White water adventure tourism on the Ash River, South Africa

African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance (AJPHERD) Volume 20(1), March 2014, pp. 52-75.

White water adventure tourism on the Ash River, South Africa

TRACEY J. M. MCKAY

Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park, Johannesburg, South Africa. E-mail: [email protected]

(Received: 14 November 2013; Revision Accepted: 25 January 2014)

Abstract

Kayaking and rafting on white water is viewed as core adventure activity in both the adventure recreation and adventure tourism literature. Additionally, many argue that the activity also represents a segment of extreme or lifestyle sport. This case study of the Ash River, South Africa demonstrates how, with specific reference to white water kayaking and rafting, the boundaries between adventure recreation, adventure tourism and extreme sports are blurred. That is, the various white water activities mutually support one another, with guides, operators and participants ‘boundary hopping’ between them. The Ash River is shown to be a significant white water adventure site for South Africa due to its flow volumes, speed, consistency, quality of rapids and unsurpassed water quality. Thus, the river draws in both local and international tourists, for some of whom the river was ‘bucket list white water adventure site’. The result is that the white water adventure industry generates significant income, direct and indirect job opportunities, for the Bethlehem and Clarens area. The study also examined the demographic and socio-economic profiles of the kayaking and rafting tourists, as well as explored their motivations and experiences. It was found that there are some significant differences between the motivations and experiences of the kayakers compared to the rafters, between male and female rafters and between white and black rafters. Lastly, the age profile of the rafters seems to impact on what activities are undertaken.

Keywords: White water rafting, kayaking, motivations, experiences, profiles, adventure.

How to cite this article:McKay, T.J.M (2014). White water adventure tourism on the Ash River, South Africa. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 20(1), 52-75.

Introduction

Adventure tourism has a global footprint, with a significant client base, and its contribution to economic development is well documented (Williams & Soutar, 2005; Buckley, 2010). White water adventure is a well known, popular, activity taking place in Europe, North and South America, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, as well as Africa (Swarbrooke, Beard, Leckie & Pomfret, 2003; Buckley, 2010). Although lagging the rest of the world, white water adventure tourism in Africa is on the rise. For example, some 12 000 people raft the Upper Nile, Uganda annually (Morgan et al., 2010). Compared to the rest of Africa, however, South Africa is an adventure tourism behemoth, partly because South Africa boasts a physical geography that lends itself to adventure tourism but also because there is a significant domestic adventure tourism base (Rogerson &

White water adventure tourism 53

Visser, 2004; Rogerson & Lisa, 2005; Rogerson, 2007). White water rafting is a significant segment of the South African adventure tourism industry (Greffrath & Roux, 2012). This study explores the white water adventure sector by conducting an in-depth examination of white water kayaking and rafting tourism on the Ash River, in the Eastern Free State. The demographic and socio-economic profile of the tourists is given and their motivations and experiences are explored. The study is structured as follows: A brief overview is given as to what adventure, adventure recreation, adventure tourism and lifestyle sports are. The focus turns to explore in more depth some of the key themes in the international adventure literature. The methodology and description of the study area is then presented, followed by the findings and discussion.

The adventure leisure market

While most agree that the defining feature of adventure is that of risk, there is little agreement as to what risk itself is (Kane & Zink, 2004; Buckley, 2006; Fletcher, 2010). Swarbrooke et al. (2003) agues that adventure is highly personal as different people have different notions of what is risk. Be that as it may, many scholars argue that adventure is associated with physical risk. That is, an activity is ‘adventurous’ and ‘challenging’ if there is a risk to life and/or limb, although there is a critique that this notion is overly masculine, and that for women, adventure has a social meaning (Little, 2002 a&b; Ewert, Gilbertson, Luo & Voight, 2013). That is, interpersonal relationships feature more prominently for women when it comes to adventure (Ryan, 2002; Ewert et al., 2013). Risk aside, another key defining feature of adventure is that the final outcome is unknown (Shepard & Evans, 2005). Furthermore, Cloke and Perkins (1998) and Varley (2006) argue that active participation is an essential feature of adventure and usually strong emotional responses are triggered. Thus, adventure involves risk, uncertainty, challenge, active physical involvement and the experience of strongemotions, such as fear and excitement.

Experiencing or undertaking an adventure has become associated with travel and leisure. Thus, there is considerable debate concerning what constitutes adventure recreation travel vis-à-vis adventure tourism. Galloway (2006), Hardiman and Burgin (2011) and Tsaur, Lin and Liu (2013a) define adventure recreation as an outdoor activity where an individual purposely takes on the challenge of engaging with uncontrollable natural hazards (either nature itself or a physical feature) in order to apply their specialised skills and/or equipment to overcome the task at hand. Adventure recreation is, thus, a personal adventure where all risk is borne by the individual. Adventure tourism is somewhat different as much of the risk (and, thus, challenge) is borne either by the operator and/or the guides, as the onus rests with the service provider to ensure clients have a safe, fun experience. Buckley (2000) notes that often the only skilled, knowledgeable and physically fit people involved in the activity are the paid guides. In the case of

54 McKay

adventure tourism, then, people pay for an organised, commericalised adventure tour. As such, adventure tourism represents the commericalisation of adventure recreation (Buckley, 2007).

In order to gain greater understanding of the adventure industry, and as a response to its size and complexity, adventure activities are classified into three key segments: hard, soft and nature-based adventure (Buckley, 2006; McKay, 2013). All can manifest as either adventure recreation and/or adventure tourism. Although, due to the high cost of equipment, or the levels of specialised skills and experience required, some adventure activities are less likely to be part of the adventure recreation market. Nature-based adventure, for example, which involves physical interaction with wild animals, such as walking with lions, is unlikely to be undertaken by an individual recreational adventurer (Buckley, 2010). Importantly, the boundaries between hard and soft adventure are somewhat blurred. It is generally accepted that differences lie with the degree of physical activity, risk and skills required (Cloke & Perkins, 1998; Buckley, 2006). Adventure is considered ‘soft’ if the risk is low, fewer skills are necessary and/or high levels of physical fitness are not required (Williams & Soutar, 2005). Adventure is ‘hard’ if the activities are more risky, more physical and more challenging. Both Williams and Soutar (2005) and Buckley (2006) view white water rafting as “archetypal” hard adventure tourism. A key feature of white water adventure is the categorisation of rapids. Rapids are classified according to the International River Classification Scale of I to V. The easiest and, thus, least dangerous is a Class I rapid. The most difficult are Class V and greater. Kayaking involves individually navigating rivers using small hard-shell boats using double-ended paddles. Kayakers generally seek out Class III to V rapids (Fiore, 2003). Rafting is a group activity where single-blade paddles and inflatable boats accommodating between four and eight people are used. With rafting, much of the propulsion and steering is done by an experienced individual, usually known as a river guide, who is employed by a commercial operator (Wilson, McDermott, Munir & Hogervorst, 2013). Most commercial white water rafting operators work Class I to IV rapids.

