Motivations of Sports Tourists - An Empirical Analysis in ... · Several European Rock Climbing...
Transcript of Motivations of Sports Tourists - An Empirical Analysis in ... · Several European Rock Climbing...
Universität Bayreuth
Rechts- und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät
Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere
ISSN 1611-3837
Adresse: Prof. Dr. Herbert Woratschek Universität Bayreuth Lehrstuhl für Dienstleistungsmanagement 95440 Bayreuth Telefon: 0921/553497 Fax: 0921/553496 e-Mail: [email protected]
Herbert Woratschek, Frank M. Hannich, Brent Ritchie
Diskussionspapier 02-07
Februar 2007
Motivations of Sports Tourists - An Empirical Analysis in
Several European Rock Climbing Regions
Abstract
Motivations of Sports Tourists - An Empirical Analysis in Several
European Rock Climbing Regions
This paper analyses how complex sets of motivations influence destination choice of sports tourists. This is done by using the example of rock climbing tourism. The paper demonstrates that rock climbing tourists can be segmented into four distinct customer groups according to their different motivations. The standard three-step procedure of factor analysis, cluster analysis and segment description is used on the data, but special attention is given to determining an optimal cluster analysis solution. To achieve this, solutions with different numbers of clusters derived from Ward analysis as well as Quick-Cluster analysis are statistically compared. It is shown how the four standard criteria for acceptable market segments can be used in this context. Cluster analysis based on motivation dimensions finally led to four distinct segments. Based on their motivations the clusters were termed Scene Climbers, Adventure Climbers, Novelty Seeking Tourists and Sport- and Leisure Tourists. Revealing the preferences of climbing tourists, the results enable destinations to adjust their strategy accordingly. Each segment has specific requirements that have to be met. This motivation-based analysis provides clear implications on how to make a destination more attractive to climbing tourists.
Keywords: Segmentation, motivations and destination choice, sports tourism
1
When Crompton researched tourist motivation in the late seventies he found, that
tourists where largely homogenous in their motives. A great number of destinations
could be the medium to satisfy the motives of relaxation, exploration of self and
regression that were driving most of his subjects.(Crompton 1979) Since then, tourists
have become much more demanding and their motives and motivations have become
much more diverse.(Poon 2002; Krippendorf 1987) Today, many tourists organize
their vacation around one specific interest. This phenomenon is researched under the
heading of special interest tourism.(Hall 1989; Weiler and Hall 1992) Sports tourism
is one important segment of special interest tourism, where the desire to pursue sports
activities at a tourism destination is the main motive to travel.(Weed and Bull 2004;
Hinch and Higham 2004) In this case destination choice of tourists can be expected to
be influenced by a complex set of motivations, both general tourism motivations as
well as specific sports-related motivations.(Gammon and Robinson 1997; Robinson
and Gammon 2004) Empirical, activity-specific research suggests, that these
motivations differ, however, depending on the activity. (Fluker and Turner 2000) At
the same time it has been shown that the motivations of sports tourists are also not
homogenous depending on the importance sport has within their vacation. (Weed and
Bull 2004; Jackson and Weed 2003) Consequently, the study presented here
researches the motivations of one specific segment of sports tourism i.e. rock
climbing tourism. The goal is to analyze the interplay of sports- and tourism-related
motivations in rock climbing tourism. Special attention is also paid to the question
whether motivations differ, depending on the importance of climbing within the
vacation of the individual traveler. Additionally, the consequences for destination
management and the relevance of the results for other sports tourism segments will be
discussed.
Tourist Motivations
The motivations of tourists have been a prominent topic in tourism research for
several decades. They are seen as a major influence on destination choice. (Goosens
2000; Gnoth 1997; Cha, McCleary, and Uysal 1995) It is critical for destination
2
choice that the image of a destination or a destination brand is congruent to the
motivations of the targeted tourist segments.(Moutinho 1987) Additionally,
motivations are used to define tourism segments, especially in the context of special
interest tourism, where sub-segments are named according to the main motivation
pursued by the trip.(Cooper et al. 1998) In the case of climbing tourism discussed
here, the defining motivation of tourists for traveling is to go climbing at a destination
away from home.
Tourist motivation has been analyzed from many different theoretical angles.(Dann
1981; Iso-Ahola 1982) The view, that in explaining tourist motivation push and pull
factors should be distinguished, is today the most widespread explanation model of
tourist motivation in literature.(Dann 1981; Ateljevic 2000; Cha, McCleary, and Uysal
1995; Yuan and McDonald 1990) Push factors represent socio-psychological motives
that drive people to travel. When the general decision to travel is made, pull factors
motivate tourists to choose a specific destination. Therefore, the terms motivations
and motives should not be used synonymously. Motives are the basic drivers of travel
behavior and independent of the specific situation. Therefore motives, as lasting
dispositions, can lead to different actions under different circumstances. Motivations
on the other hand are more cognitive and are directed at a specific situation or object
such as a destination.(Gnoth 1997; Heckhausen 1989) Accordingly, as this research
wants to reveal the factors that influence the choice of a specific destination, we will
focus on motivations. This approach is justified by the changes in tourists’
motivations. As stated earlier tourists have become more demanding and thus
destination attributes as well as situational aspects in general have become more
important to tourists.(Poon 2002; Bieger and Laesser 2002; Lohmann and Aderhold
2000)
There is rarely just one reason to travel, even though, one motive may play a
dominant role for travelling or one motivation may be decisive for destination choice.
