1.evaluating Natural Attractions.pdf

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223704885

Evaluating natural attractions for tourism Article  in  Annals of Tourism Research · April 2002 DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00068-8

CITATIONS

READS

177

2,476

3 authors: Jinyang Deng

Brian E M King

West Virginia University

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

58 PUBLICATIONS   1,385 CITATIONS   

212 PUBLICATIONS   2,447 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Thomas Bauer University of the South Pacific 23 PUBLICATIONS   485 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

park, recreation and tourism View project

The Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Training based upon TQM Concept in hotels View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinyang Deng on 22 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 422–438, 2002  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0160-7383/02/$22.00

PII: S0160-7383(01)00068-8

EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS FOR TOURISM Jinyang Deng University of Alberta, Canada Brian King Victoria University, Australia Thomas Bauer Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China Abstract: As nature-based tourism grows, protected areas will witness increasing pressure from tourists, with the quality of destination attributes exerting a considerable influence over their experience. An evaluation and rating system may help tourists to select sites, enhance their satisfaction, and encourage them to act responsibly. Managers may also gain a better understanding of how to operate such sites. The paper proposes a hierarchical structure for the assessment of protected areas by the assignment of priorities to the various elements of the structure. By applying the Standard Deviation Method, the research categorized Victorian parks in Australia into four levels, which were found to correlate closely with prevailing visitation levels and with park popularity. Keywords: nature-based tourism, ecotourism, national parks, evaluation and rating system.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Re´sume´: L’e´valuation des sites naturels pour le tourisme. Au fur et a` mesure que le tourisme base´ sur la nature augmente, les zones prote´ge´es seront confronte´es a` une pression croissante de la part des touristes, et la qualite´ des attributs des destinations aura une influence conside´rable sur l’expe´rience des touristes. Un syste`me d’e´valuation et d’indices pourrait aider les touristes a` se´lectionner des sites, augmenter leur satisfaction et les encourager a` agir de fac¸on responsable. Les administrateurs comprendraient mieux comment faire valoir de tels sites. L’article propose une structure hie´rarchique pour l’e´valuation des zones prote´ge´es par l’attribution de priorite´s aux diffe´rents e´le´ments de la structure. En applicant la me´thode de l’e´cart type, la recherche a classe´ les parcs victoriens en Australie dans quatre niveaux qui correspondaient e´troitement aux niveaux d’affluence et a` la popularite´ des parcs. Mots-cle´s: tourisme base´ sur la nature, e´cotourisme, parcs nationaux, syste`me d’indices et d’e´valuation.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Since 1945 tourism has grown rapidly to become one of the world’s foremost economic phenomena. The World Tourism Organization estimates that there were more than 657 million international tourists in 1999 (WTO 2000). Ceballos-Lascura´in cites a WTO estimate that

Jinyang Deng’s current interest is the use made of national parks by minority groups (Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada T6G 2H9. Email <[email protected]>). Brian King, Professor and Head of the School of Hospitality, Tourism and Marketing, focuses on the marketing, cultural, and educational dimensions of tourism. Thomas Bauer, Assistant Professor, Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, is interested in tourism in the polar regions. 422

DENG, KING AND BAUER

423

nature-based tourism generates seven percent of international tourism expenditure (Lindberg, Furze, Staff and Black 1997). A study undertaken for the World Resources Institute found that this type of tourism is increasing at an annual rate of between 10% and 30% (Reingold 1993). Signaling that this and ecotourism have played, and will continue, an important role in international tourism, the United Nations has declared the year 2002 as International Year of Ecotourism. The term nature-based tourism is generally applied to tourism activities depending on the use of natural resources which remain in a relatively undeveloped state, including scenery, topography, waterways, vegetation, wildlife, and cultural heritage (Ceballos-Lascura´ in 1996:19). Millions of people travel to see and experience natural environments each year and the scale of such movements leads, inevitably, to some disturbance or damage to visited sites. While such damage is attributable directly or indirectly to tourists and their activities, it is often unclear whether their actual behavior is responsible for the major negative impacts on nature and related activities such as the construction and development of infrastructure and facilities. Whatever the true situation, it is tourists who are usually identified as causing destruction, particularly in developing countries. Lea (1988) and Olindo (1991) have shown how their large volume, demanding access to game and to relatively luxurious travel and accommodation facilities has caused problems such as overcrowding, animal disturbance, vegetation degradation and soil compaction, and waste production within Kenya’s game parks (cited in France 1997:13). This begs the question as to whether this tourism type is compatible with the natural environment and whether it can assist in the resolution of problems associated with the exploitation of such resources. More than 20 years ago, Budowski (1976) proposed three types of relationship—conflict, coexistence, and symbiosis—between conservation and nature-based tourism. Symbiosis, or at least coexistence, is the goal pursued by politicians, managers, and planners in most countries. As an alternative to mass tourism, ecotourism espouses the goal of symbiosis through the integration of natural resources, environmental education, and sustainable management (Commonwealth Department of Tourism 1994). However, as it has grown in popularity and has assumed some of the characteristics of traditional mass tourism, there has been considerable debate over the meaning of the term (Campbell 1999:535). While acknowledging the widespread preference for the term ecotourism by many authors, in the present article the authors follow the practice of McKercher, preferring the term nature-based tourism (1998). Many researchers have explored concepts and definitions relating to the general theme (Adventure Travel Society 1994; Blamey 1995; Boo 1992; Ceballos-Lascura´ in 1996; Epler Wood 1993; Fennel and Eagles 1990; Merlino 1993; Scace, Grifone and Usher 1992). The strong focus on tourists evident in the initial definitions has formed the basis for many subsequent definitions of nature-based tourism, though a change of emphasis has become increasingly evident towards an environment-centered orientation (Valentine 1992; Commonwealth Department of Tourism 1994; Wall 1994). Still, with no internationally