Contrary to kayaking, where an individual must be highly skilled and super fit, the typical white water rafter is a cash-rich, time-poor, unskilled (and often unfit) tourist. The operator provides all the necessary equipment and clothing (e.g. Personal Flotation Devices (PDFs), helmets, wetsuits and wind jackets). The trip has to be ultra safe, short on length and big on thrills and spills (Buckley, 2006). Buckley (2007) argues that white water rafting is now such a high-volume, low-difficulty ‘packaged’ product that it bears a strong resemblance to mass tourism. The trips are so similar, they can usually only be distinguished in terms of trip duration (half day, one day, three days); type of boat; location and guide to client ratio (Buckley, 2006).


As a consequence, a number of scholars accuse hard adventure tourism operators of adventure-washing. That is, the activities are now so choreographed andmicro-managed that for all intents and purposes they are no longer adventurous at all (Arnould, Otnes & Price, 1999; Holyfield, 1999; Beedie & Hudson, 2003; Varley, 2006). Despite such perceptions, adventure tourism, although not inherently life threatening; is not risk free (Weber, 2001; Kane, 2010). Bentley, Page and Laird (2000) and Page, Bentley and Walker (2005) have demonstrated this empirically by investigating, and subsequently classifying, actual accidents in both the adventure tourism and adventure recreation sectors. They found that both are characterised by serious incidents [which they classified as involving hospitalisation for more than 48 hours and/or death] and minor incidents [classified as cuts, bruises and incidents that require no hospitalisation or hospitalisation for less than 48 hours]. Minor incidents, as a result of slips, trips and falls occurred more frequently than serious ones. Generally speaking adventure recreation is more dangerous than adventure tourism. Water-based commercial adventure activities are riskier than land or air based ones (Bentley, Page & Laird, 2001; Bentley, Page & Edwards, 2008).

There are a number of physical risks associated with white water adventure. Water, especially cold water, adds a particular risk dimension, namely the possibility of drowning, near drowning or hyperthermia. One may also be struck by rock and/or a paddle, or experience sunburn (Shephard, 1987; O’Hare, Chalmers, Arnold & Williams, 2002; Fiore, 2003). There is also the threat of acquiring a serious water borne disease, such as staphylococcal skin infections; giardiasis; schistosomiases and leptospirosis (Gelman et al., 2002; Fiore, 2003; Narita, Fujitani, Haake and Paterson, 2005; Monahan, Miller and Nally, 2009; Morgan et al., 2010). Rafting or kayaking on rivers in Japan, Ireland, the USA, Brazil, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Uganda and Malaysia are all known for such disease related risks. Generally speaking, however, fatality rates are modest (Fletcher, 2010). For the United States of America, Fiore (2003) estimated that the white water fatality rate was only 0.87 per 100 000 user days.

In New Zealand, O’Hare et al. (2002) found only 2.5 fatalities per annum. Most fatalities involved either novices who found themselves in situations beyond their skill level or highly accomplished kayakers who sought out dangerous Class V or VI rapids (Fiore & Houston, 2001). In terms of injuries, kayaking is more risky than rafting. Fiore (2003) found kayaking injuries to be 1.9 per 1000 user days, compared to between 0.26 to 0.44 injuries per 1000 user days for rafting. Researchers conclude that education (especially of kayakers), safety talks, PDFs, wetsuits, non-slip footwear and helmets are essential features for reducing risk in the white water industry (O’Hare et al., 2002; Fiore, 2003; Bailey, 2010). On the whole, however, driving to the river to raft or kayak is riskier than actually rafting or kayaking it.

56 McKay

Importantly, some argue that with respect to white water kayaking and rafting, there are significant overlaps between what constitutes hard adventure and what constitutes active sport tourism. Hinch and Higham (2001) and Roberts (2011) are even of the opinion that hard adventure is extreme sport adventure tourism, just by another name. This narrowing of the divide between sport and tourism has been documented by Bourdeau, Corneloup and Mao (2004); Varley (2006), as well as, McGillivray and Frew (2007). These scholars argue that a hybridization of leisure activities occurred as sports and active holidays coalesced and took on new meanings and forms. Thus, voluntary active physical participation, normally associated with sport, began to merge with notions of tourism. In turn, the emphasis tourism places on consumption and commercialisation has became associated with sport.

The impacts of this can be seen in the commercialised adventure leisure market with the emergence of extreme, adventure or lifestyle sports tourism. Kayaking seems to represent an example of this. Kayaking started in the 1930s as adventure recreation. Overtime, various equipment and rule changes occurred to reduce the risks and formalise it. It became a popular extreme or lifestyle sport, especially in Europe. By the 1990s it was granted Olympic discipline status (Wilson et al., 2013). Traditionally dominated by men, women were only recognised as fully fledged members of this community in the last decade. Rafting also started off as adventure recreation, and, once again, with improved equipment and better safety measures become very popular. However, as it is a group activity, and the equipment can be both cumbersome and costly, rather than evolving as an extreme and then Olympic sport, it become commercialised as adventure tourism.

Olympic competitors aside, most kayakers and rafters have adapted the sport to reflect more of the values of adventure. That is, the inherently competitive nature of sport has changed from participants competing against each other to competing with oneself (Tomlinson, Ravenscroft, Wheaton & Gilchrist, 2005; Varley, 2006). Still, some scholars argue that individuals do compete against one other, albeit in a classic post modern manner. That is, in terms of accumulating experiences. Those with more or ‘better’ experiences accumulate social status, social standing, social recognition and/or enjoy greater social bonding (between family and/or friends) (McIntyre & Roggenbuck, 1998; Hopkinson & Pujari, 1999; Jonas, Stewart & Larkin, 2003; Sharpe, 2005; Trauer, 2006; Berger & Greenspan, 2008; Ewert et al., 2013). To this end, Abramson and Laviolette (2007) place hard adventure tourism or extreme sport tourism as part of the experience economy, a key aspect of which is performance. In the experience economy, the paying client becomes an entertainment product (Hopkinson & Pujari, 1999; Bell & Lyall, 2002). That is, a defining feature of extreme lifestyle sport or hard adventure is performance - either as a group, and/or in front of an audience. Using social media tools, such as Facebook, Twitter or YouTube this


audience can even be a virtual one (Bell & Lyall, 2002; Kane & Tucker, 2004; Cater, 2007; Bott, 2009).

Who seeks out adventure and why?

Many investigations have been undertaken to ascertain who purchases an adventure tour and why (Jonas et al., 2003; Kane & Tucker, 2004; Allman, Mittelstaedt, Martin & Goldenberg, 2009; Sirgy, 2010). Part of the analysis includes establishing what their socio-economic and demographic profile is, what rationales are driving their purchases and what experiences they have.Generally speaking, the typical white water adventurer is well educated and middle class (Kuentzel & Heberlein, 1997; Buckley, 2000; Beedie & Hudson, 2003; Sharpe, 2005; Fletcher, 2010). Most are aged between 30 and 40, with few travelling with small children (Fletcher, 2010). Sung (2004), therefore, argues that life stage strongly influences the demographic profile. In general, young male participants dominate (Swarbrooke et al, 2003; Sharpe, 2005; Tomlinson et al, 2005). Whilst this preponderance of males typifies white water kayaking, it is not so for rafting, where there is a better balance between male and female participation (Fiore, 2003; Fletcher, 2010; Roberts, 2011; Ewert et al., 2013). Little (2002b) argues that the social construction of femininity is the root cause of poor female participation. That is, women are socialised into being passive, nurturing and focused on others rather than self. As a girl child grows, they are usually exposed to less ‘adventure’ than a boy child and as a consequence adult women have less adventure experience and skills compared to men. Furthermore, women seem to have a higher internal ‘risk barrier’ and anticipate failure more often than men. Thus, women have many hurdles to overcome before embarking on an adventure activity, made worse by the fact that there are few female adventure role models or ‘heroines’ that can be drawn upon. Lastly, as adventure is male dominated, ‘adventure space’ is ‘male space’, where male culture prevails, a situation the media reinforces. As women feel awkward and unwelcome in such spaces this further inhibits participation.

