FEBRUARY
JOURNAL OF2002
TRAVEL RESEARCH
Exploring the Usefulness of
an Ecotourism Interest Scale
BILJANA JURIC, T. BETTINA CORNWELL, AND DAMIEN MATHER
The majority of previous studies on ecotourism have used
a behavioral approach to the identification of ecotourists.
While these studies provide a number of useful ecotourist
profiles, they do not provide a general scale useful in identi-
fying ecotourists across a wide array of contexts. Therefore,
this exploratory study develops an Ecotourism Interest scale
and tests the value of the scale in predicting travelers partic-
ipation in selected tourist activities. Logistic regression mod-
els are used to test hypotheses regarding the influence of
Ecotourism Interest on choice of vacation activity. Empirical
results show that the Ecotourism Interest scale is useful in
identifying if tourists will select eco-friendly activities (e.g.,
walking in the bush, tramping, and whale watching). Also,
different additional factors such as age, travel party, and
travel mode were found to influence tourists decisions to
participate in any one particular activity.
The tourism industry represents U.S.$3.6 trillion of eco-
nomic value of goods and services or 10.6% of gross global
product (World Travel and Tourism Council 1998). Consis-
tent with many of the trends of the past two decades, tourism
is experiencing a growth in its green sector. Ecotourism,
also called nature-based tourism and green tourism (see Buckley
1994), is discussed as growing at an unprecedented rate.
There is also a shared belief that the number of travelers
searching for ecotourism experiences has been growing at a
much higher rate than any other tourism segment (e.g., Schouten
1993; Ecotourism: A Food Trip? 1997). However, the
large disparity in estimates of size of the ecotourism sector,
ranging from 5% to 33% of total number of world travelers,
does not allow any meaningful statistics to aid tourism plan-
ners. There is still no answer to the question of how many of
the 595 million tourists worldwide in 1996 were, or how
many of the 1 billion people expected to travel in 2010 may
be, visitors of ecotourist operations (World Tourism Organi-
zation 1998). However, we know that the growth of demand
for ecotourism ran ahead of the supply of its products, creat-
ing new challenges for those involved in planning and tour-
ism researchers (Diamantis 1998). Most important, classifi-
cation and measurement problems make it difficult to judge
the overall size and rate of growth in demand for ecotourism
in precise terms (Williams 1991; Higgins 1996). Given these
challenges, the purpose of this article is to develop an interest
measure that can be used to predict ecotourism behavior and
test the usefulness of this measure empirically. In the next
two sections, a brief overview of conceptual and operationalized
definitions is given, and the definitional focus chosen in this
study is discussed.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
THE ECOTOURIST AND ECOTOURISM
A considerable amount of debate is found in the literature
regarding the definition of both ecotourist and ecotourism
(Ashton 1991; Stafford 1992). While defining ecotourism
has been the focus of several recent articles (e.g., Blamey
1997; Sirakaya, Sasidharan, and Sonmez 1999; Ross and
Wall 1999), ecotourist definitions usually have been dis-
cussed within the domain of ecotourism definitions (e.g.,
Ceballos-Lascurain 1987; Eagles 1992). One could think of
these definitions as ranging from practical and often behav-
ioral to normative and ideological. At one end of the defini-
tional spectrum are simple equations of ecotourism to nature-
oriented travel (e.g., Boo 1990; Luzar et al. 1998). This defi-
nition of the ecotourist is, then, anyone who engages in
nature-oriented travel. Moving along the spectrum, one finds
the popular working definitions of Eagles (1992), in which
ecotourism is said to be centered around leisure travel to
observe and experience nature, and the ecotourist describes
a specific travel market . . . characterized as being composed
of those who select . . . nature oriented experiences in pristine
natural environments (p. 3). Another two sets of ecotourism
definitions advocate perspectives of tourism providers (e.g.,
Boo 1991; Wight 1993) or sustainability of the system (e.g.,
Butler 1992, cited in Ballantine and Eagles 1994) and offer
prescriptives as to how to contribute to conservation or achieve
sustainability. While there is a segment of the ecotourism
market that may consider the economic and environmental
impacts of its holiday experience on the local environment,
the majority of individuals focus more on their interests,
experiences, and learning.
Ceballos-Lascurain (1990) provided one of the most com-
prehensive consumer-centered definitions. He argued,
We may define ecotourism as that segment of tourism
that involves traveling to relatively undisturbed or un-
contaminated natural areas with the specific objective
of admiring, studying, and enjoying the scenery and
its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing
cultural features (both past and present) found in these
areas. (P. 25)
Biljana Juric is a senior lecturer in the Department of Mar-
keting at the University of Auckland in Auckland, New Zealand. T.
Bettina Cornwell is a reader in marketing at the University of
Queensland Business School in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Damien Mather is with Telecom in New Zealand.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 40, February 2002, 259-269
2002 Sage Publications
260 FEBRUARY 2002
According to Ceballos-Lascurain,
The person who practices ecotourism has the opportu-
nity of immersing him or herself in nature in a way
that most people cannot enjoy in their routine, urban
existences. This person will eventually acquire an
awareness and knowledge of the natural environment,
together with its cultural aspects, that will convert
him or her into somebody keenly involved in conser-
vation issues. (P. 25)
We recognize the role of experiencing nature in the individ-
uals development of an environmental ethic (c.f. the dis-
cussion by Bottrill and Pearce 1995) but also acknowledge
that the original intent of most tourists (subsequently catego-
rized in research on ecotourism as ecotourists) is primarily to
observe and learn about nature. Some studies revealed that
while tourists acknowledge sustainability as a desirable fac-
tor, it appears that environmental impact has little influence
on their choice of tourism product (Social Change Media
1995). As McKercher (1993) stated, it is a mistake to assume
that most ecotourists are anything other than consumers,
whose primary goal is the consumption of an ecotourism ex-
perience. In summary, the emphasis on nature has been the
consistently common element of all reviewed definitions
(see Table 1).
It should also be mentioned that in the Ceballos-
Lascurain (1990) definition is the ecotourists enjoyment of
cultural features found in natural areas. General respect for
culture and cultural artifacts and an appreciation for naturally
occurring (not staged) cultural experiences is found in sev-
eral discussions of ecotourism (Valentine 1992; Figgis 1993).
However, it appears that culture is not the basis of the
ecotourism experience, nor is it the central focus. Studies that
have investigated reasons for visiting ecotourism destina-
tions by asking respondents to list the reasons found that only
a minority of visitors indicated local culture as a reason for
their visit (Lee and Snepenger 1992).
In conclusion, there are at least three definitional perspec-
tives that can be taken in the study of ecotourism and ecotourists:
(1) tourist centered, (2) tourism centered, and (3) macro or
systems view. In the current research, we adopt the tourists
view as a consumer. Furthermore, we see this tourist as best
described as someone who, while interested in culture and in
protecting the environment, is primarily interested in travel-
ing to experience and learn about wilderness and undisturbed
nature. This perhaps less-restrictive (Buckley 1994) or mini-
malist (Blamey 1997) definition enables its broad applica-
tion across the spectrum of ecotourism experiences. With
this definitional focus, we set about developing a scale of
ecotourism interests that would help us to identify those indi-
viduals who would most probably choose an ecotourism
activity. The purpose of the scale development and applica-
tion is to better understand the relationship between travel-
ers interests and choice behavior.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Profiling
The predominance of past research with regard to ecotourists
has been devoted to developing a profile of the ecotourist. Of
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
major importance in these studies are tourists demographic
characteristics and their behaviors (e.g., Saleh and Karwacki
1996; Hvenegaard and Dearden 1998).
Past research indicates that tourists visiting ecotourist
operations tend to have higher levels of education (e.g.,
Ingram and Durst 1989; Boo 1990; Meric and Hunt 1998)
and are older than the average tourist (e.g., Ingram and Durst
1989; Meric and Hunt 1998). The findings about the gender
of ecotourists have been more conflicting. Some studies
reported that a majority of ecotourists are female (e.g., Keenan
1989; Ballantine and Eagles 1994); some report that the
majority are male (Fennell and Smale 1992) or that there is a
relatively equal gender distribution (e.g., Ingram and Durst
1989; Boo 1990). Luzar et al.s (1998) study revealed that
gender might be a significant predictor of engaging in eco-
tourism, specifically that the probability to participate in
ecotourism in Louisiana was 7% higher for male than female
visitors. Wight (1996) stated that it is probable that age and
gender varies with the nature of ecotourism activity. For
example, the findings of a Tourism Canada survey conducted
in 1995 (Wight 1996) indicated that 55% of tourists inter-
ested in polar-bear watching were older than 55, 67% of
those interested in ice and rock climbing were younger than
34, and one-third of all hikers were 19 and younger. Although
males and females were equally interested in the overall
range of ecotourism experiences, Wight suggested that there
may be slight gender differences in the degree of interest.
A few authors reported that the travel party composition
of ecotourists and general tourists differs (Wight 1996) and
that family size may be a significant variable in explaining
ecotourism participation decisions (Luzar et al. 1998). Some
studies indicated a higher proportion of independent travel-
ers (vs. those undertaking organized tours) (Yamamoto and
Gill 1999) and members of nature-oriented organizations
(Ballantine and Eagles 1994) participating in ecotourism
activities. With regard to behavior, participation in particular
activities, infrastructure requirements, destination informa-
tion, expenditures, and group membership have all been
associated with the ecotourist and ecotourist profiles.
Some exceptions to the general approach just outlined are
worth noting. For example, Silverberg, Backman, and Backman
(1996) used six dimensions derived from the 46 activities-
interests-opinion (AIO) statements to profile their respon-
dents. However, we must also note that the criteria for select-
ing respondents from a commercial mailing list were that
they (1) travel frequently, (2) have an interest in the environ-
ment, and (3) have an interest in photography. This selection
of respondents introduces another definitional issue, that of
operational definition of ecotourists.
Operationalized Definitions
Studies have defined ecotourists, operationally, as people
who have participated in nature-oriented travel opportuni-
ties (Kretchman and Eagles 1990); took camping trips,
donated money, or belong to nature/environmental organiza-
tions (Meric and Hunt 1998); are visitors of Grasslands
National Park (Saleh and Karwacki 1996); or were identi-
fied as clients of the ecotourism travel trade (Wight 1996).
The problems with the behavioral approach to ecotourist
identification based on such singular behaviors are the fol-
lowing: (1) it is orientated to the past in that it identifies those
believed to have been ecotourists rather than those who
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 261