424

EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

agreed upon definition of ecotourism or nature-based tourism, it is not surprising that a universally accepted standard for “ecotourism products” has remained elusive. In view of the rapid development of nature-based tourism activity, it is possible that the definition will evolve from its currently restrictive approach (often focused exclusively on undisturbed natural environments) to a more expansive approach (embracing a wider diversity of environments which may be suitable for tourism). The latter approach acknowledges that “ecotourism activity may be carried out in or adjacent to towns” (Dowling and Weiler 1997:51). Using the most liberal interpretation of the term as a combination of “eco” (denoting economic as well as ecological attributes) and “tourism”, the activity could be conceived as occurring in many different types of environments used for tourism. This is supported by Miller and Kale’s (1993) argument that all forms may be ecotourism, depending on the extent to which human responsibility is exercised. For the purposes of the present study, all tourist activity that takes place within the national and provincial parks under examination is classed as “nature-based”. Irrespective of the definition of each term, sustainability is the final goal for such forms of tourist activity. However, sustainability is not the exclusive concern of new forms of tourism, but “the language and terminology of the new forms of tourism have been used in the attempt to subsume sustainability. Indeed, mass packaged tours may be just as sustainable as some of the new forms of tourism” (Mowforth and Munt 1998:102). New forms do not necessarily lead to sustainability (Butler 1990). No type of tourism can be sustainable in the absence of appropriate planning, monitoring, evaluation, and management; and sustainable nature-based tourism or ecotourism development can only be achieved when the behavior of destination managers, stakeholders, and tourists is ecologically, economically, and ethically responsible. Such behavior should adhere to criteria which have sustainability as their primary objective. Considerable attention has been given to the roles that operators and tourists can play, notably in Australia where a national ecotourism operator accreditation system was established in 1996. In comparison, the rating of nature-based destinations has attracted relatively little attention, perhaps because of its complexity. This paper attempts to evaluate and rate destinations, such as national parks, with a view to improving the way in which they are managed, thus enhancing the quality of the tourist experience. EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS The term “evaluation” has been applied increasingly in recent years, as the use of social scientific methods to assess the effectiveness of human service programs and institutions has become more prevalent. Evaluation became a “growth industry” during the 70s (Posavac and Carey 1989:4). It draws upon a variety of fields and hence requires an interdisciplinary approach. According to Theobald, the fact that this ideal has rarely been achieved is evident from the many criticisms made of the approaches commonly used in the recreation and leisure

DENG, KING AND BAUER

425

services sector (1987). But still, evaluation should be an essential element of the leisure service delivery system and particularly in the pursuit of more effective administration. It aims to produce objective, systematic, and comprehensive evidence about the degree to which a particular program achieves its intended objectives and the extent to which other unanticipated consequences arise (1979:57, 21). To achieve this goal, all functions of the agency—administration, human resources, land management, facilities, and programming—must be carefully evaluated (Lundgren and Farrell 1985). Scriven divides the approaches taken towards evaluation into two categories of formative (also referred to as process evaluation) and summative (referred to as outcome evaluation) (cited in Theobald 1979:58). The former is ongoing, while the latter involves a more comprehensive analysis with greater emphasis on feedback and revision. Evaluation research has tended to focus on human resource and budget issues, rather than on land management and facility concerns. In focusing on the evaluation and rating of national parks and drawing upon the full range of destination attributes, the present study applies the techniques of evaluation to a relatively unexplored field. Despite the critical role played by the quality of the destination experience in determining whether tourists are satisfied and whether their expectations have been met, most nature-based studies focus on tourist demand rather than on destinations. As this form of tourism continues to grow, areas such as national parks will be placed under increasing pressure. If their managers are to function effectively, it is essential that protected areas are evaluated and rated with a view to communicating the principles of sustainable development and to ensuring an appropriate match between tourist expectations and experiences. The European “blue flag” rating system, using this symbol to endorse high quality assets, is an example of such an approach. Beaches, for example, which constitute an asset central to destinations and tourist experiences, according to Moore and Carter, are identified by a particular symbol when they have been evaluated as safe and clean. The authors have pointed out that “it is quite conceivable that resort destinations and for that matter some countries will be rated in the future in respect to environmental safety standards” (1991:141). Environmental safety is, however, only one aspect of the management of protected areas and a more comprehensive evaluation and rating system will be needed if such destinations are to fulfill and retain their potential. The development of a formal evaluation and rating system for protected areas is worthwhile for several reasons. First, tourists will often visit more than one destination during a trip. They will typically experience a range of natural and cultural environments. The World Tourism Organization has noted that in practice only a small proportion of tourists travel to exclusively experience nature or culture. It concluded that, despite the upsurge in awareness and interest, “avid ecotourists will remain a small market segment”, which Wight has described as “hard” ecotourism (Blamey 1995:18). Ornithologists, botanists, or geologists are likely candidates for the “hard ecotourist” cate-

