PARK VISITORS VS SEASIDE TOURISTS IN MAREMMA

Salvatore Bimonte

University of Siena, Italy

Department of Economics and Statistics

A REVISED AND MORE DETAILED VERSION OF THIS PAPER HAS BEEN PUBLISHED ON

THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH

ABSTRACT

This study investigates and discusses the controversial question of whether or not the

alternative tourist, in particular the nature-based tourist (NBT), posses, as it is put forward in

its definition, an inherent ability to produce more positive (or less negative) socio-cultural,

environmental and economic impacts on host communities and destinations in comparison to

other kinds of tourist. To address such an issue the paper develops a comparative analysis

between two types of tourist based on an a priori segmentation, that is the nature-based

tourists and the beach tourists. Data were simultaneously collected by means of a

questionnaire at two sites located in the Maremma, each specific to the typology of tourist

investigated. Tourists were segmented using an activity-based method. The research confirms,

on one side, some of the findings of other studies concerning the market profile of nature

tourist, and, on the other, that nature tourist, compared to the beach tourist, has more positive

impact both from the socio-economic and natural point of view. Three main innovative

findings, concerning the relationship between income, education and personal commitments,

and the typology of tourist one belongs to, are discussed at the end.

Keywords: nature-based tourist, comparative study, social and economic impact, willingness

to pay.

INTRODUCTION

Tourism is surely among the fastest growing industries in the world and one of

the most important engines for local economic growth. However, it may (and in

fact has) provoke(d) problems and controversies. The many problems triggered

by "mass" tourism has led many authors and observers to criticize the traditional

method of making tourism and to call for an “alternative” tourism (Brohman,

1996; Weaver, 1991; Butler, 1990; Dernoi, 1981), broadly defined as “forms of

tourism that are consistent with natural, social, and community values and which

2

allow both hosts and guests to enjoy a positive and worthwhile interaction and

shared experiences” (Smith and Eadington, 1995, p. 3).

One of the most debated and investigated form of alternative tourism is the

nature-based tourism1. According to the data, it represents a significant share of

the tourist industry and it is growing faster than other forms of tourism

(Nyaupane et al., 2004; IES, 2000; Lindberg, 1998). Moreover, alternative

forms of tourism in general, and nature-based tourism in particular, are supposed

to posses an inherent ability to produce more positive (or less negative) socio-

cultural, environmental and economic impacts on host communities and

destinations (Epler Wood, 2002, Wallace and Pierce, 1996; Silverberg et al.,

1996; Smith and Eadington 1995; Butler 1990; Ceballos-Lascurain, 1988),

especially if compared to other kinds of tourism segments (Jafari, 1990; Wight,

1993; Wallace and Pierce 1996).

Consistently, it is assumed that the alternative tourist comparatively grants

higher benefits to the economy, environment and culture of host communities.

In fact, according to the definition, the alternative tourist prefers small and

family run rather than large-scale facilities; shows a higher sensitivity with

respect to the natural and cultural resources; reveals a higher interest for local

and “green” products; engenders a greater multiplier effect (see Wurzinger and

Johansson, 2006; Macleod, 2003; Blamey and Braithwaite, 1997; Wight, 1996b;

1 Although conceptually different, the terms nature-based tourism and ecotourism have been interchangeably

used in the tourism literature. However, given the aim of the paper, we will not deal with definitional issues,

referring the interested reader to the plentiful literature on the argument (see Mehmetoglu 2000; Epler Wood,

2002; Wight, 2001; Meric, and Hunt, 1998; IUCN, 1993; Whelan, 1991).

3

Cazes, 1989). All these aspects justify the attention that the policy makers

recently devoted to these segment of tourist market (Butler, 1990).

In order to validate such issues, more empirical works of a comparative nature

are required, because the profiles, performances and attitudes of different tourist

segments at different sites should be tested rather than taken for granted.

