UN Tourism | Bringing the world closer

Ecotourism and Protected areas

Biodiversity

  • ECOTOURISM AND PROTECTED AREAS

share this content

  • Share this article on facebook
  • Share this article on twitter
  • Share this article on linkedin

Ecotourism and Protected areas

According to the UN Tourism's definition, ecotourism refers to forms of tourism which have the following characteristics:

  • All nature-based forms of tourism in which the main motivation of the tourists is the observation and appreciation of nature as well as the traditional cultures prevailing in natural areas.
  • It contains educational and interpretation features.
  • It is generally, but not exclusively organised by specialised tour operators for small groups. Service provider partners at the destinations tend to be small, locally owned businesses.
  • It minimises negative impacts upon the natural and socio-cultural environment.
  • Generating economic benefits for host communities, organisations and authorities managing natural areas with conservation purposes;
  • Providing alternative employment and income opportunities for local communities;
  • Increasing awareness towards the conservation of natural and cultural assets, both among locals and tourists.

Source: The British Ecotourism Market, UNWTO 2002

UN Tourism has been involved in the field of ecotourism since the early 1990s and developed a set of guidelines focusing on the strong link between protected area and tourism, with the aim of ensuring that tourism contributes to the purposes of protected areas and does not undermine them.

In the framework of the UN-declared International Year of Ecotourism (IYE) 2002, UN Tourism undertook a wide range of activities, including the organization of regional conferences and the World Ecotourism Summit , and published guidelines and methodologies for ecotourism development and market studies, as well as supported regional and national activities.

At the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Tourism prepared a report on the activities undertaken by States and major international organizations in the framework of the International Year of Ecotourism . Also UN Tourism prepared a series of market reports to increase the knowledge of seven important countries considered “Ecotourism generating markets”.

Eco Tourism

Around the world, ecotourism has been hailed as a panacea: a way to fund conservation and scientific research, protect fragile and pristine ecosystems, benefit rural communities, promote development in poor countries, enhance ecological and cultural sensitivity, instill environmental awareness and social conscience in the travel industry, satisfy and educate the discriminating tourist, and, some claim, build world peace.

Ecotourism is a form of tourism that attempts to minimize its impact upon the environment, is ecologically sound, and avoids the negative impacts of many large-scale tourism developments undertaken in the areas which have not previously been developed.

History of Eco Tourism

The origins of the term ‘ ecotourism ‘ are not entirely clear, one of the first to use it appears to have been Hetzer(1965), who identified four ‘ pillars ‘ or principles of responsible tourism: minimizing environmental impacts, respecting host cultures, maximizing the benefits to local people, and maximizing tourist satisfaction. The first of these was held to be the most distinguishing characteristic of ecological tourism.

Other early references to ecotourism are found in Miller’s (1978) work on national park planning for ecodevelopment in Latin America, and documentation produced by Environment Canada in relation to a set of road-based ‘ecotours’ they developed from the mid-1979s through to the early 1980s.

Ecotourism developed ‘within the womb’ of the environmental movement in the 1970s and 1980s . Growing environmental concern coupled with an emerging dissatisfaction with mass tourism led to increased demand for nature-based experiences of an alternative nature.

At the same time, less developed countries began to realize that nature-based tourism offers a means of earning foreign exchange and providing a less destructive use of resources than alternatives such as logging and agriculture.

By the mid-1980s, a number of such countries had identified ecotourism as a means of achieving both conservation and development goals. The first formal definition of ecotourism is generally credited to Ceballos Lascurain in 1987.

Definitions of Eco Tourism

According to Ceballos-Lascurain, ecotourism is the , ” traveling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestation (both past and present) found in these areas.”

Ecotourism Society defines ecotourism as, ” responsible travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people.”

According to the Ecotourism Association of Australia , ” ecotourism is nature-based tourism that involves education and interpretation of the natural environment and is managed to be ecologically sustainable.”

This definition recognizes that ‘natural environment’ includes cultural components and that ‘ecologically sustainable’ involves an appropriate return to the local community and long-term conservation of the resource.

According to Tickell , ecotourism is “travel to enjoy the world’s amazing diversity of natural life and human culture without causing damage to either”.

Ecotourism is ecologically sustainable tourism that fosters environmental and cultural understanding, appreciation and conservation.

Types of Ecotourism

Fennell considers that ecotourism exits within the broader classification of tourism types which, at an initial level, can be divided into the following types:

  • Mass Tourism
  • Alternative Tourism

Mass tourism we saw as the more traditional form of tourism development where short-term, free-market principles dominate and the maximization of income is paramount. The development of the tourism industry was originally seen as a desirable and relatively ‘clean’ industry for nations and regions to pursue. This was particularly true in terms of benefits in foreign exchange earnings, employment and infrastructural development such as transport networks.

These days we are more prone to vilify or characterize conventional mass tourism as a beast; a monstrosity which has few redeeming qualities for the destination region, their people and their natural resource base.

This is not to deny that ‘ mass tourism ‘ has caused problems, because it has. There has, quite justifiably, been a need to identify an alternative approach to tourism development that lessens the negative consequences of the mass tourism approach.

Thus the ‘ alternative tourism ‘ perspective has become a popular paradigm. This alternative approach has been described as a ‘competing paradigm’ to mass tourism, but it can also be viewed as a complementary approach to tourism. That is, it is not possible to have ‘alternative tourism’ to.

So, the discussion returns to a semantic debate, perhaps it is best to accept that alternative tourism is a natural outcome of the maturing understanding of tourism development and its strengths and weakness. Fennell states that :

Alternative tourism is a generic term that encompasses a whole range of tourism strategies (e.g. appropriate, eco, soft, responsible, people to people, and green tourism) all of which purport to offer a more benign alternative to conventional mass tourism in certain types of destinations.

However, Weaver quite rightly points out that there are also many criticisms of alternative tourism. It is clear that just because alternative tourism has developed as a reaction to the negative consequences of mass tourism it is not necessarily less harmful or better than its alternatives.

Nature of Ecotourism

Tourism activity is expected to grow by 4.3% per annum in real terms between 2008 and 2017. Ecotourism or nature-based tourism has become the fastest growing sector of the tourism industry growing 3 times faster than the industry as a whole.

There can be no doubting of the increasing trends in environmental concern allied with the historically prevalent trend of travel as for, of escape to nature, driven by the pressures of urban living encourage people to seek solitude with nature, therefore, increasing the numbers of visitors to national parks and other protected areas.

There are a number of dimensions to nature-based tourism. All forms of travel to natural areas are not necessarily ecotourism, but this provides a useful step in differentiating nature-based tourism from ecotourism and gives us a number of levels at which to distinguish the relationship between specific tourism activities and nature:

  • Those activities or experiences that are dependent on nature.
  • Those activities or experiences that are enhanced by nature.
  • Those activities or experiences for which the natural setting is incidental.

There are several classes of nature-based tourism, each utilizing a combination of these dimensions. Bird watching, for example, can provide a pleasant and relaxing holiday based around a general interest in nature and the environment. So that without the natural environment it would be difficult to carry out the activity.

Similarly, camping is an activity/experience which often enhanced by nature. Most people would prefer to camp in some type of natural setting rather than on the side of a busy road. Therefore, nature is an integral part of these experiences but not the fundamental motivation for them.

Principles and Guidelines of Ecotourism

Ecotourism attracts people who wish to interact with the environment and, in varying degrees, develop their knowledge, awareness, and appreciation of it. The Ecotourism Society gives the principles and guidelines of ecotourism. These are following as:

  •  Prepare travelers to minimize their negative impact while visiting sensitive environments and cultures before departure.
  • Prepare traveler for each encounter with local cultures and with native animals and plants.
  • Minimize visitors impacts on the on the environment by offering literature, briefing, leading by example, and taking corrective actions.
  • Minimize traveler impact on cultures by offering literature, briefings, leading by example, and taking corrective actions.
  • Use adequate leadership, and maintain small enough groups to ensure minimum group impact on destination. Avoid areas that are under-managed and over-visited.
  • Ensure managers, staff and contract employees know and participate in all aspects of company policy to prevent impacts on the environment and local cultures.
  • Give managers, staff and contact employees access to programmes that will upgrade their ability to communicate with and manage clients in sensitive natural and cultural settings.
  • Be a contributor to the conservation of the region being visited.
  • Provide competitive, local employment in all aspect of business operation.
  • Offer site-sensitive accommodations that are not wasteful of local resources or destructive to the environment, which provide ample opportunity for learning about the environment and sensitive interchange with local communities.
  • Focuses on personally experiencing natural areas in ways that led to greater understanding and appreciation.

Characteristics of Eco-Tourism

Ecotourism is travel to fragile, pristine, and usually protected areas that strives to be low impact and (often) small scale. It helps educate the traveler, provides funds for conservation, directly benefits the economic development and political empowerment of local communities, and fosters respect for different cultures and for human rights.

Some important characteristics of ecotourism are following as:

1) Involves travel to the natural destination . These destinations are often remote areas, whether inhabited or uninhabited, and are usually under some kind of environmental protection at the national, international, communal, or private travel.

2) Minimize impact . Tourism causes damage. Ecotourism strives to minimize the adverse effects of hotels, trails, and other infrastructure by using either recycled or plentifully available local building material, renewable sources of energy, recycling and safe disposal of waste and garbage, and environmentally and culturally sensitive architectural design.

3) Builds environmental awareness . Ecotourism means education, for both tourist and residents of nearby communities. Well before the tour begins, tour operators should supply travelers with reading material about the country, environment, and local people, as well as a code of conduct for both the traveler and the industry itself. Ecotourism projects should also help educate members of surrounding communities, schoolchildren, and the broader public in the host country.

4) Provides direct financial benefits for conservation . Ecotourism helps raise funds for environmental protection, research, and education through a variety of mechanisms, including park entrance fees; tour company, hotel, airline, and airport taxes. And voluntary contributions.

5) Provides financial benefits and empowerment for local people . Ecotourism holds that national parks and other conservation areas will survive only if, there are happy people around the perimeters. The local community must be involved with and receive income and other tangible benefits (potable water, roads, health clinics, etc.) from the conservation area and its tourist facilities.

6) Respects local culture . Ecotourism is not only “greener” but also less culturally intrusive and exploitative than conventional tourism. Whereas prostitution, black markets, and drug often are byproducts of mass tourism, ecotourism strives to be culturally respectful and the human population of a host country.

7) Supports human rights and democratic movements . The United Nations-sponsored World Tourism Organization proclaims that tourism contributes to “international understanding, peace, prosperity, and universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.

Such sentiments, however, are little reflected in conventional mass tourism. In this way, ecotourism supports humans rights and, to establish international peace.

Functions of Ecotourism

Eco-tourism is nature-based, environmentally educated and sustainably managed. Ross and Wall (1999) outline the five fundamental functions of ecotourism namely:

1. Protection of natural areas 2. Education 3. Generation of money 4. Quality tourism 5. Local participation

Economic Effects of Ecotourism

The job generated by ecotourism provide an important reason for interest in and support for, the phenomenon. These jobs often occur in areas relatively untouched by traditional development efforts and represent tangible economic benefits from natural areas.

Several studies have assessed the local employment benefits of ecotourism; not surprisingly, the level of benefits varies widely as a result of differences in the quality of attraction, access and other factors.

Some important economic effects of ecotourism are following as:

Fiscal Impacts (taxes, fees, expenditures)

Ecotourism not only generates government revenue through business and other general taxes but also through industry-specific channels, such as payment of occupancy and departure taxes.

Reduced access to the resource

Tourism utilizes various resources as inputs into the products and services provided to visitors. In the case of ecotourism, one of these products is nature in a partially or totally preserved state.

Preservation of natural areas often involves reduced local access to resources, such as wood or medicinal plants. In so far as tourism is a partial or sole rationale for preserving an area, it also causes reduced access to resources.

Many destinations have experienced increased price for goods, services, and land due to tourism development, and this is a cost borne by residents of the area who purchase these items.

Effects of the income distribution

In some cases, tourism development exacerbates existing income inequalities within destination communities, while in others it generates new financial elites.

Revenue sharing

At some ecotourism destinations, residents benefit from revenue-sharing programmes that either provide cash payments or, more commonly, funding for community projects such as well or schools.

Environmental Effects of Ecotourism

The impacts of ecotourism depend on what ecotourism is. The critical issue is that ecotourism should involve deliberates steps to minimize impacts, through the choice of activities, equipment, location and timing, group size, education and training, and operational environmental management.

There is now quite an extensive literature on impacts such as trampling, which is easy to quantify experimentally. However, very little is known about impacts such as noise disturbance, soil and water-borne pathogens, and interference with plant and animal population dynamics and genetics, which are likely to have far greater ecological significance.

Some important environmental effects of ecotourism are following as:

  • Crushing or clearance of vegetation.
  • Soil modification.
  • Introduction of weeds and pathogens.
  • Water pollution from human waste.
  • Air pollution from generator exhausts, noise from machinery, vehicles, and voices.
  • Visual impacts.
  • Disturbance to wildlife through all of the above, and through food scraps and litter, etc.

A new group of tourism clients has emerged who are demanding different activities, experiences and approaches to tourism from the industry: ‘ these are the ecotourists – people who require environmentally compatible recreational opportunities, where nature rather than humanity predominates ‘.

They are shrugging off the shackles of traditional tourism in search of knowledge and experience. Their interest is not in lounging by hotels pools or hectic sightseeing schedules. They are interested in visiting wilderness, national parks, and tropical forests, and in viewing birds, mammals, trees and wildflowers.

They want to experience new lifestyles and meet people with similar interests to themselves and they want to see their traveling dollars contributing toward conservation and benefiting the local economy.

Ecotourists can be generally characterized as having higher than average incomes, largely holding tertiary qualifications and there tend to be more female ecotourists than men.

According to the International Ecotourism Society, ecotourists are experienced travelers who are more likely to have a college/university degree and have a higher income bracket .

Ecotourists are expecting discovery and enlightenment from their ecotourism experience. Personal growth in emotional, spiritual, as well as intellectual terms, appear to be expected outcomes from ecotourism travel for the majority of these travelers.

Ecotourism Organizations

Ecotourism organizations are the administrative or functional structures that are concerned with ecotourism. Ecotourism organizations help into to minimize the negative impacts and maximize the positive impacts of ecotourism. These organizations can be sorted into three categories:

  • Membership non-government organizations (NGOs)
  • Public sector or governmental agencies
  • Non-membership organizations (NGOs)

Ecotourism organizations, found throughout the world, play important roles ranging from grass-roots advocacy to international policymaking.

International Organizations

In the international arena, many different organizations address ecotourism related issues.   World Tourism Organization (WTO) plays an important role in the development of ecotourism. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is another international governmental organization that deals with ecotourism, through its international development assistance programme.

WTO and UNDP are just two examples of how international governmental ecotourism related organizations can play a role in making ecotourism a tool for sustainable development. At the international level NGOs also play a role.

Tourism Concern, a UK based NGO dedicated to ensuring tourism is just and sustainable form of business has worked for many years to make tourism more sustainable.

The US-based TES is dedicated solely to ensuring that ecotourism is a viable tool for biodiversity conservation and community development.

National Organizations

Government plays an important role in the national arena. Government related ecotourism organization active at this level generally come from areas: parks management agencies, universities, tourism ministries, and environment or natural resource ministries.

For example, in Kenya, much of the government related ecotourism activities at the national level is performed by the Kenya Wildlife Services (KYS), a quasi-governmental organization whose mandate is the management of wildlife in the country.

Every country has their national organizations for conservation and preservation of natural resources and ecotourism.

Sub-national Organizations

Below the national level is found regional, state and local areas for action. Ecotourism organizations play a role at each of these levels.  Queensland Tourism and Tourism Saskatchewan are two examples of state-level public sector ecotourism organizations.

In Australia, Queensland Tourism’s environment division publishes a quarterly newsletter titled EcoTrends informing industry, NGOs, universities and the public sector about ecotourism- related events, accreditation recipients, department research and policy.

Tourism Beast

Nature Based Tourism

Nature Based Tourism: The experience involves and revolves around the area’s natural products and will include either or all of these animals, plants and human cultural variety. Certain principles that have to be included and made a part of the plan are: Geographic and Historical Education; Resource Use with Sustainability; Zero Environmental  Degradation; Adding to the Region’s Sustainable Development; Respectful of Local Societal and Cultural Norms; and Merging it with health business and tourism. 

Nature Based Tourism

The importance of nature based tourism for a destination can be multiple. Nature has a high stake in attracting tourists to a place. Tourism is not a single industry but is a multi dimensional. Often the studies have focuses don considering nature tourism with tourism activities done in nature areas, where the players are visitors and their experiences in a nature based environment or of nature itself. 

https://www.amazon.in/tryab?tag=mysolovoyages-21

Often nature based tourism is confused with ecotourism or green tourism which is incorrect. Ecotourism is a higher version where travel is to fragile, protected and virgin areas where tourists are engaged in a way that they have minimal effect on natural-social and cultural fabric of the place. Thus Nature based tourism is a universal set where ecotourism is  a sub set. Ecotourism also takes note of the attitude of the visitor, visitor’s knowledge and defines how ecotourism should proceed nature based tourism is free from all these shackles. Nature is an inseparable part of elements of tourism and is one of the expectations of the visitor for any destination. 

Who is a nature based tourists and who is not is not an easy task to define as a tourist may be attracted because of nature at  a place but whether he/she will practice and indulge in nature based activities is questionable. Because of improper definitions even getting the size of the segment and collecting statistics, doing research is  a challenge faced by many.  One way such tourists can be recognized are the activities that the tourists undertake and the amount of involvement they do with the nature and the overnight stay aspect that can solve the definitional issue. But in such a scenario often outdoor recreationalists also comes in the segment of nature based tourists. 

Often the service providers for nature-based tourism are not properly segregated or classified. Often in economic terms also it is solely the activity that is counted rather than the accommodation, transportation and food services that they take. So we get a part of their economic effect. 

CATEGORIES OF NATURE BASED TOURISM / TOURISTS

Nature based tourism can be classified into many categories depending on the place, kid of activity, motivation or reason, and the type be it sustainable, organized or commercial. It provides ease in quantifying tourism and tourists on nature based basis and helps to produce concrete statistical results. Tourist classification can also produce nature based tourism segmentation.  Few studies recognize six kinds of nature-based tourists:

Committed Nature Tourists – these tourists are few in number who does not only admire nature but takes step to conserve it, they show action. 

Interested Nature Tourists- Such type of tourists shows a concern and interest in nature tourism but lacks a deep commitment towards the nature. 

Casual Nature Tourists – they are combining a vacation with a visit to the nature based areas. 

Nature Tourists- these tourists have certain very fixed cultural inklings. 

Sport or Adventure Tourists- These type of tourists are interested in sports or in involving in adventure in natural areas. 

Hunting And Fishing Tourists- For such type of tourist’s nature is just a ground for their activity and entertainment. 

DEMANDS FOR NATURE BASED TOURISM 

 Nature based tourism in its broadest of meanings is a part of ever-growing tourism industry. The quest of tourist for something new and not experienced before is what is giving rise to such a phenomenon. The understanding of the human role in global degradation an destruction is much clearer than before, thanks to all the researches that have been done and studies undertaken. The consumers too have awaken and so does tourists and have started asking for sustainable substitutes and sustainable products. Alternative tourism, which is a shift from mass tourism or an escape from mass tourism, is a result of this new consumer awakening in the tourism industry. The tourists will now like small scale tourism and will move in smaller groups. The tourist will avoid more crowded and busier tourists centers. The tourists tend to skip mass organized events and trips. They would seek more original, authentic, and more localized experiences and interactions. Nature based tourism in many ways provide a good option to Alternative Tourism Seekers. Such experiences are more readily available in countryside and rural environment and have less of tourism development. Yet sacrificing the amenities and services for tourism is not easy. 

Thus Nature Based Tourism is a global industry with economic and social importance both at local and global regions. Thus nature based tourism talks about the tourists experience and activities in nature while visiting the natural areas. 

CULTURAL ASPECT 

 Nature based tourism does not involve shunning out people. It includes culture as an inseparable part of culture. It respects people’s viewpoint and the interactions with them. Cultural tourism actually can exist with natural tourism and can even support or complement it. Cultures are not only objects but also way of life. Culture “is both traditional and creative and it has both ordinary common meaning (way of life) and unique individual meanings (art and learning)”. Natural tourism is interested with ordinary common meaning i.e., way of life. This has given way to the broadest classification nature based attractions and cultural attractions. These both can be written under one head, which is Recreational Tourism. 

There is a interdependence between cultural and natural tourism. Example can be ice fishing safaris; they are done in nature, have unique natural environment but has cultural element in it.

https://www.amazon.in/tryab?tag=mysolovoyages-21

The three elements are important for tourist attraction — “the environment to observe, activities to participate and experiences to remember”. If environment here is nature then activities and experiences can be cultural too, proving the complementing relationship between the two. Rather a cultural element enhances the nature based tourism experience. 

DEVELOPMENT OF NATURE BASED Tourism PRODUCT

Products can be services too and especially this is true in the case of tourism. There has to be an element of differentiation to position a product, be it service product in the market. It is not about  high quality of a product but one need a good story behind the product too. This story should generate tourist involvement, deep connection and should move the tourists. The 6A’s of products have to be remembered 

  • ATTRACTIONS
  • ACCESSIBILITY transport to and inside the destination
  • ACTIVITIES Tourists is out to do it.
  • AMENITIES these are services including accommodation, food etc.
  • AVAILABLE PACKAGES The bundling of various services. 
  • ANCILLARY SERVICES Routine services not related to tourism. 

These have to be built and a story has to be created behind it. It should be services and much beyond it. Creating stories and enhancing the appeal of the product is a tough balance. Kotler’s model present the five stages and how higher customer value can be attained. 

First is the core benefit, is the service per se which the customer is buying egs snowmobile safari.  Second Stage the core benefits transform into Basic Product egs. Renting of snowmobile and the guide services.

Third is the Expected Product. The features and characteristics that a tourist expects from a product egs a modern snowmobile, polite guide and a fun ride. 

Fourth is the Augmented Product it should create a wow effect and exceed the expectations of the customer. Egs. The story behind the product and additional values. 

Fifth step is the Potential Product all the augmentations and transformations a product may face in the coming times. Noveau ways for product distinguishment and customer satisfaction are searched. 

Product development is an ongoing phenomenon and cannot be done in isolation. Market research and marketing are inseparable part of product development.  Value chain has to be kept in mind which is creation of more customer value. 

Stephen Smith presents a model which relates more closely to the Nature based Tourism. 

Nature Based Tourism

The First element in this is the PHYSICAL PLANT . This is crux of tourism product and in this case may be  a natural site, facilities, weather etc. It is physical which tourists want to witness. 

Second element is SERVICE. The physical part needs some sort of service to establish a link with the tourists. 

HOSPITALITY is the third element it is beyond great service quality but something extra. Hospitality define dthe way the task is being accomplished. Hospitality is comprehensive and less measurable.  FREEDOM OF CHOICE is the fourth element which refers to the choices or the options that customers needs to take for making it satisfactory. There can be surprises also. 

INVOLVEMENT here means complete engagement of the customer. These combinations of five elements in nature based tourism product can yield high quality and satisfying product. 

Product development is not easy the product should meet the needs of the target market deals with request and expectation of the target market and add customer value. 

SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

Nature based tourism product development is incomplete without the issues of sustainability and the stakeholder’s participation.   Stakeholders are any cohort or a person who has a power to affect or get affected by attainment of organizational’s objective.Stakeholder and sustainability are related in the sense that sustainability is the responsible attitude towards stakeholder’s, the environment and the economy. Responsibilities can be of variety like legal, ethical and economic. There can be multiple stakeholders where emphasis has to be on communication, interaction, win-win solution finding processes, equity and equitable representation of stakeholders. 

Sustainability may look like a wastage of time but communicating with stakeholder’s for day to day operations and developments too create a strong base, results in environmental preservation and avoidance of negative attitude from different quarters. Overall it creates benefits. 

Nature and Wildlife  make India stands at the tenth position as a mega biodiversity country in the globe because of large variety of flora and fauna that exists. Its number is fourth in Asia. The Indian soil, land, climatic conditions, rainfall, temperatures and different seasons support the growth of natural areas. Southwest monsoons and also retreating monsoon elongate the rainy season. Approximately twenty two plus percentage of India’s total area is covered by the evergreen forests, which results in two per cent of the global forest cover. India has a variety in terms of vegetation and can be demarcated as Tropical rain Forests, Tropical Deciduous forests, Tropical thorn forests and shrubs, Mountain forests, Mangrove forests and Tropical rain Forests. There are commercial and non commercial trees growing in these regions. This abundance of food and cover helped wildlife to grow like elephants, lemurs, one-horned rhinoceros, deers, wild boars etc. The government is also ensuring steps to conserve this. There are fourteen defined biosphere reserves in the country. Botanical gardens are funded since the year 1992. There are various projects like project tiger, project rhino etc being run time to time. There are well defined national parks eighty nine in number, wildlife sanctuaries forty nine in number and many zoological gardens and wildlife conservations centres set up all over India.  

The Indian Natural Tourism Products have a variety of natural resources such as areas, climate, landscape and natural environment. These attract tourism to India. India’s natural tourism products are in a variety and can be classified as: 

  • COUNTRYSIDE
  • CLIMATE— Temperature, Sunny Days, Snowfall, Rains
  • NATURAL BEAUTY — Mountains, Hills, Deserts, Gorges, Backwaters, Terrains etc. 
  • WATER — Lakes, Rivers, Ponds, Springs, Waterfalls, Sea, Oceans
  • FLORA and FAUNA 
  • BEACHES — Rocky, Sand, White Sand etc.
  • ISLANDS — Lakshadweep, Andaman, Nicobar etc. 
  • SCENIC ATTRACTIONS

Natural resources hold importance for developing tourism in the country. Ecotourism trails have been introduced to conserve resources. Lakes, rivers, sanctuaries and adventure sport points have been demarcated for touristic activities. Attached to this is the five thousand old histories twined with the products to provide a boost to tourism. 

Indian weather variety adds to overall holiday experience. The population from the extreme climate areas of the globe move from one country to another.  Having winter warmth, winter sunshine,  is also nature’s benevolence. India has many upland cool areas which have been developed by the Britishers as “Hill Stations”. The mountains especially the mighty Himalayas, Vindhayas, Satpuras etc. Canyons, Coral reefs, Cliffs, Peaks are all attractions. Waterforms like canyons, geysers, lakes, waterfalls, backwaters of Kerala, Dal lake etc. attract tourists and provide recreational facilities. The forests of North Eastern states alongwith their wildlife attracts all. Trekking, rock climbing, wind surfing, scuba diving, mountaineering, canoeing and kayaking are sports that needs nature and India has abundance of places for its practice. Kerala with its serenity, greenery offers ayurvedic resorts and spas. Rishikesh, Haridwar etc. have become hub for spiritual and holistic retreats combing nature and wellness. Islands are full of flora and fauna. Thus islands are an ideal getaway for adventure, nature and cultural lovers. The topography of Islands is all encompassing and provide exotic flora and fauna as an add-on.

You may Interested in Spiritual Tourism

You might also like.

Read more about the article World Heritage Sites in India

World Heritage Sites in India

Read more about the article Important global organizations in Tourism and Hospitality

Important global organizations in Tourism and Hospitality

Read more about the article Tourism Policy formulation Bodies in India

Tourism Policy formulation Bodies in India

types of nature based tourism

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

A Global Perspective on Trends in Nature-Based Tourism

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Affiliation Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund–US, Washington, DC, United States of America

Current address: United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Affiliation Fauna and Flora International, Cambridge, United Kingdom

  • Andrew Balmford, 
  • James Beresford, 
  • Jonathan Green, 
  • Robin Naidoo, 
  • Matt Walpole, 
  • Andrea Manica

PLOS

  • Published: June 30, 2009
  • https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144
  • Reader Comments

Figure 1

Reports of rapid growth in nature-based tourism and recreation add significant weight to the economic case for biodiversity conservation but seem to contradict widely voiced concerns that people are becoming increasingly isolated from nature. This apparent paradox has been highlighted by a recent study showing that on a per capita basis, visits to natural areas in the United States and Japan have declined over the last two decades. These results have been cited as evidence of “a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation”—but how widespread is this phenomenon? We address this question by looking at temporal trends in visitor numbers at 280 protected areas (PAs) from 20 countries. This more geographically representative dataset shows that while PA visitation (whether measured as total or per capita visit numbers) is indeed declining in the United States and Japan, it is generally increasing elsewhere. Total visit numbers are growing in 15 of the 20 countries for which we could get data, with the median national rate of change unrelated to the national rate of population growth but negatively associated with wealth. Reasons for this reversal of growth in the richest countries are difficult to pin down with existing data, but the pattern is mirrored by trends in international tourist arrivals as a whole and so may not necessarily be caused by disaffection with nature. Irrespective of the explanation, it is clear that despite important downturns in some countries, nature-related tourism is far from declining everywhere, and may still have considerable potential both to generate funds for conservation and to shape people's attitudes to the environment.

Author Summary

Nature-based tourism is frequently described as one of the fastest growing sectors of the world's largest industry, and a very important justification for conservation. However, a recent, high profile report has interpreted declining visit rates to US and Japanese national parks as evidence of a pervasive shift away from nature tourism. Here we use the largest database so far compiled on trends in visits to Protected Areas around the world to resolve this apparent paradox. We find that, while visit rates—measured in two different ways—are indeed declining in some wealthy countries, in roughly three-quarters of the nations where data are available, visits to Protected Areas are increasing. Internationally, rates of growth in the number of visits to such areas show a clear negative association with per capita income, which interestingly is matched by trends in foreign arrivals as a whole. Our results therefore suggest that, despite worrying local downturns, nature-related tourism is far from declining everywhere, and may still have considerable potential to generate funds for conservation and engage people with the environment.

Citation: Balmford A, Beresford J, Green J, Naidoo R, Walpole M, Manica A (2009) A Global Perspective on Trends in Nature-Based Tourism. PLoS Biol 7(6): e1000144. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144

Academic Editor: Walt V. Reid, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, United States of America

Received: February 9, 2009; Accepted: May 20, 2009; Published: June 30, 2009

Copyright: © 2009 Balmford et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was supported by a grant from the Natural Capital Project, through The Nature Conservancy. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: GDP, gross domestic product; PA, protected area; PPP, purchasing power parity

Introduction

Across southern Africa, nature-based tourism reportedly now generates roughly the same revenue as farming, forestry, and fisheries combined [1] . Worldwide, tourism as a whole has been estimated to account for roughly 10% of gross domestic product (GDP) [2] , with wildlife viewing and outdoor recreation (much of it centred on protected areas [PAs]) reportedly making up one of its fastest growing sectors [3] – [5] . Though statistics like these are rarely supported by detailed data, they underpin widespread recognition that nature-based tourism is an important ecosystem service [6] , capable of generating substantial resources for both conservation and local economic development [3] , [7] , [8] . This is particularly significant given that PAs are under increasing pressure to provide economic justification for their existence [9] – [12] .

This positive perspective stands in sharp contrast to growing concerns about an emerging disconnect between people and their natural environments. Increasing urbanisation and the rise of sedentary, indoor pastimes (such as television, the Internet, and video games) have been linked to a reduction in informal, outdoor recreation (Pyle's “Extinction of Experience” [13] ), with potentially serious consequences for childhood development, mental and physical wellbeing, and environmental knowledge and concern [14] – [21] . Many see this as a major challenge for biodiversity conservation [13] , [14] , [21] , [22] : if people no longer experience and know their natural environments, how can they be expected to care about them?

These worries have been further fuelled by a recent and widely publicised paper examining trends in 16 measures of outdoor recreation (14 from the United States, plus one each from Japan and Spain [23] ). This analysis showed that, expressed per head of population, visits to natural areas in the United States and Japan (as well as participation in duck-hunting and fishing in the United States, but not hiking, camping, or other hunting) have declined since the late 1980s (though for contrasting US figures, see [24] ). From these per capita trends the authors conclude there has been “…a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation” [23; see also 21,25]. However, the paper produced no evidence of declines outside the United States and Japan (and per capita national park attendance in Spain, the only other country sampled, has not declined), raising the possibility that the reported shift may not be universal.

To date, lack of data has meant no study has looked at trends in nature-based tourism across more than a handful of countries. Here, we use newly compiled information on visitor numbers to 280 PAs in 20 countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Madagascar, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, UK, United States) between 1992 and 2006 to explore the generality of the United States and Japan results and to understand the apparent mismatch with the claim that globally, nature-based tourism is on the rise. Importantly, because we are interested in trends in nature tourism as a whole as well as individual interest in nature, we analyse changes in both total visit numbers and visit numbers corrected for national population size. The latter are a better reflection of per capita interest in a country's PAs [23] , but the former are a more sensible proxy for trends in the overall benefit derived from nature tourism as an ecosystem service.

Our analysis of standardised rates of change in PA visit numbers provides limited support for the previously reported declines in nature-based activities in the United States. Using total visit numbers, only 14 out of 51 US PAs for which we could get data showed significant decreases in visit number (at p <0.05), while 11 exhibited significant increases. Adjusting for changes in national population size, the number of US PAs experiencing significant declines rose to 27 and the number with increasing attendance fell to just 6. Clearly, the decline in per capita visitation to US PAs we could sample is real, but arises largely because absolute attendance has been almost static despite a growing national population. In Japan, the only PA for which we had data showed a nonsignificant decline in visits, whether expressed in terms of total or per capita visit numbers.

More interestingly, these weak declines in two countries are far from globally typical: instead, visitor trends show marked geographical variation. When we pooled standardised rates of change within continents, rather than being negative we found that trends in total visit numbers were not significantly different from zero in North America or Australasia, and were on average positive in Africa, Europe, Asia, and Latin America ( Figure 1A ; F 5,274  = 10.2, p <0.001; in post hoc tests only Australasia and North America had rates of changes not significantly different from zero at p <0.05). There was similar broad-scale variation when we compared trends in per capita visit numbers across continents ( Figure 1B : F 5,274  = 10.4, p <0.001, with significant positive trends again everywhere apart from Australasia and North America).

thumbnail

  • PPT PowerPoint slide
  • PNG larger image
  • TIFF original image

(A) Changes in total visit number; (B) changes in per capita visit number.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144.g001

These patterns of spatial heterogeneity were confirmed when data were analysed by country ( Table S1 ). Total visit numbers to PAs on average grew in 15 out of the 20 countries sampled and fell in four (with Uganda showing no change). Even allowing for population growth, per capita visit numbers rose in 14 countries (with Uganda and Australia added to the list of countries showing falling visitation). The only country we sampled outside the Organisation for Economic and Co-Operation Development (OECD) with consistently falling PA visitation was Indonesia.

National rates of change are closely associated with wealth. In contrast to the United States and Japan, poorer countries typically had increasing numbers of PA visits, with median standardised rates of growth in total visit numbers showing a clear negative relationship with per capita GDP ( Figure 2A ; regression weighted by number of PAs sampled per country: adjusted r 2  = 0.52, n  = 20 countries, F 1,18  = 21.8, p <0.001). This result was not due to correlated variation in population growth, because the negative link with rising wealth held when visit numbers were adjusted for changes in population size ( Figure 2B ; weighted regression of median standardised rates of change in per capita visit numbers against per capita GDP: adjusted r 2  = 0.43, n  = 20, F 1,18  = 15.5, P <0.001). As a further check for any confounding effects of population growth, we compared changes in total visit numbers with national population growth rates, but found no association between the two ( Figure S1 ; weighted regression: adjusted r 2  = 0.07, n  = 20, F 1,18  = 2.6, NS). The tendency for PA visitation to be increasing in poorer countries appears to be independent of population growth.

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144.g002

Our dataset on PA visits has far broader geographical coverage than any others we are aware of, yet yielded no evidence to support the idea of a consistent global decline in nature-based recreation. Instead it appears that falling visitation is mostly restricted to a few well-off countries. When we adjusted visit numbers for population growth to examine individual participation in nature recreation we were able to replicate previously reported declines in per capita visit number in the United States and Japan [23] , but also found that in most other countries population-adjusted visit numbers have been increasing.

These patterns were more marked when we looked at trends in PA visitation as a whole, using total numbers of PA visits. We found these are growing on four out of six continents and in 15 of the 20 countries for which we could get data. These changes in average visit rates are quite well predicted by wealth, but are unrelated to national population growth—confirming the finding from the per capita analysis that it is not the case that visitation is increasing simply where populations are growing rapidly. Instead, it appears that PA visitation is generally growing, but at a progressively lower rate (eventually falling below zero) with rising affluence.

We do not have a ready explanation for this negative link between visit growth and wealth, and believe this will be hard to unravel from correlational analyses alone. It could be related to the emergence of “videophilia” [20] , or to other aspects of growing urbanisation or increasingly sedentary lifestyles [14] – [19] , [21] . These ideas are plausible, but direct evidence for them is sparse. Given that very many potential drivers co-vary with one another and with time, causality may be difficult to establish until more detailed data become available, or an experimental approach is adopted.

One nonexclusive alternative explanation for the patterns of changing PA visitation that we see could be that many formal protected areas in richer countries are becoming increasingly crowded and thus less attractive to nature enthusiasts (J. du Toit, personal correspondence). Overcrowding and the perception of overcrowding have been noted as a concern of visitors to many larger US National Parks for over a decade [26] , [27] . If would-be visitors are instead switching to less publicised sites where visitors are not counted, overall visit rates to natural areas in these countries could be stable or even growing, yet still recorded as declining.

One other explanation for the pattern we see could be that there is a shift in preference away from domestic destinations as nature-focused tourists become wealthier and alternative wildlife attractions in less costly developing countries become more accessible [28] , [29] . Strikingly, the patterns we uncovered for PA visitor trends are echoed by those for international tourism more generally: standardised national rates of change in all foreign arrivals (from [30] ) co-vary positively with median changes in total and per capita PA visit numbers (for total visit numbers, Figure 3A ; regression weighted as in Fig. 2A , r 2  = 0.34, n  = 19 countries excluding Rwanda, for which no arrival information was available: F 1,17  = 10.2, p <0.01; for per capita visit numbers, Figure 3B ; weighted regression: r 2  = 0.25, n  = 19, F 1,17  = 7.0, p <0.05). Changes in foreign arrivals also show a negative relationship with per capita GDP ( Figure S2 ; r 2  = 0.29, n  = 19, F 1,17  = 8.2, p  = 0.01), falling to zero growth in the United States. These results suggest that trends in nature-based recreation might be less driven by attitudes to nature per se and more to do with how rising wealth and the emergence of new destinations influence the dynamics of recreation as a whole [31] , [32] . To resolve this, more data would be needed than we were able to obtain on the nationalities and motivations of visitors to individual PAs.

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144.g003

Regardless of the underlying drivers, our analyses indicate that it is premature to conclude that PA visit data indicate a general and pervasive shift away from nature tourism. This is apparently occurring in a few developed countries, where it is worrying, and where it certainly demands more attention. But in contrast, in most developing countries visits to protected areas are growing at rates that mirror general increases in tourism and travel—in many cases by more than 4%/y ( Figure 2A ). This is especially significant for conservation, given that, unlike other nonconsumptive uses of ecosystems, nature-based tourism produces tangible financial flows that can, if carefully developed, be of direct benefit to local decision-makers [7] – [9] , [33] , [34] .

Tourism can often provide a strong incentive for protection in biodiversity-rich areas [8] , and formal designation of such sites can raise their profile and influence tourism visitation [35] . However, increasing visitor numbers alone is no guarantee that tourism revenues will be reinvested in conservation [36] . Equally, recording visitor numbers does not equate with the much less common practices of monitoring or managing tourism impacts [37] . International nature tourism raises other important worries—about CO 2 emissions, about its vulnerability to changing fashions, about disturbance to wildlife and nearby people, and about how far its revenues filter down to local communities [24] , [34] , [38] – [41] . Nature-based tourism is only likely to be sustainable under certain conditions of effective planning, management, and local participation [7] , [42] – [44] . However, to the extent that these concerns can be addressed, our results argue that far from having a diminishing role, nature-based recreation has the potential in many parts of the world to make a growing contribution to both conservation and sustainable development.

Materials and Methods

Somewhat surprisingly, there is no global database or consistent set of national statistics summarising trends in nature-based tourism. Instead, like previous authors [23] we infer changes in the sector as a whole from visits to PAs. We compiled information on annual visitor numbers to terrestrial PAs (including any listed in [45] ). PA visits are among the most frequent forms of nature-based recreation recorded in the United States [23] , and we suggest they are likely to account for an even greater proportion of nature recreation in other countries, where alternatives are less developed. We collected data from as many sources as possible: the grey and published literature, personal contacts, and especially the World Wide Web. The methods used to record visitors were rarely reported in detail, but varied widely, including dedicated studies, gate receipts, and traffic counts [46] . There are also likely to be biases in some datasets, with corruption, for example, perhaps leading to systematic under- (and in some cases, maybe over-) reporting of visitor numbers [47] . These problems may confound estimation of absolute visitor numbers, but will have less impact on within-PA changes in visitor numbers over time, and so here we used all available information.

In total we were able to collate ≥6 y of data (between 1992 and 2006) for 280 PAs from 20 countries. We then expressed visitation trends at each PA in two ways—using total visit number, as a measure of the overall tourism benefit provided by the PA; and (as in [23] ) using visit number divided by national population size in that year (from [30] ), as a measure of per capita use of the PA. For PAs with large numbers of nondomestic visitors, tracking per capita use by dividing by national population size is imperfect (and data on visitor origins are too patchy for any more sophisticated adjustment by population size). However, data we obtained for 190 PAs (many lacking time series information and so excluded from our core analysis) indicate that, for all except one continent, a mean of >70% of visitors are nationals, so that errors caused through adjusting by national population size are relatively limited. The exception is Africa, where on average only ∼30% visitors are nationals. For this continent, adjustment by national population growth (which is also generally higher than elsewhere) is probably excessive and so negatively biases estimates of trends in per capita visit rates.

For each PA we next performed linear regressions of total visit number and per capita visit number on year, and derived standardised measures of rates of change (ranging from +1 to −1) as (slope/maximum total [or per capita] visit number predicted by the regression during the 15-y range). We explored geographical variation in trends in our two measures of visit numbers by calculating median standardised rates of change across continents, and across countries ( Table S1 ). We compared the latter with per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) (for 2005, from [30] ), using linear regression weighted by the number of PAs sampled in each country. As an additional check to see whether our results for total visit number were confounded by changes in national population size, we performed an equivalent weighted regression of national median change in total visit number versus annual population growth (for 1990–2006, from [30] ). Last, to see whether our findings were specific to nature-related tourism, we also obtained data on trends in all foreign arrivals between 1995 and 2005 (again from [30] ), and compared standardised national rates of change (calculated in the same way as for PA visits) with per capita GDP and with median standardised rates of change in total visit numbers.

Supporting Information

Median national rates of change in total numbers of PA visits in relation to annual population growth (1990–2006); the number of PAs sampled per country is reflected in point size.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144.s001

(0.53 MB EPS)

Standardised annual change in foreign arrivals (1995–2005) in relation to per capita GDP (in 2005), adjusted for PPP; solid line represents the best model, dashed lines represent ±1 standard error (SE).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144.s002

(0.58 MB EPS)

National values of annual rates of change in total and per capita visits to PAs, per capita GDP, number of PAs sampled, and annual rates of change in foreign arrivals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144.s003

(0.05 MB DOC)

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Abishek Behl, Graham Burton, Janet Cochrane, Ian Craigie, Phil Dearden, Dubiure Umaru Farouk, Richard Jenkins, Afan Jones, Chris Kirkby, N. Aldrin D. Mallari, Heather McNiff, Julia Ohl, Maria Otero, Lydia Napitupulu, Joep Stevens, Claudia Townsend, and others for providing visitation data; Emily Adams for retrieving socioeconomic information; and Ralf Buckley, Peter Kareiva, Agi Kiss, and Johan du Toit for commenting on previous versions of this paper.

Author Contributions

The author(s) have made the following declarations about their contributions: Conceived and designed the experiments: AB RN MW AM. Performed the experiments: AB JB JG RN MW AM. Analyzed the data: AB JB JG AM. Wrote the paper: AB RN AM. Obtained grant: AB.

  • 1. Scholes RJ, Biggs R (2004) Ecosystem services in southern Africa: a regional perspective. Pretoria: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.
  • 2. World Travel and Tourism Council (2007) The global travel and tourism summit. London: World Travel and Tourism Council.
  • View Article
  • Google Scholar
  • 4. Mastny L (2001) Treading lightly: new paths for international tourism. Washington: Worldwatch Institute.
  • 5. Davenport L, Brockelman WY, Wright PC, Ruf K, Rubio del Valle FB (2002) Ecotourism tools for parks. In: Terborgh J, van Schaik C, Davenport L, Rao M, editors. Making parks work. Washington (D.C.): Island Press. pp. 279–306.
  • 6. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human wellbeing: biodiversity synthesis. Washington (D.C.): World Resources Institute.
  • 7. Boo E (1990) Ecotourism: the potentials and pitfalls. Washington (D.C.): World Wildlife Fund.
  • 9. Ceballos-Lascurain H (1996) Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas. Gland (Switzerland): International Union for Conservation of Nature.
  • 14. Pyle R (1993) Thunder tree: lessons from a secondhand landscape. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
  • 15. Nabhan GP, Trimble S (1994) The geography of childhood: why children need wild places. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • 17. Kahn PH, Kellert SR, editors. (2002) Children and nature. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press.
  • 18. Barnes S (2007) How to be wild. London: Short Books.
  • 19. Louv R (2005) Last child in the woods. Chapel Hill (North Carolina): Algonquin.
  • 28. Ceballos-Lascurain H (1993) Ecotourism: a guide for planners and managers. Lindberg K, Hawkins DE, editors. North Bennington (Vermont): The Ecotourism Society. pp. 1–3.
  • 29. Prosser R (1994) Societal change and the growth in alternative tourism. In: Cater E, Lowman G, editors. Ecotourism, a sustainable option? Chichester (U.K.): John Wiley. pp. 19–37.
  • 30. World Bank (2008) World development indicators 2008. Washington (D.C.): World Bank Publications.
  • 32. World Tourism Organization/Organisation Mondiale du Tourisme (2002) Tourism and poverty alleviation. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
  • 34. Walpole MJ, Thouless CR (2005) Increasing the value of wildlife through non-consumptive use? Deconstructing the myths of ecotourism and community-based tourism in the tropics. In: Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A, editors. People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 122–139.
  • 39. Butynski TM, Kalima J (1998) Gorilla tourism: a critical look. In: Milner-Gulland EJ, Mace R, editors. Conservation of biological resources. Oxford: Blackwell Science. pp. 294–313.
  • 45. World Conservation Union and United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (2007) World database on protected areas, version 2007. Cambridge: United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
  • 47. Cochrane J (2003) Ecotourism, conservation and sustainability: a case study of Bromo Tengger Semeru National Park, Indonesia. [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Hull (U.K.): University of Hull.