426

EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

gory when they pursue their passion, whereas sightseers or photographers would more commonly fall under the category of “soft ecotourists”. These two typologies are similar to what Fernie has categorized as ecospecialists and ecogeneralists (Boyd, Chard and Butler 1996). The latter may be defined as those who undertake an ecotourist activity on at least one day during their trip away from home (Blamey 1995:18). Resort tourists who opt to spend a day visiting and learning about a reef or rainforest habitat would typically fall into the “soft” category. Taking this view to its logical conclusion, all mass tourists are potential nature-based ones and may be categorized as such when spending a period as short as a day or even a few hours in an ecotourism area. For such groups who may not consider themselves as such, the evaluation and rating of national parks provides an opportunity to become informed about the importance of sustainable development through the enhancement of their awareness and understanding of the destination. A second reason is that nature-based tourism is dependent upon the quality of the environment, more than is the case with other forms (Boyd, Chard and Butler 1996). Scenically appealing environments often incorporate aspects such as local community, roads and tracks, visitor facilities, and attractions, both major and peripheral. Where destinations are well managed and tourists are knowledgeable and aware, these elements complement the natural attributes and contribute to satisfaction. If they were provided with an evaluation and rating for each of the elements encountered in such areas, they might be better equipped to assess protected areas just as they are able to anticipate what may be expected from hotels by virtue of their category or star rating. The third reason is that the importance of pricing as a park’s management issue is growing. As Buckley has pointed out, “management costs for national parks will increase because of increasing tourism visitation rates. Park entrance fees and commercial operator permit fees will increase as park managers endeavor to recover their costs” (1998:270). There is a strong argument in favor of relating price levels more closely with the level of experience encountered in protected areas. Tourists accept this connection in the case of five-star hotels which charge more than three-star hotels. The application of the commercial rationale is certainly more controversial in the case of natural resources. But as the volume of visitation increases, the parallel with other tourism facilities will become increasingly evident. As to the program evaluation process, it may comprise four steps: determining goals, specifying objectives, operationalizing the program, and measuring program effectiveness (Theobald 1979:20). Lundgren and Farrell (1985) propose that such evaluation is a process of determining value by comparing results with objectives and of judging how well they have been met in both a qualitative and quantitative sense. Evaluation involves input, process, output, and feedback. The goal of the present study is to evaluate and rate national parks in the context of nature-based tourism, through the application of an appropriate technique. A hierarchical structure is proposed based on

DENG, KING AND BAUER

427

the authors’ experience of national parks generally and forest parks in particular. The value of each element of the structure is determined quantitatively to assist in the formation of a set of standards aimed at identifying and measuring a value for each element. As the subject of the empirical testing, national parks and provincial parks in Australia’s State of Victoria were examined. The various management plans prepared by government agencies as a guide for the development of each of the parks provided a foundation for the objective analysis of the environmental values attached to the various areas. In this case, process evaluation has been adopted in preference to outcome evaluation. As a consequence of adopting this approach, monitoring and feedback are outside the scope of the study (though it would be a useful addition for the purposes of subsequent research). The Analytic Hierarchy Process Theobald (1987) has undertaken a systematic analysis of evaluation methods and has proposed six categories: discrepancy evaluation, professional judgment evaluation, socioeconomic evaluation, evaluation by standards, cost/benefit evaluation, and importance-performance evaluation. These methods have been widely applied in the evaluation of human resources, administration, budgets, and agency performance. Although they vary somewhat, one approach is common to all: comparing some aspect of an entity (for example, number of staff, facilities, equipment, participants, or space) with a predetermined set of norms or standards. These are usually established through arriving at a consensus of practitioners or experts (Theobald 1987). Of the methods noted above, none is ideally suited to protected areas. The third and fifth methods (socioeconomic and cost–benefit) are mainly concerned with the evaluation of economic performance. The first and sixth methods (discrepancy and importanceperformance) are best suited to evaluating the administration and management rather than the resources as undertaken in the present study. The other methods (professional judgment and evaluation by standards) do offer some useful perspectives. The establishment of an evaluation structure and the point-element-match approach are helpful though they more commonly rely on qualitative as opposed to quantitative methods. They cannot, for example, generate weightings for the various components of an evaluation structure. This is a problem since the determination of weightings for the essential components is a key objective of the present study. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach was judged to be the most appropriate technique from this point of view. National parks constitute complex systems and many different aspects of the destination may influence the tourist experience and whether satisfaction is achieved. One should not assume that each dimension will be of equal importance in contributing to a satisfying trip to a protected area—the various components fulfill expectations to different degrees, but only in combination can they lead to a satisfying experience. The application of a systematic approach to evaluating the