TABLE 1
SELECTED ECOTOURIST DEFINITIONS

Author DefinitionEcotourist(s) Type

McNeely (1988) Visitors who travel to protected areas for nonconsumptive Conceptual
activities such as recreation-aesthetics, sociocultural,
scientific, educational, spiritual, and historical
Lee and Snepenger (1992, Ideal ecotourists are motivated to participate in culturally and Conceptual
p. 368) ecologically sensitive activities, expect their expenditures to be
Boo (1990) used to support the local economy and resource conservation,
Lutay (1989) and are willing to contribute to conservation and sustainable
Ziffer (1989) development in the area of their trip
Ceballos-Lascurain (1991) An ecotourist is the person who practices ecotourism and has the Conceptual
opportunity of immersing him or herself in nature in a way that
most people cannot enjoy in their routine, urban existences. This
person will eventually acquire an awareness and knowledge of the
natural environment, together with its cultural aspects, that will
convert him or her into somebody keenly involved in conservation
issues
Harvey (1991) Ecotourists are those who consciously strive to have their visit not Conceptual
negatively impact natural or cultural systems
Eagles (1992) Ecotourism is centered around leisure travel to observe and Conceptual
experience nature, and the ecotourist describes a specific travel
market . . . characterized as being composed of those who
select . . . nature oriented experiences in pristine natural
environments
Ballantine and Eagles (1994) Ecotourists are motivated to learn about nature, find wilderness/ Operational
undisturbed areas an important attraction, and spend at least
one-third of their Kenyan vacation days on safari
Saleh and Karwacki (1996) Ecotourist is commonly defined as a person who seeks to Conceptual
experience relatively undisturbed natural areas (Ceballos-
Lascuarin 1991 and Ziffer 1989 also cited)
Visitors of Grasslands National Park Operational
Wight (1996, p. 2) A person who is on the ground at the destination and behaving Operational
in accordance with the sustainable values and principles model