Unfortunately, as noticed by Xiao and Smith (2006), a small number of

researches in tourism adopted a comparative approach and, as stated by

Hvenegaard (2002), most of them are based on a data-driven approach (a

posteriori segmentation)2, which gives rise to the problems evidenced by

Weaver (2002). This gap enlarges in the researches on the Nature-Based Tourist

(NBT).

In order to contribute to fill it, the paper develops a comparative analysis

between two types of tourist grouped according to an a priori and activity-based

approach: the tourists who, during their vacation in Maremma, visited the

Natural Park of the Maremma and the beach tourists who spent their holiday in

the surrounding area to enjoy the sea without visiting the park. The major goal

of the survey was to verify profiles and attitudes of tourists and test if and to

what extent their behavioral patterns depend on the typology of tourist one

belongs to (psychographic information) rather than on the socioeconomic

characteristics (enabling conditions à la Sen), as some economic theoretical

2 See Hvenegaard, and Dearden (1998) and Silverberg et al. (1996). A review of segmentation studies and

approaches may be found in Dolnicar (2004).

4

model show, for example those on the Environmental Kuznets Curve (see

Bimonte 2002; Magnani 2000).

DEFINING THE TYPOLOGIES OF TOURIST: THE BACKGROUND

Usually, alternative and mass tourist, as well as 3S (sea, sand, sun), have been

considered mutually exclusive and depicted in dichotomous term, with the

alternative tourist being considered the “good” option and the mass tourist the

“bad” one (Clarke, 1997). However, a more recent view challenges this

perspective and considers the alternative and the mass tourist as the poles of a

continuum, with no clear-cut boundary between the two in terms of “good” and

“bad” values assigned to each of them (Weaver, 2001; Acott et al., 1998). The

two implicit paradigms evoked by these alternative views are stuck in two

different reference frameworks: the good value as an inherent property of certain

types of tourist as opposed to the good value as a characteristic that none of the

existing forms of tourist inherently possesses, but a goal that all tourist must

strive to achieve.

The shift in attitudes towards tourism and the empirical evidence stress the fact

that a clear-cut boundary between typologies of tourist is difficult to imagine,

also because many, or even most, tourists involved in alternative tourism

activities are mass tourists (Weaver, 1999), and several forms of alternative

tourism, such as nature-based tourism, overlap with other forms of tourism,

including beach tourism (Weaver et al. 1998; Mehmetoglu, 2007). This makes

5

evident the necessity to single out a method to assign tourists to a specific

typology before going through any kind of investigation.

Hvenegaard (2002) defines four main empirical methods to classify tourists:

researcher-based, respondent-based, motivation-based and activity-based. In the

latter case the researcher defines the different varieties of tourist on the base of

the places visited and activities carried out.

According to the activity-based approach, the tourists who travel to nature areas

or destinations are considered NBT (see Holden and Sparrowhawk, 2002, Lang

and O’Leary, 1997). This does not mean that we should consider all nature-

based tourists as a homogeneous group (Wight, 2001). Various methods have

been proposed to differentiate between them: for example, Laarman and Durst

(1987) distinguishes between hard and soft nature tourists, whereas Lindberg

(1991) singles out four types of NBT, that is hard-core, dedicated, mainstream

and casual nature tourists, the latter being the tourist who partakes of nature as

part of a broader itinerary.

METHOD AND SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

Definition of the nature and the seaside tourist

In our analysis a nature-based tourist is a tourist who, during her vacation,

visited the Natural Park of the Maremma (casual nature tourist), whereas the

generic tourist is the seaside resort tourist, that is a tourist who spent her holiday

in the surrounding area to enjoy the sea without visiting the park. Due to the

6

characteristics that the phenomenon of beach tourism has in the Maremma, the

latter maybe considered as representative of the mass tourist. Although it would

deserve a deeper discussion, this is the usual affiliation made (Weaver, 2001).