428

EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

various elements provides an appropriate recognition of such realities of tourist behavior. A quantitative approach is required to determine appropriate weightings for each element, and this can be done by employing various methods (Tsaur, Tzeng and Wang 1997). The selection of an appropriate method depends on the nature of the problem. Since national parks encompass a wide array of attributes, any evaluation method will need to be inclusive and flexible. In the present study, the AHP method was selected for determinating weightings, because it provides a means of systematizing complex problems, is easy to operate, and may incorporate the opinions of various parties. Since it was first proposed in the early 70s (Saaty 1987), AHP has been used widely in fields such as business, energy, health, resource management, and transportation. Already over 1600 dissertations and published papers have applied this method (Expert Choice 2000). Of these, only two relate specifically to tourism. Despite the absence of AHP applications to tourism in the English language literature as exemplified by the Expert Choice list, a number of useful studies have been published in Chinese (Bao and Chu 1999; Wu, Li and Deng 1992; Yang 1994). In the present study pair-wise comparisons were undertaken of the various subsidiary elements of each of the parks. The study does not initially focus on the parks generally but on the subelements, viewed from the perspective of nature-based tourism. Changing the weightings obtained through the application of AHP into points is an important step in the process. The re-calibration and the application of the approach for the purposes of the present study were endorsed by the creator of the AHP technique (Saaty, personal communication 2000). A standard of 100 points was used, since this was the number recommended by the United States Department of Agriculture for the purposes of land use evaluation (Banai-Kashani 1989:685). The approach adopted here involves several steps: establishing a hierarchical structure; performing a pairwise comparison; obtaining weights for all elements in the structure; transforming weights into a system based on 100 points; creating criteria and indicators relative to elements (these criteria and indicators are related to the corresponding points); selecting a sample of parks; calculating points for an element by reference to the criteria and indicators and their corresponding points before adding them up to arrive at a total number of points for a park; and classifying these parks into different levels based on their points. Establishing a Hierarchy Evaluation Structure. Though these are certainly not the only valid criteria, tourist expectations have a greater prospect of being met where a site is diverse, rare, and/or unique. Of the many factors that influence this experience, destination attributes are the most important. Some researchers have proposed the concept of “place attachment”, “place independence” and “place identity” to illustrate the importance of recreational sites. Garrod and Fyall (2000) for example, identified eight key elements for the evaluation of heritage attractions: conservation, accessibility, education, relevance, recreation, financial, local community, and quality. Wu, Li and Deng

DENG, KING AND BAUER

429

(1992) selected seven elements: mountains, water, the forest environment, wildlife, plants, cultural heritage, and landscape. Yang (1994) introduced a model for the evaluation of tourism resources using the AHP method, which contains three major elements: resource value, scenic attributes, and tourism conditions. Adopting a similar approach, Chu proposed three major factors of tourism resources, regional conditions, and peripheral conditions for the evaluation of tourism sites in China (reported in Bao and Chu 1999:101). Ethos Consulting (1991) carried out a tourism resource evaluation in British Columbia and identified three main geographic characteristics of tourism: the biophysical environment and human and natural resource factors. The biophysical factors were further differentiated into three sets of attributes: landforms, climate, and vegetation. Human factors were divided into two elements: land status and access; and natural resource factors were divided into seven elements: forestry, mining, fish, wildlife, visual resources, local recreational use, and cultural heritage (1991). Drawing upon these studies and based on the authors’ expertise of tourism and national parks, a hierarchy structure was established as outlined in Figure 1. It is acknowledged that alternative constructs may also be valid, but that what is proposed is based soundly on the relevant literature. In Figure 1, five major components are identified as contributing to the overall attractiveness of national parks: tourism resources, tourist facilities, accessibility, local communities, and peripheral attractions. The five components have subsequently been subdivided. The tourism resources category, for example, includes natural and cultural resources, with the latter typically playing a subsidiary role in the context of nature-based tourism. The natural resources category subdivides into two parts: physical factors (tangible) including flora, fauna, mountain, water, and climatic phenomena, and environmental factors

Figure 1. A Hierarchical Structure for Natural Attractions

EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

430

(mostly intangible) such as security, comfort, and sanitation. In the local community, another of the five major components, the social, cultural, and economic dimensions impact upon the management of the resource and the quality of the recreational experience. The importance of local communities in tourism development and management has been underestimated until recently but is increasingly accepted in the literature on sustainable tourism (Garrod and Fyall 2000). Tourism facilities may be subdivided into three components: infrastructure, recreational, and educational facilities. Accessibility refers to the external and internal accessibility of parks. The extent of exterior accessibility may be assessed at three levels: alternative, convenience, and distance. These are related to both time and space (Gunn 1988:115). Internal accessibility involves a further connectivity factor which refers to the relevant road and track network within a park. Determining Weightings and Points. At a destination, not all attractions are of equal importance to tourists (Gunn 1988:115). In adherence to this principle, five major elements and their subelements influencing the quality of the destination are proposed and judged to be of differing levels of importance. To create Table 1, the AHP weightings were determined through the application of pairwise comparisons among the various elements. The comparisons are based on a scaling ratio, which is used to reveal Table 1. The Application of Paired Comparisons using the AHP Scalea Intensity of Importance 1b 3 5 7