might be future ecotourists, (2) the behavior on which the
ecotourist definition rests changes from study to study, and
(3) it is not a generalizable approach that can be used by
future researchers.
In light of these shortcomings of ecotourism definition
and operationalization, we must note some exceptions. First
is a study by Ballantine and Eagles (1994), in which they
sought to define the ecotourist based on their responses to
three criterion variables: (1) the extent to which they find
learning about nature to be important, (2) the extent to which
wilderness and undisturbed areas are important, and (3) the
amount of time spent engaged in a specific behavior (33% of
Kenyan vacation time on safari). While this study did move
beyond behavioral operationalization, issues of internal con-
sistency, generalizability, and predictive validity were not
addressed. Another interesting study is that of Luzar et al.
(1998). The authors used visitors attitudes toward the envi-
ronment to predict the decision of potential visitors to partici-
pate in Louisiana tourism and ecotourism. The attitudes,
measured by a 6-item scale derived from Dunlap et al.s
(1992) revised new environmental paradigm, were signifi-
cant in explaining ecotourism participation decisions. How-
ever, the correct prediction rate for participation in ecotourism
(33%) indicated that it is necessary to consider additional
variables in the model of travelers participation in ecotourism.
In summary, to understand the mental and behavioral se-
quence of events within ecotourists decision making, and
especially what precedes Ceballos-Lascurains (1990) op-
portunity for behavior, we focus on their motivations for
traveling, trip characteristics, and demographics of importance.
Therefore, the following research questions were developed:
1. Can we develop a measure of ecotourism interest that
is conceptually grounded and practically applicable to
a broad range of ecotourism experiences and ecotour-
ist profiles?
2. Specifically, can this scale, in conjunction with other
sociodemographic and trip variables, be used to pre-
dict behavior?
METHOD
Sample
Respondents were 636 international visitors at two of the
most popular New Zealand tourism centers: Rotorua and
Queenstown. With more than half of New Zealands inter-
national tourists visiting these two centers (e.g., 60% of

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

262 FEBRUARY 2002
international tourists visited Rotorua and 58% Queenstown
in 1999; New Zealand Official Yearbook on the Web 1999),
the respondents represent a good cross section of the overall
tourist population. Surveys were collected based on a mall-
intercept technique (Bush and Parasuraman 1985) in which
potential participants were asked to respond and encouraged
to participate by being given the opportunity to win two
books on New Zealand photography. The questionnaire took
approximately 20 minutes for the respondents to complete.
Participation rates for all locations and all collection times
averaged 70%.
Survey Instrument
The data used in this study were part of a larger study of
New Zealand international visitors. The four sections of the
questionnaire relevant for this study were (1) tourist inter-
ests, (2) demographics, (3) trip characteristics, and (4) activi-
ties that international visitors have undertaken or plan to
undertake while visiting New Zealand.
Independent Variables
Ecotourist interest. A multi-item scale of the level of
Ecotourism Interest (EI) was constructed following proce-
dures suggested by Spector (1992). The first critical step in
the development of a scale is to specify the domain of the
construct of EI. On the basis of the literature review pre-
sented earlier in the article, the conceptual domain of the con-
struct was limited to interest in learning about and experienc-
ing nature during ones travels. It should be emphasized here
that a variety of other interests and characteristics have been
associated with defining ecotourists, most notably prefer-
ence for physical activity (Williams 1991) and the duration
of their trip (Ballantine and Eagles 1994). However, these
characteristics are not central to the majority of studies (see
Table 1), and again they may be more related to recording the
past behavior of the ecotourists than to identifying potential
ecotourists. Likewise, idealized views of what ecotourists
should be interested in are put aside in this study to exam-
ine consumers motivating interests better.
Three judges, familiar with the tourism industry in New
Zealand, were provided with the definition of ecotourism
interest and were instructed to select concepts (i.e., travelers
interests) relevant to ecotourism experience from a large
pool of items used previously in other studies (Fennel 1990,
cited in Eagles 1992; Kretchman and Eagles 1990; and Williacy
and Eagles 1990). Fennel, Eagles, and their collaborators
used scale items to investigate a variety of interests of gen-
eral tourists as well as those who visit ecotourism operations.
These authors used only individualized items in their analy-
ses and interpretations, without making an attempt to investi-
gate underlying constructs and/or develop an interest mea-
sure. The reduced pool of eight items selected for this scale
comprised the following items: wilderness and undisturbed
nature, tropical forests and indigenous bush, national parks,
lakes and streams, oceanside, world heritage status areas,
learning about nature, and taking photographs of landscape
and wildlife. The respondents who participated in the study
were asked to evaluate what is important for them when they
go on vacation. A 7-point scale was used to collect information
about the importance of the items. The scale anchors were
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
not at all important (indicated by 1) and very important (indi-
cated by 7). An initial version of the questionnaire was pilot
tested on 10 faculty members and 60 respondents who were
asked to critique and give comments. The final set of items
was selected, through two steps, by calculating coefficient
and assessing the item-to-total correlation (see Table 2). One
item (oceanside) was deleted due to the low item-to-total cor-
relation. The overall coefficient estimate for the refined EI
scale was .81. Item-to-total correlations ranged from .44 to
.66 (see Table 2). Principal component analyses with varimax
rotation yielded one factor, confirming the unidimensional
nature of the construct (see Table 3). The factor score, based
on the remaining seven items, was used in the remainder of
the study to reflect the overall extent of visitors ecotourism
interests.
To validate the EI scale, we tested hypotheses regarding
the ability of the scale to predict behavior. We should expect
an EI scale to help us identify individuals that would most
likely participate in activities that are recognized as nature
oriented. Therefore, our first hypothesis states the following:
Hypothesis 1: The EI scale will make a significant contri-
bution to the prediction of individuals participation
in recognized ecotourism activities.
In addition, if we argue that tourists identified with the
scale as having ecotourism interests should differ in their
participation in ecotourism activities, then a check of the
ability of the scale to discriminate would imply the following:
Hypothesis 2: The EI scale will not make a significant
contribution to the prediction of individuals partici-
pation in general tourist activities.
Demographic information. The collected demographic
information (see Table 4) enabled investigation of relation-
ships, suggested by previous studies, between gender (e.g.,
Luzar et al. 1998), age (e.g., Wight 1996), education (e.g.,
Meric and Hunt 1998), membership in a nature-based organi-
zation (e.g., Ballantine and Eagles 1994), and choice of tour-
ism activities.
Trip characteristics. In addition, the respondents party
composition (e.g., Wight 1996; Luzar et al. 1998) and the
travelers use of prearranged or packaged travel elements
(Yamamoto and Gill 1999) were used to predict their partici-
pation in tourist activities (see Table 4).
Dependent Variables
Tourism activities. Again, three independent judges, fa-
miliar with tourism in New Zealand, selected three ecotourism
and three nonecotourism activities from the countrys Tour-
ism Board list of activities that was used in surveying inter-
national visitors. In the questionnaire, respondents were asked
to indicate what activities from those listed they have done or
plan to do during their visit to New Zealand. Similar to past
studies, walking, tramping/trekking, and whale watching were
selected as ecotourism activities. These activities are often
identified in literature as the most popular activities for na-
ture-based tourists (e.g., Yuan and Christensen 1994; Wight
1996) and thus gave support to the judges selections. Activ-
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 263