If there is no dominant motivation tourists try to choose a destination that promises to
satisfy all motivations.(Swarbrooke and Horner 1999) In the case of sports tourism
sports-related motivations supplement the generic tourism ones. Some motives to
pursue a sport can be found in tourist motivation typologies as well, but there are also
motives specific to the sport domain.(Weed and Bull 2004) Therefore, with the
3
destination choice of sports tourists a complex mix of generic tourism motivations and
sports-related motivations has to be expected.(Robinson and Gammon 2004)
Additionally, each sport that tourists want to exercise during their trip results in
specific requirements, that are relevant in destination choice.(Fluker and Turner 2000)
Therefore a more in-depth look at a sports tourism segment is needed. We use rock
climbing tourism as example here
Rock Climbing Tourism
Development of rock climbing tourism
Rock climbing is among the activities that drive the trend in global tourism towards
outdoor and adventure tourism.(Beedie 2003) Especially sports climbing on natural
rocks has seen a tremendous increase in participants since the 1980’s and is popular in
all western countries.(Neirotti 2003; Hanemann 2000; Outdoor_Industry_Association
2004; Tomlinson et al. 2005; Philipsenburg 2001) Rock climbing is closely connected
with tourism as climbers show a very high mobility in practicing their sport.(Stettler
2000) If participants want to climb natural rocks rather than indoor artificial climbing
walls, they have to travel to areas that offer attractive climbing possibilities with the
suitable difficulty rating for the individual climber.(Weed and Bull 2004; Valentine
1992) The best climbing areas are typically situated in low mountain range areas and
not in the vicinity of urban centers. While many climable rocks exist, only few
destinations can offer climbing sites that are attractive, big, and diverse enough to
make climbing vacations there worthwhile.(Bourdeau, Corneloup, and Mao 2004)
This is one main reason climbers travel a lot and practice their sport as a weekend and
vacation activity.
Despite of this promising outlook climbing tourism is often not considered a very
profitable tourism segment both in literature (Bourdeau, Corneloup, and Mao 2004)
and among many destination managers, as in-depth interviews for this research
project have shown. Indeed previous research has found out that of four climbing
tourism destinations surveyed, only one achieved similar financial results for climbing
tourism as did other tourism segments.(Woratschek and Hannich 2006) The question
is: How did they achieve this? Two ways often cited are: customer orientation and
4
concentration on attractive customer segments. This again leads to the necessity of
having detailed knowledge of the motivations of ones customers.
Motivations of rock climbing tourists
In sport tourism travel motivations have to expected to be multidimensional,
involving a mixture of both sport- and travel-related motivations. (Robinson and
Gammon 2004) While research has been done on the motivations of climbers in
general (Beier 2001), only preliminary studies on the motivations of rock climbing
tourists exist (Grotheer et al. 2003).
Several studies on the motivation of mountaineering adventure tourists have been
done, however.(Pomfret 2006; Loewenstein 1999; Ewert and Hollenhorst 1989, 1994)
Other studies have focussed on the personalities of mountaineers, especially
sensation-seeking.(Rossi and Cereatti 1993; Breivik 1996; Gomà i Freixanet 1991;
Jack and Ronan 1998). Apart from rock climbing mountaineering includes a number
of activities such as hiking, skiing, mountain climbing, and others. (Mitchell 1983;
Pomfret 2006) These activities depend on a wide range of different facilities and
natural conditions. This is just one reason why it is not surprising that comparative
studies have found significant differences in the motivation of rock climbers and
mountain climbers (Brandauer 1994) and between hard and soft activity mountaineers
(Pomfret 2006; Beier 2001), therefore results from general mountaineering studies can
form a basis for this research, but some differences in motivations of rock climbing
tourists have to be expected. Hard and soft adventure activities are mainly
distinguished by the level of risk involved. While soft adventure activities typically
involve low risk, require limited skills and are usually tutored by professional guides,
hard adventure activities require skills, commitment and the acceptance of personal
risk.(Hill 1995; Beedie and Hudson 2003; Muller and Cleaver 2000) Push factors
reported in mountaineering studies are “challenge and risk”, “catharsis” which
encompasses relaxation and peace of mind, “recognition” as a mountaineer,
“creativity” in solving – self-imposed – problems, “locus of control” in terms of
decision making, developing ones abilities and thereby gaining control and the
“physical setting” of the mountain environment. (Pomfret 2006; Ewert and
Hollenhorst 1989; Loewenstein 1999; Cheron and Ritchie 1982). Generic tourism
motives are added. These are escapism and the elements of the Travel Career Ladder
5
including biological needs, safety and security needs, relationship development and
extension needs, self development needs, and self-fulfilment needs. Pull factors that
draw tourists to specific destinations, which are cited in general mountaineering
studies, include the natural mountain environment, existence of professional
mountaineering service providers and suitable weather conditions for the specific
activity.(Pomfret 2006)
How sports-related motivations influence travel decisions is analyzed in the Sports
Tourism Continuum presented by Weed and Bull (2004). It highlights the increasing
importance sports-related motivations have in destination choice as sports tourists
become more proficient and engaged in their sport. At the lower end of the continuum
participation in sports activities during the vacation is purely incidental and does not
influence travel decisions while at the upper end of the continuum sports are often the
sole reason to travel and sports-related motivations are decisive for destination choice.