Home

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

  • For Cambridge students
  • For our researchers
  • Business and enterprise
  • Colleges and Departments
  • Email and phone search
  • Give to Cambridge
  • Museums and collections
  • Events and open days
  • Fees and finance
  • Postgraduate courses
  • How to apply
  • Fees and funding
  • Postgraduate events
  • International students
  • Continuing education
  • Executive and professional education
  • Courses in education
  • How the University and Colleges work
  • Visiting the University
  • Annual reports
  • Equality and diversity
  • A global university
  • Public engagement

New research shows a global trend in nature-based tourism

  • Research home
  • About research overview
  • Animal research overview
  • Overseeing animal research overview
  • The Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body
  • Animal welfare and ethics
  • Report on the allegations and matters raised in the BUAV report
  • What types of animal do we use? overview
  • Guinea pigs
  • Naked mole-rats
  • Non-human primates (marmosets)
  • Other birds
  • Non-technical summaries
  • Animal Welfare Policy
  • Alternatives to animal use
  • Further information
  • Funding Agency Committee Members
  • Research integrity
  • Horizons magazine
  • Strategic Initiatives & Networks
  • Nobel Prize
  • Interdisciplinary Research Centres
  • Open access
  • Energy sector partnerships
  • Podcasts overview
  • S2 ep1: What is the future?
  • S2 ep2: What did the future look like in the past?
  • S2 ep3: What is the future of wellbeing?
  • S2 ep4 What would a more just future look like?
  • Research impact

Red Canoes at Lake Louise

A new study out today found that many nations throughout the world, including the United Kingdom, are seeing an annual increase in visitors to their conservation areas.

Nature-based tourism is one of the most tangible benefits that people derive from conserving biodiversity. Professor Andrew Balmford

The research, published today in the journal PLoS Biology , found that in 15 of the 20 countries for which information was available there was an increase in the number of visitors to their nature reserves. This has important implications for nations who are reliant on nature-related tourism to generate funds for conservation, as well as for engaging the public about the importance of conserving biodiversity.

Professor Andrew Balmford, Professor of Conservation Science at the University of Cambridge and lead author of the study, said: "Nature-based tourism is one of the most tangible benefits that people derive from conserving biodiversity. Unfortunately it is often remarkably poorly quantified. When a study based on visit rates to American and Japanese nature reserves last year showed these were declining, it prompted widespread concerns that the public was falling out of love with nature. However, this report refutes this contention."

For the study, the researchers compiled and then analysed a database with far broader geographical coverage than previous ones. Their findings show that since the 1990s, while visitor numbers have been falling slightly in the US and Japan, these results are exceptional: in three-quarters of the 20 countries analysed, visitation to nature reserves is increasing - in some countries by as much as 7 or 8 per cent per year. In Africa, Europe, Asia and Latin America the increases were on average positive and the United Kingdom saw an average 3 per cent annual increase.

It is believed that the previous results for the US and Japan arose because the growth in nature-based tourism is linked with wealth, with visit rates increasing fastest in the poorest countries (such as Ghana, Madagascar and India), and growing more slowly in richer ones, eventually falling below zero in the richest nations.

Professor Balmford explains: "We don't yet have the data to understand why this link with wealth arises. It could be because affluence leads to a rise in sedentary alternatives to nature-based pastimes, such as TV or the Internet, but other explanations - such as a shift from increasingly overcrowded reserves to quieter nature areas nearby where visitors are not counted, or even to overseas reserves - are equally plausible."

Professor Balmford concludes: "The trends demonstrated in the paper underscore the point that nature-based tourism generally remains extremely popular and is in most places still growing quickly.

"There are many places where large-scale nature tourism is not feasible, and there are important concerns to be addressed about the potential negative impacts of tourism on local people and on the environment. But despite these caveats, we believe nature-based tourism continues to offer an important route to linking conservation with sustainable development."

types of nature based tourism

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence . If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Read this next

Mackerel with potato salad

Fish fed to farmed salmon should be part of our diet, too, study suggests

Left to right: Manish Chhowalla, Nic Lane, Erwin Reisner

Three Cambridge researchers awarded Royal Academy of Engineering Chair in Emerging Technologies

Seaweeds showing structural colour

Shimmering seaweeds and algae antennae: sustainable energy solutions under the sea

Cambridge stall is staffed by one person at Green Careers Fair talking to students

Green jobs not just for STEM Grads

Red Canoes at Lake Louise

Credit: Dicktay2000 from Flickr

Search research

Sign up to receive our weekly research email.

Our selection of the week's biggest Cambridge research news and features sent directly to your inbox. Enter your email address, confirm you're happy to receive our emails and then select 'Subscribe'.

I wish to receive a weekly Cambridge research news summary by email.

The University of Cambridge will use your email address to send you our weekly research news email. We are committed to protecting your personal information and being transparent about what information we hold. Please read our email privacy notice for details.

  • biodiversity
  • conservation
  • Environment
  • sustainability
  • Biodiversity conservation
  • Sustainable Earth
  • Andrew Balmford
  • Andrea Manica
  • Department of Zoology
  • School of the Biological Sciences
  • Clare College

Connect with us

Cambridge University

© 2024 University of Cambridge

  • Contact the University
  • Accessibility statement
  • Freedom of information
  • Privacy policy and cookies
  • Statement on Modern Slavery
  • Terms and conditions
  • University A-Z
  • Undergraduate
  • Postgraduate
  • Cambridge University Press & Assessment
  • Research news
  • About research at Cambridge
  • Spotlight on...

types of nature based tourism

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Int J Environ Res Public Health

Logo of ijerph

Restoration of Visitors through Nature-Based Tourism: A Systematic Review, Conceptual Framework, and Future Research Directions

Mengyuan qiu.

1 College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China; moc.liamg@321188nauygnem

2 College of Business Administration, Jiangsu Vocational Institute of Commerce, Nanjing 211168, China; gro.ude-htiffirg@ijahs

3 Gold Coast Campus, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD 4222, Australia

Associated Data

The original data is provided by all the authors. If there are relevant research needs, the data can be obtained by sending an email to Mengyuan Qiu ( moc.liamg@321188nauygnem ). Please indicate the purpose of the research and the statement of data confidentiality in the email.

Visiting natural environments could restore health and contribute to human sustainability. However, the understanding of potential linkages between restoration of visitors and nature-based tourism remains incomplete, resulting in a lack of orientation for researchers and managers. This study aimed to explore how visitors achieve restoration through nature by analyzing published literature on tourism. Using a systematic review method, this study examined destination types, participant traits, theoretical foundations, and potential restorative outcomes presented in 34 identified articles. A new framework that synthesizes relevant research and conceptualizes the restorative mechanisms of nature-based tourism from a human–nature interaction perspective was developed. Owing to the limitations in the theories, methods, cases, and the COVID-19 pandemic, interdisciplinary methods and multisensory theories are needed in the future to shed further light on the restoration of visitors through nature-based tourism. The findings provide a theoretical perspective on the consideration of nature-based tourism as a public-wellness product worldwide, and the study provides recommendations for future research in a COVID-19 or post-COVID-19 society.

1. Introduction

Urbanization, resource exploitation, and lifestyle changes have reduced people’s opportunities for preserving and improving their quality of life [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Furthermore, there exists a wide consensus that the outbreak and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic not only affects physical health but also mental health and well-being. It is most likely that society will face an increase in health challenges, behavioral disturbances, and substance use disorders as extreme stressors exacerbate or induce psychiatric problems [ 4 ]. While the pandemic will end eventually due to medical developments, its ill effects on the health and well-being of the general population will remain for a long time [ 5 ]. A growing number of people are craving for an opportunity to get close to nature to heal their bodies and minds when facing such a global crisis [ 6 ].

The need for restoration through nature has a long history, originating from ancient Chinese healers and Greek philosophers, and the belief that humans can improve their body and mind in natural environments repeatedly appears throughout recorded human history [ 7 ]. The process of renewing or recovering physical, psychological, and social capabilities that have become depleted in meeting ordinary adaptational demands is described as the concept of “restoration” [ 8 ]. Nature-based tourism, which primarily involves the direct enjoyment of undisturbed natural environments, is an important way for people to recover from stress and mental fatigue [ 9 ]. According to the visual characteristics of the restorative environment (e.g., natural color, spatial structural, vegetation coverage, etc.), Bell proposed the “place palette” and believed that spaces with different colors are varied in their restorative effects [ 10 ]. Green spaces and blue spaces are the most common natural destinations that may help recover health and well-being [ 2 , 10 ]. Such spaces range from gardens and parks to woodlands and forests as well as oceans, coasts, and inland water bodies, and they also include environments with various natural elements. Travel and tourism make up the largest service industry in the world, while nature-based tourism serves as a primary part of this industry [ 11 ]. In 2019, over eight billion people visited nature reserves around the world for relaxation or recovery, generating an estimated revenue of $600 billion [ 12 ].

However, while the term “restoration” is occasionally used within tourism theory, it has not been clearly defined, related to nature, and theorized or tested until recently [ 13 , 14 ]. Apart from the number of published empirical studies on the restorative experiences of visitors through nature, no structured overview of research findings on the relationship between visitors and nature-based tourism exists. A general understanding of how visitors achieve restoration through nature-based tourism is not only essential to maintain and improve the well-being of visitors in our rapidly urbanizing world but also provides a more balanced view of the conservation and utilization of nature [ 15 ].

With this background, the purpose of this study was to propose a conceptual framework to describe the relationship between restoration of visitors and nature-based tourism through a systematic review. A conceptual framework is defined as a network of linked concepts. It has significant advantages on its capacity for modification and its emphasis on understanding instead of prediction [ 16 ]. Before the review, the methodology of creating a comprehensive list of articles pertaining to the associations between restoration of visitors and nature-based tourism is provided. In the review, the results of identifying, selecting, appraising, and synthesizing the evidence for restoration of visitors through nature-based tourism are presented. Subsequently, a conceptual framework of how visitors achieve restoration through nature-based tourism is discussed. To support the conceptual framework, empirical findings relevant to environmental triggers, experience of visitors, and restorative outcomes are analyzed. Finally, directions for future research are discussed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. systematic literature review.

This study performed a systematic review of relevant literature that specifically examined the restorative mechanism of visitors in natural environments. Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) differ from other forms of reviews, such as traditional literature reviews and commentaries [ 17 ]. A protocol of an SLR is identified a priori and details the study inclusion criteria, establishes a series of review questions, identifies relevant studies, appraises their quality, and summarizes the evidence to provide an overall understanding of the research on a certain topic [ 18 ]. The SLR is a suitable method for this study because it synthesizes findings from recent literature while reducing the effect of the reviewers’ own biases, thus identifying research gaps and providing suggestions and directions for further research. Hartig et al. agreed that an SLR is an improved method for the identification of academic evidence and that it is suitable for application in tourism [ 8 ]. In this study, we established a three-step system for identifying, selecting, and critically evaluating relevant literature to address the research questions.

2.2. Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

The first step of the three-step process involved a comprehensive literature search. We restricted our search to primary research articles in peer-reviewed scientific literature and focused on identifying articles relevant to this review through standardized search methods, including electronic database searches and opportunistic searches through relevant reference lists [ 19 ]. Our review considered articles published between 1 January 1989 and 1 October 2021. The year 1989 is important because seminal investigations on restoration were published [ 20 ]. The ISI Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus were used as scientific search engines to find appropriate literature. WoS is the most commonly used search engine for literature reviews; however, it does not contain a sufficient number of tourism journals. Scopus was thus used as a complementary database because its coverage of tourism journals is more comprehensive [ 21 ]. The search terms were entered using the categories “title, abstract, and keywords” for Scopus and “topic” for WoS. The search profile was based on several primary search terms, which can be divided into two groups: one group referred to the natural environment and the second group to the restorative experience of nature ( Table 1 ). The terms were chosen based on literature review on restoration through nature [ 8 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. In WoS, we used the category of “hospitality, tourism, leisure, and sports” to refine the search for articles. In Scopus, we used the titles of journals to find articles published in the field of tourism.

Search terms.

2.3. Study Eligibility Criteria

Second, articles were screened and those articles with titles or abstracts that did not match the main research objectives of our study were excluded. Articles on restoration through nature were included based on the following criteria [ 22 , 25 ]:

  • The article was an original research article or literature review.
  • The article reported data on any measure of restorative experience. The restoration could include psychological health, cognitive rejuvenation, social well-being, or spiritual improvement.
  • The article presented evidence suggesting that visitors are directly exposed to the natural environment. The natural environment was used in a broad sense to include any environment that appeared to be green and blue. “Direct exposure” indicated physical presence within the environment and the use of the environment as a setting for tourism activity. Both observational and experimental studies were included. However, experiences based on virtual environments comprising pictures, slides, or videos were not included as participants were not directly exposed to the real natural environment [ 25 ].
  • The article belonged to the field of tourism, hospitality, or leisure, but not sports.

Excluded from the review were studies that focused on the benefits of everyday athletics/exercise performance in natural environments and resilience to natural hazards (e.g., earthquake, debris flow, water, and soil loss) rather than on humans. To reduce assessment bias, the review of relevant literature was shared equally by the two authors. The primary author performed a final check of the selected journal articles to ensure equality in evaluation.

2.4. Narrative Analysis of the Selected Articles

Finally, owing to the heterogeneity of the literature selected (in terms of approach, key concepts, designs, and methods), a form of narrative analysis was applied [ 26 ]. Narrative analysis, which adopts a textual approach to synthesis, is a widely recognized and validated approach, and it is used when considerable differences in terms of design, methods, outcomes, and analysis exist. Basic information was extracted from all articles that met the review criteria, and the information was input into a standardized spreadsheet, including author names, year of publication, country, study design, study population, sample size, assessment of the environment, types of restorative outcomes measured, confounding factors, and other relevant information, such as information on potential biases. Two authors independently worked on data extraction and evaluation of the quality of the studies. An agreement was reached via consensus and the evidence was classified.

3.1. Overview and General Patterns

During the initial search process, 92 studies were identified, 65 using WoS, 17 using Scopus, and 10 using the snowballing system ( Figure 1 ). These studies reflected the widespread discussion on the restorative effects of nature on visitors. Based on screening of the titles and abstracts, 40 journal articles were selected. Most of the articles that were excluded did not meet the inclusion criteria or were not based on primary research. Full-text screening based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria identified a final list of 34 articles that were relevant for this review.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-18-02299-g001.jpg

Flow chart of the screening process. WoS, Web of Science.

Figure 2 shows that since 2009, an increasing number of publications have examined the restorative potential of nature in diverse types of nature-based tourism destinations. This indicates a paradigm shift in terms of restoration research by integrating environment, health, and tourism perspectives [ 27 ]. Figure 3 shows that research is dominated by findings from Western developed nations, while Africa and Latin America are poorly represented. The selected articles cover 21 study areas of developed countries or areas, such as the US, UK, Germany, Finland, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. An interesting phenomenon is the increasing number of articles from emerging countries and areas such as mainland China. The progress of research on restoration of visitors through nature-based tourism has been remarkable in these emerging countries in the last decade.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-18-02299-g002.jpg

Number of published journal articles meeting inclusion criteria (2008–2020). Note: Year 2020 was included in this figure and in all analyses, even though not all papers from this year are likely to have been published at the time of the review.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-18-02299-g003.jpg

Regional distribution of case studies of this review. Note: Regions are defined by the number of cases identified in them.

3.2. Groups of Publications According to Main Content

According to the narrative analysis, all the articles that met the review criteria were characteristically suitable in terms of design, methods, theoretical background, and outcomes. Based on the focus of the respective articles, they were grouped into the following four “content groups”:

  • (a) Articles that analyzed the direct and indirect restorative effects of nature-based tourism (articles 1–19).
  • (b) Articles that considered restoration as an important motivation for nature-based tourism destinations (articles 20–28).
  • (c) Articles that had a conceptual focus and considered scale development (articles 29–32).
  • (d) Articles that were literature reviews that specifically focused on restoration in the tourism field (articles 33 and 34).

Table 2 illustrates the structural details of these subgroups with frequencies of studies by country, methods used, and year of publication. Additionally, the theories, target groups, and natural destinations are summarized by screening the basic contents of these studies. Most of the studies focused on the direct and indirect restorative effects of nature-based tourism. Within this group, the number of published studies sharply increased over the last few years. Most of the articles presented studies conducted in Europe and the US, followed by studies from China and Australia. Quantitative statistics with questionnaire-based surveys were the most common method used (58%). Three studies (16%) used a qualitative approach based on semi-structured interviews and coding analysis. Only two studies (11%) adopted physiological experiments to measure the restorative outcomes of visitors participating in nature-based tourism.

Characteristics of tourism studies on restoration from nature.

The second group of papers dealing with restorative motivations mainly concerned undifferentiated “total” visitors (74%). Only one study directly addressed patients. Most of the studies conducted in China used a questionnaire-based survey as the main method (56%). Studies that combined qualitative and quantitative analyses contributed 22% of the total. The number of published studies decreased gradually with time.

The third group, which discussed methodology development, concerned effective measurement of restorative outcomes. Research in this field has been increasing in the last decade. Most of the studies were conducted in the US and China. Principal component analysis (PCA) and structural equation model (SEM) were the main methods applied in these studies.

The fourth group consisted of literature reviews that specifically focused on restoration of visitors through nature. The papers in this group exhibited disciplinary variations encompassing ecology, epidemiology, psychology, anthropology, public health, and urban/landscape design. Quality analysis was the main method applied in these review articles and some of them used the SLR.

Apart from the two review articles, 32 papers were case studies. The studies mainly focused on visitors to green or blue spaces in urban cities or rural areas, including forests, hot springs, mountains, and coastal areas and beaches ( Table 2 ). Only five papers referred to both local residents and visitors from outside. Three major theories were applied to explain restoration of visitors through nature-based tourism; namely, attention restoration theory (ART) [ 28 , 29 ], stress recovery theory (SRT) [ 30 , 31 ], and the biophilia hypothesis [ 32 ]. These theories are multidisciplinary in nature and the details are provided in the next section.

4. Discussion

4.1. restorative triggers: nature-based destinations and visitors.

Restoration is the result of human–nature interaction. As critical triggers, visitors are the subjects in the restorative process, while nature-based destinations provide available resources. A geographical bias toward developed countries in high latitudes was observed in natural destinations, particularly in North America and Europe ( Figure 3 ), probably because only papers in English were included. It is evident from our review that the focus of most of the studies was on visitors from the developed world or restoration through nature in developed countries. However, it is evident from Table 2 and Figure 3 that a significant amount of research also focuses on natural destinations in emerging countries, especially China. As Lehto stated, the specifics of Chinese visitors’ experiences of restoration through nature-based tourism has received growing attention from both academics and practitioners in the last decades [ 33 ], as the rapid pace of economic development and globalization has resulted in excessively intense and sub-health conditions. Nature-based tourism has increasingly become a part of the good life for the Chinese for their sustainable development [ 34 ].

Most of the studies analyzed refer to undifferentiated “total” visitor groups of nature-based tourism, including local recreationists and outside vacationers. They were often affluent or medium-income earners from developed countries or emerging countries, highlighting a positive relationship between affluence and interest in health and wellness [ 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. This is unsurprising given the current perceptions of natural areas as a luxury, and it reflects a broader trend identified in travel literature wherein older people and subsistence income earners appear less likely to visit natural environments than younger people and medium-/high-level salary earners [ 16 ]. In particular, elderly people from low-income groups struggle to meet the cost of transportation, park entrance fees, and access to recreational facilities in distant natural areas. This trend has been observed in several large cities in France, such as Paris and Marseille [ 40 ]. The characteristics of destinations and visitors support the notion that the use of and access to natural areas is socioeconomically driven and varies according to individual circumstances [ 41 ].

Nine of the selected 34 journal articles showed that visitors are motivated to visit natural environments, to some degree, by the need to restore their health ( Table 3 ). Getting away from daily routines and life stress is the primary distinguishing motivation for visitors seeking restorative experiences [ 42 ]. Health-related motivations are also common among certain types of visitors. Some specific health-related motivations mentioned by various restoration seekers include the improvement of overall health, enhancement of physical attractiveness, rejuvenation of one’s appearance, weight loss, fitness, and curing psoriasis [ 43 , 44 ]. Spa and hot spring destinations were deemed ideal. Apart from physical and psychological restoration, Chan et al. and Dryglas et al. identified enriching one’s travel experience, learning new things about nature, experiencing the beauty of nature, sharing knowledge with others, and enhancing social relationships as spiritual factors that motivate nature-based tourism [ 39 , 45 ].

Motivations of restorative tourism.

These multidimensional motivations reflect increasing notions within modern societies, suggesting that visiting natural destinations meets diverse needs through physical, psychological, and spiritual improvement [ 46 ]. Restoration-related motivations can be explained by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Health-related restoration is a physiological need of visitors, which is a basic prerequisite for higher functioning [ 47 ]. The primary distinguishing motivation of escape and stress reduction seems to fit most clearly at the psychological level. Strengthening social relationships also fulfills the psychological need for love, affection, and friendship. The highest level of need is that for esteem and self-actualization, wherein an individual fulfills the highest potential and obtains spiritual transformation ( Figure 4 ). Exposure to nature could provide a restoration that fulfills the lower needs and also allows the higher needs of esteem and self-actualization to be met.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-18-02299-g004.jpg

Correspondence between the restorative motivations of visitors in natural environments and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

4.2. Restorative Experience and Its Theoretical Explanation

In tourism literature, ART is the seemingly undisputable explanatory framework for the restorative process. It is a psycho-functionalist theory that distinguishes between directed attention and involuntary attention. After extended use, a visitor’s directed attention may become fatigued and lead to negative emotions and useless behaviors. For functionalists, natural environments seem particularly restorative because they provide an opportunity to “get away” from routine life, contain “fascinating” stimuli that effortlessly engage involuntary attention, allow visitors to be in a large enough world where the “extent” of the environment is perceived, and “compatibility” exists between inclinations of visitors and the environmental demands. These four restorative characteristics—“fascination”, “being away”, “extent”, and “compatibility”—have been used to explain the preference for nature-based tourism and to predict the type of destination that motivates visitors [ 48 ]. According to ART, the restorative process is explained well by a general push–pull framework. “Being away” and “compatibility” could be seen as intrinsic factors of visitors to push them to participate in nature-based tourism, while “fascination” and “extent” may serve as extrinsic factors in the destination that pull visitors [ 14 ].

SRT is a psycho-evolutionary theory maintaining that because humans have evolved over a long period in natural environments, exposure to certain natural environments automatically elicits a variety of stress-reducing psychophysiological responses [ 31 ]. While SRT and ART complement one another, they differ in what drives people toward the restorative nature: in SRT, it is physiological stress, whereas in ART, it is mental fatigue. Attention fatigue can be considered an after effect of stress and may be treated as a condition that increases vulnerability to stress [ 49 ]. Biophilia is an evolutionary theory that describes the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to nature. Various empirical studies have suggested that attraction to nature is evidenced across diverse cultures (e.g., [ 50 , 51 ]) and at very young ages (e.g., [ 52 ]). The difference between biophilia, ART, and SRT is that the former theory stresses that an environmental preference is an innate part of who we are, while the latter two theories hypothesize that it is affected by people’s need for restoration [ 53 , 54 , 55 ].