Participation seems to be racially skewed, with white people predominating (Kearsley, 1993; Beedie & Hudson, 2003; Fiore, 2003; Sharpe, 2005; Fletcher, 2010). Why black Americans are significantly underrepresented in outdoor adventure has been explored by both Martin (2004) and Mowatt (2009). They propose a number of reasons: It could be affordability, that is black Americans are generally poorer than white Americans. Or it could be that black Americans are socialised differently. That is, black people view themselves as cosmopolitan and sophisticated so they do not ‘rough-it’ in the outdoors. More likely, however, is that a racialised outdoor identity exists. That is, ‘adventurers’ are defined as being white, not black. Outdoor leisure space is ‘white space’. The media, including advertising brochures and images produced by the adventure tour operators themselves, reinforce this image, as black people are seldom portrayed

58 McKay

as participants. Thus, black people may shun adventure activities out of fear of racial discrimination, fear of being ‘othered’, fear of feeling ‘out of place’ or generally experience a feeling of being ‘unwelcome’.

The literature then moves on to examine what motivates the typical adventure tourist. A number of international scholars argue that adventure tourists are typical ‘sensation seekers’ (Litvin, 2008; Sirgy, 2010). Such individuals participate in adventure tourism either as an escape from their mundane daily routines, for fun or for enjoyment (Todd, Anderson, Anderson and Anderson, 2002; Morrissey, 2008). They crave the adrenalin ‘high’ or ‘rush’ which ensues due to the production of adrenalin, norepinephrine and dopamine that participation in adventure activities, causes (Morgan, Moore & Mansell, 2005; Buckley, 2006). Litvin (2008) and Tok (2011) argue that this sensation seeking behavior is a personality trait. That is, some people are ‘hard wired’ to actively seek out physical and or other types of risk to sate their cravings for high sensory stimulation (thrills). These individuals thrive on varied, novel and intense sensory stimulation. They embrace adventure due to naturally high levels of self confidence and lower likelihood of focusing on possible negative outcomes (Murray, 2003).

Galloway (2006), Fletcher (2010) and Ewert et al. (2013) see things differently, maintaining that people who engage in adventure tourism do so because they are ‘Edgeworkers’. That is, adventure tourism opens up a space for people to negotiate the ‘edge’ or boundary between life and death, chaos and order, control and uncertainty (Varley, 2006). In this framework, adventure tourism allows the participant to safely ‘explore’ death, pushing oneself to the edge of life, and, thus, creating experiences that give new meaning to one’s life (Schneider, Butryn, Furst and Masucci, 2007; Morrissey, 2008). Thus, Galloway (2006) views adventure tourism or extreme sports as a form of positive deviant leisure behaviour, Morrissey (2008) concurs, arguing that all humans have a deep need to explore ‘the edge’ and that often adventure tourism is the only place where modern society allows this to occur. However, constantly and voluntarily taking physical risks is generally viewed as deviant behaviour, especially as Lyng (2005) found edgework to be highly addictive, attracting people seeking hedonic pleasure and instant gratification (Galloway, 2006; Schneider et al., 2007).

But not all adventurers participate for the risk, thrill or ‘high’ but rather for the challenge (Bunting, 2000; Gyimóthy & Mykletun, 2004; Tsaur et al., 2013; Tsaur, Yen & Hsiao 2013). That is, adventure offers an opportunity to challenge one’s physical and/or mental limits. Successful completion of a challenge gives a sense of deep personal satisfaction and accomplishment. Both the physical and psychological challenges presented by adventure can boost self confidence, increase problem solving skills and foster better interpersonal skills. Gyimóthy and Mykletun (2004) and Kane and Tucker (2004) call this approach to


adventure tourism ‘deep play’. In order to meet the challenge the individual has to become deeply immersed in the activity, and its alternative reality of unique expectations, rules and values, are such that the demands of everyday life are temporarily forgotten. In the ‘safe space’ of the adventure tourism industry, therefore, adults can ‘let their hair down’, ‘experience a challenge’ in a controlled ‘playful’ manner. Within this context, the adventurer has to repeat the activity regularly if skills and experience is to be acquired. Whilst becoming proficient, the participant takes on a new identity and begins to associate who they are with the activity (Jonas et al 2003; Trauer 2006; Berger & Greenspan, 2008).

Jones, Hollenhorst, Perna and Selin (2000) and Mackenzie, Hodge and Boyes (2011) argue when a physical adventurous activity is challenging participants may experience a state of FLOW. Some scholars, such as Walle (1997), Boniface (2000), as well as Brymer and Oades (2009) drawing on the work of Maslow, have gone on to describe the experience of FLOW within adventure as ‘peak experience’ or ‘peak adventure’. FLOW is a heightened state of bliss that occurs when a person is completely immersed in a challenging activity such that action and awareness merges, time appears to slow down or stand still, self-conscious awareness is lost and movement and sensations become ‘blended’ or flow into one (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Ryan, 2002). During this state, the person becomes mentally detached from material reality and all aspects of ‘normal life’ fade from consciousness (Wu & Liang, 2011). Thus, FLOW is an inherently autotelic, exceptionally pleasant, experience (Jones et al., 2000; Mackenzie et al., 2013). FLOW experiences, whilst fleeting, often have a lasting impact, giving an individual who has experienced it a deep sense of personal happiness and an impression that their quality of life has improved (Swarbrooke et al., 2003). For some, achieving this state can profoundly influence both ones perception of self and one’s views on one’s purpose in life (Rowan, 1999; Elsrud, 2001; Weber, 2001; Kane & Zink, 2004; Pomfret, 2006; Willig, 2008; Brymer & Oades, 2009). This then opens up the possibility that participation in adventure activities can result in an experience of transcendence, enlightenment and may even have a spiritual dimension (Sanford, 2007; Schmidt & Little, 2007).

Willig (2008) described transcendence as one where neither the past, nor the future matter. An individual becomes completing immersed in ‘the now’. One’s focus is only on living and enjoying the present, one moment at a time. This is best thought of as living in the present, not living for the present, a condition most sensation seekers, operating in a paratelic state, are in. Walle (1997), drawing on the work of Emerson, Muir and Thoreau suggests that people pursue adventure, because the risks, challenges and the associated fears, offer the possibility of gaining personal insight and self-actualisation. As Jonas et al. (2003) notes, one has to overcome fear to know oneself. Furthermore, living in the present moment, is a type of ‘meditative state’, a condition many find to be

60 McKay

stress releasing and therapeutic. In this realm of transcendence, the possibility opens up of establishing a deep relationship with themselves, with others or even with God. If such a state is achieved through participation in adventure, it may be possible to argue that adventure contributes to physical, psychological and spiritual wellbeing (Ryckman et al., 1985; Brymer & Oades, 2009).