The choice of these two specific types of tourist stems from the fact that during

their vacation, which occurs contemporaneously and in the same area, both

“consume” a natural resource of the territory, that is to say respectively the park

and the seaside. We could provocatively say that both are representative of a

nature-oriented tourist, though in these two forms of the tourist experience the

role of the natural resource and the way the tourist interacts with it are quite

different (Weaver, 2001).

Study site and data collection

The survey took place in summer, overlapping the peak visitation period both

for the park and the coastal area neighboring it. Located in Southern Tuscany,

the Maremma is a well-known seaside tourism destination. The Natural Park lies

in the middle of this area and it is now an important nature tourism destination.

In the last decade the visits increased from about 49,000 to about 80,000 paying

visitors a year. The park visitors represent more than 20% of the total tourist

arrivals in the area. However, the incidence is greater than 40% in October, 50%

in May and 60% in April.

Figure 1

7

Data were collected by means of a questionnaire. A total of 300 interviews were

conducted by trilingual interviewers following a systematic sampling procedure.

In order to collect the necessary data to test the hypothesis put forward in the

definition of NBT, two specific locations were chosen, each specific to the

typology of tourist investigated (Mehmetoglu, 2007; Weaver, 2002). Therefore,

150 nature tourists were selected and interviewed at the park gate, while the

seaside tourists were randomly selected in different typologies of

accommodations. The data analysis used the permutation chi-squared test of

association (χ2).

As for the seaside tourists, a set of accommodations was drawn by the list of all

the accommodations located in the reference area, split into three main

geographical sub-areas. These were stratified into two strata, mainly hotels and

the similar (like RTA), and camping and tourist villages. The first stratum was

successively stratified in two strata according to the class (number of stars), 1 or

2 vs 3 or 4. There is no 5 stars in the area. The way in which the sample was

obtained is reported in table 1. In order to consider day-trippers and owners of

second homes, interviews were also done on the beach with people who

declared that they fell into these categories.

Table 1

8

The methodology used (direct interviews) together with the pre-test allowed a

high return rate (about 95%), with no relevant differences between the two sub-

samples. Both typologies of tourists were asked to answer the same questions.

Since several forms of NBT overlap with other forms of tourism, including

beach tourism, seaside tourists were asked to answer one filter question in order

to exclude individuals who had visited the park.

RESULTS

Considering previous international research results (Epler Wood 2002; Wight

1996a; Boo 1990) and the lack of an unanimously shared operational framework

(Priskin, 2003; Smith and Eadington, 1995), and taking into account the

characteristics that are generally supposed to differentiate alternative forms of

tourist, the survey focused upon selected descriptive (socio-demographic)

characteristics together with variables of intentions (willingness) and outcomes

(actions), looking for stylized facts supporting the hypotheses put forward in the

definition of alternative tourist. Because of the nature of the study and the lack

of unanimously accepted quantitative indices, tourists were compared in terms

of intensity with respect to the selected features rather than with respect to any

selected indicators.

The statistical analysis of data confirms that nature tourists are older, more

educated, more affluent, and employed in more professional occupations. No

specific findings emerged regarding the duration of the vacation and the travel

9

organizers. With respect to the latter, the journey was mainly self-organized.

The relevant results are presented in tables 2 and 3.

Tables 2 and 3

Data also confirm the others hypotheses. In fact, the park visitors display a

greater sensitivity towards the environment quality, being more concerned about

pollution than crime and unemployment. The latter is a relevant problem in

Europe and represents the main concern for seaside tourists. However, a high

percentage of both typologies of tourist (100% vs 84%) thinks that, others things

being equal, the environmental quality positively impacts on the individual’s

welfare. We would then expect that that the environmental quality influence the

consumer choices and the prices they are willing to pay for certain goods

(hedonic price theory).