Beyond the idiosyncrasies of each theory, their implications are similar: (1) The properties of nature provide opportunities for visitors to have a restorative experience; (2) Environments perceived as natural tend to be more restorative than those perceived as urban or artificial. In the following sections, we provide a comprehensive review of the empirical research that tested this hypothesis.

4.3. Potential Restorative Outcomes and Measurments

The restorative benefits of nature can be divided into physical health, psychological wellness, psychosocial development, and spiritual upliftment ( Figure 5 ). This suggests that restoration through nature-based tourism should not only be limited to recovery from physical fatigue but also refers to a wider range of health benefits to the emotional state, attitude, and behavior [ 20 , 27 ]. The emphasis on mental restoration indicates that with the increase in the discretionary income of visitors, they have shifted their expectations from material products to more personalized socializing experiences [ 34 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-18-02299-g005.jpg

Restorative outcomes from experiences of nature.

4.3.1. Physical Health and Psychological Wellness

Direct physical health benefits have been reported from physical activity that results from engaging in contact with nature, including healed medical conditions [ 36 , 43 ], contributions to reductions in obesity [ 39 ], enhancement of physical fitness [ 41 , 56 ], and general good health [ 57 , 58 ]. Nevertheless, most studies (a total of 17 articles) in our review focused on the potential restorative outcomes of psychological wellness from nature-based tourism. One of the first studies that examined the relationship between mood and nature compared the experience of visitors visiting an urban park and people recreating indoors, and it was published in Leisure Science [ 59 ]. The study found that the moods of visitors changed slightly but more significantly than that of people indoors, which is consistent with predictions that suggest nature reduces stress. Interestingly, there were few observable differences between sick and healthy visitors with regard to receiving psychological restoration through nature. A substantial body of evidence suggests that visiting natural areas is mentally beneficial to visitors as a whole [ 34 , 56 ]. All 19 articles agreed that natural areas could promote attention recovery and stress relief through high levels of positive emotions, low levels of negative emotions, and a sense of satisfaction with one’s quality of life. For visitors suffering from mood disorders and attention fatigue, immersive natural environments, such as forests with hiking trails, can provide enhanced opportunities for nature connectedness and place attachment and can positively impact the visitors’ mood and feeling of satisfaction [ 37 ].

4.3.2. Spiritual Upliftment

Hall pointed out that people may find restoration each day to survive but seek a deep, prolonged restoration when they can afford to take a nature-based vacation [ 14 ]. Hence, spiritual upliftment is thought to be the key restorative outcome of nature-based tourism. Spiritual restoration is manifested through values, morals, ethics, and actions of a visitor, and it is at the core of his/her well-being. These positive changes are described as a “transformative process” by Wolf [ 16 ], which enables a visitor to increase personal awareness, empathy, and develop new values to become “someone” better than they were. Nature-based tourism embodies relevant properties such as efficacy, power, spirit of place, and existential values that foster transformation, and it can lead to moral development. From witnessing natural wonders, visitors may “become humble before forces greater than them or beyond their control” [ 60 ]. Participants of a thematic guided tour in Australian national parks reported a number of behavioral change benefits, including building strong personal relationships, committing to regular exercise, increasing environmental values and stewardship, developing new knowledge and skills, and making physical activity a habit [ 61 ]. Pomfret also describes such changes as personal spiritual journeys that visitors experience while participating in adventure activities during their packaged mountaineering holidays [ 62 ].

4.3.3. Psychosocial Development

Psychosocial restoration is specifically related to an individual’s development in society and the results of interactions with others [ 63 ]. Attention to psychosocial outcomes in tourism literature was given by Shins et al., who studied visitors to forest parks [ 64 ]. They classified the psychological outcomes according to the categories of “learning and self/other relations”, “social and self-development”, and “enjoying nature”. Home and Hunziker explored the relationships between each range of 11 activities and a set of 15 possible psychosocial outcomes by developing 11 linear regression models to examine relationships between expected outcomes and frequency of participation in an activity in a green space [ 65 ]. The order of psychosocial outcomes that were rated as being most important was similar between this study and that of Shin et al. Dryglas et al. also found that visitors visiting a spa resort in Poland had enhanced opportunities for social contact and could relieve individual isolation [ 39 ]. This review suggests that provision of and access to natural environments may ameliorate or even reverse some of these social challenges and ultimately increase social cohesion.

4.3.4. Measures for Restoration through Nature-Based Tourism

Research on restoration through nature often necessitates measurements of recovery. These include explicit measures, such as interviews and questionnaires, and implicit measures, such as psychological monitoring and cognitive tests. Self-report scales are the most common research tool, while most instruments have been developed by researchers that focus on specific restorative properties of a particular environment. Among the nine self-report scales identified in this review ( Table 4 ), Perceived Restorative Scale (PRS) is the most common approach for measuring the restorativeness perceived in nature conducive to visitors [ 34 ]. The long history and wide application of PRS demonstrate its generalizability and sensitivity. It has been developed into several versions that have different subscales, items, languages, targeted users, and even item wordings. Perceived Destination Restorative Quality (PDRQ) was used to expand the proposed structure of PRS and survey actual visitors on their restoration through vacation destinations [ 66 ]. Although the items of PDRQ used vary from study to study, the four dimensions of PRS (i.e., being away, fascination, extent, and compatibility) are present in each. In the Restoration Scale (RS) used by Han and Huang [ 67 ], restoration is demonstrated across emotional, physiological, and cognitive dimensions and generally manifests in behaviors. RS stresses changes in states and capabilities of self-perceived recovery. Restoration Outcome Scale (ROS) includes three dimensions (relaxation and calmness, attention restoration, and cleaning one’s thoughts) or five dimensions (plus subjective vitality and self-confidence). A previous study compared these scales and found that, if restorativeness perceived in nature is conducive to visitors and its mediating effect requires measurement, PRS best fits this approach. However, for measuring the perceived change in psychophysiological and mental restoration, whether as a mediator or an outcome variable, RS is the better choice [ 67 ].

Characteristics of the self-report scales.

4.4. The Effects of Restorative Outcomes on Human–Nature Nexus

Multiple benefits arising from nature-based tourism indicate that a visit to natural areas involves a better, healthier, and more sustainable future for both the visitors and the environment. Sloan et al. examined the restorative power of nature in tree house hotels and showed that the physiological and psychological benefits from forest recreation and sleeping in treetops have a positive influence on repeat and future visits [ 68 ]. Visitors who took part in nature-based recreational activities more frequently can get more health resources than those who are less involved in nature during their free time. Kim et al. showed that low (e.g., relax and get away from routine) and high order restorations (spiritual benefits) interact with each other to promote the sustainable development of visitors [ 69 ]. For example, the positive emotions induced by nature have the potential to strengthen bonds within families and communities through shared park experiences, which in turn builds social capital [ 70 ]. The emotional effect of mastering challenges experienced in natural areas yields important benefits for the individual in terms of reducing self-destructive and anti-social behaviors [ 57 ] and improving self-esteem and self-confidence, which can also influence spiritual health.

Moreover, Puhakka et al. suggest that the restorative benefits are similar during and after the tourist’s visit to the national park, and it is equal to many popular commercial wellness services, but the range of monetary values is much wider [ 63 ]. Accordingly, health and well-being benefits are increasingly used to justify financial and political support for the natural environment and committing to the preservation of biological diversity and ecosystem services [ 66 ]. Lehto et al. conducted a survey to understand the functions of restorative outcomes of nature-based tourism in the Chinese context. The research confirms that restoration has positive effects on environmental sustainability by promoting pro-environmental behavior among visitors [ 33 ].

4.5. Conceptual Framework of Restoration through Nature

The framework of restoration through nature-based tourism developed in this study shows the human–nature inter-relationships in the context of tourism ( Figure 6 ). Many types of natural destinations provide numerous opportunities for visitors to have contact with nature. In contrast, visitors with different demographic characteristics have variable visitor motivations to push them to visit these natural destinations. When visitors reach natural destinations, the human–nature interaction can induce restorative experiences such as direct attention recovery, physical stress relief, and innate emotional affiliation. These experiences are beneficial for the physical, psychological, spiritual, and psychosocial restoration of the visitors. Therefore, the restorative outcomes arising from nature-based tourism encourage visitors to regard nature as a personal health and well-being resource. Furthermore, these restorative outcomes can raise awareness on committees for the preservation of biological diversity and ecosystem services among the visitors. Thus, nature-based tourism can fulfill the mandate of conserving natural areas while contributing to the area’s sustainability. The conceptual framework echoes the finding of Mannell and Iso-Ahola suggesting that restoration is not passively escaping all perceptions; instead, it activates a more primal and natural mode of perception based on effortless fascination, resulting in recovery and rejuvenation [ 71 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-18-02299-g006.jpg

Framework for the restoration of visitors through nature: from a human–nature interaction perspective.

Most studies to date have only focused on one particular pathway from nature-based tourism to restoration, while few research studies have addressed combinations involving two or more pathways. Our framework synthesizes these studies and conceptualizes the human–nature interaction mechanism to produce restorative outcomes and promote sustainability. In the following sections, we provide a comprehensive review of the empirical research to support this framework.

4.6. Challenges in Conceptual Framework

By synthesizing the concepts presented in the selected articles, the conceptual framework was arrived at, and it sheds light on the restoration of visitors through nature; however, challenges remain. First, the human–nature interaction in the conceptual framework is heavily biased toward affluent earners who visit nature in developed countries. This bias may affect the intensities of different types of restorative outcomes because the distribution of biodiversity is spatially structured and cultural and socioeconomic differences between regions may influence responses to interactions with nature [ 40 ]. Our understanding of the restoration of visitors with different demographic cohorts in various parts of the world is limited because some specific groups are underrepresented. A comparison of restorative outcomes among specific groups is difficult. Thus, research on restoration through nature is still lacking in depth and we should, therefore, aim to determine where results may be translated from one scale to another, as is done in other multidisciplinary studies [ 72 ].

Second, while current theories have made important theoretical contributions, critics have pointed to important limitations in explaining the restorative experience of visitors resulting from nature-based tourism [ 73 ]. These limitations stem from weaknesses and perspectives of each theory discussed in Section 4.3 , suggesting that a more nuanced approach that builds upon existing theories or develops new theories is required [ 74 ]. To summarize:

  • 5. These theories, singularly or in combination, do not conceptualize the full range of restorative experience from nature-based tourism.
  • 6. They do not fully explicate how nature-based tourism, as a unique concept, supports health and well-being.
  • 7. Existing frameworks have largely overlooked the inherently multidimensional, interactive, and multisensorial complexity of the relationship between visitors and nature-based tourism.
  • 8. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, traditional theories have focused too strongly on the visual form of nature-based tourism by, for example, focusing on what natural destinations look like in terms of color and shape [ 75 ].

Therefore, the existing theories lack a clear operationalization process for destination management operators.

Third, in spite of the remarkable growth of using self-report scales to measure restoration, these scales require further examination and testing. The restorative outcomes often lack comparison with physiological and cognitive data from individuals, such as perspiration, skin conductance, muscle tension, blood pressure, heart rate, brain waves, regional cerebral blood flow, and cortisol, adrenaline, epinephrine, and standard concentration tests [ 56 ]. Further empirical research is needed to determine whether the recovery reported by visitors is equivalent to their actual restoration. Another challenge posed by the current framework is that most restorative outcomes do not include a control group of individuals with low fatigue for comparison with fatigued individuals. With this paradigm, it becomes impossible to determine whether superior performance after visiting natural areas in fatigued individuals is diagnostic of recovery or whether it signals an entirely different process unrelated to recovery [ 74 ].

Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a calamitous crisis in the tourism industry worldwide, and it has brought nature-based tourism almost to a standstill [ 76 , 77 ]. The spread of stress and depression from the emergence of new infectious diseases has become a growing social problem. In contrast, according to the framework proposed in this study, the restorative outcomes arising from nature-based tourism have positive effects on the development of visitors as well as the natural area’s sustainability. Post-COVID-19, tourism will be different from that before the crisis, and the hope is in tourism developing with a more nature-based focus [ 78 ]. Therefore, research on the restorative process of nature-based tourism in the novel context of COVID-19 will play a critical role in promoting both human and environmental sustainability. What are the short- and long-term consequences of the COVID-19 crisis on the conceptual framework of the restoration of visitors through nature? Will visitors restore their health and well-being through nature-based tourism? If so, what does this mean for the sustainable development of the environment?

5. Conclusions

A visit to natural areas involves a better, healthier, and sustainable future. Most studies to date have focused only on one pathway for nature-based tourism to restoration of visitors, while few studies have paid attention to a general understanding of the restorative mechanism of nature-based tourism visitors. Partial or superficial phenomena prevent people from knowing the positive effects of nature-based tourism on human-environment sustainability. To fill this gap, this review provides a systematic synthesis and assessment of available literature that examined the potential linkages between restoration of visitors and nature-based tourism. By comparing the research backgrounds, themes, methodologies, and frontiers presented in the identified 34 papers, this study links the theoretical foundations, destination types, participant traits, motivations for restorative experience, and outcomes. A framework that synthesizes relevant research and conceptualizes restoration of visitors through nature is proposed from a human–nature interaction perspective. The findings refute previous arguments that suggest nature-based tourism is infrequent for most people and that it cannot be an effective means of restoration. Our study suggests that nature-based tourism can be regarded as a public-wellness product to improve the health and well-being of visitors. The positive relationships between visitors and nature-based tourism can also raise awareness of visitors on the dependence of human well-being on nature’s well-being [ 79 ]. Therefore, they should protect and utilize natural destinations from a sustainability perspective, and thus promote harmony between humans and nature. The challenges presented by the conceptual framework highlight several important future research directions as follows.

First, several general methodological limitations occurred throughout the reviewed literature. Innovative approaches are needed to understand the role and process of nature in promoting human health and well-being [ 1 ]. Interdisciplinary research that integrates social, health, and natural sciences is required. A greater emphasis on longitudinal and experimental design, by making use of mixed methodologies that include measurements of established perception surveys and physiological indicators such as electromyography (EMG), electroencephalogram (EEG), blood volume, pulse, and heart rate should be used to obtain transferable and objective results. Moreover, researchers should be wary of translating the findings of studies that have been conducted in specific settings and for defined indicators and subjects into generalized statements.

Second, since visual sense is relatively well understood as a pathway through which the benefits of experiencing nature are delivered, we suggest exploring a rich auditory, haptic, and visual interaction with the natural environment in restoration research. Based on our results, we hope to shed light on the role of sensory inputs in the restorative process. Moreover, the synthesis of multisensory stimuli in a natural environment is crucial because the monotony of stimulation can be a source of stress, and multisensory inputs can drive affordances, which is important for well-being [ 73 ]. Rather than focusing on various types of destinations, this approach recognizes that a multisensory interaction with nature underpins the important processes that support restoration of visitors.

Third, future research is needed to deepen the conceptual framework in order to understand the restoration of visitors through nature-based tourism in a COVID-19 or post-COVID-19 society [ 15 ]. COVID-19 is the greatest shock to tourism since 1950, but it presents opportunities for the development of nature-based tourism as well [ 76 ]. It is assumed that travel behavior will change after the COVID-19 pandemic. To counter this, a new conceptual framework of restoration of visitors through nature-based tourism must be developed. We expect that the new model will facilitate well-being-oriented design parameters for future destinations, which will promote the restoration of the public and foster sustainability of the environment.

Acknowledgments

We would like to extend our appreciation to the Library of Nanjing University and Griffith University for help during the data collection stage. We would also appreciate the support of the National Park and Protected Area Research Center of Nanjing Forestry University.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Q., J.S. and N.S.; data curation, J.S. and N.S.; formal analysis, M.Q., J.S. and N.S.; funding acquisition, M.Q.; investigation, M.Q. and N.S.; methodology, M.Q.; project administration, M.Q.; software, M.Q.; supervision, N.S.; validation, N.S.; visualization, M.Q.; writing—original draft, M.Q.; writing—review and editing, M.Q., J.S. and N.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 41901174 and Social Science Researches in Jiangsu Province, grant number 2019SJA0112.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

  • Reference Manager
  • Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, sustainability comes to life. nature-based adventure tourism in norway.

types of nature based tourism

  • Department of Teacher Education and Outdoor Studies, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway

This paper investigates how tourists and guides perform sustainability during adventure tourism trips in natural environments. The paper draws on empirical data from an ethnographic study of five different multi-day trips in Norway, each of which used skiing, hiking, or biking as the mode of travel. In our analysis, we focus on how the different actors understood, operationalized and practiced elements of sustainability in their everyday lives while on the trips. The paper applies a micro-sociological perspective to the nature-based adventure tourism scene where the interplay between tourists, guides, adventure activities and nature is understood as multiple dialectic performances co-produced by the different actors. Goffman's dramaturgical metaphors, and concepts of frames, appearance, and manner saturate recent research on tourism and nature guiding. This paper builds on the “performance turn” as a theoretical point of departure for understanding sustainability in nature-based adventure tourism experiences. In participant observations and post-trip interviews with Norwegian and international tourists and their guides, we found that sustainability performances were not a major aspect of the trips. We did find some performances of mainly “light” sustainability and, among them, elements of ambivalence and ambiguity. Our data indicate that some guides tread a fine line between enhancing and deepening tourists' experiences of nature and sustainability or negatively impacting the perceived enjoyment imperative of the trip. International tourists expressed deeper sustainability overall. We reflect on the relative explanatory strengths of Goffman's “frames” and interaction order, and Persson's “framing,” for understanding the interplay between guide and tourist sustainability performances and conclude with pointers for teasing out the complexities we identify.

Introduction

Tourism is one of the world's fastest growing industries and in recent years. Norway has experienced a marked increase in domestic and international tourism ( Ministry of Trade, 2017 ). Norway's international reputation for being “sustainable” and environmentally conscious ( Ministry of Trade, 2017 ) arguably creates certain expectations of the country as a destination. This paper investigates how tourists and guides perform sustainability during adventure tourism trips in natural environments. This is not a study of sustainable tourism, but of sustainability as expressed – or not – in tourism experience.

Tourism research is often characterized as multi- and inter-disciplinary as well as a fragmented in its scope ( Benckendorff and Zehrer, 2013 ). In this paper, we draw from the literatures of nature-based tourism and adventure tourism. Nature-based tourism is often believed to “influence tourists' environmentally friendly attitudes, knowledge, and ultimately their behavior” ( Ardoin et al., 2015 , p. 838), however, in their review of the research, these authors found that “few studies have empirically documented these outcomes, and those that do are inconsistent in the variables measured and the time frame analyzed” (p. 838). Previous research on nature-based adventure tourism has typically surveyed guides, tourists, or both ( Pereira and Mykletun, 2012 ; Ardoin et al., 2015 ), but few have gone into the field looking for how concepts of sustainability can ‘come to life in various ways’ during a guided nature-based adventure tour.

Guides function as narrators, social organizers and instructors, and are central to transforming an ordinary tourist experience into an extraordinary or spectacular and unique experience ( Hansen and Mossberg, 2017 ). The extent to which, and ways in which, guides influence tourist understandings, knowledge, and behaviors of sustainability has been the focus of some international research ( Powell and Ham, 2008 ; Randall and Rollins, 2009 ; Weiler and Kim, 2011 ; Pereira and Mykletun, 2012 ), without conclusive results, and to date the Norwegian context has not been studied.

Some of the international research has paid attention to tour guides as potential agents of change (see Zillinger et al., 2012 ; Jonasson et al., 2013 ; Rokenes et al., 2015 ; Vold, 2015 ; Weiler and Black, 2015 ; Jonasson and Smith, 2017 ) and there is evidence of a growing research focus on “the relationship between face-to-face interpretation/tour guiding and sustainability” ( Weiler and Black, 2015 , p. 76), at least in wildlife tourism (see Zeppel and Muloin, 2008 ; Ballantyne et al., 2009 ).

Tourists' expectations about what they will experience on a tour arise partly from the information provided by tour companies ( Collado et al., 2009 ; Skinner and Theodossopoulos, 2011 ). If tourist expectations are not met, the companies risk reputational damage and subsequent financial impacts ( Collado et al., 2009 ), so it is in each company's interests to prescribe to at least some extent the activities of their guides. Tour guides, then, “may thus feel relatively powerless to make a difference in contributing to the sustainability of a particular activity, tour, business, community, industry or environment” ( Weiler and Black, 2015 p. 73–74). Our study includes a focus on guides' understandings of sustainability on tour and how those understandings impact their performances of sustainability.

The contemporary Norwegian context provides further impetus for this study. According to the most recent government white paper on tourism, nature is “still the most important reason the tourists choose Norway as a tourist destination” ( Ministry of Trade, 2017 , p. 31). Experience tourism is the fastest growing tourism sector ( Fredman and Haukeland, 2017 ; Ministry of Trade, 2017 ) and tourism businesses that are based on nature-, food- or culture experiences represent the core of the Norwegian tourism product ( Fredman and Tyrväinen, 2010 ; Ministry of Trade, 2017 ). From the government's perspective, it is “authentic” and “meaningful” experiences that should be the basis for tourism value creation, as it is in such experiences that travel motivation and willingness to pay lie. How sustainability can or should be operationalized while tourists are experiencing authenticity and meaningfulness in nature, however, is not discussed ( Ministry of Trade, 2017 ).

A relatively united Norwegian travel industry supported the principles of the white paper with a “roadmap” titled “Toward a sustainable tourism industry.” In it, ‘high yield – low impact” nature-based tourism takes center-stage ( NHO, 2017 , p. 5) with physically active nature and cultural experiences based on the Norwegian tradition of outdoor life (friluftsliv). Friluftsliv – translated as “free-air-life” – is a Scandinavian practice of spending time in nature. Norwegian friluftsliv, in particular, emphasizes traditional modes of travel such as cross-country ski touring, hiking and biking, and “low” technologies, such as camping or staying in simple cabins and cooking on open fires ( Odden, 2008 ). Friluftsliv is considered to be an important part of the (imagined) Norwegian national identity ( Witoszek, 1998 ; Pedersen Gurholt, 2008 ; Gurholt, 2014 ).

The road map stresses that with a stronger global focus on intact nature, climate change and environmental quality, an increasing number of tourists seek destinations offering cleanliness, healthiness, and effective protection of culture and nature. By 2050, when eight out of 10 people worldwide will live in cities, an increasing number of tourists will avoid destinations characterized by hustle and bustle, noise and litter, and instead choose a journey that promotes the environment ( NHO, 2017 , p. 8).

Given the focus on sustainability, broadly interpreted, in both documents, we argue that it is relevant and timely to investigate what is going on in terms of sustainability at the micro-level of tourism experience in Norway. It could be argued that when guides choose to work in nature-based adventure tourism and when tourists choose to purchase a nature-based adventure tour, they are already performing sustainability, however that is not our focus in this paper. Our focus is entirely on what happens once the tour begins through to when it ends. We investigate the experiences of guides and tourists of an industry-leading Norwegian tour-operator for the purpose of discovering how they understand, operationalize and practice elements of sustainability in their everyday lives while on nature-based tours in Norway.