9

2, 4, 6, 8 Reciprocal of above numbers

a

Determination and Explanation Of equal importance. Two attributes contribute equally to the objectives. Of some importance. One attribute is emphasized slightly more than the other. Of strong importance. One attribute is emphasized strongly over the other. Of very strong importance. One attribute is very strongly emphasized and its predominance is clearly evident in practice. Of extreme importance. The evidence validating the emphasis on one attribute over the other, is of the highest order. These are intermediate values between two adjacent judgements when compromise is needed. If an attribute has one of the above numbers assigned to it when compared with a second attribute, then the second attribute has the reciprocal value when compared to the first

Adapted from Saaty (1987). The scale 1.1, 1.2, …, 1.9, or an even more precise instrument, can be used to compare elements that are close together, or are near equal in importance.

b

DENG, KING AND BAUER

431

the relative priority assigned to compare any two elements. Saaty, Luis and Vargas (1982) used the principal eigenvector of the pairwise comparison matrix to determine the comparative weight for the various elements. Since the comparative importance derived from the pairwise comparisons may result in a certain degree of inconsistency within a particular domain, it is important to consider the use of special indices, such as those developed by Saaty, Luis and Vargas. One of these is the consistency ratio. Saaty, Luis and Vargas suggested that a consistency ratio value of less than 10% indicates good consistency of judgment. Based on this structure and on the pairwise comparison of elements, relative priorities may be applied. Weightings are then transformed into points through multiplication by 100. The allocation of weightings to the five major elements based on the pairwise comparison is .06844 (local community), .09559 (facilities), .6706 (resources), .1849 (accessibility), and .04349 (peripheral attractions). Their corresponding points are 6.84, 9.56, 67.06, 18.49, and 4.35, respectively. Consistency ratio value in this case is .032, less than 10%, indicating that the assessment is reasonable. The values for the other comparisons are all less than 10%. (The actual calculation and details are not included in the paper because of length considerations.) Based on the weightings determined for each of the five major elements in the first layer of the hierarchy, the weighting and points for each of the subelements in lower layers in the structure can be calculated. These are arrived at by multiplying each of the weightings (points) of a subelement by its corresponding overall weighting for that category. Using this approach, the weightings and points assigned to all elements lower down the hierarchy can be derived from their equivalents higher up. The researchers assigned a value to each of the elements in accordance with their relative importance in the context of national parks and protected areas. The points for all elements in the structure are the maximums and add up to 100 points in total. In the context of a national park, the assignation to an element of a maximum point value implies the highest level of quality. It is highly improbable that all elements within a particular protected area would achieve such a standard, given that some resources are likely to be excellent, others good, and others again fair or poor. How can one make these values correspond to a particular level of quality? Based on the scaling ratio listed in Table 1, an “importance index” can be applied to represent three alternative ratings: fair, good, and excellent. This approach is similar to the Likert scales widely used in the social sciences (Aiken 1996). For the purposes of the present study, we assign and relate meaningful points to different levels of attribute quality. Taking the maximum value of each bottom element in all layers of the structure and dividing into three would result in the value “fair”, doubling the value would lead to “good”, and tripling would lead to “excellent”, for a given element. The assignment of a zero value indicates the absence of some element. Values of less than zero approximate to fairly poor, very poor, and extremely poor, respectively.

432

EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

Rating Standards and Points. Evaluation usually involves creating standards and relating them to specific classes or factors. A wide range of techniques is used for management in national parks and protected areas (Nilsen and Tayler 1998). These include the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, Limits of Acceptable Changes, a process for Visitor Impact Management, and the Process for the Management of Visitor Activities. Determining criteria to apply to the corresponding points is an approach commonly used in the case of both hotel evaluations (undertaken by organizations such as Michelin and national motoring associations) and in landscape evaluation (Paine and Taylor 1995). In evaluating landscape aesthetics, the US Bureau of Land Management established a set of criteria and corresponding points to evaluate three landscape components: land/water, vegetation, and structures based on four qualities (form, line, color, and texture). A landscape assigned a score in excess of 19 points is regarded as “class A”, between 12 and 18 points is “class B”, and equal or less than 11 points “class C” (Itami 1989:215). In evaluating a tourism site, Ethos Consulting (1991) assigned the respective numbers 2, 1, and 0 to represent high, moderate, and low quality, respectively. Tourism capability was classified into four classes: very high (6–7 points), high (4–5 points), moderate (2–3 points), and low (1 point). A similar approach is used in the present study. In view of the length of the description of standards and explanation of their corresponding points, the full text of this part of the research is not included in the paper. The detailed calculations are, however, available from the authors on request. The following is an example of how points have been applied to take the attribute “rarity” into account in the case of flora. 2.11: where at least 1 plant is of international importance 1.41: where at least 1 plant is of national importance 0.70: where at least 1 plant is of state/regional importance A Case Study In order to trial the model, the authors selected the key protected areas within the state of Victoria, the most densely populated and most intensively farmed state in Australia. Despite this, nearly a third of its natural bushland remains intact. A large section of the state is mountainous and no other mainland region in Australia is so dominated by high country (Readers’ Digest 1992:198). The peculiar geography and topography of Victoria, ranging from grasslands and forests to deserts and ocean, offers a wide range of environmental settings for recreation, relaxation, and enjoyment. There are now over 100 National, Wilderness, and State parks as well as other parks and reserves set aside in Victoria which are operated under the jurisdiction of the National Parks Act. At the time of this writing, the network consists of 33 National Parks, 3 Wilderness Parks, 34 State Parks, 6 Marine and Coastal Parks or Reserves, and over 40 other parks and reserves. The combined area of 3,047,351 hectares represents 13.4% of the State’s total area and 34.6% of Victoria’s public