In order to evaluate such issue, the tourists were asked to answer to some

questions on a hypothetical purchase. The first referred to the purchase of a

home in a park area3. Unlike the seaside tourists, the park visitors would be more

eager to purchase it (85% vs 31%), having the possibility to do so and knowing

the restrictions connected with such ownership. Other things being equal,

respondents were eager to pay a higher price for such a purchase. In effect, a

high percentage of those interested in such a purchase would be willing to pay a

3 This is an increasing phenomenon in some regions (Buckley, 2003).

10

higher price (66% vs 58%)4. According to the theory of consumer choice people

are expected to choose the alternative that generates the higher level of utility. It

confirms that the environmental quality is a source of welfare for these tourists.

The different environmental sensitivity is also proved by the greater interest that

nature tourists have for local, such as PDO (Protected Designation of Origin),

PGI (Protected Geographical Indication), TSG (Traditional Specialty

Guaranteed), etc, and/or organic products. They declare that a trademark

certifying the local and/or the organic nature of the product or, in general, the

respect of rules for the protection of the environment would influence their

choice and stimulate their expenditure. For such products or service, they would

be more inclined to pay a higher price.

Whenever respondents indicate their choices in hypothetical scenarios, it is

crucial to test whether the stated choices approximate actual choices. In our

survey factual evidence on the actual spending patterns of interviewed is

consistent with the importance that respondents declared they give to quality

trademarks. The park visitors devote a higher percentage of their daily

expenditure to the purchase of local and environmentally friendly products that

actually cost more than generic products. Although this is confined to those

tourists with a higher daily expenditure (>54$), the test highlights that

expenditure for typical products is related with the typology of tourist one

4 This is consistent with the theory of Lancasterian demand (Lancaster, 1966). It is worth warning that we are

moving within a context of stated preference.

11

belongs to (p-value<.002). This implies that park visitors generate a stronger

demand for local products in absolute terms.

The demand of local products causes more equitable economic growth, due to

the widespread network of small and medium enterprises that production

involves and to their greater multiplicative impact. Since the economic

multiplier is negatively related to the propensity to import, the demand for

locally produced goods engender a greater economic impact on the destination.

By sustaining typical products, one may also preserve the landscape and cultural

traditions.

STYLIZED FACTS

Three main innovative findings are worth noting. The survey reveals a strong

relationship (p-value<.0001) between the variables “income” and “visit to the

park”. Although conceptually and practically different, this result is consistent

with one of the most debated theoretical hypotheses in environmental

economics, i.e. the Income Elasticity Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis,

the demand for nature increases more than proportionally with respect to

income, that is the environment, in the broadest meaning of the term, represents

a luxury good. In the case of a luxury good, the curve of Engel, that is the curve

that shows the relationship between the demand for a good and the income level,

all other things being equal, is not linear and the demand for the good increases

more than proportionally with respect to income. The non-linearity of the curves

12

of Engel implies that when income varies, while maintaining unvaried the prices

of goods, the composition of the basket of purchased goods varies.

In the same fashion, one detects a strong relationship (p-value<.0001) between

level of education and visitors to the park. This means that, income being equal,

the park visitors have a higher level of education. Once again, although

conceptually different and aware of the improper use of the concept, education

being in se a discrete variable, we are inclined to take this piece of evidence as a

sort of Education Elasticity Hypothesis.

Finally, as for the seaside tourists, the research confirms that the sympathy for

certain goals does not translate into acceptance of costs and sacrifices that actual

application may entail (Butler 1998). But this is not true for the park visitors

who are less willing to delegate and more disposed to personally commit in

order to reach a common objective. The interest exists for the seaside tourists

but it ceases to do so when faced with a request for direct commitment. To resort

to a more rigorous economic language, one can say that for the latter the

externalities are potentially-relevant but not Pareto-relevant (Buchanan and

Stubblebine 1962)5.