Todd et al. (2002) posits however, that it is far more common to find that veterans, as opposed to beginners or sporadic/occasional adventurers, participate for the intrinsic reasons associated with challenge, FLOW, transcendence and enlightenment. Drawing on Bryon’s theory of specialisation and the notion of a travel career ladder, a number of scholars agree (Richards, 1996; Swarbrooke et al., 2003). Kuentzel and Heberlein (1997) propose that there is a linear process, from novice to expert, associated with individual self-development. As one moves along this continuum, one develops a cognitive and emotional attachment to the activity, partly because of the extensive commitment of time and resources required to achieve ‘expert’ status. Eventually, the activity becomes central to the individual’s lifestyle, identity and notions of self-worth. Finally, the person starts to ‘live’ within the sub-world or sub-culture of the activity, that is, the activity becomes an important frame of reference for the individual. Such deep immersion into an activity’s subculture, the need to persevere, acquire skills and specialised knowledge, along with the manifestation of durable benefits such as self-actualisation and the creation of a new personal identity is what Stebbins (1992; 1997) defines as serious leisure (Tomlinson et al., 2005; Pomfret, 2011). So, there is the possibility that for some, the adventure activity is a manifestation of a serious leisure career.

The literature lacks clarity, however, if a serious leisure career can emerge out of commodified adventure rather than out of adventure recreation. While Buckley (2007) is of the opinion that hard adventure could be a type of serious leisure, Cloke and Perkins (1998) note that many participants are only ‘occasional adventurers’ who select to participate if they find the destination has service providers that offer it, making it unlikely that adventure tourism will automatically result in serious leisure formation.

Methodology

In order to establish the demographic, geographical and socio-economic profile of the tourists to the Ash River is, as well as, determine what is attracting them to the Ash River, 114 semi-structured participant questionnaires, using convenience sampling, were collected on site between September 2012 and January 2013. To reduce response bias, some questions were asked in the third person (Kerlinger & Lee, 1999; Malhotra & Birks, 2007). Where possible, the key or main decision maker in the group was interviewed. Additional data was collected, using semi-structured in-depth interviews, with the owners and staff of the rafting


companies, as well as with two South African Olympian kayakers, other members of the kayaking community, and local Dihlabeng councilors. Informed consent was obtained and participation was voluntary. Participant observation also took place. The refusal rate was low. A shortcoming is that only a few rafters, especially the domestic tourists, could adequately recall exactly how much money they had spent on ‘meals’ and ‘other’. Thus, responses for these questions are limited. Furthermore, participants did not always differentiate between the purchase of ‘casual snacks’, drinks and sit down meals. Lastly, not all rafting groups kept track of who in the group made purchases under the category ‘other’. Often they did not know (or elected not to ask) what each other had spent on these items. Thus, actual spending patterns may be significantly higher than what is reported here.

The study area: Ash River, Eastern Free State

Physically, the Eastern Free State lends itself to tourism. The landscape is picturesque, with soaring sandstone mountains, Poplar trees, wild grasses and cultivated farms. Climatologically, the area experiences hot, rainy summers and cold winters, with occasional snow. Most days are sunny with clear blue skies. The Golden Gate National Park is a significant tourist attraction in its own right (see Figure 1). The Ash River has been significantly transformed by its use as an outlet for water coming into South Africa from the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP). This transformation enabled the creation of a white water rafting and kayaking industry in the area. Two rafting companies, with 13 permanent and 12 temporary employees in total, work the river. Several South African Olympic kayakers, South African champions, international kayakers [from Germany, Slovenia, Slovakia and France] train on the Ash. The internationals usually stay for at least a month and many bring family, coaches, medical staff and other kayaking related staff with them. For example, in 2012, some 16 French and 74 Germans kayakers stayed in the area to train on the river.

In January 2013, alone, five slalom kayakers came from the Czech Republic to train and compete and one from France. It is also the site of an in–school youth kayaking development programme. Initially launched in 2008/9 by a Dutch non-profit organization, The Prince Claus Fund, with a donation of R250 000, it is now sponsored by the local municipality and serves as a job creation project for the SA Olympians (CSA, pers comm, 7 July 2008). The youth development scheme has been successful, producing a number of representatives for South Africa at international junior and senior kayaking events. It seems that, as for Queenstown, New Zealand, the location has a similar potential to become an adventure tourism ‘mecca’ or rural playground for well heeled adventure tourists. The tourism industry in the area is well developed, with bars, restaurants, coffee shops, upmarket shops, art galleries, artisanal crafters and a huge range of accommodation options. It is well positioned with respect to

62 McKay

domestic tourist source markets and is a popular second home destination (Hoogendoorn & Visser, 2004). Current efforts by the Dihlabeng Municipality, SanParks and local tourist enterprises to promote tourism, using Facebook [e.g. I Love Free State] and Twitter [e.g. @Clarensevents], as well as, participating in adventure/tourism shows and festivals, perhaps reflects the desire of locals to learn from – and perhaps copy - the New Zealand experience. For example, the local municipality actively markets the river as a kayaking site, such as designating the first African Slalom Competition (2013) as mayoral event, in order to encourage the use of the river for international kayaking competitions. Unfortunately, the Ash River is also one of the few rivers in South Africa that is suitable for small scale hydroelectric power generation (McKay, 2013). To date, one mini-HEP scheme has destroyed the Ash’s Class V rapid, forcing the rafting industry to offer only half day trips. Another planned mini-HEP now threatens the slalom kayaking rapid, although South African authorities have insisted that the HEP company replace the rapid with an artificial slalom course, built to international standards. It remains to be seen if this does indeed occur and if an artificial course is sufficient to maintain all aspects of the local kayaking and rafting industry.

When viewed in terms of Buckley’s (2010) ‘hierarchy of desire’ concept for adventure sites, the Ash River is fashionable white water, and as close to extreme as one can get, without being all out dangerous. Typical of all kayaking and white river rafting rivers, the Ash River has a number of ‘classic’ Grade III - Vrapids. As is the usual practice in the white water community, these rapids have names. The rapids in downstream order, are: ‘breathalyzer’; ‘carwash’; ‘alles-verloren’; ‘alles- gevonden’, ‘fishpond’, ‘long drop’ and ‘big surprise’. These names reflect the local cultural heritage and the white water experience. The permanent kayak course follows the ‘alles-verloren’ rapid and this rapid is a valuable slalom kayaking resource. The water flow varies between 15m3 and 35m3 per second, gradient is roughly 5m/km and the white water course is about 10kms long, or between 2 and 3 hours in a raft. The river does present some hazards, namely cold water (around 120C); weirs, trees branches, collapsing river banks and slalom gates. The elevation (1818m asl), clean, swift flowing, regular and disease free flow of the Ash River, along with good quality rapids makes it an attractive location for white water kayakers and rafters. All (100%) of the kayakers rated the following as important for attracting them to the river: Clean, safe water and good weather. Many (92%) also said the quality of the rapids; the friendly community (83%), training at altitude (83%) and value for money (67%) were attractive features of the Ash River.


Figure 1: Clarens, the Ash River and the Eastern Free State

While all kayakers said guaranteed water was important, this aspect is, perhaps, the river’s most serious problem. As it relies on the LHWP, if the LHWP engineers shut the pumps, for maintenance, for example, the water stops flowing. As this happens often, sometimes without due warning and can, at times, last for weeks, it is a serious hindrance to fostering kayaking and rafting tourism.