The additional dimension of subjective importance of sports for the vacation is added
as the model is extended to the Sports Tourism Participation Model. This an important
extension to the model as excellent possibilities to engage in sports activities at a
destination might be an important point of attraction to a destination even though the
tourist might never get round to actually participate. Equally sports participation
during a vacation may be of high subjective importance to a tourist even though he is
not very proficient at it. As a result in the study presented here it is expected that the
importance of sports-related motivations for destination choice increases as tourists
become more proficient in climbing.
Methods
In tourism, market segmentation has been carried out using demographics,
psychographics, behavior and benefits.(Sarigöllü and Huang 2005) Motivations have
been used in the psychographic segmentation of tourism markets.(Bieger and Laesser
2002) Some researchers even see motivations as the most effective way to create
meaningful customer groups for tourism marketing.(Schewe 1990; Bieger and Laesser
2002) In the context of segmentation tourist motivations are frequently defined as
tourists needs and benefits expected from a vacation at a destination.(Sarigöllü and
Huang 2005; Loker and Perdue 1992; Cha, McCleary, and Uysal 1995)
6
The limited existing knowledge about motivations of rock climbing tourists led to a
partly explorative research design. Data was collected in three steps: First of all
qualitative personal interviews with destination managers and climbing experts were
conducted (Study 1; N=13). The purpose of this step was to gain insight into the
evaluation of climbing tourism by experts and into the marketing strategies of
participating destinations for this segment. Secondly, a qualitative pilot study was
done in the German climbing tourism destination Frankenjura (Study 2; N=83), which
explored the motivations for destination choice of climbing tourists. Structured
qualitative personal interviews were used. Content analysis (Kolbe and Burnett 1991;
Keaveney 1995; Gremler 2004) revealed 20 distinctive motivations relevant in the
destination choice of rock climbing tourists. These were used for the development of a
questionnaire with 7-point Lickert-scales. Respondents were asked to rate the extent
they agreed with statements concerning the motivations on a 7-point Lickert-scale
(1=strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree). The resulting questionnaire was used in
the third step: a quantitative study among climbing tourists in Germany (German
Alps, Elbe Sandstone Mountains and Frankenjura) and in Italy (Arco) (Study 3;
N=260). Participants of the study included only visitors at the destinations that spent
at least one night there and considered themselves to be on climbing vacations.
Data was analyzed using SPSS by a three step approach of factor analysis, cluster
analysis and further analysis of the resulting clusters by various univariate and
multivariate statistical procedures. This approach was used in numerous segmentation
studies in tourism.(Sarigöllü and Huang 2005; Cha, McCleary, and Uysal 1995) In the
first step, factor analysis was used to examine the motivations, with a view to
revealing their underlying dimensions using the generally accepted Eigenvalue-
Criterion. Applicability of factor analysis on the dataset was checked using the KMO-
criterion, which was acceptable at .699. Eight factors resulted from factor analysis,
which explained 61% of the variance.
For cluster analysis a large variety of clustering procedures exist, non of which is
proven to lead to the best clustering results. Therefore, the results of different
clustering procedures were compared in this study. Procedures used were the Ward-
Analysis, a popular hierarchical clustering procedure (Backhaus et al. 2003; Bieger
and Laesser 2002) and the Quick Cluster procedure of SPSS, that has proven to
7
deliver good results in tourism studies.(Cha, McCleary, and Uysal 1995) First
however, the Single Linkage clustering procedure was used, to identify and eliminate
outlying cases. These would otherwise distort the results of the following cluster
analyses. After eliminating one outlying case the rest of the dataset was used for a
Ward analysis. As the Quick Cluster procedure allows to provide starting values, the
results for two to eight clusters were taken as starting values for the Quick Cluster
procedure to optimize results. Results of the Ward and Quick Cluster procedures were
then compared to find the optimal procedure and number of clusters.
The optimum number of clusters was chosen based on the following criteria for
efficient market segments (Sarigöllü and Huang 2005; Perreault and McCarthy 2000;
Weinstein 1987):
1. Homogeneity of clusters;
2. Distinctness from one another;
3. Sufficient size of each cluster for profitable marketing;
4. Usability for segment-specific strategy development.
Homogeneity of clusters can be evaluated looking at their F-values. These are
calculated dividing the variance of a factor within a specific cluster by the variance of
that factor in the whole sample.(Backhaus et al. 2003) As the goal of cluster analysis
is to improve homogeneity compared to the unsegmented sample, it is necessary to
strive for low F-values. F-values of 1 and above actually represent a deterioration of
homogeneity compared to the unsegmented sample. Distinctness of one cluster from
another was tested by ANOVA procedures and additional Bonferroni Post-hoc tests.