5 An externality is defined as potentially relevant when the activity, to the extent that it is performed, generates

any desire on the part of the externally benefited (damaged) party (A) to modify the behaviour of the party

empowered to take action (B). An externality which, to the extent that it is performed, exerts no such influence is

defined as irrelevant (Buchanan and Stubblebine, 1962, p. 201-202). However, the simple desire to modify the

behavior of another party does not necessarily imply the ability to translate this desire into practice. An

externality is defined to be Pareto-relevant when the extent of the activity may be modified in such a way that

the externally affected party (A) can be made better off without the acting party (B) being made worse off.

13

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Although aware of its limits, due to the data collecting and sampling procedure,

the present research contributes to fill the gap existing in the literature on the

NBT. In fact, even though different forms of segmentation studies in tourism

exist (Bonn et al. 2005; McKercher, 2001; Kashyap and Bojanic, 2000; Baloglu

and McCleary, 1999), and some analyses have been carried out on the

association between typologies of alternative tourist and conservation

motivations (Lou and Deng, 2007), and/or economic and social impacts

(Aylward, and Lutz, 2003, Taylor et al., 2003, Wallace and Pierce, 1996;

Lindberg et al., 1996), to the author’s knowledge, no such systematic research in

Italy, and no simultaneous comparative analysis based on an a priori

segmentation, has been documented so far in the literature on NBT6.

The findings of this study have significant implications, both from a theoretical

and practical point of view. The first implication relates to the socio-

demographic profile and the attitude of the NBT. The research confirms that the

nature-based tourist is older, more educated, more affluent, and employed in

more professional occupations compared with the other typologies of tourist

(Mehmetoglu, 2007; Wurzinger and Johansson, 2006; Priskin 2003; Epler Wood

2002; Hvenegaard and Dearden 1998; Meric and Hunt, 1998; Silverberg et al.,

1996), in our case the seaside resort tourist. She displays a greater sensitivity

towards the environment, in its various facets; prefers small and family run

6 Only Wurzinger and Johansson (2006) carried out a similar investigation but with a different methodology.

14

rather than large-scale facilities; reveals a higher interest for local and “green”

products; engenders a greater multiplier effect (Wurzinger and Johansson, 2006;

Macleod, 2003; Blamey and Braithwaite, 1997; Wight, 1996b; Cazes, 1989).

According to the statistical tests, these aspects mainly depend on the typology of

tourist one belongs to rather than on their socio-demographic and economic

characteristics. This has an interesting theoretical implication, because it

highlights the strong role played by psychographic information in understanding

tourist behavior.

The study also highlighted some innovative aspects that, to the author’s

knowledge, were not investigated in other studies. The data analysis evidenced a

strong relationship between income, education and demand for nature. It also

proved that nature-based tourists have a greater multiplier effect. What is worthy

nothing is that in the present research it was demonstrated that this is true

irrespective of the daily expenditure. In fact, other studies carried out on such

issues have generally restricted themselves to analyzing the willingness to pay

and the average daily expenditure of the different categories of tourists.

However, as should already be quite clear, an equal daily expenditure can have a

completely different impact on local socio-economic systems and on the

environment of that local system, dictating prospect for more or less beneficial

outcomes. We think that the latter aspect and the interaction of the tourism with

other economic sectors should be better investigated.

15

As a concluding remark, we would like to stress a final point. In fact, as

Mehmetoglu (2007), we are aware that not all tourists visiting nature-based

resources can be considered nature-based tourists from a motivational

perspective. But we are also convinced that the latter cannot be the only criterion

for defining them. Moreover, according to the more recent tendency, while a

distinction between forms of tourism is feasible, much more difficult is to

discriminate between forms of tourist, since tourists are normally engaged in

different activities during their multi-purpose vacation. According to Weaver,

many if not most soft ecotourism participants are mass tourists engaged in such

activities as a part of a broader vacation (Weaver, 2001, p. 78). This is exactly

our case. Notwithstanding, the research demonstrated that, irrespective of the

typology of vacation, those tourists who were engaged in nature-oriented

activities, in our case the park visitors, display a completely different behavior

and attitudes compared to those who were not, that is the seaside tourists.