TABLE 2 ecotourist activity. This multivariate technique was selected

SCALE DEVELOPMENT because our dependent variables are categorical but not mu-
tually exclusive. That is to say, respondents could indicate
Item-to- Alpha if their participation in any or all activities. Like multiple linear
Total Item regression, it can simultaneously examine the effects of many
Step Item Correlation Removed variables on the behavior of interest. By using logistic regres-
1 Wilderness and undisturbed sion models, one can predict the probability that a set of inde-
nature .63 .74 pendent variables such as ecotourism interest, demographics,
Tropical forests and or the way tourists travel will affect participation in tourism
indigenous bush .56 .75 activities. The independent variables used in the regression
National parks .60 .75 models appear in Table 4. For ecotourism interest, the single
Lakes and streams .52 .77 factor score was used. The rest of the independent variables
Oceanside .23 .81 were categorical and were classified using a binary coding
World heritage status areas .43 .77
Learning about nature .59 .75 system: 1 if the subject satisfied the category or level and
Photographing landscape 0 otherwise (see Table 4). From each group of variables,
and wildlife .46 .77 one category or level was selected for the base group, which
Alpha = .80 serves as the reference against which the other groups are
2 Wilderness and undisturbed compared. For example, in the case of age, those younger
nature .66 .76 than 30 formed the base group, and the other four age groups
Tropical forests and indigenous were compared relative to that group. This is an accepted
bush .57 .77
practice in conducting logistic regression analyses, which
National parks .61 .77
Lakes and streams .50 .79 helps avoid perfect collinearity between variables (Freeman
World heritage status areas .44 .80 1987). The criteria for selection of a base category was the
Learning about nature .61 .77 highest frequency; therefore, the base group included re-
Photographing landscape and spondents who were younger than 30, male, with a university
wildlife .45 .80 or higher degree, traveling with family, traveling independ-
Alpha = .81 ently, and who were not members of a nature-oriented orga-
nization; that is, the logistic regression model was specified
as follows:

TABLE 3 Probability (response activity = 1) = 0 + 1 (age 30-39) +

RESULTS OF THE PRINCIPAL COMPONENT 2 (age 40-49) + 3 (age 50-59) + 4 (age 60+) + 5 (female) +
ANALYSIS WITH THE VARIMAX ROTATION, 6 (no formal education) + 7 (primary education) + 8 (secondary
MEAN RATING SCORES, AND STANDARD school) + 9 (professional technical) + 10 (prepurchased tour) +
DEVIATION OF THE SCALE ITEMS 11 (both independently and prepurchased) + 12 (travel with
friends) + 13 (girl/boyfriend) + 14 (travel alone) + 15 (travel
Standard with others) + 16 (member of conservation group) + error.
Scale Item Loading Mean Deviation
Wilderness and Estimated coefficients ($ i ) indicate that expected logit
undisturbed nature transformation of the event probability will increase by $ i for
(WILDNAT) .791 5.62 1.29 each unit increase in the ith variable. The small observed sig-
Learn about nature nificance level indicates that the null hypothesis is rejected if
(LEARNAT) .741 5.53 1.37 $
the coefficient for a variable is 0. The value e i (odds ratio)
National parks and indicates the change in odds of an event occurring caused by
reserves (NATPARK) .739 5.69 1.29
Tropical forests/indigenous
increasing the value of the variable from 0 to 1 expressed as a
bush (TROPICS) .722 5.54 1.33 ratio. The odds is defined as the ratio of the probability that
Lakes and streams an event will occur to the probability that it will not occur. An
(LAKESTR) .648 5.62 1.23 odds ratio of more than 1 indicates that as a variable in-
Photography of landscape/ creases, the likelihood of a respondents participation in-
wildlife (PHOTOS) .581 5.54 1.41 creases. Conversely, an odds ratio of less than 1 indicates that
World heritage status area as a variable increases, the likelihood of a respondents par-
(WHSAREA) .573 4.91 1.49 ticipation decreases.
The SAS logistic regression procedure allows testing the
null hypothesis that all regression coefficients are zero with
criteria of 2 log likelihood statistic. Stepwise, full-rank
ities thought to be nonecotourism activities included wine model selection was performed with hypotheses tested on the
tasting, gambling/casino visits, and shopping. change in the likelihood score and the Wald statistic, both of
which are distributed as chi-square. Variables were included
Data Analysis in a partial model if their inclusion was indicated by a signifi-
cant improvement in the likelihood score. Variables were
Logistic regression (i.e., BiNomial Logit) models were eliminated from the model if the resulting change in the Wald
used to test the utility of the EI scale by directly estimating statistic was insignificant. All binary-coded design variables
the probability that an event occurs, that is, participation in associated with the same class variable were entered in or
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
264 FEBRUARY 2002