The third criterion mentioned above calls for preferation of solutions with few clusters
to secure sufficient size for profitable marketing. T-values of the resulting clusters
were used to determine the usability of clustering solutions for segment-specific
strategy development. These are calculated by dividing the difference of mean factor
score for a motivation dimension in a cluster by the mean factor score in the whole
sample by the standard deviation of the mean factor score in the sample. As these t-
values show standardized distances from the total average of the sample, they contain
additional information compared to simple factor score averages.
8
For the data presented here Quick Cluster solutions were generally superior to Ward
solutions in terms of lower average F-values and less F-values above 1. Application of
the criteria described above led to the choice of the four cluster solution based on the
tests of homogeneity and discrimination as well as interpretability and applicability.
With an average F-value of .679 this solution leads to customer segments that are
clearly more homogenous in their motivations than the sample as a whole. This
solution is decisively more homogenous than the two or three cluster solutions while
solutions with more clusters would have resulted in only limited additional
improvements in homogeneity.
ANOVA-testing confirmed highly significant differences in average factor scores
between the four clusters for 7 of 8 factors between the clusters (p< .004) and Post-
hoc tests additionally showed numerous significant pair wise differences as
documented in table 2.
Findings
The pilot study identified 20 motivations of destination choice. Four motivations were
added out of theoretical considerations. In the quantitative study (study 3), convenient
weather conditions received the highest degree of confirmation (5.74 on average on
the 7-point scale), followed by a large variety of routes (5,61), beautiful landscape
(5.51), possibilities to socialize with other climbers (5.51), opportunities to try
regional cooking (5.46) and route safety (5.40).
Factor analysis reduced the 24 motivations to 8 motivation dimensions. The resulting
factors were labeled according to the variables they best represented as Table 1
shows.
9
Table 1
FACTOR ANALYSIS OF CLIMBING TOURISTS MOTIVATIONS
Factors Loadings Eigenvalue Percent of Variance Explained
Destination Novelty Seeking
New Place
Famous routes and areas
New cultures
New landscapes
Regional cooking
.708 .700 .682 .645 .401
2.705
11.272
Climbing Tourism Infrastructure
Inexpensive accommodation
Supplies
Route safety
Rocks accessible
Area easy to reach
Information
Comfortable accommodation
.665 .583 .578 .577 .495 .460 .393
2.474
10.310
Non-climbing Sport and Leisure Activities
New sport- and leisure activities
Activities besides climbing
.853 .831
1.998
8.326
Climbing Scene Venue
Climbing scene venue
Familiar area
.722 .601
1.716
7.152
Climbing Novelty Seeking
New climbing experiences
New rocks and routes
.802 .719
1.657
6.903
Climbing Conditions (weather, choice of routes)
Ideal weather
Choice of routes
.766 .671
1.513
6.306
Quietness and Recreation
Quietness and recreation
.787
1.346 5.608
Reclusiveness
Not too touristy
New people
Not overcrowded
.649 -.485 .483
1.275 5.313
The first factor was labeled Destination Novelty Seeking as it included five
motivations that related to the search of novelty in central attributes of a destination.
10
With an eigenvalue of 2.705 after a Varimax rotation it explained 11.272% of the
variance. The second factor Climbing Tourism Infrastructure included seven
motivations that aimed at a good general tourism infrastructure like the availability of
suitable accommodation as well as specific climbing tourism infrastructure such as
route safety and easily accessible rocks. It had an eigenvalue of 2.474 and explained
10.310% of the variation. Labeled Non-Climbing Sport and Leisure Activities the
third factor encompassed two motivations that targeted the search for activities
besides rock climbing at the destination and explained 8.326% of the variance with an
eigenvalue of 1.998. The fourth factor Climbing Scene Venue included the motivation
to visit destinations that are places where the climbing subculture meets and that are
already familiar to the individual climbing tourist. It had an eigenvalue of 1.716 and
explained 7.152% of the variation. Climbing Novelty Seeking, the fifth factor pooled
the motivations new climbing experiences and new rocks and routes. It explained
6.903% of variance and had an eigenvalue of 1.657. The sixth factor Climbing
Conditions (weather and choice of routes) included two motivations to search for
convenient climbing conditions. It had an eigenvalue of 1.513 and explained 6.306%
of the variance. Quietness and Recreation, the seventh factor consisted of only one
motivation that is typically found in motivational studies in general tourism, but only
relevant for some climbing tourists. It explained 5.608% of the variance and had an
eigenvalue of 1.346. The last factor Reclusiveness encompassed three motivations
that aimed at being undisturbed when being on climbing vacations.
Four distinct segments resulted from the cluster analysis. Based on the motivations
that were relatively important to the clusters compared to the others, the clusters were
termed Scene Climbers (N=53), Adventure Climbers (N=61), Novelty Seeking
Tourists (N=59) and Sport and Leisure Tourists (N=71). Table 2 shows the t-values of
each cluster for all eight motivation dimensions that resulted from factor analysis.