Sustainability

Much of the literature on nature-based adventure tourism, nature-based tourism and ecotourism refers to sustainability without providing an operational definition of it. We consider that contemporary conceptions of sustainability will enhance the reliability of our study and so we adopt Force et al. (2018) distinction between sustainable tourism and tourism sustainability. According to these authors, the former concerns the socioeconomics of tourism, especially at the local level. This is the main focus of the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals for sustainable tourism. Member nations are expected to foster tourism in ways that create jobs, support local culture and new product development as well as in ways that protect environment values such as biodiversity, ecosystem health and more (United Nations (n.d.)). Tourism sustainability, in contrast, concerns “the design of tourism activities in ways that contribute to sustainability transitions globally” (p. 431). Our focus is on tourism sustainability. Sustainability transitions are “personal change[s] in tourists' identities” that lead to such things as active “commitment to environmental and cultural protection … nature-relatedness … [and tourists'] awareness of their relationship to the global collective” (p. 433). Our understanding of the term sustainability is also informed by Salas-Zapata and Ortiz-Muñoz' (2019) clarification of its use by researchers. We adopt the meaning “[s]ustainability as a set of guiding criteria for human action” rather than “sustainability as a goal of humankind” (p. 155), “sustainability as an object,” or “[s]ustainability as an approach of study” (p. 157). Criteria for guiding human action include, but are not limited to, such things as utilizing renewable resources, enhancing human well-being, avoiding ecosystem degradation, and generating social and cultural benefits. In this article, then, sustainability means a set of guiding criteria for personal change in tourists and guides toward deeper nature-relatedness, more active environmental and cultural protection, and stronger positive relationships to the global collective.

Nature-relatedness is defined as a degree of “connectedness to the natural world” and “comprises the cognitive, affective, and physical connection we have with nature” ( Nisbet, 2021 ). Nisbet et al's (2009) nature-relatedness scale considers deep nature-relatedness to be expressed as a lot of time spent in natural spaces, preference for isolation in wilderness, self-identification as part of nature, awareness of environmental issues, and lifestyle changes in response to knowledge of, or feelings toward, nature. A light nature-relatedness is the opposite of these factors. Thus, sustainability might be expressed by nature-based adventure tour guides and tourists in one or more of the ways described on a continuum.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines environmental protection in terms of maintaining or restoring the quality of an environment ( OECD, 2003 ). Environmental protection actions could include cleaning plastic pollution from rivers and lakes, protecting populations of threatened species, or donating money to environmental causes, among many other things. Cultural protection refers to protecting the material resources of cultural groups ( Durie, 2008 ) such as artifacts, structures, monuments, language, intellectual knowledge and “places associated with historical events, beliefs, and traditions” ( Cultural Heritage Act, 1978 , § 2). Deep sustainability performances during nature-based adventure tourism trips might include much active interest in, or active participation in, these types of environmental and cultural protection. Light sustainability might include a few, or incidental, expressions of interest in these things.

Finally, a positive relationship to the global collective refers to attitudes of support for worldwide action on shared international problems such as climate change, large-scale pollution, disease, international aid, terrorism, and biodiversity loss ( Sandler, 2010 ). Guides and tourists on nature-based adventure tourism trips might express strong positive relationships as part of their performances of sustainability. Others might express weak positive, or even negative, relationships as part of their light sustainability performances.

We used the concepts of nature-relatedness, action toward environmental and cultural protection, and positive relationships toward the global collective as guides for understanding the types of sustainability found in our data. In the Methods section, we describe how being “guided” by the concepts differs from being “driven” by them. Next, we define our study in relation to the existing literature on sustainability in nature-based tourism.

Nature-Based Adventure Tourism

Nature-based tourism, as a socio-cultural phenomenon ( Sandell, 2003 ), has been defined in many, sometimes overlapping ways ( Fredman et al., 2009 , 2014 ; Fredman and Tyrväinen, 2010 ), such as adventure tourism, environmental tourism, ecotourism, and ecological tourism. At its most basic, nature-based tourism is related to places and objects that are not human-made, and visits and activities that occur beyond a person's familiar environments ( Fredman et al., 2009 ). Hence, we adopt the widely accepted Scandinavian definition of nature-based tourism: “human activities occurring when visiting in nature areas outside the person's ordinary neighborhood” ( Fredman et al., 2009 , p. 24–25).

Our focus is on nature-based adventure tourism ( Buckley, 2006 , 2010 ; Mihalic, 2006 ; Rokenes et al., 2015 ; Beams et al., 2019 ) to foreground the sustainability aspects of commercialized nature tourist experiences that “often involve[e] perceived risk or controlled danger associated with personal challenges” ( Mihalic, 2006 , p. 114). Adventure tourism and nature-based tourism are closely related with some overlap in practice. However, “whilst nature-based tourism products focus on seeing … adventure tourism products focus on doing” ( Buckley, 2010 , p. 4). Thus, nature-based adventure tourism can be considered tourism products in nature that focus on both seeing and doing. In the Norwegian context, adventure tourism experiences commonly center on hiking and biking journeys in nature, skiing through forest or mountain environments, sea-kayaking, and mountaineering. What counts as “perceived risk,” “controlled danger,” and “personal challenges” is highly individualistic, however, “[f]rom the perspective of the individual tourist, anything which they personally consider adventurous can be counted as adventure tourism” ( Buckley, 2010 , p. 7). For our purposes, we accept the types of physical activities mentioned above, when conducted in guided tours in natural environments, to constitute nature-based adventure tourism.

“What Are We Doing”

Experiences of sustainability in tourism are, arguably, important for several reasons of which the most pertinent to this study is that tourism experiences can have educational effects which can contribute to wider public understandings and motivations toward sustainability ( Ballantyne et al., 2010 ; Force et al., 2018 ; Winter et al., 2020 ). Understanding “what is it that's going on” ( Goffman, 1974 , p. 8) regarding sustainability in nature-based adventure tourism allows researchers, policymakers, tourism operators, guides and tourists to respond in ways that further their respective ambitions of sustainability at national, industry, professional, and personal levels, respectively. We take a Goffmanian approach to investigating if and how different actors – the tourists and the guides – understand, operationalize, practice and embody nature-relatedness, active environmentally friendly behavior, and positive relationships to the global collective. As we next explain, taking an ethnographic approach allowed us to focus directly on “performances” of sustainability, a novel approach to the topic in nature-based adventure tourism.

Theoretical Framework

The “performance turn” ( Edensor, 1998 , 2000 , 2001 ; Haldrup and Larsen, 2010 ; Larsen, 2010 ; Urry and Larsen, 2011 ; Larsen and Meged, 2013 ) in tourism research, however, and despite some criticism ( Saldaña, 2006 ), has re-imagined the guided tour as “created by a relational praxis that builds on and involves bodily and verbal negotiations, fluid power relations and interactions between tourists and guides and between tourists” ( Larsen and Meged, 2013 , p. 100). It can be traced back to new ways of investigating, analyzing and understanding tourism, starting in the late 1990s ( Edensor, 1998 , 2001 ; Larsen, 2010 ; Urry and Larsen, 2011 ; Cohen and Cohen, 2012 ; Jonasson and Scherle, 2012 ; Larsen and Meged, 2013 ). Although performances can be considered to be, in part, pre formed, they are not absolutely fixed. The performance turn emphasizes “creativity, detours and productive practices” ( Larsen and Meged, 2013 , p. 89), and “relates to the theatrical perspective and invokes enactment by performers or actors of a role or scripts, as well as display for an audience. Performances involve pretense” ( Harwood and El-Manstrly, 2012 , p. 15, bold in original). More recent research on guided tours has shown how tourists contribute to the co-creation of guided tours both alongside the guide, as well as in opposing and contradictory ways. Larsen (2010) and Urry and Larsen (2011) claim that the performance turn has “challenged representational and textual readings of tourism … by making “ethnographies” of what humans and institutions do – enact and stage – in order to make tourism and performances happen” ( Larsen, 2010 , p. 323). Consequently, the performance turn represents a move to ethnographic research in tourism. The aim of ethnographic approaches is to “go beyond the abstract models and frameworks of attitude-behavior connection …[and] to explore in greater detail how practices are performed and negotiated in situ ” ( Hargreaves, 2016 , p. 57).

According to Vold (2015) , nature guides choose which aspects of nature to focus on and by doing so they greatly influence how tourists understand and experience nature and tourism. However, nature-based tourism guides might also be constrained in their choices of focus because they are employed by tour companies that have certain obligations to their clientele ( Prakash et al., 2011 ).

In this paper, we investigate tourists' and guides' understandings and experiences of sustainability in nature-based adventure tourism through their performances. This work contributes to a new perspective to understanding sustainability in tourism, and especially in face-to-face relations in “real (tourism) life.” Recent tourism research has drawn on Goffmanian concepts ( Edensor, 1998 , 2000 , 2001 ; Larsen, 2010 ; Urry and Larsen, 2011 ; Jonasson and Scherle, 2012 ; Larsen and Meged, 2013 ; Williams, 2013 ) to understand the face-to-face interactions between tourists and between tourists and guides. The idea that tourists and guides manage the impressions they make on others in social situations emanates from Goffman's (1959) theory of social interaction, in particular the ideas of “frontstage” and “backstage” performances, frames, lines, face, and the interaction order. In all social situations, Goffman (1959) argues, people want to present themselves so that the “audience” perceives them to be as they wish to be perceived. Performances are designed to make a particular impression on the other people present through “patterns of verbal and non-verbal acts” that Goffman (1967 , p. 5) called “lines.” The “frontstage” concerns how people present themselves within the immediate social surroundings and how they are perceived by others in the same immediate environment.

Self-presentation, or “face” may be defined as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” ( Goffman, 1967 , p. 5). The “face” adopted by any one person depends on who the “audience” is and what the situational norms are ( Goffman, 1959 ; Jacobsen and Kristiansen, 2015 ). In the “backstage,” people relax and take off their “face-masks” of social performance ( Goffman, 1959 ; Jacobsen and Kristiansen, 2015 ). From this perspective, guided tours can be viewed as dialectical, as shaped by the interplay of performances by the guides and the guided ( Urry and Larsen, 2011 ).

The interplay of “lines” and performances operates through individual “frames” ( Goffman, 1974 ). Frames are operable within social situations, or “social frameworks” in Goffman's (1974) typology. As Persson (2019 , p. 49) explains, Goffman saw social life as social situations shared by individuals, none of whom have “fully reliable knowledge” about one another and so each individual must interact with others at the same time as seeking information about how best to interact. Individuals therefore need to quickly define the situation they are in and this definition is what Goffman called a “frame.” A frame is an “organization of experience” ( Goffman, 1974 , p. 11) and “a different scheme of interpretation for the meaning of an act” ( Goffman, 1974 , p. 231). This concept of frames “emphasized its simultaneously cognitive, social interactive, and situational aspects” ( Persson, 2019 , p. 49). By asking Goffman's question – “what is it that's going on here?” – it becomes apparent that the answer needs to be “seen in the light of its context” ( Persson, 2019 , p. 49) and so also asks the question of “what [social rule or norm] applies here?” Persson (2019 , p. 65).

Goffman's (1959 , 1967 , 1974 , 1983) research centers on what he termed the “interaction order” and the “expressive order” both of which are essential for understanding social interaction. Our collective understanding of these terms is that they are closely related but distinguished by scale. At a larger scale of social interaction, the interaction order aligns roughly with social norms but with a focus on interpersonal interaction rather than social structures or power. It is the shared understandings individuals have of acceptable behavior in particular settings, allowing them to respond to the questions “what is it OK to do here?” and “what possibilities for behavior does this setting open for me?.” Examples of behaviors in the interaction order include maintaining culturally appropriate personal space, keeping right (or left) on footpaths, sitting and quietly watching a movie in a movie theater, dancing and singing aloud in the arena of a rock concert. In these examples, individuals are in face-to-face contact but not necessarily directly interacting with one another. Our collective understanding of the expressive order, on the other hand, aligns more with manners, or the smaller scale, more detailed level of social interactions. These include the shared understandings of acceptable verbal and non-verbal communication between persons in direct face-to-face situations. The “expressive order” is “an order that regulates the flow of events, large or small, so that anything that appears to be expressed by [a person] will be consistent with his face (sic)” ( Goffman, 1967 , p. 9). As we understand it, the expressive order allows individuals to respond to the questions “how is it OK to respond to the other person/s here?” and “what possibilities for response are open to me here?.” An example of the expressive order related to our research topic would be tourists paying attention when guide is explaining the how to prepare for the day ahead (e.g., by facing the guide, making eye contact if culturally appropriate, acknowledging them by uttering “mm” or nodding one's head).

Finally, and importantly, Goffman theorized that if someone challenges or breaches the interaction order or the expressive order, intentionally or not, a corrective process begins to either re-establish the original order or negotiate a new order from the “cognitive presuppositions” shared with the others in the setting ( Goffman, 1983 , p. 5). The corrective will be one or more “face-saving” practices ( Goffman, 1967 ).

In this paper, we interpret nature-based adventure tourism as a social framework within which guides and tourists understand and respond to the interaction order and the expressive order during their encounters with one another. We approached the empirical study from a theoretical viewpoint that an individual's “cognitive presuppositions” shape their “frame” and inform their performances of sustainability while on nature-based adventure tourism trips. We continue by describing our applied methodology and our research and analytical methods, before reporting our findings.

Methodology

For this study an ethnographic approach was deemed appropriate because it “allows one to gain information on tourist action and the embodied, tacit dimensions of nature-based tourism” ( Rantala, 2011 , p. 151) and “simultaneously allow[s] the observation of social and situated practices and participation in them” ( Rantala, 2011 , p. 153). An ethnographic approach is appropriate when the aim is to capture the micro-sociology, the information “given” and “given off” ( Goffman, 1959 ; Rantala, 2011 ; Persson, 2019 ), the embodied as well as tacit practices, and the multitude of different performances that are enacted in and through social situations in nature-based adventure tourism. Our ethnographic fieldwork paid attention to how people talked, words and phrases they used, how they interacted with each other and with the environments they traveled through, where they gazed, how they embodied the landscape, what the guides emphasized or not. Rather than look for specific pre-determined verbal or non-verbal expressions, our aim was to remain open to whatever practices occurred in the field and then consider them in light of the concepts of sustainability discussed above and in the light of the national and industry sustainability focus.

In order to find out “what is it that's going on here,” we focused on tourist participants, tour guides, and the interactions between them. To do this we drew data from multiple, diverse trips offered by a nation-wide, industry-leading tourism operator. In the absence of an agreed definition of what constitutes “industry leading,” we selected one of the oldest nature-based adventure tour operators in Norway that has one of the most extensive tour catalogs. The selected operator offers trips throughout and beyond Norway and has been involved in sustainability discussions at a national level and in sustainability projects internationally. However, their website and brochures (checked during research design phase fall 2017 and immediately pre-fieldwork summer 2018) show that they do not actively market their trips as having a sustainable focus or credentials. Further, this operator could provide the best opportunities for participant observation, including as an apprentice-guide-researcher.

In this embedded single-case design ( Yin, 2014 , p. 50), guides and tourists make up the different embedded units of analysis and “the circumstances and conditions of an everyday situation” (p. 52) are those that occur on the guided nature-based adventure tours. Our decision to select a single tour company was informed by Flyvbjerg's (2001 , p. 77) conception of “critical cases” for enhancing validity. Critical cases are those that are “either “most likely” or “least likely” … to confirm or irrefutably to falsify propositions and hypotheses” ( Flyvbjerg, 2001 , p. 78). An “extreme” critical case, such as the industry-leading tour operator in this study, enabled us to “achieve the greatest possible amount of information” ( Flyvbjerg, 2001 , p. 77) on our topic, which a representative case or random selection cannot do with as much certainty.

Five different tours make up the ethnographic material. All the tours took place in Norway between summer of 2017 and spring of 2018, and in different geographical locations: one in a mountainous part of central Norway (A); one along the coast of northern Norway (B); and three in the arctic high-mountain plateau of the northernmost part of Norway (C–E). Tour A took place late summer with only international tourists. Tour B took place early autumn, also with international tourists. Tours C, D, and E took place in the winter months with mainly Norwegian and some other Scandinavian tourists (from Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland). The tours varied in duration. Tour A, C, D, and E were 4 days each, while tour B spanned 8 days. In total 24 days were spent in the field. A total of 62 tourists and six guides were part of the study.

The study was approved by and conducted according to, the ethical guidelines of the Norwegian Center for Research Data (NSD) and The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH). All participation in the study was voluntary, on the basis of anonymity, with the option of withdrawing at any time up to acceptance for publication. Participants were informed prior to, and written consent to observe all aspects of the trips, including social chats, and for post-trip interviews was obtained on the 1st day of each trip. Data was gathered through participant observation and interviews, as detailed below.

A general rule of participatory observation is that the researcher participates in the social interactions of the research context while at the same time striving not to influence those interactions significantly ( Fangen, 2010 , p. 80; Zahle, 2012 , p. 54). However, participant observers cannot totally decide their field roles in advance. Roles and the degree of participation are usually in continuous (re)negotiation throughout the fieldwork ( Spradley, 1980 ; Fangen, 2010 ; Wadel, 2014 ). Importantly, Wadel (2014) points out that roles open and close for different possibilities and associated data, and thus recommends that participant observers take on different roles so that they can study the field from a variety of perspectives.

Throughout the five tours in this study, the first author utilized various degrees of participation, involvement and observation to gather data, primarily participant observer and partially participant observer ( Bryman, 2016 , pp. 433–436; see also Spradley, 1980 ; Fangen, 2010 ; Wadel, 2014 ). In addition, on trips C and D, he was an apprentice-guide. This role gave him affordable access to the trip and the benefit of closeness to the guides' perspectives. It also provided “backstage” access to tourists' “backstage” spaces that would have been inappropriate otherwise. One of the guides' responsibilities on these trips was to check on each participant each evening to find out how well they were coping with the physical and other demands of the trip. Often, guides would be invited in to the tourists' accommodation (or invite themselves) and engage in social chat or be questioned about aspects of the trips. In this way, the field researcher gained additional access to tourists' “frames.” While working as an apprentice-guide, the first author aligned his professional frame with the lead-guide's apparent frame and reflected on this alignment in the reflective journal. The first author's opportunity to take on this dual role as both apprentice-guide and researcher gave him valuable first-hand experiences and helped deepen his understanding of the field.

The first author can be considered an insider in the field of nature-based adventure tourism through both his educational and work background. To obtain and maintain analytical distance ( Spradley, 1980 ; Fangen, 2010 ) in the various roles adopted in the field, the researcher kept a reflective journal ( Spradley, 1980 ; Saldaña, 2016 ) and used a field diary and voice recorder for field observations. He wrote the reflective journal throughout the fieldwork phase in order to become aware of any preconceptions and to increase introspectiveness ( Spradley, 1980 ). Detailed observations were recorded throughout each day and were assisted by pre-prepared descriptive questions, such as “how do tourists talk about themselves, nature, and their experiences?” “what do the guides focus on/give emphasis?,” “how do tourists behave while on tour?,” “how do guides behave while on tour?.” These questions were also condensed into laminated, pocket-sized field cards that helped the researcher stay on-task throughout the fieldwork.

Twenty-nine participants and five guides were interviewed by the field researcher between 3 and 12-months post-trip (mid 2018 to mid 2019), using a semi-structured interview guide. The average duration of interviews was 1 h and 15 min, and the interview questions began very broadly (e.g., “tell me about the trip”) and became more focused as the interview progressed. If the interviewees had not mentioned sustainability themselves, the topic was brought up by the interviewer late in the interview. Twelve of the post-trip interviews were done face-to-face, while the majority, for logistical reasons, were conducted by digital videoconference or phone. The limitations of physical distance to qualitative interviewing ( Bryman, 2016 ) were arguably offset by the fact that rapport had already been established between the interviewee and the interviewed, as they had spent many days living closely together while on tour.

Analytical Approach

Interviews were transcribed verbatim using the Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data-Analysis Software (CAQDAS) MAXQDA. We used AI-transcription software with manual checking to transcribe eight interviews. All fieldnotes were transcribed and imported to MAXQDA. MAXQDA was used to code interview transcripts and fieldnotes. The use of CAQDAS has been criticized by some for influencing and enforcing a specific method to the analytical process ( Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2019 ). However, we used CAQDAS as a “method-neutral toolbox” ( Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2019 , p. 9) that aided data organization for analysis ( Ribbs, 2014 ).

The first author performed all interviews, transcribed all interviews and fieldnotes, and coded the transcribed material. All interviews were conducted in English or Norwegian, as the interviewee preferred. All authors are fluent in English; the first and third author are native speakers of Norwegian and the second author has a working knowledge of the language. The first author coded the data in both Norwegian and English and manually translated the excerpts quoted in this paper. To avoid known pitfalls of solo-coding ( Saldaña, 2016 ; Braun and Clarke, 2019 ) and to strengthen coding validity, any coding uncertainties were discussed with the second and third author. The second and third author also read some of the interviews. The coding process started during the process of transcription with “preliminary jottings” ( Saldaña, 2016 , p. 21) and continued with an initially inductive, data driven, coding approach, through which themes were generated. Braun and Clarke (2019 , p. 592) define themes as “stories about particular patterns of shared meaning across the dataset” and “underpinned by a central organizing concept” (p. 589). For this study the “central organizing concept” was that of “sustainability performances.” Once themes were generated, the data corpus ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ) was read iteratively with definitions of sustainability. In this way, Force et al. (2018) distinction between sustainable tourism and tourism sustainability, and Salas-Zapata and Ortiz-Muñoz (2019 ) clarification of sustainability as “a set of guiding criteria for human action” (p. 155) guided rather than drove the analysis, in that they became an analytical framework for organizing the different performances of sustainability identified in the data analysis. In this sense the analytical process could be considered that of a combination of “inductive” and “theoretical thematic analysis” ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 , p. 83–84).

Results – “What is it That's Going on Here?”

In our data, we identified 11 types of sustainability performances. These are: noticing nature, desiring isolation in nature, responding to global issues, reducing pollution, supporting others' sustainability performances, minimizing environmental degradation, reflection on human/nature, connecting with nature, modeling sustainability performance, choosing tour operator, and learning about nature and culture. We also found performances not related to sustainability. While at first these results seem clear cut, they point to ambivalence and ambiguity in guides' and tourists' performances of sustainability in nature-based adventure tourism. We identify as ambivalence the low level of deliberate focus on sustainability during the trips generally and apparent randomness with which it occurs when it does. The ambiguities are one challenge and one conflict. The challenge is between sustainability performance and enjoyment, and the conflict is between sustainability performance and logistics. These are all detailed below and subsequently discussed in relation to the claims and criticisms of performativity and frames (see also Table 1 ).

www.frontiersin.org

Table 1 . Sustainability themes/performances.

Noticing Nature

Throughout each trip the tourists noticed and regularly commented on the scenery, the wildlife, the vistas, the local culture, the “lack of other people,” the quietness, the fresh air, the experience of journeying through a landscape. Nature took center stage regardless of the travel mode in the different tours. Photography was another dimension of noticing nature. The tourists photographed the landscapes they traveled through, elements of those landscapes, and nature, and themselves or others in nature. Both international and Norwegian tourists stated in their interviews that the act of taking photos, and sometimes even thinking about taking photos, made them notice nature more.

Desiring Isolation in Nature

Many of the Norwegian participants enjoyed being given time and place to just be “alone” together outside, to think about everything and nothing, to listen to their own breathing, find their own rhythm, feel and listen to the wind. Our summary of the tourist's perspective is that they want to get what they paid for: the experiences (hard earned), vistas and the solitude in nature as promised by the images in the company's brochure. On field trip A, for example, as the group traveled from the high-mountain and down to the coast, they encountered more and more people along the way until they reached a small coastal town. For one of the participants this town “was overly crowded with tourists” which they later stated was quite a shock and a negative experience for them. One of the main reasons this international tourist had come to Norway and do this particular trip was because they expected few other people there and they were disappointed to have come from the solitude of the high mountains and suddenly find themselves in a crowded tourist trap.