Findings

The typical kayak tourist can be described as male, single, white and South African of moderate means (Table 1). All had travelled to the Ash River with the specific purpose of kayaking. Despite perceptions that this extreme sport is for young people only, the age ranged from under 20 to over 50, although this can be attributed to the range of accompanying persons, who were travelling as coaches, judges or event organisers. Generally, most kayakers travelled in a group of more than three people (82%), with 27.3% of the tourists being children. Few travelled alone (8%), rather they came with friends (33%), family (50%) or on an organised tour (8%). The majority (42%) resided in Kwa-Zulu Natal (Durban;

64 McKay

Howick); followed by 33% who lived in the Free State (Vaal; Parys). The rest were internationals, hailing from the Czech Republic or France. Only one was from Gauteng. On the whole, the older kayaking tourists were more educated, while the younger participants were enrolled at an educational institution. Of those were employed full time, most were adventure tour guides or involved in kayaking as a coach or secretary of the local kayaking federation.

Table 1: Socio-economic and demographic profile, Slalom kayakers, river rafters (in percentages)

Age <20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-50 50+Kayakers 25 8 17 0 17 33Rafters 6 15 15 17 32 15Gender Male FemaleKayakers 83 16Rafters 56 44Marital Status

Single/widowed/divorced Co-habiting Married

Kayakers 59 8 33Rafters 28 13 59Race White Black/Indian/other Kayakers 83 17Rafters 92 8Nationality South African InternationalKayakers 83 17Rafters 91 9Education levels

In high school/finished

high school

Some post school

education

Diploma /Degree Degree/Post graduate degree

Kayakers 50 8 17 25Rafters 26 5 16 53Income <R5000 R 5001-

R10 000R10 001-R15 000

R15 001-R20 000

R20 001-R30 000

R30 001+

Kayakers 36 27 9 9 0 19Rafters 13 14 9 12 16 36

The kayakers can be described as extremely dedicated, with 82% claiming to have travelled to other places within South Africa to kayak. These destinations included: the Umkomaas River; the Berg River; the Great Fish River; the Orange River; the Vaal River; the Sabie River and the Blyde River. Unsurprisingly all but two described themselves as being ‘addicted’ to kayaking. Overall, 42% said they did it for the ‘adrenalin’, the ‘rush’ or the ‘thrill’, saying things like “high adrenalin”, “exhilaration” and “not boring at all!” to describe their views. Some 8 % did it for ‘fun’: “Fun! I like to paddle for fun and go fast”. Another17% said they did it for the ‘experience’ which included “experiencing the river’s power” and an additional 8% did it to learn new skills. An additional 8% said they did it for the love of the activity “I love shooting rapids” and some 17% claimed kayaking to be ‘their life’ or ‘career’. Their enthusiasm for all


things adventure and physical manifested in the other activities the kayakers either had done or planned to do whilst at the Ash River. These included hiking (21%), mountain biking (14%) and white water rafting (14%), as well as walking (7%) and going to gym (7%). Thus, these tourists are both typical ‘adrenalin junkies’, seeking out thrills that involve physical risk – “I enjoy being scared witless” said one – “it feels good to go down the big rapids, the speed…I can’t describe it” – said another - but most also displayed the characteristics of a serious leisure tourist. For example, some had a more profound or deeper experience associated with FLOW and transcendence. This they described in words, such as being “at one with nature” and feeling a sense of belonging saying they felt “at home”; “at one with the river” and that they were “in the right place”. Which may be interpreted as a manifestation of ‘immersion in the moment’ where an individual feels ‘at one’ with their physical surroundings and a type of self actualisation is experienced. Another individual described experiencing “a whole range of emotions: nervous, anger, joy, being in control, being out of control”.

There were commonalities, between the kayakers and the rafters, especially in terms of race (the majority of rafters and kayakers were white) and nationality (most were domestic tourists). Another significant commonality was that most participants had post secondary qualifications, some 42% for the kayakers and 69% for the rafters. Most without post school qualifications were currently enrolled at a tertiary institution. As for the kayakers, most rafters travelled in a group. Only a handful travelled alone (2%), most came with friends (33%), family (64%) or on an organised tour (1%). Again, as for the kayakers, some of the rafters (9%) were long haul internationals. Some rafters hailed from France, Germany, Canada, the United Kingdom, Mexico and Ireland, whilst two percent were residents of SADC states. Similar to the kayakers, some 36% of the rafters had taken or planned to take other adventure tours such as quad biking, horse riding, MTB and ziplining.

The typical rafting tourist however was significantly different to the typical kayaker. Firstly, the gender ratio is different with 44% of the rafters being female, compared to only 16% of the kayakers. Marital status was also different, with 59% of the rafters married compared to 33% of the kayakers, which may be accounted for by the difference in gender and age mix between the two groups. In general, due to higher levels of education, joint family incomes and more years of work experience, the rafters earned significantly more than the kayakers. The typical kayaker earned less than R10 000 per month, whereas the typical rafter earned over R20 000 per month. Linked to income was occupation. A large number of rafters were employed as professionals (37%), such as attorneys, accountants, engineers and medical professionals, whilst some 38% were either managers or owned their own businesses. Unlike the kayakers who all stayed at least one night, some 16% of the rafters were day trippers, most of whom were

66 McKay

from Bethlehem or Bloemfontein. The majority (43%) resided in Gauteng (Johannesburg and Pretoria mainly); followed by 26% who lived in the Free State (Bethlehem and Bloemfontein in the main). The rest of the rafters were made up of tourists from KZN (7%); the Western Cape (4%) with a few from Limpopo, Mpumalanga, the Northern Cape and the Eastern Cape. The differences in income and occupation could partly explain why the rafters spent more money in the area (Table 2). However, as the kayakers generally came from afar, their higher travel costs could have reduced their spending money. As the local government was sponsoring the kayaking competition to promote tourism, there were no entry fees, this further reduced their spending. Lastly, as the kayakers stayed in the area for longer periods of time, they were able to negotiate better accommodation deals.

Table 2: Tourist spending patterns, per travel group

Average spend Kayakers RaftersFees Free entry R1 977.93Meals R2 885.25 R1 541.85Travelling R8 083.75 R1 337.06Other R 179.17 R 926.52Accommodation R5 097.00 R5 786.37Average in total R16 245.17 R7 610.47Average spend excluding accommodation R11 148.17 R 1 824.10Average spend excluding travel R 8 161.42 R 6 273.41Average less accommodation & travel R 3 064.42 R4 449.31Note: Some internationals paid for accommodation that included three meals a day. Many domestic tourists opted for self catering which significantly reduced meal costs.