11
Table 2
CLIMBING TOURIST SEGMENTS: MEAN FACTOR SCORES
Motivation Dimension
Segment 1
Loyal Scene Climbers (n=53; 21%)
Segment 2
Adventure Climbers (n=61; 25%)
Segment 3
Novelty Seeking Tourists (n=59; 24%)
Segment 4
Sport and Leisure Tourists (n=71; 29%)
F Post Hoc
significant at .05
Destination Novelty Seeking
-0.354 -0.030 0.790 -0.367 20.530a
All but 1-2, 1-4 and 2-4
Climbing Tourism Infrastructure
0.633 -0.415 0.607 -0.621 21.028a
All but 1-3 and 2-4
Non-Climbing Sport and Leisure Activities
-0.771 -0.794 0.725 0.655 69.797a
All but 1-2 and 3-4
Climbing Scene Venue
0.592 -0.636 -0.108 0.194 11.092a
All but 1-4 and 3-4
Climbing Novelty Seeking
-0.458 0.678 0.193 -0.401 25.650a
All but 1-4
Climbing Conditions (weather, choice of routes)
-0.372 0.023 -0.287 0.496 26.757a
All but 1-2, 1-3 and 2-3
Quietness and Recreation
0.103 -0.292 -0.141 0.292 4.521b Only 2-4
Reclusiveness
0.194 0.084 -0.275 0.012 2.335 None
a: F value is significant at .000; b: F value is significant at .01
The cluster of the Loyal Scene Climbers is focused on climbing motivations rather
than on vacation motivations. They have the strongest demand for the destination to
be a climbing scene venue and search most for good climbing tourism infrastructure
when choosing a destination. Reclusiveness is more important to them than
convenient climbing conditions compared to the other segments. On average this
segment of climbing tourists visited 3.31 different destinations for their last five
climbing vacations, which is still the lowest switching rate of all clusters. The
switching rate between destinations and other descriptive statistics about the four
clusters are included in table 3.
12
Table 3
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE FOUR CLUSTERS OF ROCK CLIMBING TOURISTS
Demographic Profile
Segment 1
Loyal Scene Climbers (n=53; 21%)
Segment 2
Adventure Climbers (n=61; 25%)
Segment 3
Novelty Seeking Tourists (n=59; 24%)
Segment 4
Sport- and Leisure Tourists (n=71; 29%)
F Sig.
Expenses (in € per person per day) 33.26 27.61 32.40 43.13 2.297 .078
Duration of stay (no. of nights) 4.43 3.10 3.61 3.00 1.410 .240
Climbing vacation frequency (no. per year)
9.19 10.40 7.66 6.02 2.963 .033
No. of different destinations for last five climbing vacations
3.31 3.44 3.48 3.81 1.606 .189
No. of different activities besides climbing
2.84 2.71 3.54 3.64 5.140 .002
Age 35.75 31.95 34.22 34.32 1.835 .141
Climbing experience (years) 10.42 9.82 9.88 10.25 .076 .973
Average route difficulty rating 6.887 7.385 6.424 6.599 5.782 .001
Also focused on motivations related to the sport of rock climbing is the second cluster
labeled as Adventure Climbers. They have by far the highest values for the Climbing
Novelty Seeking motivation dimension, which encompasses the search for new and
extraordinary climbing experiences. At the same time this group has lower than
average motivation factor scores for most of the other dimensions.. Especially they
care less than the other clusters about sport and leisure activities besides climbing,
quietness and recreation and the social interaction with other climbers described in the
Climbing Scene Venue motivation dimension.
A cluster that is interested in vacation experiences apart from climbing are the
Novelty Seeking Tourists. They search most for new and extraordinary vacation
experiences with the highest values on the Destination Novelty Seeking dimension.
This customer group is also most motivated by non-climbing sport and leisure
activities. Not surprising this cluster is least interested in the motivation dimension
Reclusiveness.
13
The last resulting cluster, labeled Sport and Leisure Tourists is the largest customer
group and attaches high importance to general tourism-related motivations as well.
The demand for sport and leisure offerings besides climbing is highest. Additionally,
relaxed and convenient climbing vacations in the form quietness and recreation and
convenient climbing conditions are relative important for this group. These
motivational statements are supported by the highest average of different sport and
leisure activities pursued besides climbing and the highest spending per day of all
clusters. The Sport and Leisure Tourists attach least value to the motivation dimension
Destination Novelty Seeking and do least demand excellent climbing tourism
infrastructure.
The findings support the Sports Tourism Demand Continuum by Weed and Bull
(2004) as the two customer segments that climb the most difficult routes - Adventure
Climbers and Loyal Scene Climbers - are not only clearly more focused on climbing-
related motivations but also go on climbing vacations more often and participate less
in activities apart from climbing while no significant differences exist in terms of age
or years of climbing experience as table 3 illustrates.
Application of Results
The research presented has revealed the motivational criteria rock climbing tourists
apply when choosing a destination. On this basis destinations can make an analysis of
their own strengths and weaknesses. Concerning the ability to address these
motivations, revealing the preferences of climbing tourists, the results then enable
destinations to adjust their strategy accordingly.