TABLE 4
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
USED IN THE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSES

Number of Percentage
Variable Description Respondents of Respondents
Age of respondent (CAGE)
(in years)
< 30 Reference level 318 50
30-39 1 if between 30 and 39, 0 otherwise 108 17
40-49 1 if between 40 and 49, 0 otherwise 57 9
50-59 1 if between 50 and 59, 0 otherwise 57 9
> 59 1 if older than 59, 0 otherwise 96 15
Gender (CGENDER)
Males Reference level 337 53
Females 1 if female, 0 otherwise 299 47
Education (EDUCATION)
No formal education 1 if no formal education, 0 otherwise 6 1
Primary education 1 if primary education, 0 otherwise 19 3
Secondary school 1 if secondary education, 0 otherwise 178 28
Professional/technical 1 if professional or technical, 0 otherwise 146 23
University degree or higher Reference level 286 45
How tourists travel (CHOW)
Independent Reference level 331 52
Prepurchased tour 1 if traveling in prepurchased tour, 0 otherwise 95 15
Both independently and on
some organized tours 1 if both, 0 otherwise 210 33
Party composition (CWHO)
With family Reference level 235 37
With friends 1 if traveling with friends, 0 otherwise 153 24
With girlfriend/boyfriend 1 if traveling with girlfriend or boyfriend, 0 otherwise 45 7
Alone 1 if traveling alone, 0 otherwise 172 27
Others 1 if traveling with others, 0 otherwise 32 5
Membership in conservation group
(CMEMBER)
Nonmember Reference level 547 86
Member 1 if a member of a conservation group, 0 otherwise 89 14
Note: Ecotourism Interest (EISCALE) mean value = 5.41; n = 636.

removed from the model as a set. The statistical significance TABLE 5

of the independent variables was tested using the chi-square DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE DEPENDENT
statistics at the p value of less than .05. VARIABLES (TOURIST ACTIVITIES) USED IN THE
The SAS logistic regression procedure also produces sev- LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSES
eral statistics for evaluating a models predictive perfor-
mance such as concordance (percentage of correctly classi- Participation Rates
fied actual responses) and tied predictions. Tied predictions in the Activity
are too close to the equi-probable point to be significantly Activity n %
different by chance. The predictive performance of a model Ecotourism activities
increases with (1) an increase in the proportion of correctly Whale watching (RWHALE) 191 30
classified responses, and (2) a decrease in the proportion of Walk in bush or countryside
tied predictions. (RWALK1) 1/2 or 1 day 191 30
Tramping/trekking (RTRAMP)
at least one night in hut or camping 178 28
Results Nonecotourism activities
Wine tasting (RVINO) 204 32
Descriptive statistics of the respondents participation in Shopping (RSHOP) 390 61
activities of interest are presented in Table 5. While 61% of Gambling/casinos (RGAMBLE) 63 10
our respondents were interested in shopping, the least popu-
lar activity was gambling, attracting only 10% of respon- Note: Number of respondents = 636.
dents. Almost the same proportion of the surveyed travelers
reported their participation in ecotourism activities, namely,
whale watching (30%), walking in the bush (30%), and Tables 6 through 11 present the results of logistic regres-
sions estimated via maximum likelihood for ecotourism and
tramping (28%).

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 265

TABLE 6
LOGISTIC REGRESSION RESULTS FOR REPORTED PARTICIPATION IN THE ECOTOURISM
ACTIVITY OF TRAMPING/TREKKING (AT LEAST ONE NIGHT IN HUT OR CAMPING)

Parameter Probability > Odds $Ratio

Dependent Variable Independent Variables Estimate $ i Chi-Square ei
Tramping/trekking Intercept 3.47 .01
EI 0.36 .01 1.43
How respondents travel (independently) .01
Prepurchased 1.20 .01 0.30
Both 0.55 .01 0.58
With whom respondents travel (family) .01
Friends 0.99 .01 2.70
Girlfriend/boyfriend 1.94 .01 6.93
Alone 1.28 .01 3.66
Others 0.85 .10 2.33

Predicted Predicted
Participation Participation
Model Fit Without EI With EI Percentage of without EI with EI
2 log likelihood with intercept only 715.404 714.745
2 log likelihood with covariates 649.827 638.438 Classified correctly 65.2 71.7
Degrees of freedom (covariates) 6 7 Classified incorrectly 24.4 27.5
p value of difference by chance
distributed chi-square with above
degrees of freedom < .005 < .005 Tied 10.4 0.7
Note: EI = Ecotourism Interest.

TABLE 7
LOGISTIC REGRESSION RESULTS FOR REPORTED PARTICIPATION IN THE
ECOTOURISM ACTIVITY OF WALKING IN THE BUSH OR COUNTRYSIDE (1/2 TO 1 DAY)

Parameter Probability > Odds $Ratio

Dependent Variable Independent Variables Estimate $ i Chi-Square ei
Walk in the bush or Intercept 4.00 .01
countryside EI 0.65 .01 1.92
How respondents travel (independently) .04
Prepurchased 0.59 .10 0.55
Both 0.49 .02 0.62
Age (younger than 30) .01
30-39 (ns) 0.01 .96 1.01
40-49 1.18 .01 0.31
50-59 0.82 .03 0.44
Older than 59 2.52 .01 0.08
Member of a conservation group (NON basis) 0.84 .01 2.32

Predicted Predicted
Participation Participation
Model Fit Without EI With EI Percentage of without EI with EI
2 log likelihood with intercept only 742.949 740.226
2 log likelihood with covariates 663.659 631.109 Classified correctly 63.8 75.0
Degrees of freedom (covariates) 7 8 Classified incorrectly 24.7 24.3
p value of difference by chance
distributed chi-square with above
degrees of freedom < .005 < .005 Tied 11.6 0.7
Note: EI = Ecotourism Interest.