DENG, KING AND BAUER

433

land (National Parks Service 1996:1). A large number of people are attracted to the network annually, with visits estimated at 12.96 million in 1995–1996 (National Parks Service 1996:8). The present study examined 36 parks of which 21 were National Parks and 15 were State Parks. The following criteria were applied in making the selection of parks to be considered. The 49 parks (such as marine parks) which form part of the Victoria network, but are classed as neither State nor National Parks, were eliminated. This left 77 parks of which 36 were selected. It was determined that wide geographic and landscape types should be included, with reference to the five key criteria used in the study. Further, parks were chosen where the available information appeared to be comprehensive. This was intended to ensure consistency for comparison purposes. Drawing upon the management plans of the various parks, information was gathered under the headings of resources, accessibility, facilities, local community, and peripheral attractions. This information provided a useful reference point for the standards that were being proposed and their corresponding points. Of the various factors under consideration, the only elements typically absent in the management plans concerned the measurement of air and water quality. These were assumed to be excellent in all cases since no reports of pollution were recorded in the management plans for the 36 parks. The total point of a specific park is calculated by adding up the individual points assigned to each element. The average point for the 36 evaluated parks is 69.95 out of 100, ranging from the lowest 51.88 for Moondarra State Park to the highest 90.21 for Grampians National Park. The AHP process often involves the convening of a panel of experts. To improve the objectivity of the present research, the authors consulted with senior mangers from Parks Victoria, the State Government body responsible for management to evaluate the parks assessment in the light of overall policy. It should be acknowledged that the consultations did not amount to the convening of a formal “panel of experts”. Neither should any judgments about the relative standards be interpreted as a formal endorsement by Parks Victoria for the gradings proposed in this paper. Nevertheless the consultations did provide a form of validation for the weightings that were selected. The most commonly used method for dividing data into different groups is cluster analysis. Some authors have, however, found that the standard deviation method may be preferable in cases involving data measurable using a single variable (Wu 1992). In preparing this paper, an attempt was made to use cluster analysis to group the 36 parks into different levels, but the present authors found the standard deviation method to be more applicable. The average value arrived at for these parks is 69.95 and the standard deviation is 10.27. Based on average values and on the relevant standard deviations, a four-grade system is proposed: Grade 1: xⱖ80 Grade 2: 70ⱕx<79.9 Grade 3: 60ⱕx<69.9

EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

434

Grade 4 x<60 By reference to this rating system, the 36 parks can be classified into four levels as indicated in Table 2. CONCLUSION In developing a scientific framework for the evaluation and rating of national and provincial parks, the present research offers the prospect of improved information provision to tourists consistent with the principles of sustainable development. Tourism attributes have been used as a starting point for the classification of national and provincial parks consistent with the view that the importance of tourist preferences and perceptions has often been underestimated within the broader policy and management framework. The approach seeks to achieve an improved equilibrium between potential tourist interest and destination attributes viewed from an ecological perspective. Using evaluation criteria arrived at by the authors in consultation with a range of experts, the study has ranked the 36 selected state and national parks in Victoria into four levels, ranging from Grade 1 to Grade 4. One might have expected the national parks to rate higher than their state park equivalents given that the former are generally held in higher esteem than the latter from a scientific and ecosystems perspective. Interestingly, the scores arrived at for state and national parks were found to be broadly equivalent. Given that the existing classification system has emerged as a result of administrative conTable 2. An Evaluation and Rating of Parks in the State of Victoria Grade Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Parks Alpine NP, Brisbane Ranges NP, Croajingolong NP, Grampians NP, Mount Buffalo NP, Otway NP, Wilsons Promotory NP Coopracambra NP, Dandenong Ranges NP, Errinundra NP, HattahKulkyne NP, Holey Plains SP, Little Desert NP, Lower Glenelg NP, Morwell NP, Mitchell River NP, Snowy River NP Baw Baw NP, Black Range SP, Churchill NP, Kinglake NP, Lind NP, Langi Ghiran SP, Melba Gully SP, Mount Eccles NP, Mount Worth SP, Werribee Gorge SP, Warby Range SP, Tarra Bulga SP, Terrick Terrick SP Alfred NP, Cape Nelson SP, Chiltern SP, Dergholm SP, Moondarra SP, Mt Arapiles Tooan SP