Reducing Pollution

When guides addressed concepts of sustainability it was related to “leave no trace” ( https://lnt.org ). How this topic was addressed varied from guide to guide. Some gave an introductory talk the first day, emphasizing that if a person needed to use a toilet while out hiking, biking, or skiing, they should do so but dispose of the toilet paper in the doggy-bags made available by the guides. All but one of the guides highlighted the importance of not leaving any trash behind, using the doggy-bags for one's own garbage as well as that of others' found along the way. They talked about what would happen if the group did not do so, typically referring to how the landscape would turn into a garbage pile if everyone visiting left even only one or two things behind.

The observation of guides addressing concepts of sustainability mainly through their focus on “leave no trace” and “take only pictures, leave nothing but footprints” is corroborated by their reflections in the post-trip interviews. Although the degree to which they themselves claim to focus on leave no trace varies between the guides, it comes across as their main way of addressing concepts of sustainability in their guiding practices. For some of the guides, the first briefing is the only time that they mention “leave no trace” and they do not enforce it rigorously during the trip.

When tourists were asked if and how they felt that their guides highlighted concepts of sustainability or environmental issues, those who could be specific mentioned the way guides emphasized “leave no trace” throughout the trip, as well as the introduction and use of “doggie-bags.” For both international and Norwegian tourists, concepts of sustainability became a matter of “leave no trace,” an experience in nature that is run in a way so that future generations can have the same experience in the same environment, and recycling.

Modeling Sustainability Performance

Some of the guides emphasized that they deliberately try to “model environmental behaviour”; that is, during briefings they would stress the need to make sure not to leave any trash behind, but they would not mention the possibility of tourists picking up trash found along the way. Instead, they would do that themselves and through that, model a behavior that made picking up trash and cleaning up nature “second nature,” something one just did. A few of the tourists mentioned how they felt that the guides “modeled behavior” through staying on the path, not littering, and picking up other people's litter along the path.

All of the guides believed they could, to some extent, influence tourists' environmental attitudes and behaviors. They acknowledged that their influence might not be lasting nor necessarily very profound, but nevertheless positive. Four of the guides believed their influence stems from modeling behavior and also from “modelling appreciation” for nature, such as by enthusiastically emphasizing the beauty of the surroundings, the taste of blueberries picked, the smell of the mountain moss. One guide, however, believed that taking part in nature-based adventure tourism trips itself is sufficient for strengthening tourists' sustainability and environmentally-friendly behaviors and attitudes. This guide favored “seeing and being” in nature as the primary influence, not what guides do or don't do. In this guide's view, “seeing and being” gives tourists a deeper appreciation of the natural world which, in turn, could lead them practice sustainability more in their everyday lives.

Thinking About Sustainability

When asked whether they felt sustainability and related themes were topics for discussion during the trip, most of the tourists gave ambiguous responses. While most did not discuss sustainability, many of them (particularly internationals) felt that sustainability was omnipresent on the trip, mainly in the form of “leave no trace.” At the same time, most of the tourists claimed to be environmentally conscious and that issues related to sustainability and environmental topics both concerned and, in many cases, affected them in their daily life. When asked to exemplify, most of them mentioned a general concern about issues such as over-use of landscape and that they “do their part – I/we recycle.”

The international tourists were more specific about how their understanding of sustainability influenced their everyday life (e.g., they engaged in the public discourse on sustainability in their local communities) and how it influenced them as tourists (e.g., by paying a carbon tax for air travel).

Supporting Others' Sustainability Performances

Not leaving any trash behind had some consequences for the guides. More than once on the skiing trips one or more of the tourists lost paper-wrappings in the wind. Each time, someone in the group would yell and make everyone aware of what was happening, and a guide would sprint off to catch the trash. When successful they were greeted with applause and loud compliments by some tourists. Other tourists' gestures – shrugged shoulders and facial experiences – and muttering indicated that they thought those applauding was making a big deal out of something unimportant.

Minimizing Environmental Degradation

During late summer and fall hiking trips, the guides emphasized the need to stay ‘on-trail’. They explained that if everyone walked outside the path they would contribute to erosion and possibly to establishing new, unnecessary paths that contribute to environmental degradation.

Reflection on Human/Nature

At one point during a trip, while on a scenic saddle overlooking a large, deserted beach with cliff-faces towering several hundred metres into the air, one of the guides instructed the tourists to sit down in solitude and take in the vista, the landscape, the smells, and the sounds. He encouraged them to do so for ~5 min without engaging with the others. All of the tourists except one complied with guide's instructions; one person walked around taking photos instead. The guide later said that he believed facilitating “sit-downs” and solitude reflections potentially could enhance the nature-experience for the participants and that taking in the beauty of the scenery could have a positive impact in terms of valuing the preciousness of the landscape and consequently its need to be preserved. He linked this “sit-down” with a talk he had planned later that same day addressing the issue of plastic pollution in the ocean and in general. This was the only time during the five different fieldtrips that the field researcher observed any of the guides deliberately facilitating such activities. After the “sit-down,” the guide invited the tourists to find their own path down to the beach below and to meet up by the shore at a given time for lunch. This gave the tourists opportunities to connect with nature on their own terms.

Choosing Tour Operator

Most of the tourists acknowledged that sustainability is not of major importance when they choose a tour operator and destination. It was important for a few of the international tourists. For these people, sustainability was understood broadly, encompassing environmental, social and economic aspects.

Learning About Nature and Culture

Compared to the Norwegian tourists, the international tourists were keen to learn as much as they could about the country and landscape. These tourists depend on the guides' local knowledge in order to get the experience they expect. The guides notice this difference between types of tourists. One informant, an apprentice guide fresh from training, observed that most international tourists are about “seeing it,” while some are also into “being there” which he thought was a deeper and better way of experiencing a landscape or destination. By contrast, this guide felt that Norwegian tourists on the same trips are more about “being” on the trip, or in a Norwegian sensibility, “doing” friluftsliv: doing, seeing and experiencing things together with friends.

The more experienced guides echoed this view and added that as guides they have to deal with the two groups differently. Some of the guides were explicit that it was much “easier” to work with international tourists because they are generally more enthusiastic about the planned trip and related activities, including learning about new culture, nature, landscape, and traditions. The guides felt international tourists generally asked more questions. However, the guides offered relatively few opportunities for tourists to learn about the local environment and culture. There was occasional storytelling by the guides, but storying the landscape in terms of history, geography, geology, biology, or culture was not a central part of the guides performances. Rather, their focus was on gazing upon the landscape and traveling through it for enjoyment.

What became evident in interviews with the tourists was that their acceptance of the guides' focus varied greatly among them. Some would not mind more emphasis on history, culture and landscape and some were quite happy with the status quo. A third group wanted as little input from the guides as possible, because they preferred to see the landscape for themselves and experience the trip as described by the tour company.

Responding to Global Issues

As stated above, when sustainability was brought up in discussion, it was mostly by one or other of the international tourists. Often, it would be as a specific question of the guide or researcher, such as “how is Norway affected by climate change?,” or “do Norwegians think about their carbon-footprint?”

Global issues relating to climate change concerned several of the international tourists who acknowledged the dilemma of wanting to travel to pristine destinations while knowing that doing so would leave a significant carbon footprint. Some of these people stated that they had recently put planned travel on hold because they did not feel comfortable about the carbon-footprint required to get to the desired destination. In a similar way, some of the international tourists expressed concern about travel that they thought would contribute to (over)populating the chosen destinations; this concern had led, in a few cases, to decisions to drop their plans all together due to the number of other tourists expected to be at the same destination.

The Norwegian tourists, too, were conscious of the carbon-footprint of flying to destinations, but as a group they were less clear about how they understood sustainability and most of them acknowledged that it was not a major factor in their decisions and practices.

Not Sustainability

While we did find performances of sustainability in our data, sustainability was not a major focus for the tourists. What does appear to be in the foreground for both the international and the Norwegian tourists are the experiences they are taking part in at the moment, the experiences that are to come in the near future (later that day, or the next day), and how these experiences are felt. After a long day out hiking, biking or skiing, the tourists' focus was on re-living the day's experiences and sharing feelings and thoughts about them. In these discussions, only sometimes initiated and led by the guides, the vantagepoint of experience was “the self.”

We found the same low attention to sustainability among the guides. In the main, they do not emphasize it as a topic of interest or concern in their briefings, nor during the more leisurely talks and discussions with their tourists. Overall, the guides' main focus seemed to be on practical information regarding the immediate needs for the day's journey. In particular, when briefing and talking with international tourists, the guides focused on providing detailed information about technicalities of the forthcoming activities, such as the quality of the path (gravel, loose rock etc.), altitude gain/loss, distance to be covered, safety concerns and how to deal with them, expected pace, when and where to eat the bagged lunch, how to dress, what to have in the backpack in terms of spare clothing and other accessories, what they could expect to see during the day, and why this experience would be worthwhile. When engaging with Nordic tourists, the guides provided the same type of information but with less detail, as if they expected the Nordic tourists to be more familiar with the weather, equipment and environment.

Although the five different trips took place in different landscapes, at different times of the year, using different adventure activities, the way the tour days were organized was very similar. Each day began with a shared breakfast usually followed by a short and practically-oriented briefing about what was ahead, then some time to pack personal gear, and meet at a designated location at about 9 a.m. The activity of the day usually lasted around 8–10 hours and ended with supper at around 7 p.m. Each day's journey had a similar pattern: hiking, biking, or skiing for 50 minutes, usually in single file, before a 10-minutes break. This routine would continue throughout the day, until the group reached the planned destination, and it created a conflict for the guides. Addressing the group as a whole while hiking, biking, or skiing was a demanding and difficult exercise for the guides because they were left with 10 in every 50 minutes as their “window of operation.” In this time, they had to monitor the group and individual well-being, attend to issues such as broken equipment, adjusting backpacks or skis, taping up blisters, and make sure that they engaged in at least one conversation with each participant each day. Several of the guides emphasized in their interview that they were reluctant to overtly interrupt the breaks with information about landscape, culture, history, or sustainability, because they wanted to allow individual participants to make use of the break as each saw fit.

Further, the guides felt challenged to tread a fine line between enhancing the tourist experience while at the same time not appearing to “have an agenda” or creating a “situation” that the tourists had not signed up and paid for. Many of the respondents also said that an outspoken sustainability and environmental focus from the guides could easily be interpreted as moralizing, which they were neither interested in nor positive toward. Several of the guides stated in various ways, both during the trip and in post-trip interviews, that their primary task was to make sure the tourists had a good time on their vacation. In fact, the guides stressed the view that the tourists were on vacation, implying that being on vacation imposed some guidelines in terms of a guide's behavior.

We set out to investigate if and how tourists and guides understand, operationalize, practice, and embody deeper nature-relatedness, active environmental and cultural protection, and relationship to the global collective. We found that performances of sustainability are not a major component of guides' and tourists' performances while on tour. Of the sustainability performances that we did find, the guides and tourists practiced and embodied nature-relatedness at both shallow (everyone noticing nature) and deeper (some tourists seeking isolation and reflecting on human/nature) levels. They expressed a limited range of environmental protection actions (reducing pollution by picking up garbage, minimizing environmental degradation by staying on tracks) and international tourists expressed interest in local culture which is one aspect of motivation for cultural protection ( Calver and Page, 2013 ; Richards, 2018 ). Further, we found that international tourists and, to a lesser extent Norwegian tourist, expressed interest in global issues (mainly carbon footprint), which is arguably a signal of positive relationship to the global collective. In addition to these types of sustainability, a few tourists chose the tour operator with sustainability in mind, however our data does not indicate which aspects of sustainability informed those choices. Finally, tourists and guides expressed an over-arching thoughtfulness on sustainability: they all thought about it, some guides modeled it, and tourists supported the guides' modeling. However, these mainly cognitive actions did not apparently lead to additional expressions of sustainability by the tourists.

We understand the variability in expressions of sustainability through a Goffmanian lens of four distinct clusters of frames: one cluster is made up from the Norwegian tourists; another from the international tourists; a third from most of the guides; and the fourth from one particular guide. Goffman's ideas of “going about” normal life and “being alert” to threats and changes are useful for describing these frames. In the Norwegian tourist frame, going about nature-based adventure tourism means performing friluftsliv while being guided, connecting with nature individually, and not being disturbed (threatened) by issues beyond the immediate enjoyment of activity and environment. By contrast, the international tourist frame seeks out the challenge of difference (e.g., curiosity about Norwegian culture and history) and environmental threat (e.g., climate change) while also enjoying the immediate activity and environment. Most of the guides shared a frame that fits/matches that of the Norwegian tourists: a “normal” guide allows tourists to go about their tourism without being alarmed by the intrusion of overt sustainability performances by the guides. The fourth evident frame was that of a single guide who considered nature-based adventure tourism to normally involve challenging tourists' perceptions of sustainability. Clearly, these four frames are not all, always, compatible, which suggests that the guides and tourists reached a common expressive order for the trips. This consensus revolved around enjoyment, as we now discuss.

Sustainability Performances vs. Enjoyment

Through both interviews and comments made during the different tours, it is evident that a primary aspect of the guides' frame is prioritizing tourist enjoyment within the scope of the planned trip. Enjoyment is central to the interaction order of these situations. The guides express a high degree of awareness of the fact that the tourists have paid to get a certain product. The product is defined in terms of sites to see, places to visit, adventure activities to do, and more generally when, what and how the different aspects of the trip are supposed to take place. These details are stated in the written “contract” - detailed information about the content of the given tour - on the tour operator's website that tourists access before the trip. This “contract,” then, is the tour company's frame for the particular trip: it provides the “social information” ( Goffman, 1967 ) that helps tourists and guides to understand “what sort of situation [this is]” and, consequently, what sort of performances are expected of them. The “contract” tells tourists what they can expect to happen and to experience. It tells guides what they have to deliver. Through both interviews and field conversations it is clear that the guides see their work as contractual and that they feel obliged to deliver a “product” as close to the “contract” as possible. In Goffman's (1959) terms, they conform to the “interaction order” and in doing so they prioritize enjoyment over sustainability. Their emphasis is on facilitating a relaxed, friendly and positive social atmosphere within the group and making sure that the tourists have a good time and enjoy themselves. It is only if and when tourists express enjoyment of deeper sustainability that the guides respond. Thus, it is the tourists who must first challenge the interaction order; the guides follow tourists in opening up for deeper sustainability. Larsen and Meged (2013 , p. 101) argue that it is tourist's “participatory and attentive tactics” that turn guided tours into co-created performances. Larsen and Meged (2013 , p. 101) also found that “guides rely on the energy from interactions and participants which is why the guiding is equally affected when the tourists log off.” A possible explanation to why the “interaction order” seems to stay fairly fixed on enjoyment in the tours we observed, could be that the guides are sensitive to tourist “logging off” if addressing or emphasizing deeper sustainability performances when not initiated by the tourists themselves.

As noted in the results, we did identify one performance by one guide that might have challenged the tourist's perceptions of sustainability and thus also the “interaction order.” This was the invitation to sit and reflect, then to find one's own way to the beach and take some time there. As this episode took place on a trip with international tourists, it is pertinent to ask whether guides use different frames depending on what type of tourist groups they guide, whether international tourists tend to challenge the interaction order more, and if so, how these challenges are resolved. These questions will be the focus of a future article.

A primary focus on enjoyment, however, does not preclude other foci, less central to the frame. For some guides, a focus on sustainability was possible as long as it didn't interfere with enjoyment. In the next section we discuss susceptibilities that produce potential for more, or deeper, sustainability.

Susceptibility to Sustainability

Some of the guides expressed that their understanding (or frame) of the trip and, therefore, their potential scope of action, differed based on the type and length of the trip they were guiding. One guide mentioned that trips longer than 2 weeks provided more opportunities to address a broader range of topics because there is more time to interact with individual tourists. While no such trips were the subject of this study, the guide's comments throw light on a way that guides can manage social interaction for particular effects. This guide explained that:

“. in the end you deliver a product that someone has paid for. so you need to know your group … Some are very susceptible for discussions and new ways of thinking, others find it annoying … So I don't push [sustainability issues/practices] so much, but do more sort of systematic brainwashing [laughs out loud]. because you spend quite a lot of time with the tourists, and then you can lead them, in the direction that you would like to see them end up … And that is not something you do the first day. It takes time.”

Following Goffman (1974) , one explanation for this guide's comments is that guides can have multiple backstage topics that they intend to emphasize throughout the trip and which, through planned performances, can gradually become front-staged, possibly without the tourists noticing the shift. In other words, sustainability could be an aspect of the guide's frame for the trip from the outset, but he or she keeps it “backstage” ( Goffman, 1959 ) until they feel that the tourists are ready (“susceptible”) for it. By back-staging sustainability, this guide managed the impression of himself so that his “front-stage” ( Goffman, 1959 ) performance matched his perception of tourist interest in sustainability, and this saved the tourists' “face” rather than creating an uncomfortable or embarrassing situation. However, this explanation fails to address how tourists become more interested in the guide's prepared topics. If this static view of frames is adopted, the question of how tourist frames can be made more susceptible to sustainability remains open. It also calls into question how the guides ascertain tourist susceptibility.

Taking into consideration the guides' educational backgrounds, it could be that this guide did actually have a deliberate educational program in mind in his “backstaging-to-frontstaging” of sustainability. In fact, five out of the six guides in this study have attended nature guide-related educational programs at university level in Norway. Andersen and Rolland (2018) argue that nature guides educated in friluftsliv (as is the norm in nature-based higher education courses in Norway) can “add value by enhancing participant's experiences and adding more learning to the experience. The learning relates to skills and techniques … and connecting the participants more closely with nature” (p. 1). However, Weiler and Kim (2011) argue that because tour guides, in general, have limited exposure to or experience with “theory, tools, and techniques for optimizing the visitor experience and visitor-environment interaction within a sustainability framework” they might not be “fully realizing their potential to communicate and role-model sustainability in their tour content and practice” (p. 113). In our view, there is merit in asking if the guide education programs in Norway do provide the necessary “theory, tools, and techniques” required for framing sustainability in their professional roles.

Goffman (1967) highlights the importance of the communication process in “the nature of the ritual order” (p. 42). It is the communication process that takes place between the guides and the tourists that is important for explaining “what it is that's going on” and according to Goffman this is largely due to feelings. Feelings are “vulnerable not to facts and things but to communications” and “[c]ommunications … can be by-passed, withdrawn from, disbelieved, conveniently misunderstood, and tactfully conveyed” ( Goffman, 1967 , p. 43). The trust that the guides build through their individual way of communicating with the tourists creates the potential scope for action to discuss sustainability. If the communication between the parties involved is not open and trusting, the possibility of maintaining an expressive order is made more difficult. The longer a trip lasts, the better everyone gets to know each other, which then gives room to expand the repertoire of what it is acceptable to talk about.

In our study, most tourists framed the trips in non-sustainability ways, as did most guides. However, occasionally guides were prompted by tourists to focus on a deeper sustainability at least with regard to learning about environment and culture, or when they received positive feedback from the tourists such as when they were applauded for retrieving trash. At those times, the guides at least attempted to respond in a deeper sustainability way themselves. Conversely, when the tourists were invited to deepen their relationship with nature by taking a “sit-down and reflect,” their framing of the trip might have shifted or widened to encompass a (slightly) deeper focus on sustainability. None of them reported that it did, however. One possible reason could be that, as all the tourists on this particular trip were non-Nordic and well-experienced in nature-based adventure tourism, they might have already reached a deep-enough level of sustainability practice that such reflection is normal and not note-worthy. If so, this particular trip could be considered similar to many eco-tourism trips which have been challenged for “preaching to the converted” rather than increasing the public's exposure to deeper sustainability experiences ( Beaumont, 1991 ).

Several of the guides found Norwegian tourists in Norway to be less interested in learning from the tour and more critical toward the guide. This difference apparently has an effect on both how the guides perform their guiding, and the guides scope of action. With Norwegian tourists, the guides often felt the need to prove their competence while at the same time sensing that many of the Norwegian tourists felt they did not actually need a guide. Also, working with the less enthusiastic (Norwegian) tourists affected how the guides behaved and their guiding style. It seems that working with a group with the same cultural background poses some challenges for the guides in terms of what to focus on in their guiding practice. This possibility is worth further investigation for its impact on the sustainability potential of domestic nature-based adventure tourism.

The Complication of Tour-Logistics

We turn now to consider guides' framing and its relationship to the tour company. Weiler and Black's (2015) observation that tour companies can leave guides little power to perform sustainability on any given tour is pertinent to this discussion. In our study, the way the tours were organized left little time for performing sustainability that was not already framed by company.

The tour logistics emphasized: (1) the adventure activity itself (hiking, biking, skiing), (2) gazing ( Urry, 1990 ) upon the landscape, and (3) journeying through the landscape. The tour logistics, in our interpretation, are framed as getting the tourists from point A to point B. Performing nature-based adventure tourism seems to mean giving the tourists what they had paid for. The different sustainability performances we did observe mostly took place during the adventure activities, not as planned nor pre formed performances linked to the company's programme, but rather as spontaneous performances that took place in situ . Only on a few occasions did we observe the guides choosing to facilitate sustainability. In our study, then, sustainability was inspired mainly by the responses of tourists and guides to their immediate experiences of the adventure activities, within particular settings. Sustainability actions and practices were not emphasized strongly in the orchestration of tour logistics.

The tour company involved in this study did not “frame” sustainability as part of the experience of the trips. That we found sustainability performances in our data suggests that tourists are “ready” for “light” sustainability at least. Arguably, this company and others would not damage their reputations by promoting the level of sustainability that tourists will happily accept. By framing sustainability into the experiences, tour companies would also be opening up possibilities for guides to frame their work for deeper sustainability.

Conclusions

This study has shown that sustainability, as we understand it, did occur at the micro-level of the nature-based adventure tourism experiences we studied in Norway, albeit as a minor theme in guides' and tourists' framing of trips. The sustainability performances we found mainly sprang from spontaneous responses by tourists and guides to experiences of adventure activities in particular natural settings. We have shown that sustainability performances can be ambiguous, complex and contingent upon the interplay of guides' and tourists' frames.

Nature-based adventure tourism companies appear to be key agents in the framing of trips by both guides and tourists. There appears to be potential for deeper sustainability to be expressed on guided trips if companies allow it. The implications for promotional messaging and expectation-setting through pre-trip interactions with tourists are worthy of further investigation. Similarly, there are implications for guide training and for the knowledge and skills demanded by nature-based adventure tourism companies of their guides.

Deeper sustainability might be found more readily in situations of “foreignness” or difference, such as among international tourists. This possibility needs further exploration. If susceptibility to sustainability is greater in “foreign” contexts, how can the tourism industry respond? This question seems especially pertinent in the current relatively closed global context and in the prospect of international travel in the foreseeable future being limited by cost and pandemic controls.

While not generalizable to other settings, our findings demonstrate that sustainability in tourism can be empirically studied by taking a performative ethnographic approach in field work. Further studies in a wider variety of settings, and especially longer trips, could potentially tease out some of the ambiguities and complexities we have noted. Study designs that access tour operators', guides' and tourists' perceptions of one another's frames would shed additional light on the ways in which these actors influence one another's sustainability understandings and actions. Finally, studies that access guides' and tourists' longer-term reflections on trips might also bring to light important aspects of trip dynamics on sustainability in their everyday lives.