nonecotourism activities. Due to the considerable number of the activities and the empirical findings of the scales ability
logistic regression analyses conducted, only the final models to predict their participation in each of these tourism activi-
are presented. A description of respondents participation in ties is given below.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

266 FEBRUARY 2002

TABLE 8
LOGISTIC REGRESSION RESULTS FOR REPORTED PARTICIPATION
IN THE ECOTOURISM ACTIVITY OF WHALE WATCHING

Parameter Probability > Odds $Ratio

Dependent Variable Independent Variables Estimate $ i Chi-Square ei
Whale watching Intercept 2.04 .01
EI 0.26 .03 1.29
Age (younger than 30) .01
30-39 (ns) 0.48 .05 1.61
40-49 (ns) 0.20 .54 0.82
50-59 (ns) 0.26 .46 0.77
Older than 59 1.15 .01 0.32
How respondents travel (independently) .01
Prepurchased 1.68 .01 0.19
Both (ns) 0.12 .56 0.89

Predicted Predicted
Participation Participation
Model Fit Without EI With EI Percentage of without EI with EI
2 log likelihood with intercept only 734.860 734.158
2 log likelihood with covariates 680.817 674.053 Classified correctly 59.0 66.6
Degrees of freedom (covariates) 6 7 Classified incorrectly 26.5 31.8
p value of difference by chance
distributed chi-square with above
degrees of freedom < .005 < .005 Tied 14.6 1.6
Note: EI = Ecotourism Interest.

TABLE 9
LOGISTIC REGRESSION RESULTS FOR REPORTED PARTICIPATION
IN THE NONECOTOURISM ACTIVITY OF WINE TASTING

Parameter Probability > Odds $Ratio

Dependent Variable Independent Variables Estimate $ i Chi-Square ei
Wine tasting Intercept 0.91 .01
Age (younger than 30) .01
30-39 (ns) 0.43 .12 0.65
40-49 0.55 .07 1.72
50-59 1.12 .01 3.07
Older than 59 0.55 .03 1.73

Predicted
Model Fit Percentage of Participation
2 log likelihood with intercept only 764.205
2 log likelihood with covariates 738.443 Classified correctly 45.0
Degrees of freedom (covariates) 4 Classified incorrectly 22.1
p value of difference by chance distributed
chi-square with above degrees of freedom < .005 Tied 32.9

Tramping/trekkingat least one night in a hut or camp-
ing. The estimated coefficient and odds ratio, reported in Ta-
ble 6, indicate that EI was positively related to the reported
participation in trekking and tramping. Those respondents
with higher ecotourism interest were more likely to under-
take this type of activity. The effects of the ecotourism inter-
est and the traveling characteristics of respondents on the lo-
gistic regression model were significant (p < .01). Not surpris-
ingly, those traveling in prepurchased arrangements and trav-
eling with family were much less likely to undertake this type
of activity than other groups of travelers. The highest likeli-
hood of going trekking and tramping was reported by respon-
dents who were traveling with a girlfriend/boyfriend or inde-
pendently. The gender and age of respondents were not
significantly related to the decision to become involved in
this activity. The inclusion of the EI scale improved the
models 2 log likelihood significantly from 649.827 to
638.438 with a p value of less than .005. In addition, the pro-

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 267

TABLE 10
LOGISTIC REGRESSION RESULTS FOR REPORTED PARTICIPATION
IN THE NONECOTOURISM ACTIVITY OF GAMBLING

Parameter Probability > Odds $Ratio

Dependent Variable Independent Variables Estimate $ i Chi-Square ei
Gambling/casinos Intercept 2.11 .01
Age (younger than 30) .01
30-39 (ns) 1.08 .04 0.34
40-49 0.59 .13 1.80
50-59 0.59 .13 1.80
Older than 59 0.66 .28 0.52

Predicted
Model Fit Percentage of Participation
2 log likelihood with intercept only 399.685
2 log likelihood with covariates 386.100 Classified correctly 45.6
Degrees of freedom (covariates) 4 Classified incorrectly 19.8
p value of difference by chance distributed
chi-square with above degrees of freedom < .005 Tied 34.6

TABLE 11
LOGISTIC REGRESSION RESULTS FOR REPORTED PARTICIPATION
IN THE NONECOTOURISM ACTIVITY OF SHOPPING

Parameter Probability > Odds $Ratio

Dependent Variable Independent Variables Estimate $ i Chi-Square ei
Shopping Intercept 0.71 .01
With whom respondents travel (family) .01
Friends -0.48 .04 0.62
Girlfriend/boyfriend 0.87 .01 0.42
Alone 1.21 .01 0.30
Others (ns) 0.39 .38 1.68
How respondents travel (independently) .01
Prepurchased 0.88 .01 2.41
Both 0.51 .01 1.67

Predicted
Model Fit Percentage of Participation
2 log likelihood with intercept only 807.345
2 log likelihood with covariates 757.084 Classified correctly 61.3
Degrees of freedom (covariates) 6 Classified correctly 28.4
p value of difference by chance distributed
chi-square with above degrees of freedom < .005 Tied 10.4

portion of correctly classified actual responses improved
from 65.2% to 71.7%, and the proportion of tied predictions
was reduced from 10.4% to 0.7%.
Walk in the bush or countryside. EI was again a signifi-
cant indicator of respondents choice to undertake long walks
in the countryside or indigenous bush (see Table 7). In addi-
tion, good predictors of participation in this activity were
age, the respondents involvement in a nature-based organi-
zation, and their mode of travel. Not surprisingly, it seems
that likelihood of undertaking a longer walking trip drops af-
ter the age of 40, becoming extremely low after the age of 60.
Independent travelers and those who are active in some
plant/wildlife conservation groups were also more likely to
enjoy New Zealand countryside and indigenous bush. With
the inclusion of the EI scale in this model, the 2 log likeli-
hood was significantly reduced from 663.659 to 631.109.
Consequently, the proportion of correctly classified actual
responses increased from 63.8% to 75.0%. This increase was
also associated with a reduction in the proportion tied from
11.6% to 0.7%.
Whale watching. The parameter coefficient and odds ra-
tio presented in Table 8 indicate that, although not so power-
ful a predictor as in respondents choice of trekking and
walking trips, EI was still significantly positively related to
respondents likelihood of whale watching. Independent trav-
elers were more likely to go whale watching than were trav-