Some 21% of rafters said they were only moderately dedicated to adventure activities and 4% agreed that they were not dedicated at all. Overall, 30% of the rafters described themselves as ‘addicted’ adventurers, with another 30% describing themselves as ‘extremely dedicated’ to adventure. Thus, it could be said that rafters are far less adventurous than the kayakers. Still, some 22% said they came to Clarens with the specific purpose of white water rafting and 14% had rafted elsewhere. Many had travelled far and wide to white water raft. This included the Zambezi River (21%); various other South African rivers (21%), the Sabie River (17%); the Blue Nile (7%) and other rivers across the world, such as Switzerland, Korea and Chile. Furthermore, some 10% listed the Ash River as their bucket list white water rafting site - and all of these individuals had made the trip to the Ash specifically to raft it. Thus, albeit less dedicated to adventure than the kayakers, they still displayed some of the characteristics of an addicted or dedicated adventure tourist. In general, however, many more rafters, unlike the kayakers, were occasional adventurers, who took up the opportunity to white water raft because it was available. This is reflected in the data where some 78% had not rafted anywhere else in South Africa in the 12 months preceeding this raft trip down the Ash. Some 86% were rafting for the first time. Despite this, the


rafters were supportive of the adventure tourism industry as a whole. Most of the rafters had a ‘bucket list’ of rafting locations, top of which was the Zambezi (67%), followed by the Orange River (14%) and then various rivers in the USA (11%) and New Zealand (4%) as well as the Vaal River (4%). The long and varied list of bucket list sites demonstrates a high level of awareness pertaining to the geographical location and iconic status of white water adventure.

In terms of why they went rafting, there were again, differences and similiarites between the kayakers and the rafters. On the whole, only a minority of kayakers said they did it for fun, and none said it was an adventure for them. In contrast, the majority of rafters did it for fun and adventure. There was a significant gender difference in this. Most women rafters said they went rafting for ‘an adventure’ [n=16 p=0.013], where as most men said they did it for ‘fun’ [n=36 p=0.019]. In terms of factor analysis, two key factors emerge: That an older male dominated group rafted for sensation seeking reasons, such as ticking off their bucket lists [z=0.322] and another group, dominated by younger women, did it for adventure [z=0.247] with p <0.05 for both. Overall, the women who elect to go rafting are also more likely to go MTB [n=7 p=0.01], quad biking, paint ball and walking [z=0.19 p<0.05]. Generally speaking, the women were more also likely to report that they had gone shopping. Attracting female tourists, is then, important to strengthen the economic multipliers associated with tourism.

There were also gender differences in terms of what the rafters said they experienced on the river. In general, women (28% vs 22% for men) were more likely to find the water cold and more likely to say they had fun (36% vs 20% for men) – it was ‘fun fun fun’ said one lady and ‘flipping lekker’ said another. Only the women recognised how much of the rafting ‘work’ was done by the guides, with one even saying she ‘didn’t have to paddle much’. Men (27% vs 22% for women) were more likely to experience rafting as thrilling, as an adrenalin rush and as exciting - ‘awesome, exhilarating’ said one man. Men were also more likely to notice the natural setting and comment on the beauty of the river and itssurroundings (13% vs 6% for women). Overall, some 38% of men and 33% of women said it was a ‘good, very good, great, fabulous, awesome, phenomenal, brilliant, superb, wonderful, and terrific’ experience. Otherwise, there were no discernible gender differences in terms of finding rafting difficult, scary or challenging. Only a handful experienced social bonding, with no difference between males and females, in contrast to the literature. Very few rafters said they had a deeper experience akin to FLOW or transcendence. For those who did, however, they said they experienced ‘nothingness’, ‘freedom’, ‘pushed their boundaries’, ‘harmony’ and ‘oneness with Nature’.

The study also found significant differences by race. Overall, as for the USA, black people are significantly underrepresented in white water adventure tourism. Much of this may be attributed affordability issues, as the black South

68 McKay

African middle class is still relatively small. The black people who went rafting also went horse riding, abseiling and quad biking [z=0.85 p <0.05; n=4 p=0.01, respectively] mean this group of black rafters are adventurers, and when asked, all said they were either ‘addicted’ or ‘extremely dedicated’ to adventure. However, when asked why they thought other black people did not go white water rafting, a number cited fear of water e.g. ‘people think its dangerous’ and ‘fear of the water and drowning’. Some noted a lack of proficiency in the water ‘people can’t swim or weak swimmers’. Others claimed that it is not well marketed to black people e.g. ‘people don’t know about it’ and one said that there was a socialised view that black people ‘were not outdoor people’. Thus, there is a strong possibility that socialisation issues are one of the reasons behind low levels of black participation. But as all the black rafters avoided shopping and eating out [z=0.85 p <0.05], despite all being highly educated and reporting incomes above R20 000 per month, it may be that the locality is suffering from ‘white space’ syndrome. That is, the locality is viewed as ‘white space’ where black people feel unwelcome, out of place and generally experience cultural dissonance.

Clearly there are significant synergies between kayaking and rafting. Kayakers and rafters appear to ‘boundary hop’ between adventure recreation, adventure tourism and extreme sport. So, kayakers, due to the skills, experience and physical fitness required, often earn an income working as river guides and/or safety kayakers for the rafting industry. This was true even for the Olympic kayakers living in the area. The rafting company staff supported the kayakers in their extreme sport endeavours, by providing logistical support during competitions, by working as rescue kayakers, as well as, by helping to set up and maintain the slalom course. Many of the kayakers and their accompanying persons supported the white water rafting industry by purchasing a white water rafting trip. One of the kayaking accompanying persons even owned a rafting company. Furthermore, during the out-of-competition season, many kayakers became dedicated adventure recreational travellers, travelled far and wide to practice on different rivers. Lastly, most kayakers were first introduced to white water through rafting.

Conclusion

In general, white water adventure appeals to well educated, wealthy people, across all age groups. Young, single people and families with children in high school and/or tertiary education are most likely to participate, making white water adventure a group activity. The industry is mainly supported by local white tourists. Thus, much of this study confirms the international experience in terms of the demographic and socio-economic profiles of the white water adventurers. Rafting seems to have a broader appeal than kayaking, attracting sensation seekers, adventurers and those who want to have fun. Kayaking has significant


potential to evolve as a serious leisure activity, due to the much higher level of skills and fitness required. Both activities offer the participant intangible benefits, such as stress relief, enjoyment and the chance to experience FLOW and/or transcendence. Overall, the Ash River is an extremely attractive white water adventure site, with a great deal of growth potential. The river attracts local and international tourists, to the benefit of the local economy. Kayaking holds the potential to contribute substantially to adventure tourism due to the links between it and the rafting industry as a whole. Growth inhibitors include the skewed gender ratio for kayaking and race ratio for rafting, as well as, the possibility of losing the river to HEP. It is suggested that rafting tourism be promoted through a national wide initiative to help black people overcome their fear of water. Lastly, the promotion of water rafting needs to be in conjunction with the promotion of white water kayaking, as they two mutually support one another.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Clarens Xtreme, Outrageous Adventures, South Africa’s Olympic kayakers, the South African kayaking community, local councillors and the white water rafters and river guides who participated in this study. Thanks too to Wendy Job for the map, the UJ library, Statkon and Kerry Chipp for the data capturing and assistance with the statistical analysis, as well as the critical reviewers.

References

Abramson, A. L. & Laviolettte, P. (2007). Cliff-jumping, world-shifting and value-production: The genesis and cultural transformation of a dangerous new game. Suomen Antropologi: Journal of the Finnish Anthropological Society, 32(2), 5-28.

Allman T.A., Mittelstaedt, R.D., Martin, B. & Goldenberg, M. (2009). Exploring the motivations of BASE Jumpers: Extreme sport enthusiasts. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 14(4), 229-247.