Value Ranges

Average

81.06 (Brisbane Ranges NP to 90.21 (Grampians NP)

86.05

69.95 (Errinundra NP) to 78.81 (Snowy River NP)

73.49

60.40 (Melba Gully SP) to 69.32 (Churchill NP)

65.28

51.88 (Moondarra SP) to 58.07 (Mt Arapiles-Tooan SP)

54.40

DENG, KING AND BAUER

435

venience as much as for scientific, historic and cultural values, the findings suggest that from a tourism perspective, some re-classification may be worthy of consideration. Administrative convenience is after all of little relevance to the provision of a quality tourist experience. The present study has been one of relatively few attempts to develop an evaluation and rating system for national and provincial parks. The AHP method has been shown as a useful and rational way of determining weightings for the various destination attributes through prioritization using pairwise comparisons. With a view to assisting interpretation and facilitating point-element-match evaluation, the relative weights have been transformed into absolute points through multiplication by 100. The results show that in order of importance, the five dominant elements are resources (60.76 points), accessibility (18.49), facilities (9.56), local community (6.84), and peripheral attractions (4.35). To date tourism applications of AHP have been largely confined to the Chinese literature. The present study has both applied the principles in a Western environment (namely Australia) and disseminated the findings through the English-speaking academic medium. The application of the Standard Deviation Method has overcome the problem encountered in much of the landscape evaluation literature where the various destination attributes are assessed as being of identical importance (Wherrett 1996). For example, the US Bureau of Land Management assigned the values 5, 3, and 1 to attributes in an equal and apparently arbitrary manner under the factors landform, vegetation, water, color, and influence of adjacent scenery. It also assigned the threshold values by which landscape is classified into three grades in an arbitrary way (Itami 1989). Despite addressing such problems, it is not suggested that the present study is entirely objective. Value judgments are inherent in arriving at some of the prioritizations. As the methodology is further refined, additional safeguards may need to be built in to both enhance objectivity and to demonstrate the practicality of the application to park managers and policymakers. Though the results of this study apply only to the prevailing situation in Victoria, it is argued that the same principles may be applicable elsewhere. There are a number of ways in which future research could strengthen the validity of the findings. First, the expert input to the present study was limited and the involvement of a fully constituted expert panel into the further application of the model to particular settings would be worthwhile. Second, from a scientific perspective, onsite measurement of certain elements such as air and water quality might also enhance the accuracy of such studies. Third, in view of the importance of consumer perceptions, it would be useful to incorporate the participation of tourists in future studies, although this approach does add an extra layer of complexity, particularly where extensive park networks are involved. Finally, the present study has given consideration to the tourist perspective on nature-based destinations, but has not considered the marketing implications. If a system were to be adopted by state park agencies and then vigorously promoted, the higher graded parks might attract significant increases in visitation. This might not be appropriate if the relevant authorities were commit-

436

EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

ted to the dispersal of visitation to less frequented locales. Subsequent research could investigate the link between marketing and the public policy context. The present study should provide a useful starting point for comparing the attributes of protected areas in a meaningful, systematic, and tourism-focused way.왎 Acknowledgements—The first author acknowledges the support of the China Scholarship Council. Parks Victoria provided useful baseline data for the research. Thanks also to Kee Pookong, to Wenbin Guo, and to Paul Whitelaw for their help and encouragement.

REFERENCES Adventure Travel Society 1994 Adventure Travel Society Newsletter (Winter):1994. Aiken, L. R. 1996 Rating Scales and Checklists: Evaluating Behavior, Personality, and Attitudes. New York: Wiley. Banai-Kashani, R. 1989 A New Method for Site Suitability Analysis: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Environmental Management 13:685–693. Bao, J., and Y. Chu 1999 Tourism Geography. Beijing: Higher Education Press. Blamey, R. K. 1995 The Nature of Ecotourism. Occasional Paper No. 21. Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research Boo, E. 1992 The Ecotourism Boom: Planning for Development and Management— Wildlands and Human Needs. Technical Paper No. 2. Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund. Boyd, S. W., R. Chard, and W. Butler 1996 Managing Ecotourism: An Opportunity Spectrum Approach. Tourism Management 17:557–566. Buckley, R. 1998 Ecotourism Megatrends. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research Proceedings of the Eighth Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Conference. Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research Budowski, G. 1976 Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict, Coexistence, or Symbiosis? Environmental Conservation 3:27–32. Butler, R. W. 1990 Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse? Journal of Travel Research 28:40–45. Campbell, L. M. 1999 Ecotourism in Rural Developing Communities. Annals of Tourism Research 26:534–553. Ceballos-Lascura´ in, H. 1996 Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas. Cambridge: IUCN—The World Conservation Union. Commonwealth Department of Tourism 1994 National Ecotourism Strategy. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Dowling, R., and B. Weiler 1997 Ecotourism in Southeast Asia. Tourism Management 18(1):51–53. Epler Wood, M. 1993 Foreword. In Ecotourism: An Annotated Bibliography for Planners and Managers, P. F. J. Eagles, S. D. Buse and G. T. Hvenegaard, eds. North Bennington VT: The Ecotourism Society. Ethos Consulting 1991 Natural Resource Based Tourism in Northwestern British Columbia. Vancouver: Ministry of Development, Trade and Tourism.