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

268 FEBRUARY 2002
elers engaging in any form of prepurchased activities. The re-
spondents older than 60 were less likely to join whale watchers
than any other age group. The inclusion of the EI scale in this
model significantly reduced the models 2 log likelihood
from 680.817 to 674.053. The proportion concordant im-
proved from 59.0% to 66.6%, and this improvement was as-
sociated with a reduction in the proportion tied from 14.6%
to 1.6%.
Wine tasting, gambling, and shopping. In Tables 9, 10,
and 11, one can see that the EI scale was not significantly re-
lated to the respondents decisions to undertake any of the
nonecotourism activities. For wine tasting, gambling, and
shopping, the EI scale did not enter the models as a signifi-
cant predictor of respondents behavior. The results indicate
that age and trip characteristics of international travelers in-
fluenced the likelihood of participating in these activities.
The results of this study demonstrate that EI is a consis-
tent predictor of the choice of ecotourism activities. The
results are stable across models specifications and estima-
tion methods, thus supporting our formal hypotheses 1 and 2
and answering our two research questions in the affirmative.
In short, the EI scale is a useful predictor of an individuals
participation in recognized ecotourism activities.
CONCLUSION
On the whole, EI appears to offer a useful explanation of
the tourist participation in ecotourism activities. Other fac-
tors, such as age, gender, party composition, and organiza-
tion of travel, influenced choice of some activities, suggest-
ing that EI items should be supplemented by items measuring
demographics and trip characteristics in future use. How-
ever, one of the important findings of the study is that EI
played a more consistent role in predicting behavior than
other variables typically considered in ecotourism research.
Demographic and traveling characteristics, with the excep-
tion of the travelers use of prearranged travel, appear to be
activity-specific predictors (Wight 1996).
This research was limited to international travelers in one
country. While New Zealand attracts a broad base of interna-
tional travelers, it would be beneficial to use the scale in
other countries with other visitor profiles. A related limita-
tion is that the scale was tested only for selected activities
available in New Zealand. Further use of the scale across dif-
ferent types of tourism activities and destinations will tell us
more about the scales generalizability and validity. The
scale development approach could also be criticized for tak-
ing a simplistic view of ecotourism. We put forth our argu-
ments as to why a simple definition, focusing on nature and
learning, is appropriate. However, we accept that over time,
if consumers learning and awareness of the normative defi-
nitions of ecotourism develop, this scale may need modification.
The EI measure is intended to be useful for practitioners
and researchers alike. From a practical perspective, there are
situations in which a quantitative measure may be necessary
for managers. In reviewing past studies of ecotourism, it
becomes apparent that the profiling approach, which summa-
rizes the characteristics of a group of ecotourists based on
behavioral identification from mailing lists and trip experi-
ence, offers a historical and potentially limited view of the
potential ecotourism market. For example, individuals with
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
physical limitations or families with small children might be
keenly interested in ecotourism but not have found an offer-
ing in the marketplace that suits their special needs.
In marketing a destination or operation, it would be use-
ful to have a baseline rating of the target markets ecotourism
interest before preparing marketing programs. Tourist prod-
uct development could then be enhanced by understanding
the consumers level of interest in ecotourism. Another pos-
sible application of the scale would be to categorize tourists
into interest segments (e.g., low and high) and create differ-
ent products based on their level of interest.
The theoretical value of the scale development is that the
scale may contribute to designing studies that are more explana-
tory and/or predictive in nature rather than purely descrip-
tive. In addition, a measure that could be applied to a range of
ecotourism experiences enables comparison of studies and
accumulation of research efforts and, consequently, enables
the further progression of the discipline.
Last, we must add a note about the ethics of environmen-
tally friendly tourism. Our findings indicate that potential
ecotourists may be best identified through an understanding
of their unique interests in nature and learning about the envi-
ronment. It is then up to the marketer to offer a product that
enables the interested person to have an ecotourism experi-
ence. The view reflected in Ceballos-Lascurains (1990) def-
inition of the ecotourist, that the majority of tourists will ini-
tially follow their interest and eventually evolve an ecotourist
worldview, puts the onus of environmental responsibility on
the tourism provider. This is not to say that the consumer
should be free of responsibility in the pursuit of sustainable
tourism. However, if the numbers of tourists new to ecotourism
are in the league of popular predictions, then an increasing
majority of the future ecotourism market will be composed
of those who have not yet fully developed an ecotourist ethic.
This, in turn, implies that a greater educational component is
essential in future ecotourism offerings.
REFERENCES
Ashton, R. (1991). Trends and Problems in Eco-Tourism. In Proceedings
of the 1991 World Congress on Adventure Travel and Eco-Tourism.
Englewood, CO: Adventure Society, Inc., pp. 22-31.
Ballantine, J. L., and P.F.J. Eagles (1994). Defining Canadian Ecotourists.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2 (4): 210-14.
Blamey, R. K. (1997). Ecotourism: The Search for an Operational Defini-
tion. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5 (2): 109-30.
Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The Potential and Pitfalls. Vol. 1. Washington,
DC: World Wildlife Fund.
(1991). Pitfalls and Liabilities of Eco-Tourism Development. In
Proceedings of the 1991 World Congress on Adventure Travel and
Eco-Tourism. Englewood, CO: Adventure Society, Inc., pp. 145-49.
Bottrill, C. G., and D. G. Pearce (1995). Ecotourism: Towards a Key Ele-
ment Approach to Operationalizing the Concept. Journal of Sustain-
able Tourism, 3 (1): 45-54.
Buckley, R. (1994). A Framework for Ecotourism. Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 21 (3): 661-69.
Bush, A. J., and A. Parasuraman (1985). Mall Intercept Technique Versus
Telephone Interviewing Environment. Journal of Advertising Re-
search, 25 (2): 36-43.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1987). The Future of Ecotourism. Mexico Jour-
nal, January: 13-14.
(1990). Tourism, Ecotourism, and Protected Areas. In Ecotourism
and Resource Conservation, selected papers from the 1st (April 17-19,
1989, Merida Mexico) and 2nd (Nov. 27-Dec. 2, 1990, Miami Beach,
FL) International Symposia on Ecotourism and Resource Conserva-
tion, J. A. Kusler (compiler), pp. 24-30.
Diamantis, D. (1998). Consumer Behaviour and Ecotourism Product. An-
nals of Tourism Research, 25 (2): 515-28.
Eagles, P. F. (1992). The Travel Motivations of Canadian Ecotourists.
Journal of Travel Research, 31 (2): 3-7.
Ecotourism: A Food Trip? (1997). The Economist, August 30, pp. 52-53.