These findings should not be overlooked. They suggest that, if managed

carefully, nature-based tourist resources can positively contribute to local

development, in its natural, economic and social dimensions. This aspect,

together with the incidence and the even distribution of nature tourist flows,

must not be undervalued, because it represents a useful support for a tourist

policy having the objective of de-seasonalizing tourist activity, and spurring the

expenditure and the relative economic effect on the territory, rather than the

growth of attendance as an end in itself.

16

To conclude, although we concur with those authors who maintain that it would

be wrong to consider alternative forms of tourist as a panacea (Butler 1990,

Brockelman and Dearden 1990; Butler, 1990; Cohen, 1987), still the survey

confirms that, at least for the Maremma, they have comparatively good potential

to produce more positive economic, social and environmental impact at the local

level. Therefore, the very political bet for local planners would be to modify the

attitude and the behavior patterns of all typologies of tourist.

REFERENCES

Acott, T. G., La Trobe, H. L., and Howard, S. H. (1998). An evaluation of deep

ecotourism and shallow ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 6(3),

238–253.

Aylward, B., and Lutz, E. (eds) (2003). Nature tourism, conservation, and

development in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Washington, D.C.: World

Bank.

Baloglu, S., and McCleary, K. W. (1999). U.S. International pleasure travelers'

images of four Mediterranean destinations: A comparison of visitors and

non-visitors. Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 144-152

Bimonte, S. (2002). Information access, income distribution, and the

Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics, 41(1),145-156

Blamey, R. K. and Braithwaite, V. A. (1997). A Social Value Segmentation of

the Potential Ecotourism Market. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5 (1):

29-44.

Bonn, M.A., Joseph, S. J., and Mo Dai (2005). International versus domestic

visitors: An examination of destination image perceptions. Journal of

Travel Research, 43(3), 294-301

17

Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The potentials and pitfalls. Washington, DC, World

Wide Fund for Nature.

Brockelman, W.Y., and Dearden, P. (1990). The role of nature trekking in

conservation: A case-study in Thailand. Environmental Conservation, 17,

141-148.

Brohman, J. (1996). New directions in tourism for third world development.

Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 48-70.

Buchanan, J.M. and Stubblebine, W.C. (1962). Externalities. Economica 29,

371-384.

Buckley, R. (2003). The practice and politics of tourism and land management.

In R. Buckley, C. Pickering and D.B. Weaver eds., Nature-based tourism,

environment and land management, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK,

Cambridge, USA

Butler, R.W. (1998). Sustainable tourism looking backwards in order to

progress? In C.M. Hall and A.A. Lew (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism: A

Geographical Perspective. Essex, Longman, 24-34.

Butler, R.W. (1990). Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal

of Travel Research, 28(3), 40-45

Cazes, G.H. (1989). Alternative tourism: Reflections on an ambiguous concept.

In T.V. Singh, H.L. Thevas, and F.M. Go (Eds.), Towards appropriate

tourism: The case of developing countries, Frankfurt Am Main, Peter

Lang, 117-126.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1988). The future of “ecotourism”. Mexico Journal,

January 27, 13–14.

Clarke, J. (1997). A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism, 5(3), 224-233

Cohen, E. (1987). Alternative tourism: A critique. Tourism Recreation

Research, XII(2), 13-18.

18

Dernoi, L. (1981). Alternative tourism: towards a new style in North-South

relations. International Journal of Tourism Management, 2, 253-264

Dolnicar, S. (2004). Beyond “commonsense segmentation”: a systematics of

segmentation approaches in tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 244-

250

Epler Wood, M. (2002). Ecotourism: Principles, practices and policies for

sustainability. UNEP, Paris, France.