Each of the four segments that were found by cluster analyses shows specific patterns
of behavior during climbing vacations. Each segment also has specific requirements
that have to be met to attract these customers to the destination. As a result destination
management can decide which customer group is most attractive to them. This
decision must also be based on the strengths and resources of the respective
destination, which determine which segment can be served best with the natural
resources and service offerings of the destination.
The results also provide information for destination positioning and promotion
strategies. A destination like Arco in Italy, one of the destinations included in the
14
survey, could target the segment of the Sport and Leisure Tourists. In this case it
should emphasize its variety of sports and leisure possibilities because of its well
developed tourism infrastructure and its proximity to the Garda Lake. Arco can also
offer the high recreational value and great variety of climbing routes that motivate this
customer segment. The extended periods of warm weather in spring and autumn
compared to Northern European destinations can also be used to attract rock climbing
tourists that belong to the motivational cluster of the Sport- and Leisure Tourists. In
this way the results offer an opportunity to determine which aspects of the destination
product should be highlighted in promotion materials and which should be improved
to better suit the targeted customer group
Destinations that have a less developed tourism sector could focus on the Loyal Scene
Climbers. This group can be attracted without the need of massive investments
because they value the calm and reclusiveness, do not have a high demand for
additional sport and leisure activities besides climbing and do not require a
sophisticated general tourism infrastructure. To achieve the good climbing
infrastructure this group desires destinations should cooperate with climbing
organizations like the Alpine Clubs and as climbing areas are typically part of nature
preservation areas the respective authorities as well. Additionally, to successfully
attract the Loyal Scene Climbers the destination has to be or become a meeting point
of the climbing scene. This could be encouraged by specialized meeting points and
accommodation for climbers, public relation measures targeting the climbing media,
internet offerings, and special events.
Conclusion
The present research identified the relevant motivations regarding destination choice
of climbers. ‘The 24 relevant motivations formed eight motivation dimensions
Destination Novelty Seeking, Climbing Tourism Infrastructure, Non-Climbing Sport
and Leisure Activities, Climbing Scene Venue, Climbing Novelty Seeking, Climbing
Conditions, Quietness and Recreation, and Reclusiveness. Climbing tourists however
are not homogenous in their motivations. Four distinctive customer segments were
identified Loyal Scene Climbers, Adventure Climbers, Novelty Seeking Tourists and
Sport and Leisure Tourists each differing in the emphasis they put on the eight
motivation dimensions when selecting a destination for climbing vacations.
15
Destinations need different marketing strategies and service offerings to satisfy each
of these market segments. This motivation-based analysis provides clear implications
on how to make a destination more attractive to climbing tourists. Consequently it is
difficult to successfully serve all groups of climbing tourists at the same time.
Destinations should rather look for customer groups with similar motivations,
behaviors and interests in other sports tourism segments to create synergies. As an
example it is more sensible for destinations to focus on hard adventure sport tourists
of other sports with similar motivations as the Adventure Climbers described here
then to try to satisfy all segments of rock climbing tourists at the same time.
16
Bibliography
Ateljevic, Irena. 2000. Tourist Motivation, Values and Perceptions. In Consumer Psychology
of Tourism Hospitality and Leisure, edited by A. G. Woodside, G. I. Crouch, J. A.
Mazanec and M. Y. Sakai. Wallingford: CABI.
Backhaus, Klaus, Bernd Erichson, Wulff Plinke, and Rolf Weiber. 2003. Multivariate
Analysemethoden. 10 ed. Berlin: Springer.
Beedie, Paul. 2003. Adventure Tourism. In Sport and Adventure Tourism, edited by S.
Hudson. New York: Haworth Press.
Beedie, Paul, and Simon Hudson. 2003. Emergence of Mountain-Based Adventure Tourism.
Annals of Tourism Research 30 (3):625-643.
Beier, Klaus. 2001. Anreizstrukturen im Outdoorsport. Schorndorf: Verlag Hofmann.
Bieger, Thomas, and Christian Laesser. 2002. Market Segmentation by Motivation: The case
of Switzerland. Journal of Travel Research 41 (August):68-76.
Bourdeau, Philippe, Jean Corneloup, and Pascal Mao. 2004. Adventure Sports and Tourism in
the French Mountains: Dynamics of Change and Challenges for Sustainable
Development. In Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues, edited by J.
R. B. Ritchie and D. Adair. Clevedon: Channel Publications.
Brandauer, Thomas. 1994. Sportklettern und Persönlichkeit. Hamburg: Czwalina.
Breivik, G. 1996. Personality, Sensation Seeking and Risk Taking among Everest Climbers.
International Journal of Sport Psychology 27:308-320.
Cha, Sukbin, Ken W. McCleary, and Muzaffer Uysal. 1995. Travel Motivations of Japanese
Oversees Travelers: A Factor-Cluster Segmentation Approach. Journal of Travel
Research 31 (4):33-39.
Cheron, Emmanuel J., and J.R. Brent Ritchie. 1982. Leisure Activities and Perceived Risk.
Journal of Leisure Research 14 (2):139-154.
Cooper, Chris, John Fletcher, David Gilbert, Rebecca Shepherd, and Stephen Wanhill. 1998.
