be carried out based on the same set of data (Zhang, 2004). The data matrix of 169×10 dimensions was composed of 10 index values for each of the 169 samples for tourism environment cognition, and the classification of ecotourists types and the relationships between their cognition and related characteristic factors were measured by TWINSPAN and DCA.

4 Results and analysis

4.1 TWINSPAN classification

From Table 2, TWINSPAN divided all samples into four groups, representing four types respectively, and there were 74 people in Group I, 43 people in Group II, 31 people in Group III, and 21 people in Group IV.
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
Table 3 shows that for the cognition of indicators 1, 2, and 3, the different types showed a tendency of Group III > Group IV > Group II and Group I and the views of Group III and Group IV, were very different from those of Group II and Group I. GroupI and Group II thought human beings have no right to change the natural environment, plants and animals do not exist because of human needs, and man is not the master of nature. Group III and Group IV, on the other hand, argued that human beings have the right to change the natural environment, plants and animals exist because of human needs, and man is destined to be the master of nature. This indicated that the first two groups tended to hold biocentric views, while the latter two groups tended to hold anthropocentric views.
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
For Indicator 4, the different types showed the trend of Group III > Group I > Group II > Group IV among which, both Group III and Group I believed that human beings were abusing resources and trampling on the environment, while Group II showed some uncertainty, and Group IV, on the other hand, apparently held the opposite view and did not believe that humans were abusing resources and trampling on the environment. For Indicator 5, the different types showed a trend of Group I > Group III > Group IV > Group II. Group Iagreed that tourism activities would cause damage to the environment, Group III showed a certain tendency of approval, and Group IV took an uncertain attitude; however, Group II was between uncertainty and opposition, believing that tourism activities might not damage the environment. For Indicator 6, the different types showed a trend of Group III > Group I > Group IV > Group II. Group III agreed that the buildings in the scenic spot would destroy the natural beauty of the landscape, while Group II and Group IV were uncertain, and Group I was somewhere between approval and uncertainty. From the cognitive differences of the different types for these three indicators, we could see that there are differences between Group I and Group II, as well as between Group III and Group IV. Compared with Group I, Group II showed less concern and protective feelings toward the natural environment, and Group III showed stronger concern and protective attitude for the natural environment than Group IV.
For indicator 7, the different types showed a tendency to agree that the balance of nature is fragile and difficult to restore after disruption. For Indicator 8, while Group IV showed some uncertainty, the other three groups agreed that human destruction of nature would inevitably lead to disastrous consequences, which again showed that Group IV was indifferent to the natural environment. For Indicators 9 and 10, there were no differences between the different types, and they all agreed.
According to the cognitive differences of the different types for the relevant indicators, we could find their corresponding characteristics. Group I was the strict environment protection type, they agreed with biocentrism, that human beings should have a sense of protecting nature because tourism activities cause damage to the tourism environment, so tourism activities should be restricted. Group II was also biocentric, but they did not believe that tourism causes damage to the natural environment and therefore did not agree with restrictions on tourism activities. They could be called the ordinary environment protection type. Group III was the most contradictory group, they denied biocentrism, that all activities should be human-centered, and nature is in the service of humans; but they also believed that human beings are destroying natural resources and the environment and show the side of environmental protection, so they belonged to the occasional environment protection type. Group IV was the typical natural enjoyment type, they did not agree that human beings are abusing resources and trampling on the environment, and they argued that natural resources should be maximized to meet human needs.

4.2 DCA ordination

Figure 1 shows that the different types of ecotourists have a certain distribution range in space, and the adjacent types have certain coincidences or crossover in the spatial region, while the non-adjacent types have a certain spatial distance in the distribution. Combined with Table 3, there were significant correlations between the first axis of the DCA and gender, age, education, number of trips, and cognition of nature reserve function; that is, from left to right on the first axis, the sex of ecotourists gradually transitioned to women, age gradually increased, education level gradually decreased, the number of trips gradually increased, and the cognition of nature reserve function gradually expanded from protecting natural resources to providing entertainment and enjoyment opportunities, education and research, and serving the local economy. The second axis of DCA was correlated with gender, age, and education level, so from the bottom to the top, the sex of ecotourists also gradually transitioned to women, age gradually decreased, and education level gradually decreased. Under the combined action of various factors, the types of ecotourists gradually transitioned from Group I to Group II, Group III, and Group IV along the diagonal line from the lower-left corner to the upper-right. Accordingly, their cognitive level for the tourism environment was decreasing.
Fig. 1 The DCA ordination of different types
Regarding ecotourist types and their attribute characteristics, Group I, which was dominated by more men, higher education and higher income level, was located at the leftmost end of the ordination figure, and their number of trips was less. They considered that the main function of nature reserve was to protect natural resources and had a higher degree of cognition of tourism environment protection. Group IV, which was dominated by women, older and less educated individuals, was located at the upper right end of the ordination figure, and their cognition of tourism environmental protection was low. The attribute features of the other types were more intermediate between these two, and their differences were not significant, so they were densely located in the middle part of the ordination figure.
Combined with Table 4, it can be seen that ecotourists with a relatively young age, higher education, higher income, and more tourism trips had a strong awareness of tourism environmental protection, and male ecotourists tended to be more environmentally friendly than female ecotourists. Ecotourists who tended to be environmentally friendly tended to be protective of natural resources in their perceptions of the functions of nature reserves. There were no obvious differences among the four types on the negative impact of tourism activities, the current environmental quality, or the cognition of environmental problems.
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