Holden, A., & Sparrowhawk, J. (2002). Understanding the motivations of

ecotourists: The case of trekkers in Annapurna, Nepal. International

Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 435–446.

Hvenegaard, G. T. (2002). Using tourist typologies for ecotourism research.

Journal of Ecotourism, 1(1), 7–18.

Hvenegaard, G. T. and Dearden, P. (1998). Ecotourism versus tourism in a Thai

National Park. Annals of Tourism Research, 25:700-720.

IES, (2000). Ecotourism statistical fact sheet. Washington, DC: International

Ecotourism Society.

IUCN, (1993). Parks for life: Report of the IV World Congress on National

Parks and Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN.

Jafari, J. (1990). Research and scholarship: The basis of tourism education.

Journal of Tourism Studies, 1: 33-41

Kashyap, R., and Bojanic, D.C. (2000). A structural analysis of value, quality,

and price perceptions of business and leisure travelers. Journal of Travel

Research, 39 (1): 45-51

Lancaster K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political

Economy, 84, 132-157.

Lang, C.T. and O’Leary, J. T. (1997). Motivation, participation, and preference:

A multi-segmentation approach of the Australian nature travel market.

Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 6(3/4), 159–180.

19

Laarman, J. G., and Durst, P. B. (1987). Nature travel in the tropics. Journal of

Forestry, 85(5), 43–46.

Lindberg K. (1998). Economic aspects of ecotourism. In K. Lindberg, M. Epler

Wood, and D. Engeldrum, (Eds.), Ecotourism: a guide for planners and

managers, Volume 2. The International Ecotourism Society, Burlington,

VT, USA

Lindberg, K. (1991). Policies for maximizing nature tourism’s ecological and

economic benefits. International conservation financing project working

paper, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1-37.

Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J. and Sproule, K. (1996). Ecotourism questioned; case

studies from Belize. Annals of Tourism Research 23, 543-562.

Lou, Y. and Deng, J. (2007). The New Environmental Paradigm and Nature-

Based Tourism Motivation. Journal of Travel Research, November, 1-11.

Macleod, D. (2003). Alternative tourism: A comparative analysis of meaning

and impact. In W.F. Theobald (Ed.), Global Tourism, Butterworth-

Heinemann, Oxford, 150-167.

Magnani, E. (2000). The Environmental Kuznets Curve, environmental

protection policy and income distribution. Ecological Economics (32)3,

431–443.

McKercher, B. (2001). A comparison of main destination visitors and through

travellers at a dual purpose destination. Journal of Travel Research, 39(4),

433-441

Mehmetoglu, M. (2007). Typologising nature-based tourists by activity-

theoretical and practical implications. Tourism Management, 28, 651-660.

Meric, H. J., and Hunt, J. (1998). Ecotourists’ motivational and demographic

characteristics: A case of North Carolina travelers. Journal of Travel

Research, 36 (4), 57-61.

20

Nyaupane, G. P., Morais, D. B., & Graefe, A. R. (2004). Nature-based tourism

constraints: A cross-activity comparison. Annals of Tourism Research,

31(3), 540–555.

Priskin, J. (2003). Issues and opportunities in planning and managing nature-

based tourism in central coast region of Western Australia. Australian

Geographical Studies, 40, 270-286

Silverberg, K. E., Backman, S. J., & Backman, K. F. (1996). A preliminary

investigation into the psychographics of nature-based travellers to the

Southeastern United States. Journal of Travel Research, 35, 19–28.

Smith, V.L., and Eadington, W.R. (1995). Introduction: the emergence of

alternative forms of tourism. In V.L. Smith, and W.R. Eadington (Eds.),

Tourism alternatives. Potentials and problems in the development of

tourism. Chichester, England, John Wiley & Sons.

Taylor, J.E., Dyer, G.A., Stewart, M., Yunez-Naude, A., and Ardila, S. (2003).

The economics of ecotourism: A Galápagos islands economy-wide

Perspective. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 51(4), 977-

997.