Arnould, E.J., Otnes, C. & Price, LL. (1999). Making magic consumption: A study of white-water rafting. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(1), 33-68.

Bailey, I. (2010). An analysis of sea kayaking incidents in New Zealand 1992-2005. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 21, 208-218.

Beedie, P. & Hudson, S. (2003). Emergence of mountain-based adventure tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3), 625-643.

Bell, C. & Lyall, J. (2002). The Accelerated Sublime: Landscape, Tourism, and Identity.Greenwood Publishing Group: USA.

Bentley, T.A., Page, S & Edwards, J. (2008). Monitoring Injury in the New Zealand adventure tourism sector: An operator survey. International Society of Travel Medicine, 15(6), 395-403.

70 McKay

Bentley T A, Page, S.J. & Laird, I.S. (2000). Safety in New Zealands’s adventure tourism industry: The client accident experience of adventure tourism operators. Journal of Travel Medicine, 7(5), 239-245.

Bentley, T. A., Page, S.J. & Laird, I.S. (2001). Accidents in the New Zealand adventure tourism industry. Safety Science, 38(1), 31-48.

Berger, I. E. & Greenspan, I. (2008). High (on) technology: Producing tourist identities through technologized adventure. Journal of Sport & Tourism ,13(2), 89-114.

Boniface, M.R. (2000). Towards an understanding of flow and other positive experience phenomena within outdoor and adventure activities. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning ,1(1), 55-68.

Bourdeau, P., Corneloup, J. & Mao, P. (2004). Adventure sports and tourism in the French mountains: Dynamics of change and challenges for sustainable development. In B.W. Ritchie & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues, 101-116.

Bott, E. (2009). Big mountain, big name: Globalised relations of risk in Himalayan mountaineering. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 7(4), 287-301.

Brymer, E. & Oades, L.G. (2009). Extreme sports: A positive transformation in courage and humility. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 49(1), 114-126.

Buckley, R. (2000). NEAT trends: Current issues in nature, eco-and adventure tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2(6), 437-444.

Buckley, R. (2006). Adventure Tourism. Wallingford: CABI.

Buckley, R. (2007). Adventure tourism products: Price, duration, size, skill, remoteness. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1428-1433.

Buckley, R. (2010). Adventure Tourism Management. Great Britain: Elsevier.

Bunting, C.J, Tolson, H., Kuhn, C., Suarez, E. & Williams, R.B. (2000). Physiological Stress Response of the Neuroendocrine System During Outdoor Adventure Tasks. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(2), 191-207.

Cater, C.I. (2007). Adventure tourism: Will to power? A Church & T. Coles (eds), Tourism, Power and Space, Routledge: Great Britain, 63-82.

Cloke, P. & Perkins, H.C. (1998). Cracking the canyon with the awesome foursome: representations of adventure tourism in New Zealand. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 16 (2), 185-218.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychological Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Elsrud, T. (2001). Risk creation in travelling: Backpacker adventure narration. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 597-617.


Ewert, A., Gilbertson, K., Luo., Y.C. & Voight, A. (2013). Beyond “Because It’s There”: Motivations for pursuing adventure recreational activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 44(1), 91-111.

Fiore, D.C. (2003). Injuries associated with whitewater rafting and kayaking. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 14, 255-260.

Fiore, D.C. & Houston, J.D. (2001). Injuries in whitewater kayaking. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 35(4), 235-241.

Fletcher, R. (2010). The emperor’s new adventure: Public secrecy and the paradox of adventure tourism. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39(1), 6-33.

Galloway, S. (2006). Adventure recreation reconceived: Positive forms of deviant leisure.Leisure/Loisir, 30(1), 219-231.

Gelman, S.S., Gundlapalli, A.V., Hale, D., Croft, A., Hindiyeh, M & Carroll, K.C. (2002). Spotting the spirochete: Rapid Diagnosis of leptospirosis in two returned travelers. Journal of Travel Medicine, 9, 165-167.

Greffrath, G. & Roux, C.J. (2012). The Vredefort Dome World Heritage Site: Client satisfaction with commercial whitewater rafting: tourism and adventure. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 18(1), 39-54.

Gyimóthy, S. & Mykletun, R.J. (2004). Play in adventure tourism: The case of Arctic Trekking. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 855-878.

Hardiman, N. & Burgin, S. (2011). Canyoning adventure recreation in the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (Australia): The canyoners and canyoning trends over the last decade. Tourism Management, 32, 1324-1331.

Hinch, T.D. & Higham, J.E.S. (2001). Sport Tourism: a Framework for Research, International Journal of Tourism Research, 3, 45-58.

Holyfield, L. (1999). Manufacturing adventure: The buying and selling of emotions. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 28(1), 3-32.

Hoogendoorn, G. & Visser, G. (2004). Second homes and small-town (re)development: The case of Clarens. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 32, 105-115.

Hopkinson, G.C. & Pujari, D. (1999). A factor analytic study of the sources of meaning in hedonic consumption. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/4), 273-290.

Jonas, L. M., Stewart, W.P. & Larkin, K.W. (2003). Encountering Heidi: Audiences for a wilderness adventurer identity. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32(4), 403-431.

Jones, C.D., Hollenhorst, S.J., Perna, F. & Selin, S. (2000). Validation of the Flow Theory in an On-Site Whitewater Kayaking Setting. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(2), 247-261.

Kane, M. (2010). Adventure as a cultural foundation: Sport and tourism in New Zealand. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15(1), 27-44.

72 McKay

Kane, M. J. & Tucker, H. (2004). Adventure tourism: The freedom to play with reality. Tourist Studies, 4(3), 217-234.

Kane, M. J. & Zink, R. (2004). Package adventure tours: Markers in serious leisure careers. Leisure Studies, 23(4), 329-345.

Kearsley, G.W. (1993). Tourism and resource development conflicts on the Kawarau and Shotover Rivers, Otago, New Zealand. GeoJournal, 29(3), 263-270.

Kerlinger, F.N. & Lee, H.B. (1999). Foundations of Behavioural Research (4th ed). USA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Kuentzel, W.F. & Heberlein, T.A. (1997). Social status, self-development, and the process of sailing specialization. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(3), 300-319.

Little, D.E. (2002a). How do women construct adventure recreation in their lives? Why we need to re-engage with the essence of adventure experience. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 2(1), 55-69.

Little, D.E. (2002b). Women and adventure recreation: reconstructing leisure constraints and adventure experiences to negotiate continuing participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(2), 157-177.

Litvin, S. W. (2008). Sensation seeking and its measurement for tourist research. Journal of Travel Research, 46(4), 440-445.

Mackenzie, S.H., Hodge, K. & Boyes, M. (2011). Expanding the flow model in adventure activities: A reversal theory perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(4), 519-544.

Malhotra, N.K. & Birks, D. (2007). Marketing Research. An Applied Approach. (3rd ed.). United Kingdom: Pearson Education.

Martin, D.C. (2004). Apartheid in the great outdoors: American advertising and the reproduction of a racialized outdoor leisure identity. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4), 513-535.

McGillivray, D. & Frew, M. (2007). Capturing adventure: Trading experiences in the symbolic economy. Annals of Leisure Research, 10(1), 54-78.