Note: * means the significance levels is at P<0.05.

5 Discussion

Ecotourists are the main body of ecotourism activities, representing the needs, while the tourism environment is the important basis for the development of ecotourism, representing the supply side. An important concern of ecotourism development is to explore the relationship between ecotourists and tourism environment, and it is beneficial to sustainable development for the tourism industry to be adjusted according to the relationship between them.
In this article, ecotourists were divided into four types, and the basic characteristics of each type are consistent with the current situation of ecotourism development in China. In our country, the ecotourism market is complex, and includes not only the strict environment protection type, but also more of the ordinary environment protection type. They are the general public, and have the demand of a return to nature and pursuing green activities. The nature reserve, as the public welfare protected area, has the responsibility to meet the public’s green demand, but the protection of natural resources is still its first task. Luya Mountain Nature Reserve receives 150000 tourists every year. In our survey, the strict environment protection type accounted for 44%, while the ordinary environment protection type, the occasional environment protection type and the natural enjoyment type accounted for 25%, 18% and 12%, respectively. If calculated according to these proportions, there are still 56% of the non-strict tourists in the Luya Mountain Nature Reserve. Although the development of ecotourism brought more income and was beneficial to the development of protected areas and communities, the protection of the environment was threatened by the visits of these tourists. The environmental management situation is still severe in Luya Mountain Nature Reserve.
Based on the new ecological paradigm, the related indicators of the tourism environment were constructed, which involved the most basic relationship between man and nature, and the types of tourists also fully reflected the characteristics of environmental protection. However, the specific tourism environment indicators, as well as the environmental interpretation indicators, were not yet involved in our analysis of Luya Mountain. Such a classification could be more targeted if it was combined with the actual environmental conditions in Luya Mountain. In addition, the connotation of ecotourist includes not only the cognition of the tourism environment, but also the responsible attitude toward community development. This study focused on ecotourists’ cognition of the tourism environment, but did not involve the attitude towards the community responsibility. Future research should be concerned with this aspect as well.

6 Conclusions

Luya Mountain National Nature Reserve was taken as an example, and the cognition of ecotourists for the tourism environment was studied by TWINSPAN and DCA. The results showed that TWINSPAN divided the 169 samples into the strict environment protection type, the ordinary environment protection type, the occasional environment protection type, and the natural enjoyment type. Among them, the first two were biocentric, and the latter two were anthropocentric. The first axis of DCA had significant correlations with gender, age, education level, tourism frequency, and cognition of nature reserve function; while the second axis had greater correlations with gender, age, and education level. Under the combined action of various factors, the types of ecotourists transitioned gradually from Group I to Group II, Group III, and Group IV along the diagonal line from the lower-left corner to the upper-right. Accordingly, their cognitive level for the tourism environment was decreasing.
The strict environment protection type not only had a high awareness of ecological environmental protection, but was also willing to put this awareness into action, which had a positive role in promoting the environmental protection of ecotourism areas, and also had a strong demonstration role for the other types. It was the most popular type in the nature reserves. We should strive to advocate and carry forward the demonstration role of such ecotourists. The natural enjoyment type was the least popular because they had neither the awareness nor the conscious behavior of ecological environmental protection. Although they were small in number, we should still pay attention to the environmental education that is necessary for these tourists. The ordinary environment protection type belonged to a special category of biocentrism. They had a strong awareness of environmental protection, but their environmental behavior was not as good as that of the strict environment protection type. The occasional environment protection type was a special category of anthropocentrism, as they had occasional environmental protection behavior, and their environmental protection behavior was even higher than the ordinary environment protection type. These two types of ecotourists were on the border between the strict environment protection type and the nature enjoyment type, and they were the most likely to change their minds and become the strict environment protection type that should be sought.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[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.

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