Tourism - Principles and Practice. 2 ed. Harlow, Great Britain: Longman.
17
Crompton, John L. 1979. Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research
Special Issue Sociology of Tourism:408-424.
Dann, Graham M.S. 1981. Tourist Motivation: an Appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 8
(2):187-219.
Ewert, Alan, and Steve Hollenhorst. 1989. Testing the Adventure Model: Empirical Support
for Model of Risk Recreation Participation. Journal of Leisure Research 21 (2):124-
139.
———. 1994. Individual and Setting Attributes of the Adventure Recreation Experience.
Leisure Sciences 16:177-191.
Fluker, Martin R., and Lindsay W. Turner. 2000. Needs, Motivations, and Expectations of a
Commercial Whitewater Rafting Experience. Journal of Travel Research 38
(May):380-389.
Gammon, Sean, and Tom Robinson. 1997. Sport Tourism: A Conceptual Framework. Journal
of Sport Tourism 4 (3).
Gnoth, Juergen. 1997. Tourism Motivation and Expection Formation. Annals of Tourism
Research 24:283-300.
Gomà i Freixanet, Montserrat. 1991. Personality Profile of Subjects Engaged in High Physical
Risk Sports. Personality & Individual Differences 12 (10):1087-1093.
Goosens, Cees. 2000. Tourism Information and Pleasure Motivation. Annals of Tourism
Research 27 (2):301-321.
Gremler, Dwayne D. 2004. The Critical Incident Technique in Service Research. Journal of
Service Research 7 (August):65-89.
Grotheer, Swantje, Rita Märzhäuser, Christoph Stölzle, and Nadine Wagner. 2003. Das
Reiseverhalten der Deutschen unter Berücksichtigung neuer Tourismustrends -
Dargestellt am Beispiel des Klettertourismus. In "Wenn einer eine Reise macht..." -
Neue Tourismustrends in Deutschland am Beispiel der Fremdenverkehrssegmente
Kletter- und Städtetourismus, edited by G. Troeger-Weiß. Kaiserslautern: Technische
Universität Kaiserslautern.
18
Hall, C. Michael. 1989. Special Interest Travel: A Prime Force in the Expansion of Tourism?
Paper read at Geography in Action Fifteenth New Zealand Geography Conference, at
Dunedin.
Hanemann, Brigitte. 2000. Klettertourismus zwischen Aktivurlaub und Naturschutz.
Geographische Rundschau 52 (2):21-27.
Heckhausen, Heinz. 1989. Motivation und Handeln. 2 ed. Berlin: Springer.
Hill, B.J. 1995. A Guide to Adventure Travel. Parks and Recreation (September):56-65.
Hinch, Thomas, and James Higham. 2004. Sport Tourism Development. Clevedon: Channel
View Publications.
Iso-Ahola, Seppo E. 1982. Toward a Social Psychological Theory of Tourism Motivation: A
Rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (1):256-262.
Jack, S.J., and K.R. Ronan. 1998. Sensation Seeking among high- and low-risk Sports
Participants. Personality & Individual Differences 25:1063-1083.
Jackson, G.A.M., and M.E. Weed. 2003. The Sport-Tourism Interrelationship. In Sport and
Society, edited by B. Houlihan. London: Sage.
Keaveney, Susan M. 1995. Customer Switching Behavior in Service Industries: An
exploratory Study. Journal of Marketing 59 (2):71-82.
Kolbe, Richard H., and Melissa S. Burnett. 1991. Content-Analysis Research: An
Examination of Applications with Directives for Improving Research Reliability and
Objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research 18 (September):243-250.
Krippendorf, Jost. 1987. Ecological Approach to Tourism Marketing. Tourism Management
(June):137-139.
Loewenstein, George. 1999. Because it is there: The Challenge of Mountaineering...for Utility
Theory. KYKLOS 52 (3):315-344.
Lohmann, Martin, and Peter Aderhold. 2000. Die Reiseanalyse-Trendstudie 2000-2010.
Hamburg: Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen.
19
Loker, Laurie E., and Richard R. Perdue. 1992. A Benefit-Based Segmentation of a
Nonresident Summer Travel Market. Journal of Travel Research 31 (Summer):30-35.
Mitchell, Richard G. 1983. Mountain Experience - The Psychology and Sociology of
Adventure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moutinho, Luiz. 1987. Consumer Behaviour in Tourism. European Journal of Marketing 21
(10):1-44.
Muller, T.E., and M. Cleaver. 2000. Targeting the CANZUS Baby Boomer Explorer and
Adventurer Segments. Journal of Vacation Marketing 6 (2):154-169.
Neirotti, Lisa Delphy. 2003. An Introduction to Sport and Adventure Tourism. In Sport and
Adventure Tourism, edited by S. Hudson. New York: Haworth Press.
Outdoor_Industry_Association. 2004. Outdoor Recreation Participation Study Seventh
Edition, for Year 2004 Trend Analysis for the United States. Boulder, CO: Outdoor
Industry Association.