DENG, KING AND BAUER

437

Expert Choice 2000 References and Dissertations on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (1976– 96). . Fennel, D., and P. F. J. Eagles 1990 Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration 8:23–34. France, L. 1997 The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. London: Earthscan. Garrod, B., and A. Fyall 2000 Managing Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 27:682–696. Gunn, C. A. 1988 Tourism Planning. New York: Taylor & Francis. Itami, R. M. 1989 Scenic Perception: Research and Application in U.S. Visual Management Systems. In Landscape Evaluation: Approaches and Applications, P. Dearden and B. Sadler, eds., pp. 211–233. Victoria BC: University of Victoria. Lindberg, K., B. Furze, M. Staff, and R. Black 1997 Ecotourism in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Outlook. Bennington VT: The Ecotourism Society. Lundgren, H. M., and P. Farrell 1985 Evaluation for Leisure Service Managers: A Dynamic Approach. New York: CBS College. McKercher, B. 1998 The Business of Nature-Based Tourism. Melbourne: Hospitality Press. Merlino D. 1993 Ecotourism: Past, Present and Future. Tour and Travel News Supplement (October 25):4–5. Miller, M. L., and B. C. Kale 1993 Coastal and Marine Ecotourism: A Formula for Sustainable Development? Trends 30:35–41. Moore, S., and B. Carter 1991 Ecotourism in the 21st Century. In Ecotourism Incorporating the Global Classroom, International Conference Papers, B. Weiler, ed., pp. 140–145. Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research. Mowforth, M., and I. Munt 1998 Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge. National Parks Service 1996 Annual Report. Melbourne: Victoria Parks. Nilsen, P., and G. Tayler 1998 A Comparative Analysis of Human Use Planning and Management Frameworks. In Linking Protected Areas with Working Landscapes Conserving Biodiversity, N. W. P. Munro and J. H. M. Willison, eds., pp. 861–874. Wolfville: SAMPA. Paine, C., and J. Taylor 1995 Cultural Landscape Assessment: A Comparison of Rural Cultural Landscape Assessment Methods and their Potential for Application within the Niagara Escarpment (Research Report). Guelph: Landscape Research Group, University of Guelph. Posavac, E. J., and R. G. Carey 1989 Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall. Readers’ Digest 1992 Wild Australia (3rd ed.). Sydney: Readers’ Digest. Reingold, L. 1993 Identifying the Elusive Ecotourist. Going Green: Supplement to Tour and Travel News 25(October):36–37. Saaty, R. W. 1987 The Analytic Hierarchy Process: What it is and How it is Used. Mathematical Modeling 9:161–176.

438

EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

Saaty, T. L., G. Luis, and L. G. Vargas 1982 The Logic of Priorities: Applications in Business, Energy, Health, and Transportation. Amsterdam: Kluwer. Scace, R. C., E. Grifone, and R. Usher 1992 Ecotourism in Canada: Report to the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. Hull QC: Environment Canada. Tsaur, S. H., G. H. Tzeng, and K. C. Wang 1997 Evaluating Tourist Risks From Fuzzy Perspectives. Annals of Tourism Research 24:796–812. Theobald, W. F. 1979 Evaluation of Recreation and Park Programs. New York: Wiley. 1987 Historical Antecedents of Evaluation in Leisure Programs and Services. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration 5:1–9. Valentine, P. S. 1992 Ecotourism and Nature Conservation: A Definition with Some Recent Developments in Micronesia. In Ecotourism Incorporating the Global Classroom: 1991 International Conference Papers, B. Weiler, ed. Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research. Wall, G. 1994 Ecotourism: Old Wine in New Bottles? Trends 31:4–9. Wherrett, J. R. 1996 Visualization Techniques for Landscape Evaluation: Literature Review. . WTO 2000 Tourism Highlights. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Wu, C. 1992 Research on the Classification of Seed Standard. Changsha: Hunan Science and Technology Commission. Wu, C., S. Li, and J. Deng 1992 Landscape Evaluation of ZhangJiaJie National Forest Park. In Studies on ZhangJiaJie National Forest Park, C. Wu and Z. Wu, eds., pp. 1–12. Beijing: Chinese Forestry Press. Yang, G. 1994 Tourism Resources. Kunming: Yunnan University Press.

Submitted 25 August 1999. Resubmitted 22 May 2000. Accepted 28 January 2001. Final version 9 May 2001. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Bob McKercher

View publication stats