McIntyre, N. & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1998). Nature/person transactions during an outdoor adventure experience: A multi-phasic analysis. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(4), 401-422.

McKay, T.J.M. (2013). Development and land use conflicts on the Ash river, South Africa. African Journal of Physical Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 2, 276-293.

Monahan, A.M. Miller, I.S. & Nally, J.E. (2009). Leptospirosis: Risks during recreational activities. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 707-716.

Morgan, D., Moore, K. & Mansell, R. (2005). Adventure tourists on water: Linking expectations, affect, achievement and enjoyment to the sports tourism adventure. Journal of Sport Tourism,10(1), 73-88.

Morgan, O.W., Brunette, G., Kapella, B.K., McAuliffe, I., Katongole-Mbidde, E., Li, W., Marano, N., Okware, S., Olsen, S.J., Secor, W.E., Tappero, J.W., Wilkins, P.P. & Montgomert,


S.P. (2010). Schistosomiasis among recreational users of Upper Nile river, Uganda, 2007. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 16(5), 866-868.

Morrissey, S.A. (2008). Performing risks: Catharsis, carnival and capital in risk society. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(4), 413-427.

Mowatt, R.A. (2009). Notes from a leisure son: Expanding an understanding of whiteness in leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(4), 511-528.

Murray, D.M. (2003). Living on the Edge: Sensation Seeking and Extreme Sports Participation.PhD Thesis. Connecticut, USA: University of Connecticut.

Narita, M., Fujitani, S., Haake, D.A. & Paterson, D.L. (2005). Leptospirosis after recreational exposure to water in the Yaeyama Isalnds, Japan. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 73(4), 652-656.

O’Hare, D., Chalmers, D., Arnold, N. A. & Williams, F. (2002). Mortality and morbidity in white river rafting in New Zealand. Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 9(3), 193-198.

Page, S. J., Bentley, T.A. & Walker, L. (2005). Scoping the nature and extent of adventure tourism operations in Scotland: How safe are they? Tourism Management, 26(3), 381-397.

Pomfret, G. (2006). Mountaineering adventure tourists: A conceptual framework for research. Tourism Management, 27(1), 113-123.

Pomfret, G. (2011). Packaged mountaineer tourists holidaying in the French Alps: An evaluation of key influences encouraging their participation. Tourism Management, 32, 501-510.

Richards, G. (1996). Skilled consumption and UK ski holidays. Tourism Management, 17(1), 25-34.

Roberts, C. (2011). Sport and adventure tourism. In P. Robinson, S. Heitmann & P.U.C. Dieke (Eds.), Research Themes for Tourism (pp. 146-159). CABI: United Kingdom.

Rogerson, C. M. (2007). The challenges of developing adventure tourism in South Africa. Africa Insight, 37(2), 228-244.

Rogerson C.M. & Lisa, Z. (2005). ‘Sho’t left’: Promoting domestic tourism in South Africa. Urban Forum, 16(2/3), 88-111.

Rogerson, C. M. & Visser, G. (Eds.) (2004). Tourism and Development Issues in Contemporary South Africa. Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa.

Rowan, J. (1999). Ascent and descent in Maslow’s Theory. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,39(3), 125- 133.

Ryan, C. (2002). Motives, behaviours, body and mind. In C. Ryan (Ed.), The Tourist Experience(pp. 27-57). London: Continuum.

Ryckman, R.M., Robbins, M.A., Thornton, B., Gold, J.A. & Kuehnel, R.H. (1985). Physical self-efficacy and actualisation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 288-298.

74 McKay

Sanford, A.W. (2007). Pinned on Karma Rock: Whitewater Kayaking as religious experience. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 75(4), 875-895.

Schneider, T.A., Butryn, T.M., Furst, D.M. & Masucci, M.A. (2007). A qualitative examination of risk among elite adventure racers. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 30(3), 330-357.

Sharpe, E.K. (2005). Delivering communitas: Wilderness adventure and the making of community. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(3), 255-280.

Shephard, G. & Evans, S. (2005). Adventure tourism: Hard decisions, soft options and home for tea: Adventure on the hoof. In M. Novelli (Ed.), Niche Tourism: Contemporary Issues, Trends and Cases (pp. 201-209: Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Shephard, R.J. (1987). Science and medicine of canoeing and kayaking. Sports Medicine, 4(1), 19-33.

Sirgy, M. J. (2010). Toward a quality-of-life theory of leisure travel satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 49(2), 246-260.

Schmidt, C. & Little, D.E., (2007). Qualitative insights into leisure as a spiritual experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(2), 222-247.

Stebbins, R. A. (1992). Amateurs, Professionals, and Serious Leisure. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.

Stebbins, R. A. (1997). Serious leisure and well-being. Work, Leisure, and Well-being, 117-130.

Sung, H. H. (2004). Classification of adventure travellers: Behaviour, decision making, and target markets. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 343-356.

Swarbrooke, J., Beard, C., Leckie, S. & Pomfret, G. (2003). Adventure Tourism: The New Frontier. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Todd, S.L., Anderson, L., Anderson, Y. & Anderson, D. (2002). Differences in motivations over time by level of development: an examination of pre/post adventure recreation experiences, Proceedings of the 2002 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_ne302/gtr_ne302_125.pdf Accessed 6 November 2013.

Tok, S. (2011). The big five personality traits and risky sport participation. Social Behaviour and Personality, 39(8), 1105-1112.

Tomlinson, A., Ravenscroft, N., Wheaton, B. & Gilchrist, P. (2005). Lifestyle sports and national sport policy: an agenda for research, Report to Sport England, http://www.academia.edu/197074/Lifestyle_Sports_and_National_Sport_Policy_An_Agenda_for_Research Accessed 6 November 2013.

Trauer, B. (2006). Conceptualizing special interest tourism-frameworks for analysis. Tourism Management, 27(2), 183-200.

Tsaur, S-H., Lin, W.R. & Liu, J S. (2013). Sources of challenge for adventure tourists: Scale development and validation. Tourism Management, 38, 85-93.


Tsaur, S-H., Yen, C.H. & Hsiao, S.L. (2013). Transcendent experience, flow and happiness for mountain climbers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 15, 360-374.

Varley, P. (2006). Confecting adventure and playing with meaning: The adventure commodification continuum. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11(2), 173-194.

Walle, A.H. (1997). Pursuing risk or insight: Marketing adventures, Annals of Tourism Research,24(2), 265-282

Weber, K. (2001). Outdoor adventure tourism: A review of research approaches. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 360-377.

Williams, P. & Soutar, G.N. (2005). Close to the “edge”: Critical issues of adventure tourism operators. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 10(3), 247-261.

Willig, C. (2008). A phenomenological investigation of the experience of taking part in ‘extreme sports’. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(5), 690-702.

Wilson, I., McDermott, H., Munir, F. & Hogervorst, E. (2013). Injuries, Ill-health and fatalities in white water rafting and white water paddling. Sports Medicine, 43, 63-75.

Wu, C. H.J. & Liang, R.D. (2011). The relationship between white-water rafting experience formation and customer reaction: A flow theory perspective. Tourism Management, 32(2), 317-325.

White water adventure tourism on the Ash River, South Africa

Documents

Transcript of White water adventure tourism on the Ash River, South Africa