Perreault, William D., and E. McCarthy. 2000. Essentials of Marketing - a Global-
Managerial Approach. 8 ed. Chicago: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Philipsenburg, Jens. 2001. Klettertourismus im Deutschen Destinationsmanagement -
Profilierungsstrategien durch die Besetzung von Marktnischen. In Fun- und
Trensportarten als Tourismusmagneten, edited by K. Faby, M. L. Fontanari and M.
Treinen. Trier: Europäisches Tourismusinstitut.
Pomfret, Gill. 2006. Mountaineering Adventure Tourists: A Conceptual Framework for
Research. Tourism Management 27 (1):113-123.
Poon, Auliana. 2002. Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. Wallingford, UK:
CABI.
Robinson, Tom, and Sean Gammon. 2004. A question of primary and secondary motives:
revisiting and applying the sport tourism framework. Journal of Sport Tourism 9
(3):221-233.
20
Rossi, B., and L. Cereatti. 1993. The Sensation Seeking Scale in Mountain Athletes as
Assessed by Zuckerman's Sensation Seeking Scale. International Journal of Sport
Psychology 24:417-431.
Sarigöllü, Emine, and Rong Huang. 2005. Benefits Segmentation of Visitors to Latin
America. Journal of Travel Research 43 (February):277-293.
Schewe, Ch. 1990. Get in Position for the older Market. American Demographics 12 (6):38-
44.
Stettler, Jürg. 2000. Trend- und Natursportarten und Mobilität. In Trend- und Natursportarten
in den Wissenschaften: Forschungsstand - Methoden - Perspektiven, edited by A.
Escher. Hamburg: Czwalina Verlag.
Swarbrooke, John, and Susan Horner. 1999. Consumer Behaviour in Tourism. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Tomlinson, Alan, Neil Ravenscroft, Belinda Wheaton, and Paul Gilchrist. 2005. Lifestyle
Sports and National Sport Policy: An Agenda for Research: Sport England.
Valentine, Peter S. 1992. Nature-based Tourism. In Special Interest Tourism, edited by B.
Weiler and C. M. Hall. London: Belhaven Press.
Weed, Mike, and Chris Bull. 2004. Sports Tourism -Participants, Policy and Providers.
Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Weiler, Betty, and C. Michael Hall. 1992. Special Interest Tourism: In Search of an
Alternative. In Special Interest Tourism, edited by C. M. Hall and B. Weiler. London:
Belhaven Press.
Weinstein, A. 1987. Market Segmentation: Using Demographics, Psychographics and other
Segmentation Techniques to Uncover and Exploit New Markets. Chicago: Probes.
Woratschek, Herbert, and Frank M. Hannich. 2006. Climbing Tourism – A Chance to
Revitalize Low Mountain Range Destinations? Working Paper of the Faculty of Law,
Business Administration and Economics at the University of Bayreuth.
Yuan, Sue, and Cary McDonald. 1990. Motivational Determinants of International Pleasure
Time. Journal of Travel Research 29 (Summer):42-44.
21
Universität Bayreuth Rechts- und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät
Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere
Zuletzt erschienene Papiere:
01-07 Herz, Bernhard Wagner, Marco
Do the World Trade Organization and the Generalized System of Preferences foster bilateral Trade?
07-06 Herz, Bernhard Vogel, Lukas Roeger, Werner
Optimal Simple Rules for Fiscal Policy in Monetary Union
06-06 Reiß, Christoph Rechtswettbewerb und Rechtsarbitrage: Wettbewerb von "Rechtsordnungen" aus der Perspektive einer prozessual-evolutorischen Wettbewerbskonzeption
05-06 Schneider, Udo Schneider, Brit
The effects of education and working hours on health: A multivariate probit approach
04-06 Schröder, Guido Preise auf Grenzkosten-Niveau - Optimal, aber unmöglich? 03-06 Minuk, Olga
Rossaro, Fabiana Walther, Ursula
A Critical Comment on the Planned Deposit Insurance Reform in Belarus
02-06 Woratschek, Herbert Horbel, Chris
Are Recommendations of Venturers Valuable? - A Study of Word-of-mouth Communication Behavior of Variety-seeking Tourists and Opinion Leaders
01-06 Görgens, Egon Ruckriegel, Karlheinz Seitz, Franz
Geldpolitik, Zinsen und die Rolle des Geldes: Konzeptionelles, Theoretisches, Praktisches
17-05 Görgens, Egon Ruckriegel, Karlheinz
Zur Notwendigkeit unabhängiger Zentralbanken und ihrer institutionellen Abstützung
16-05 Rudolf, Thomas Etemad, Mohammed Ali Ghorbani
Kulturelle Prägungen wirtschaftlichen Handelns im Nahen Osten - eine institutionenökonomische Analyse des Einflusses des Islam auf die Finanzwirtschaft
15-05 Oberender, Peter Rudolf, Thomas
Monetäre Anreize für die postmortale Körperorganspende - Eine ökonomische Analyse
14-05 Belke, Ansgar Herz, Bernhard Vogel, Lukas
Structural Reforms and the Exchange Rate Regime: A Panel Analysis for the World versus OECD Countries
13-05 Oberender, Peter Zerth, Jürgen
Zur Zukunft der flächendeckenden Versorgung im deutschen Gesundheitswesen. Gesundheitspolitische Implikationen