Wallace, G.N. and Pierce, S.M. (1996). An evaluation of ecotourism in

Amazons, Brazil. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 843-873.

Weaver, D. B. (2002). Hard-core ecotourists in Lamington National Park,

Australia. Journal of Ecotourism, 1(1), 19–35.

Weaver, D.B. (2001). Ecotourism in the context of other tourism types. In D.B.

Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism. New York, Oxon, CABI.

Weaver, D.B. (1999). Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa Rica and Kenya.

Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 792-816.

Weaver, D.B., Faulkner, B., and Lawton, L. (1998). Nature-based tourism in

Australia and beyond: A preliminary investigation. Gold Coast,

Queensland: Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism,

Griffith University.

21

Whelan, T. (1991). Nature tourism: Managing for the environment. Island Press,

Washington, USA.

Wight, P. A. (2001). Ecotourists: Not a homogeneous market segment. In D.B.

Weaver (Ed.), The encyclopedia of ecotourism. New York, Oxon, CABI

pp. 37–62.

Wight, P.A. (1996a). North American ecotourists: Market profile and trip

characteristics. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 2-10.

Wight, P.A. (1996b). North American ecotourists: Motivations, preferences and

destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 35(1), 3-10.

Wight, P.A. (1993). Sustainable ecotourism: Balancing economic,

environmental and social goals within an ethical framework. Journal of

Tourism Studies, 4(2), 54-66.

Wurzinger, S. and Johansson, M. (2006). Environmental concern and knowledge

of Ecotourism among three groups of Swedish tourists. Journal of Travel

Research, 45: 217–26.

Xiao, H. and Smith, S.L.J. (2006). Case studies in tourism research: A state-of-

the-art analysis. Tourism Management, 27(5), 738-749

22

Figure 1. The Park

23

Table 1. N° of accommodation selected and n° of interviewed tourists divided by geographical area

and typology of accommodation

Geographical areas

Typology Principina a Mare

Marina di Grosseto

Castiglione della Pescaia

Punta Ala

Talamone

Fonteblanda

Hotel and RTA (1 and 2 stars) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3)

Hotel and RTA (3 and 4 stars) 2 (9) 6 (25) 2 (7)

Camping, Residences, Tourist

Villages

3 (21) 5 (25) 2 (4)

Table 2. Main Socioeconomic and Behavioral Characteristics

Characteristics Park visitors Seaside tourists

Median age 43 39

Sex 52% m; 48% f 57% m; 43% f

Education (median class) Degree High school diploma

Income (median class) 42,000-54,000 6,000-18,000

Occupation, More professional Less professional

Nationality Italians 53%; Foreigners 46% Italians 76 Foreigners 24%

Origin of Italians Tuscany or neighboring regions

34%

Tuscany or neighboring regions

78%

Micro-facilities run by local family:

Accommodation Agritourism 30% Agritourism 2%

Food Typical restaurants 93% Typical restaurants 54%

Average daily expenditure (median class)* 42-54 18-30

* Excluding the travel costs and overnight stay

Table 3. Park visitors vs Seaside Tourists: Summary of the Independence Tests

Characteristics df χ2 p-value*

Pollution, unemployment and crime 2 23.6510 <.0001

The preference for living in an unpolluted area rather

than in a city 1 20.0970 <.0001

Environmental quality and the perceived welfare 2 17.2106 <.0001

The purchase of a home in a park area 1 67.6933 <.0001

WTP a higher price for a home in a park area 2 2.3016 .3299

The preference for local and organic products 1 44.5829 <.0001

The importance given to the supply of organic and

local products in the hotels 1 26.8122 <.0001

The impact of an environmental quality trademark on

the choice of a hotel 1 13.8971 <.0001

WTP a higher price for certified products 2 24.5806 <.0001

* The independence test was carried out using the usual permutation techniques or the exact Fisher test.

Software: SAS