This paper presents a study of how sustainability is operationalized in a nature-based adventure tourism setting. The study is novel in its method, empirical data, and Norwegian setting. The results are relevant to the national as well as the international tourism industry.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author Contributions

ARo, PL, and ARa contributed to the research idea and design of the study. ARo conducted the fieldwork and data analysis under supervision of the other authors. ARo wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Andersen, S., and Rolland, C. G. (2018). Educated in friluftsliv – working in tourism: A study exploring principles of friluftsliv in nature guiding. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 18, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2018.1522727

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ardoin, N. M., Wheaton, M., Bowers, A. W., Hunt, C. A., and Durham, W. H. (2015). Nature-based tourism's impact on environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: a review and analysis of the literature and potential future research. J. Sustain. Tour. 23, 838–858. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1024258

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., and Falk, J. (2010). Visitors' learning for environmental sustainability: testing short- and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences using structural equation modelling. Tour. Manage . 32, 1243–1252. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.11.003

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., and Hughes, K. (2009). Tourists' support for conservation messages and sustainable management practices in wildlife tourism experiences. Tour. Manage . 30, 658–664. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.11.003

Beams, S., Mackie, C., and Atencio, M. (2019). Adventure and Society . Cham: Palgrave Macmillian. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-96062-3

Beaumont, N. (1991). Ecotourism and the conservation ethic: recruiting the uninitiated or preaching to the converted? J. Sustain. Tour . 9, 317–341. doi: 10.1080/09669580108667405

Benckendorff, P., and Zehrer, A. (2013). A network analysis of tourism research. Ann. Tour. Res . 43, 121–149. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2013.04.005

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol . 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exer. Health 11, 589–597. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods, 5th Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Buckley, R. (2006). Adventure Tourism . Wallingford: Cabi. doi: 10.1079/9781845931223.0000

Buckley, R. (2010). Adventure Tourism Management . Oxford: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781856178358

Calver, S. J., and Page, S. J. (2013). Enlightened hedonism: exploring the relationship of service value, visitor knowledge and interest, to visitor enjoyment at heritage attractions. Tour. Manage . 39, 23–36. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.03.008

Cohen, E., and Cohen, S. A. (2012). Current sociological theories and issues in tourism. Ann. Tour. Res . 39, 2177–2202. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2012.07.009

Collado, J., Rodríguez del Bosque, I., San Martín, H., and del Mar García de los Salmones, M. (2009). A framework for tourist expectations. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res . 3, 139–147. doi: 10.1108/17506180910962140

Cultural Heritage Act (1978). Act concerning the cultural heritage (LOV-2005-06-17-84) . Available online at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/1978-06-09-50 (accessed February 24, 2021).

Durie, M. (2008). “Cultural preservation and protection,” in Encyclopedia of Public Health , ed W. Kirch (Dordrecht: Springer). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5614-7_634

Edensor, T. (1998). Tourists at the Taj: Performance and Meaning at a Symbolic Site . London: Routledge.

Edensor, T. (2000). Staging tourism: tourists as performers. Ann. Tour. Res . 27, 322–344. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00082-1

Edensor, T. (2001). Performing tourism, staging tourism. (Re)producing tourist space and practice. Tour. Stud . 1, 59–81. doi: 10.1177/146879760100100104

Fangen, K. (2010). Deltagende Observasjon, 2 Edn . Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511810503

Force, A., Manuel-Navarrete, D., and Benessaiah, K. (2018). Tourism and transitions toward sustainability: developing tourists' pro-sustainability agency. Sustain. Sci . 13, 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s11625-017-0448-y

Fredman, P., and Haukeland, J. V. (2017). Forskning for morgendagens reiseliv. Praktisk økonomi finans 33, 233–236. doi: 10.18261/issn.1504-2871-2017-02-07

Fredman, P., Stenseke, M., and Sandell, K. (2014). Friluftsliv i förandring. Studier från svenska upplevelselandskap . Stockholm: Carlsson Bokförlag.

Fredman, P., and Tyrväinen, L. (2010). Frontiers in nature-based tourism. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 10, 177–189. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2010.502365

Fredman, P., Wall Reinius, S., and Lundberg, C. (2009). Turism i natur. Definitioner, omfattning, statistik. Turismforskningsinstitutet ETOUR, Mittuniversitetet, Rapport R2009:23, Østersund.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life . London: Penguin Books.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior . New York, NY: Phanteon Books.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience . New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. Am. Sociol. Rev . 48, 1–17. doi: 10.2307/2095141

Gurholt, K. P. (2014). Joy of nature, education and self: combining narrative and cultural–ecological approaches to environmental sustainability. J. Adven. Educ. Outdoor Learn . 14, 233–246. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2014.948802

Haldrup, M., and Larsen, J. (2010). Tourism, Performance and the Everyday: Consuming the Orient . Oxon: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203873939

Hansen, A. H., and Mossberg, L. (2017). Tour guides' performance and tourists' immersion: facilitating consumer immersion by performing a guide plus role. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 17, 259–278. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2016.1162347

Hargreaves, T. (2016). Interacting for the environment: engaging goffman in pro-environmental action. Soc. Nat. Resour . 29, 53–67. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1054978

Harwood, S., and El-Manstrly, D. (2012). The Performativity Turn in Tourism. University of Edinburgh Business School Working Paper Series, Vol. 12/05, University of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh, UK.

Jacobsen, M. H., and Kristiansen, S. (2015). The Social Thought of Erving Goffman . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781483381725

CrossRef Full Text

Jonasson, M., Hallin, A., and Smith, P. (2013). Editorial. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 13, 85–87. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2013.796198

Jonasson, M., and Scherle, N. (2012). Performing co-produced guided tours. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 12, 55–73. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2012.655078

Jonasson, M., and Smith, P. (2017). Editorial. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 17, 331–332. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2017.1330843

Kuckartz, U., and Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA. Text, Audio, and Video . Cham: Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8

Larsen, J. (2010). “Goffman and the tourist gaze: a performative perspective on tourism mobilities,” in The Contemporary Goffman , ed M. H. Jacobsen (New York, NY: Routledge), 313–332.

Larsen, J., and Meged, J. W. (2013). Tourists co-producing guided tours. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 13, 88–102. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2013.796227

Mihalic, T. (2006). “Nature-based products, ecotourism and adventure tourism,” in Tourism Business Frontiers , eds D. Buhalis and C. Costa (Oxford: Elsevier), 111–117. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7506-6377-9.50020-1

Ministry of Trade I. A. F. (2017). Experiencing Norway – a unique adventure [White paper] . Available online at: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/95efed8d5f0442288fd430f54ba244be/no/pdfs/stm201620170019000dddpdfs.pdf (accessed January 22, 2021).

NHO (2017). Mot et bærekraftig reiseliv. Veikart fra reiselivsnæringen . Available online at: https://www.nhoreiseliv.no/contentassets/b8ac6752ac3f463ebcc8ebb357121b07/veikart-barekraft.pdf (accessed February 15, 2021).

Nisbet, E. K. (2021). Nature Relatedness Research . Available online at: https://www.naturerelatedness.ca/what-is-nature-relatedness (accessed March 05, 2021).

Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., and Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ. Behav. 41, 715–740. doi: 10.1177/0013916508318748

Odden, A. (2008). Hva skjer med norsk friluftsliv?: En studie av utviklingstrekk i norsk friluftsliv 1970-2004. Doctoral dissertation. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.

OECD. (2003). Environmental Protection . Available online at: https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=836 (accessed March 09, 2021).

Pedersen Gurholt, K. (2008). Norwegian friluftsliv and ideals of becoming an ‘educated man’. J. Advent. Educ. Outdoor Learn. 8, 55–70. doi: 10.1080/14729670802097619

Pereira, E. M., and Mykletun, R. J. (2012). Guides as contributors to sustainable tourism? a case study from the Amazon. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 12, 74–94. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2012.663558

Persson, A. (2019). Framing Social Interaction. Continuities and Cracks in Goffman's Frame Analysis . New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315582931

Powell, R. B., and Ham, S. H. (2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro-conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? evidence from the Galapagos Islands. J. Sustain. Tour . 16, 467–489. doi: 10.1080/09669580802154223

Prakash, M., Chowdhary, N., and Sunayana. (2011). Tour guiding: interpreting the challenges. Tourismos 6, 65–81. Available online at: http://www.chios.aegean.gr/tourism/VOLUME_6_No2_art04.pdf

Randall, C., and Rollins, R. B. (2009). Visitor perceptions of the role of tour guides in natural areas. J. Sustain. Tour . 17, 357–374. doi: 10.1080/09669580802159727

Rantala, O. (2011). An ethnographic approach to nature-based tourism. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 11, 150–165. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2011.576829

Ribbs, G. (2014). “Using software in qualitative analysis,” in Qualitative Data Analysis , ed U. Flick (New York, NY: SAGE Publications), 277–294.

Richards, G. (2018). Cultural tourism: a review of recent research and trends. J. Hosp. Tour. Manage . 36, 12–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.03.005

Rokenes, A., Schumann, S., and Rose, J. (2015). The art of guiding in nature-based adventure tourism – how guides can create client value and positive experiences on mountain bike and backcountry ski tours. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 15, 62–82. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2015.1061733

Salas-Zapata, W. A., and Ortiz-Muñoz, S. M. (2019). Analysis of meanings of the concept of sustainability. Sustain. Dev . 27, 153–161. doi: 10.1002/sd.1885

Saldaña, J. (2006). This is not a performance text. Qual. Inq .12, 1091–1098. doi: 10.1177/1077800406293239

Saldaña, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd Edn . New York, NY: SAGE Publications.

Sandell, K. (2003). Begreppet friluftsliv - som en trebent pall. Argaladei: Friluftsliv - en livsstil 1, 10–11. Available online at: http://www.argaladei.nu/gamla/index.html%3Fsida=tidskrift_arkiv_2003-1a.html (accessed February 26, 2021).

Sandler, T. (2010). Global Collective Action . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skinner, J., and Theodossopoulos, D. (2011). “Introduction: the play of expectations in tourism,” in Great Expectations. Imagination and Anticipation in Tourism , eds J. Skinner and D. Theodossopoulos (Brooklyn NY: Berghahn Books), 1–26.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation . Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

United Nations (n.d.). Sustainable Tourism . Available online at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabletourism (accessed May 24, 2021).

Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze . California: Sage Publications.

Urry, J., and Larsen, J. (2011). The tourist gaze 3.0 . New York, NY: Sage Publications Limited. doi: 10.4135/9781446251904

Vold, T. (2015). ≪ Venner på tur≫. Naturguiding som relasjonell kunnskap . Doctoral dissertation. The Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo.

Wadel, C. (2014). Feltarbeid i egen kultur . Oslo: Cappelen Damm.

Weiler, B., and Black, R. (2015). Tour Guiding Research. Insights, Issues and Implications. Bristol: Channel View Publications. doi: 10.21832/9781845414696

Weiler, B., and Kim, A. K. (2011). Tour guides as agents of sustainability: rhetoric, reality and implications for research. Tour. Recreat. Res . 36, 113–125. doi: 10.1080/02508281.2011.11081313

Williams, P. (2013). Performing interpretation. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 13, 115–126. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2013.796228

Winter, P. L., Selin, S., Cerveny, L., and Bricker, K. (2020). Outdoor recreation, nature-based tourism, and sustainability. Sustainability 12:81. doi: 10.3390/su12010081

Witoszek, N. (1998). Norske naturmytologier. Fra Edda til økofilosofi. Pax Forlag A/S.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 5th Edn . New York, NY: SAGE Publications.

Zahle, J. (2012). Practical knowledge and participant observation. Inquiry 55, 50–65. doi: 10.1080/0020174X.2012.643626

Zeppel, H., and Muloin, S. (2008). Conservation benefits of interpretation on marine wildlife tours. Human Dimens. Wildlife 13, 280–294. doi: 10.1080/10871200802187105

Zillinger, M., Jonasson, M., and Adolfsson, P. (2012). Guided tours and tourism. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 12, 1–7. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2012.660314

Keywords: sustainability, adventure tourism, nature, environment, ethnography, dramaturgy, performance

Citation: Rosenberg A, Lynch PM and Radmann A (2021) Sustainability Comes to Life. Nature-Based Adventure Tourism in Norway. Front. Sports Act. Living 3:686459. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.686459

Received: 26 March 2021; Accepted: 07 May 2021; Published: 11 June 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Rosenberg, Lynch and Radmann. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Axel Rosenberg, axelr@nih.no

This article is part of the Research Topic

Environmental Sustainability in Sports, Physical Activity and Education, and Outdoor Life

nature ecotourism 3

  • Market information
  • Nature and Ecotourism
  • Market Potential
  • Share this on:

The European market potential for nature and ecotourism

Nature and ecotourism is one of the main tourism segments, which also includes adventure tourism. The products and services in this segment come in many forms, including wilderness and dark sky tourism. Attracting tourists to remote areas may disrupt their remoteness but may also offer many opportunities if you adopt practices that care for and respect nature. The Netherlands should be among your main target markets in this segment.

Contents of this page

  • Product description
  • What makes Europe an interesting market for nature and ecotourism?
  • Which European countries offer most opportunities in nature and ecotourism
  • What trends offer opportunities or pose threats in the nature and ecotourism market?

1. Product description

Nature tourism, also called nature-based tourism, is tourism based on the natural attractions of an area. It consists of responsible travel to experience natural areas and their landscape, flora and fauna, protecting the environment and improving the quality of life of locals.

Ecotourism, often referred to as sustainable tourism , can be considered as a specialism within nature tourism. Its focus is on learning about the environment, minimising negative impacts and contributing to environmental protection. Ecotourism is defined as ‘Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the well-being of the local people, and involves interpretation and education’ of all parties involved, according to the International Ecotourism Society and the Global Ecotourism Network . The main attractions in the ecotourism market are marine, national parks and other parks with a protected status, biodiversity, local cultures and traditional protectors of natural environments.

Nature and ecotourism attract people interested in a variety of natural and cultural resources, including being immersed in a rich, natural, cultural or historical experience.

Tourism New South Wales identifies four main categories in nature tourism, which are presented in figure 1.

Figure 1: The categories of nature tourism

Source: Tourism New South Whales

A wide array of products falls into the category of nature and ecotourism, including consumptive and adventurous as well as non-consumptive and contemplative activities. Examples include:

  • nature tours, observation of flora and fauna, cultural and local heritage tourism , volcano tourism ;
  • fishing tourism, cycling tourism , bird watching tourism , kayaking tourism, bush walking, hiking tourism, cold water tourism, hunting;
  • visiting parks, scenic driving, photography tourism, camping;
  • beach experiencing , relaxing, self-improvement travel.

One specific example is the trend of dark sky tourism to remote areas with a clear view of the night sky, away from artificial light pollution. This could include stargazing, watching an eclipse, watching the Northern or Southern Lights, visiting observatories, and attending guided tours, stargazing sessions, and astronomy tours. Dark sky tourism could be facilitated by a stay in a nature accommodation, such as a yurt, connecting with the local culture, specific stargazing hotels, or even dedicated cruises.

See these products for inspiration:

  • Hurtigruten and Princess Cruises offer cruises including stargazing nights. Hurtigruten also provides lectures on astronomy.
  • Elqui Domos hotel in Chile has telescopes for guests in their rooms.
  • Baines’ Camp in Botswana, provides star baths and sky beds.
  • Offer night walks for guest to observe the sky if you are in a remote area.
  • Invest in low-profile opportunities like a sky bed, if you can assure privacy and safety, including from mosquitos and your climate allows.

Another example is wilderness tourism , where tourists seek undeveloped land with minimal human imprints. An example is Wilderness Tourism Tour Company in India. Tourists are drawn into these areas because of their remoteness. The downsides are the negative effects on nature and local communities .

There is a wide assortment of products that relate to the category of nature and ecotourism, but keep in mind that travellers often combine products during their holidays. They also complement it with other products and services particular to the specific destination, such as culture, food, relaxation, self-improvement, accommodation, transport, etc.

  • Employ people from the local community. This contributes to the region, but also increases opportunities for community tourism.
  • Offer a range of activities to your customers, especially activities involving the nature around your location.
  • Promote your area’s different and unique natural attractions in your marketing, including its biodiversity.
  • Provide trails and routes of different lengths and difficulty levels to meet the needs of nature and ecotourists of all skill levels and ages. Make sure these trails don’t endanger the local nature and its ecosystem.
  • Consider producing festivals. When done well, they can contribute to local development goals. Festivals can raise awareness about local qualities and attract larger or novel target groups.
  • Because nature tourism has many niche markets, offer a limited choice and fully dedicate your approach to that niche, so your product remains convincing as genuine in the eyes of travellers.

The remainder of this product factsheet focuses on the ecotourism market, sometimes also called sustainable tourism, responsible tourism, soft tourism and green tourism.

2. What makes Europe an interesting market for nature and ecotourism?

The demand for nature and ecotourism is high and will continue to grow. For some years now tourists have become more aware of leaving a positive impact on the destinations that they visit. According to the UK’s Travel Foundation, 75% of British travellers wanted a more responsible vacation in 2012. Forum for the Futures, also in 2012, estimated that 66% of travellers wanted an easier way to identify a green holiday. In a 2018 Booking.com survey, 87% of global travellers said they wanted to travel sustainably. Euronews even suggests an ecotravel boom in Europe.

It is not only the type of holiday that shows signs of change, but accommodation types as well. According to Booking.com , interest in an sustainable accommodation increased from 62% in 2016, to 65% in 2017 and 68% in 2018; meanwhile, the proportion of travellers who have not considered eco-friendly stays because they were unaware of their existence declined from 39% in 2016, to 38% in 2017, to 31% in 2018. These studies’ results are in line with the outcomes of a survey among the readers of Condé Nast Traveler, which showed that 58% said they choose a hotel based on whether the hotel gives back to local people and the planet.

Travel companies have recently noticed an increase in the number of trips that involve trekking and hiking. For example, the number of trekking and hiking trips booked at Jacada Travel doubled between 2015 and 2016, and again between 2016 and 2017.

Based on these developments, Virtuoso considers sustainable tourism part of a global travel transformation rather than a passing trend. SKIFT suggests that sustainability will be the mark of luxury in the years to come. Tourism New South Wales considers ecotourists the early adopters of personal values which many other market segments with potentially larger visitor numbers will follow.

There are several reasons for the rise of interest in ecotourism, or sustainable, green, soft or responsible tourism. According to Booking.com tourists report:

  • being impressed by natural sights during their own travels (60%);
  • noticing a visible impact of tourism at the destinations they have visited (54%);
  • seeing the positive effect that sustainable tourism can have on locals (47%);
  • seeing the unsustainable effects of tourism in their home country (42%);
  • feeling guilty about the impact their vacation has had on the environment (32%).

Responsible Travel reports that travellers are increasingly seeking opportunities to reconnect with nature, other people, and seeking their own individual meaning, which may be caused by an increasingly digitally connected, work-centric, and material world.

Another driver is last-chance tourism , which is motivated by the desire to see threatened or diminishing natural attractions, including glaciers, coral reefs, endangered species and more.

  • Act sustainably and be transparent about it. Above all, promote your reuse and recycling of materials, waste management initiatives, etc.
  • Offer opportunities for travellers to contribute to the natural and social values of the destination and reduce their impact.
  • Developing nature-based tourism requires tailor-made approaches to fit often highly sensitive local contexts.
  • Consider serious leisure and project-based leisure for to visitors who are extremely interested in a particular leisure activity, even possibly hinting at a new career path. These travellers are very committed to their cause, more interested in staying longer to learn or to do more, and they are less hampered by barriers in terms of accessibility, travel time, and service level.
  • Make the destination attractive by providing multiple reasons to visit: combine nature-based tourism with other types of tourism and leisure activities. Seek collaboration with other entrepreneurs within and outside the region to create routes and packages connecting points of interest.

3. Which European countries offer most opportunities in nature and ecotourism

Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland and the Czech Republic have the biggest share of outbound trips with nature as the primary motive. These six countries are considered the most relevant nature and ecotourism markets in Europe, with Germany standing out (see table 1).

Table 1: Top European nature and ecotourism markets

Sources: Statisca, Eurobarometer 432

The target market for nature and ecotourism is large. Probably the first studies conducted into the ecotourism market were the 2001 and 2002 UNWTO studies in the UK, Germany, Spain, France and Italy, which have not been updated. In a 2016 TNS study, respondents in the following countries mentioned ‘nature’ as the main reason for their holiday : Czech Republic (26%), Netherlands (25%), Bulgaria (23%), Romania (20%), Belgium (19%), and Poland (19%). Hover your mouse cursor or pointer over the map below to see the percentage of travellers who favour nature travel in each European country.

Keep in mind that these are statistics based on preferences. Because people in Western and Northern Europe generally have more money to spend, they will also spend more on nature and ecotourism as well. Keep in mind that these statistics show a preference for nature itself, not nature tourism, which also includes adventure tourism. Preferences for adventure tourism are included in our study on adventure tourism .

A proportion of 15% of German travellers see nature as the primary reason to visit a destination. Apparently, they are so impressed by the natural features of the destinations, that 25% mention it as a reason to return to the destination. Regardless of the duration of their holiday, most Germans like to purchase the components of their holidays themselves and separately (44% and 44% respectively). That might be the reason why the way they book their holidays is quite varied. Booking commercial services online (28%), booking private housing online (23%), booking via the counter of a travel agent (27%), and booking via a friend (26%), all have a similar share. Most Germans prefer to stay in a paid commercial accommodation such as a hotel, B&B, cruise or youth hostel, whether it is on a short (47%) or long (54%) holiday. During the orientation phase of a holiday, most Germans rely on recommendations by others (44%) or their own personal experience (39%).

Table 2: German key attitudes towards tourism

Of the European countries ranked in the top 6, France is where travellers least mention nature as a primary motive for visiting a destination, with a proportion of 14%. Nevertheless, natural features stand out as the primary reason to return (36%). Regardless of duration, package holidays (excluding all-inclusive packages) are the preferred holiday format (45%–46%). So, it might not come as a surprise that most holidays are purchased online in France, via providers such as tour operators or airline companies (33%) or concerning private housing (25%). The French prefer to spend their holidays with friends or relatives (long holidays 27%, short holidays 35%) or a paid accommodation, such as hotel, B&B, cruise or a youth hostel. Friends, colleagues and relatives provide the most important source of information when the French plan for their holidays (57%).

Table 3: French key attitudes towards tourism

Netherlands

A quarter of the Dutch travellers regard nature as the primary reason to visit a destination (25%). Twice as many refer to nature as the main reason to return: 53%. Most Dutch travellers prefer to purchase services and compose long (>13 days) holidays themselves (61%). Most holidays are booked online via commercial services, such as tour operators, airline companies, etc. (44%). The most preferred accommodation for the Dutch on long holidays is paid commercial accommodation, such as hotel, B&B, cruise, youth hostel, etc. (55%). The decision-making process is mainly informed by recommendations from friends, colleagues and relatives (47%).

Table 4: Dutch key attitudes towards tourism

One out of five Belgian travellers see nature as the primary reason to visit a destination (19%), while a slightly higher percentage mention it as the main reason to return (51%). If they go on a long holiday (>13 nights) they prefer a package deal (excl. all-inclusive) or to compose their package themselves staying in a commercially run accommodation (both a share of 38%). These are preferably booked via online commercial services, such as tour operators, airline companies, etc., excl. private housing from individuals: 38%. For these holidays, commercial accommodation such as hotel, B&B, cruise, youth hostel, etc. are the most popular type of accommodation (55%). When preparing their holidays, Belgians most often rely on recommendations by friends, colleagues and relatives (51%).