Fennell, D. A., and B. Smale (1992). Ecotourism and Natural Resource
Protection. Tourism Recreation Research, 17 (1): 21-32.
Figgis, P. (1993). Ecotourism-Special Interest or Major Direction? Habi-
tat Australia, 21 (1): 8-11.
Freeman, D. H. (1987). Logistic Regression.In Applied Categorical Data
Analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 237-274.
Harvey, B. (1991). Media Productions: The Challenge of Communicating
Ecotourism Messages. In Ecotourism and Resource Conservation, a
collection of papers compiled by J. A. Kusler, Ecotourism and Re-
source Conservation Project, pp. 802-15.
Higgins, B. R. (1996). The Global Structure of the Nature Tourism Indus-
try, Ecotourists, Tour Operators, and Local Business. Journal of
Travel Research, 35 (2): 11-18.
Hvenegaard, G. T., and P. Dearden (1998). Ecotourism versus Tourism in a
Thai National Park. Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (3): 700-20.
Ingram, C. D., and P. B. Durst (1989). Nature-Orientated Tour Operators:
Travel to Developing Countries. Journal of Travel Research, 28 (2):
11-15.
Keenan, J. (1989). Ecotourism: Where Capitalism and Conservation Meet.
Mexico Journal, 32: 16-24.
Kretchman, J. A., and P. F. Eagles (1990). An Analysis of the Motives of
Ecotourists in Comparison to the General Canadian Population. Soci-
ety and Leisure, 13 (2): 499-508.
Kutay, K. (1989). The New Ethic in Adventure Travel. Buzzworm: The
Environmental Journal, 1 (summer): 31-36.
Lee, D.N.B., and D. J. Snepenger (1992). An Ecotourism Assessment of
Tortuguero, Costa Rica. Annals of Tourism Research, 19 (2): 367-70.
Luzar, E. J., A. Diagne, C. Gan, and B. R. Henning (1998). Profiling the
Nature-Based Tourist: A Multinomial Logit Approach. Journal of
Travel Research, 37 (1): 48-55.
McKercher, B. (1993). Some Fundamental Truths about Tourism: Under-
standing Tourisms Social and Environmental Impacts. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 1 (1): 6-16.
McNeely, J. A. (1988). Economic and Biological Diversity: Developing and
Using Incentives to Conserve Biological Reserves. Gland, Switzer-
land: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources.
Meric, H. J., and J. Hunt (1998). Ecotourists Motivational and Demo-
graphic Characteristics: A Case of North Carolina Travelers. Journal
of Travel Research, 36 (4): 57-61.
New Zealand Official Yearbook on the Web 1999. Available at
http://www.stats.govt.nz
Ross, S., and G. Wall (1999). Ecotourism: Towards Congruence between
Theory and Practice. Tourism Management, 20 (1): 123-32.
Saleh, F., and J. Karwacki (1996). Revisiting the Ecotourist: The Case of
Grasslands National Park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4 (2):
61-80.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 269
Schouten, H. (1993). Less is MoreThe Bangs Theory. The Evening
Post, July 6, p. 5.
Silverberg, K. E., S. J. Backman, and K. F. Backman (1996). A Preliminary
Investigation into the Psychographics of Nature-Based Travelers to
the Southeastern United States. Journal of Travel Research, 35 (2):
19-28.
Sirakaya, E., V. Sasidharan, and S. Sonmez (1999). Redefining Ecotourism:
The Need for a Supply-Side View. Journal of Travel Research, 38
(2): 168-72.
Social Change Media (1995). A National Ecotourism Education Strategy.
Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Department of Tourism.
Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated Rating Scale Construction. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Stafford, A. (1992). Investment and Ecotourism. In Ecotourism Business
in the Pacific: Promoting a Sustainable Experience, edited by John E.
Hay. Auckland, New Zealand: Environmental Science, University of
Auckland, pp. 161-65.
Valentine, P. S. (1992). Critical Issues in Developing Ecotourism in the Pa-
cific. In Proceedings of the Conference Ecotourism Business in the
Pacific. Auckland, New Zealand, University of Auckland pp. 8-13.
Wight, P. A. (1993). Ecotourism: Ethics or Eco-Sell. Journal of Travel
Research, 31 (3): 3-9.
(1996). North American Ecotourism Markets: Motivations, Prefer-
ences, and Destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 34 (4): 3-10.
Williacy, S., and P. F. Eagles (1990). An Analysis of the Federation of On-
tario Naturalists Canadian Nature Tours Programme. Waterloo,
Canada: Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of
Waterloo.
Williams, P. (1991). Ecotourism Management Challenges. Travel Review
Conference, Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University, pp.
83-87.
World Tourism Organization (1998). Tourism 2020 VisionExecutive
Summary. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Association.
World Travel and Tourism Council and the APEC Tourism Working Group
(1998). The Impact of Travel and Tourism Development in the APEC
Region.
Yamamoto, D., and A. M. Gill (1999). Emerging Trends in Japanese Pack-
age Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 38 (2): 134-43.
Yuan, M. S., and N. A. Christensen (1994). Wildland-Influenced Eco-
nomic Impacts of Non-Resident Travel on Portal Communities: The
Case of Missoula, Montana. Journal of Travel Research, 32 (4):
26-31.
Ziffer, K. (1989). Eurotourism: The Uneasy Alliance. In Conservation In-
ternational, Working Papers in Ecotourism, Washington, DC, pp.
1-36.