Table 5: Belgians key attitudes towards tourism

One out of five Polish tourists see nature as the primary reason to visit a destination (19%), while 58% see nature as their main reason to return. In the case of long holidays (>13 days), the Polish like to purchase and compose them themselves (45%), using online commercial services, private housing of individuals as the most frequent booking method (35%). Most Polish like to stay in a paid commercial accommodation, such as hotel, B&B, cruise, youth hostel, etc. (43%) these long holidays. Recommendations by friends, colleagues and relatives stand out among the information sources Polish travellers rely on when making their holiday decisions (61%).

Table 6: Polish key attitudes towards tourism

Czech Republic

A quarter of Czechs travellers regard nature as the primary reason to visit a destination (26%). More than twice as many mention nature as a reason to return: 59%. Most Czech travellers like package travel, but not all-inclusive (36% in case of long holidays, 37% with short holidays). There are three main methods the Czech use to book their holidays: through someone they know (26%), online commercial services – private housing individuals (24%), online commercial services, such as tour operators, airline companies, etc. (24%). During these holidays most Czech opt for a paid commercial accommodation, such as hotel, B&B, cruise, youth hostel, etc. (in case of long holidays a share of 42%, and in case of short holidays of 46%). During the preparation phase, recommendations by friends, colleagues and relatives (58%) are the most important information sources the Czechs rely on.

Table 7: Czech key attitudes towards tourism

  • Target the Netherlands, one of the European countries with the highest average incomes, where tourists also have a high preference for nature. For more information, study the Netherlands’ market profile .
  • Get certified if you own a hotel or accommodation or other tourism operator, as it will offer you many benefits . Depending on the kind of certification, it shows that you comply with the highest social and environmental standards. This is highly relevant in a market where environmental concerns among tourists is increasing and certification is increasingly used as a selection criterion by holidaymakers.
  • Consider B Corp certification , like Bodhi Surf + Yoga has done. Learn how this company facilitates memorable learning experiences using surf, yoga, nature immersion, and community engagement, including an app for gest to use before, during and after the holiday. This website has a database of B Corp certified travel and leisure businesses in various countries.
  • Promote your certification and the issuing body, especially if it is GSTC accredited. According to Booking.com , sufficient information on certification is a barrier to 32% of sustainable tourists. According to the Booking.com sustainable travel report 2019 , 72% of global travellers say they were not aware of the existence of eco-labels for vacation accommodations; 70% of them say they would be more likely to book an accommodation knowing it was eco-friendly; 62% would feel better about staying in an accommodation if they knew it had an eco-label; and 37% state that an international standard for identifying eco-friendly accommodation would help encourage them to travel more sustainably.

4. What trends offer opportunities or pose threats in the nature and ecotourism market?

Increasing demand for sustainable holidays.

Travellers are increasingly aware of and concerned with sustainability. When they choose a holiday destination, it is increasingly influenced by ethics, moral values, concerns about the environment and its ecosystems, including flora and animal protection and a desire to positively impact local communities. These travellers demand affordability and availability of environmentally friendly, sustainable and socially responsible tourism services and products. They want to reduce their holiday carbon footprint, but often want to improve the destination as well. That is why do good, feel good holidays and ecological tours are growing in popularity.

Various sources argue that ecotourists are generally willing to pay more for experiences, at least if they are authentic and meaningful, such as the Wildsea Network and others . Higher revenues allow to you to hire more qualified staff and to offer better travel experiences . However, costs are an obstacle for 42% of tourists to travelling more sustainably . Therefore, it might be easier to target tourists with more mainstream, nature-based interests and those seeking adventure activities, than ecotourists.

Among the reasons why European governments and travellers have been paying more attention to sustainability include climate change, plastic pollution, air and water pollution, land and water usage, dislocation of traditional societies, the negative impacts of overtourism on host communities, and international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement and the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals.

The UNWTO has a dedicated platform for tourism initiatives relating to the Sustainable Development Goals called Tourism for SDGs . The UNWTO book Tourism for Development – Volume II: Good Practices has numerous examples of good practices. Others include:

  • Global Himalayan Expedition , India
  • Las Terrazas Complex , Cuba
  • El Carlos Ecotourism and Archaeological Centre , Colombia

Examples of businesses with strengths in specific areas of sustainability include:

In nature tourism:

  • La Choza Chula , in Guatemala, runs turtle and mangrove tours, cooking classes, homestay programmes, cultural immersion programmes, volunteer programmes. They also offer weekly English classes for their guides, funded the construction of a library, set up a mobile library, and built a computer lab and a secondary school.
  • Shewula Mountain Camp , in Swaziland, invites travellers to stay in their village and experience the rural lifestyle and culture of a Swazi community.

Environmentally friendly practices:

  • Uniworld Cruises , Ireland: environmentally friendly river cruises.
  • The Brando , in Tahiti, uses solar energy and sustainable coconut oil biofuel, running on 100% renewable energy.
  • Baines Camp , in Botswana, was built using a frame of elephant manure and recycled cans.
  • Jacada Travel , from London, invests in a portfolio of community projects aimed at helping fight climate change offsetting 100% of the carbon emissions from trips taken with them, including all flights.
  • The Kulala Desert Lodge , in Namibia, uses electric bikes for guests to explore the Kulala concession.

Protection of cultural and natural heritage:

  • Three Camel Lodge , in Mongolia, was built using ancient Mongolian Buddhist building techniques, without nails nor iron work.

Social responsibility and benefit sharing:

  • Aqua Expeditions , in Peru, has doctors on river cruises deliver medical supplies and healthcare to remote Amazon villages.
  • Children in the Wilderness and Wilderness Safaris : offer an environmental and life skills educational programme that inspires African children to care for their natural heritage.
  • Study the UN Sustainable Development Goals , which could help you to identify short and long-term priorities. In the short term, you could start small. For example: reduce waste by implementing reusable dishes, provide clear rules for customers or involve them in contributing to sustainability in a beach clean-up or ‘ plogging ’. In the long term, the UN Sustainable Development Goals could help you to develop a strategy that integrates protecting the destination, promoting environmental leadership and community health into the travellers’ experience.
  • Contribute to the local community quality of life and well-being, including economic and sociocultural well-being and fair incomes. See table 8 below for examples.
  • Ecotourists generally know what they want and are quite independent. They will often plan and book their trip, travel needs and experiences themselves. So, as an accommodation or provider of local activities, make sure you have good online presence targeting this group and matching their needs.
  • If you proceed with making your business more environmentally friendly or more sustainable you could try to get it certified . This will make it more visible to consumers who consider these labels during the planning phase of their holidays.
  • Make your business or product more sustainable by, for example: - Using renewable energy sources - Increasing energy efficiency - Optimising use of resources - Promoting environmental protection - Investing in waste management and minimisation, like reducing plastic waste by banning plastic straws - Addressing carbon emissions, pollution and littering

Table 8: Examples of initiatives contributing to local communities’ quality of life

Health wellness and sports holidays

Health and healthy lifestyles are becoming increasingly important in tourists’ decision making. Ageing tourists, the typical lifestyles of Generations Y and Z, the growing middle class, and the technological and digital revolution, all contribute to the growing importance of the health trend. Wellness tourism in Europe is soaring. In a 2015 Eurobarometer survey of 33,000 people in 33 European countries, 13% of the respondents said that wellness, spa, and health treatments were their primary or secondary motivation to go on holiday.

Concerns about obesity, food sensitivity, and health in general, have changed people’s attitudes towards healthcare, nutrition, beauty, physical activity, and overall self-improvement. This development stimulates demand for personalised health, mental well-being, clean labels, botanicals, athleisure, and home-tech health and wearables to monitor personal health.

A large part of wellness tourism and the subsector with the biggest increases over the past few years consists of people who simply want to stay healthy. This market offers lots of opportunities in nature and ecotourism for SMEs, such as:

  • activities in nature in combination with wellness, such as hiking for meditation, yoga and tai chi;
  • thematic health hotels in nature;
  • personalised health and wellness programmes;
  • rejuvenation and psychological well-being;
  • meditation and yoga;
  • healthy menus and cooking classes;
  • mobile health monitoring;
  • holistic holidays;
  • wellness trips and retreats built around a specific wellness activity, from bootcamps to meditation and silence retreats in a natural environment;
  • spiritual travel with an adventure component.
  • Read the Global Wellness Economy Monitor from the Global Wellness Institute , which provides relevant background information on this market segment.

Overtourism

The ongoing debate on overtourism is expected to have a positive effect on the demand for sustainable tourism , including nature and ecotourism that cause low impact on destinations and their natural and social environment. The increased public awareness is also motivating the travel industry to pay more attention to human rights and working conditions. The global growth of tourism overall is expected to further stimulate the debate on overtourism, its consequences, and the ways to manage it.

The overtourism problem, on the other hand, offers opportunities for businesses outside mass tourism, especially those promoting destinations that sell remoteness as a form of luxury.

Two companies that have tapped into this opportunity are:

  • Hosteria Helsingfors (Argentina) – Built in the remote Los Glaciares National Park in Patagonia, this resort promotes its setting in the natural landscape, luxury services and sophisticated regional cuisine.
  • Hoanib Skeleton Coast (Namibia) – Accessible only by chartered flight, deep in the Namibian desert, this resort promotes game drives for guests to appreciate the landscape and desert-adapted wildlife.

This study was carried out on behalf of CBI by   Molgo  and  ETFI .

Please review our market information disclaimer .

Enter search terms to find market research

Do you have questions about this research?

Ask your question

Related research

  • What is the demand for outbound tourism on the European market?
  • What trends offer opportunities or pose threats on the European outbound tourism market?
  • What are the requirements for tourism services in the European market?
  • (opens in a new tab) Twitter
  • (opens in a new tab) Facebook
  • (opens in a new tab) LinkedIn
  • Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

5 Getaways That Reinvent Eco-Tourism

From the Columbia River Gorge to the Chesapeake Bay, these retreats provide educational and volunteer experiences for travelers not only wanting to reconnect with nature, but to give back.

In a large green field next to a calm river bed, a man with shovel and another with a pick-axe plant a tree.

By Lauren Matison

Hotels and glamping sites touting sustainability practices and nature-based activities have proliferated throughout the United States in the last decade, finding financial success by offering guests a let-nature-nurture-you wellness experience.

But many of these destinations have targeted only luxury travelers, and focused on an ethos of self-improvement. Now a growing number of hospitality entrepreneurs are working with or employing naturalists and scientists to reinvent eco-tourism by championing an outward, altruistic kind of outdoor therapy — regenerative tourism initiatives such as trail building and oyster reef restoration opportunities — as well as climate-change education.

“Having sustainability or ‘eco’ experiences perceived as ‘cool’ may help shift cultural perspectives in the long run,” said Leah Thomas , a climate justice activist and the author of “ The Intersectional Environmentalist .” Ms. Thomas says engaging travelers just one time in habitat restoration work or an environmental class can teach them to care about the planet.

Here are five affordable retreats that aim to inspire community activism and a more sustainable lifestyle.

Thatcher, Idaho

Maple Grove Hot Springs & Retreat Center

At the Maple Grove Hot Springs & Retreat Center, in southeast Idaho, guests can enjoy a soak in one of six thermal pools, but many also sign up for invasive plant removal, trail development or tree planting.

“We want guests from all walks of life to strike that perfect balance of rest, work, learning, thinking, sharing, laughing and exploring. The marriage of those creates a very transformative experience,” said Jordan Menzel, the founder of Maple Grove.

Powered by solar and hydro sources, the off-grid, 45-acre Maple Grove is currently working to become the world’s first B Corporation-certified hot springs, Mr. Menzel said. (The designation requires a certification of social and environmental performance). The retreat, opened in 2019, has stone shelters, yurts and cabins (nightly rates from $170), as well as walk-in tents and camper-van sites ($45). The center provides kayaks and river tubes at the beach, and concerts and outdoor movies by the pool, as well as foraging hikes, workshops on composting and managing a home garden, and cold plunges in the river.

To honor the Northwestern Band of Shoshone people who made their winter home on the Bear River, Maple Grove hosts a quarterly storytelling event led by a Shoshone tribal elder. Mr. Menzel also recently launched a conservation organization, Oneidanarrows.org , to stop a proposed dam on a nearby waterway.

Multiple locations

In 2017, after feeling ostracized at several national parks, Evelynn Escobar, a Black and Indigenous second-generation Guatemalan American, created Hike Clerb, an intersectional women’s hiking club and nonprofit committed to equitable access in the outdoors. (Clerb, she said, is slang referring to any type of club.) Ms. Escobar designs day and overnight experiences that balance healing in nature with land restoration projects and activities that encompass cultural heritage and decolonization education.

Ms. Escobar has hosted 77 free and low-cost meet-ups so far where participants have gathered not only to hike — and clean up trash along the trail — but to bike, surf, fish, farm and more. In California, the Hike Clerb community planted 100 oak trees in the Santa Monica Mountains Recreational Area and worked with Heal the Bay nonprofit to clean up the historically Black beach, Bruce’s Beach, now known as Manhattan Beach.

“The concept of these trips is bringing Black and brown facilitators and participants together to restore a place,” Ms. Escobar said. “As we are taking care of the land, it’s taking care of us.”

In fall 2022, Ms. Escobar created a two-night overnight retreat called Night Clerb at Ace Hotel Palm Springs ($300). This year and next, Night Clerb events will take place in Puerto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii and Yosemite National Park.

“People are craving opportunities to visit places as stewards versus tourists,” Ms. Escobar said. “When you feel connected to a place and have respect for it, you respect yourselves in that place, too. In that way, it’s a luxury experience.”

Irvington, Va.

The Tides Inn

The Tides Inn sits on the Carter’s Creek tributary of Chesapeake Bay, which produces around 500 million pounds of seafood annually. Since before the hotel opened in 1947, pollution and over-harvesting have been decimating the population of oysters, a keystone species for all marine life. In summer 2021, Tides Inn completed a $3.6 million shoreline restoration project that has since allowed oyster reefs to make a comeback, with help from a steady stream of guests.

The inn’s resident ecologist, Will Smiley, has been leading volunteer experiences for the last three years, including a popular one that repopulates baby oysters.

“As of January 2024, we have grown and planted over one million oysters,” said Mr. Smiley, noting that sea horses are returning to the area, a great bio-indicator. By planting oysters, which feed on the creek’s overabundance of algae (partly because of lawn-chemical runoff), the inn is also helping revive sea grass beds that are known to remove excess nutrients and maintain a healthy ecosystem.

The 70-room resort (nightly rates from $249) offers activities on and off the water, from kayaking and paddle-board yoga to pickleball and a pool and spa. But the heart of the inn is its boardwalk, which curves around 13,000 feet of shoreline and was designed as an outdoor museum with signs about the restoration project, local species and native plants. Family-friendly programming includes birding walks, beekeeping, blue crab ecology tours and pollinator garden lessons with the inn’s horticulturist, Matt Little. An off-site volunteer excursion ($200 per person), benefiting the river nonprofit Friends of Rappahannock , pairs a picnic with planting trees and wetland grasses.

“Just make your world the world,” said Mr. Smiley as he walked along a new 6.2-mile nature trail on the inn’s rewilded golf course. “If you make small daily changes like curbing waste and ditching plastic, you’ll feel good.”

Deep River, Ontario

Anupaya Cabin Co.

“I think the climate crisis can cause people to feel such paralysis, like it’s almost too little, too late,” said Shannon MacLaggan, who created Anupaya Cabin Co., with her husband, Pete, as a wilderness retreat and incubator for climate action in 2021. “There are massive esoteric concepts about how to tackle global warming, but this is something tangible and applicable.”

The 12-acre property (nightly rates from $232), along the upper Ottawa River, has a lodge, private beach and eight renovated cabins, each with a kitchen, grill, fire pit and porch views of the Laurentian Mountains. Anupaya invites every guest — inner-city youth groups receive a 50 percent room discount — to join the environmental movement in whatever way they can.

That might mean participating in cleanups through the hotel’s One Pound Promise initiative (60,000 pounds of waste have been collected so far), foraging workshops, planting fruit trees and berry bushes, or learning to grow and harvest food in the garden, where guests are often found pulling invasive plants and picking salad ingredients. Visitors can also work on trail management projects with the local Friends of Rivière du Moine nonprofit, or do trail maintenance at nearby Four Seasons Conservancy . “The whole reason we started Anupaya is to remind people how a part of nature we all are,” Ms. MacLaggan said. “If you love something, you feel a sense of responsibility toward it.”

Anupaya is introducing more formal volunteer opportunities in 2024. The Sustainable Saturdays initiative, to run from May to November, will offer free two-hour educational sessions on composting, starting a medicinal garden, raising chickens and more.

Mosier, Ore.

Fir Haven Retreats

This August, the restoration ecologist Kieron Wilde plans to welcome the first guests to Fir Haven, a 20-acre, plastic-free property an hour outside Portland, on the eastern end of the Columbia River Gorge. Fir Haven will have A-frame cabins with kitchenettes (nightly rates from $115), platform tent sites ($50), E.V. chargers and an informal educational lab for environmental stewardship.

Mr. Wilde aims to create experiences “for people to be immersed in conservation,” he said, like planting Garry Oak trees, both as a fire suppression tool and to support a rich native habitat.

Fir Haven will offer a menu of volunteer projects and field trips for guests, working with nonprofit partners like Trail Keepers of Oregon .

“It was time to double-down on the non-extractive, regenerative travel movement, and inspire people to leave a positive impact together,” said Mr. Wilde, who previously worked for the Bureau of Land Management and started First Nature Tours, an eco-tour operator. Mr. Wilde said there will be plenty of traditional wellness activities, including yoga and forest bathing, as well as biking the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Highway or hiking at nearby Rowana Crest Viewpoint .

Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram and sign up for our weekly Travel Dispatch newsletter to get expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places to Go in 2024 .

An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a tree being planted in Oregon. It is the Garry oak, not Gerry oak. It also misstated the cause of algae overgrowth in the Chesapeake Bay. The overgrowth comes from runoff of lawn chemicals, not pesticides.

How we handle corrections

Open Up Your World

Considering a trip, or just some armchair traveling here are some ideas..

Italy :  Spend 36 hours in Florence , seeking out its lesser-known pockets.

Southern California :  Skip the freeways to explore the back roads between Los Angeles and Los Olivos , a 100-mile route that meanders through mountains, canyons and star-studded enclaves.

Mongolia : Some young people, searching for less curated travel experiences, are flocking to the open spaces of this East Asian nation .

Romania :  Timisoara  may be the most noteworthy city you’ve probably never heard of , offering just enough for visitors to fill two or three days.

India: A writer fulfilled a lifelong dream of visiting Darjeeling, in the Himalayan foothills , taking in the tea gardens and riding a train through the hills.

52 Places:  Why do we travel? For food, culture, adventure, natural beauty? Our 2024 list has all those elements, and more .

IMAGES

  1. Ecotourism 101: What It Is and How Campers Can Participate

    types of nature based tourism

  2. Nature Based Tourism

    types of nature based tourism

  3. Why you should try nature-based tourism and how to do it

    types of nature based tourism

  4. What Exactly Is Ecotourism?

    types of nature based tourism

  5. A nature-based tourism framework. Adapted from Fossgard and Stensland

    types of nature based tourism

  6. Ecotourism examples around the world: the 10 best places to visit a

    types of nature based tourism

VIDEO

  1. #nature #travel #suscribe

  2. Supporting nature based tourism in the Central Highlands

  3. Nature based Solutions and Ecological Spatial Plan Ver.THAI

  4. Nature-Based Landscape Design for an edible landscape

  5. Travelling in Presence of Nature

  6. Nature Based Wellness and Health Tourism

COMMENTS

  1. Ecotourism and Protected areas

    Ecotourism and Protected areas. According to the UN Tourism's definition, ecotourism refers to forms of tourism which have the following characteristics: All nature-based forms of tourism in which the main motivation of the tourists is the observation and appreciation of nature as well as the traditional cultures prevailing in natural areas.

  2. What is nature tourism and why is it so popular?

    Nature tourism, also called nature-based tourism, is tourism based on the natural attractions of an area. It consists of responsible travel to experience natural areas and their landscape, flora and fauna, protecting the environment and improving the quality of life of locals. ... Types of nature tourism. There are different types of nature ...

  3. Eco Tourism

    Ecotourism Society defines ecotourism as, " responsible travel to natural areas which conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people.". According to the Ecotourism Association of Australia, " ecotourism is nature-based tourism that involves education and interpretation of the natural environment and is managed to be ...

  4. Nature Based Tourism » Concept, Categories, Issues

    Nature based tourism can be classified into many categories depending on the place, kid of activity, motivation or reason, and the type be it sustainable, organized or commercial. It provides ease in quantifying tourism and tourists on nature based basis and helps to produce concrete statistical results. Tourist classification can also produce ...

  5. Nature-based Tourism: Benefits and youth involvement

    Nature-based tourism (NBT) is defined as the number of outdoor activities performed by tourists in the natural environment. NBT activities represent high level adventure activities like jet boating, skydiving and mountain climbing as well as more relaxing activities like bush walking, wildlife and scenic tours and boat cruises (aucklandcouncil, August, 2009) 1.

  6. Nature-Based Tourism

    Nature-Based Tourism. Part of the book series: International Risk Governance Council Bookseries ( (IRGC,volume 1)) Tourism is the largest industry in the world according to figures on employment and expenditures. Over 800 million people, the equivalent of roughly 12% of the world's population, travel internationally each year — with many more ...

  7. Nature-Based Tourism, Protected Areas, and Sustainability

    The deadline for manuscript submissions is January 31, 2021. Our aim is to compile a Special Issue that highlights research on recent trends in nature-based tourism, protected areas, and sustainability. Nature-based tourism is a growing segment of the tourism market and one that is often dependent on the natural attractions found in and around ...

  8. Conceptualizing nature-based science tourism: a case study of Seili

    A growing global desire for tourism and recreation is nature-based, involving interactions with or appreciation of the natural environment (e.g., Margaryan, 2018; Mehmetoglu, 2007 ). Nature-based tourism is an umbrella term including various forms of niche tourism (Novelli, 2005) such as wildlife tourism, ecotourism, and adventure tourism.

  9. PDF Chapter 8 Nature-Based Tourism

    nature-based tourism qualifies as 'eco' or 'sustainable'. In addressing nature-based tourism, this case study thus deliberately chooses a relatively broad focus which allows for discussion of a wide range of risks. Where appropriate, and in order to illustrate specific issues, the case study will use examples from the other types of

  10. A Global Perspective on Trends in Nature-Based Tourism

    Introduction. Across southern Africa, nature-based tourism reportedly now generates roughly the same revenue as farming, forestry, and fisheries combined .Worldwide, tourism as a whole has been estimated to account for roughly 10% of gross domestic product (GDP) , with wildlife viewing and outdoor recreation (much of it centred on protected areas [PAs]) reportedly making up one of its fastest ...

  11. Climate Change and Nature-Based Tourism: How Do Different Types of

    Climate change will impact nature-based tourism communities by altering weather patterns and influencing the supply of outdoor recreation resources. Visitors to these such destinations respond through recreation substitution, altering when, where, and how they participate in outdoor pursuits.

  12. New research shows a global trend in nature-based tourism

    Nature-based tourism is one of the most tangible benefits that people derive from conserving biodiversity. Professor Andrew Balmford. The research, published today in the journal PLoS Biology, found that in 15 of the 20 countries for which information was available there was an increase in the number of visitors to their nature reserves.

  13. Nature-Based Tourism: A Contrast to Everyday Life

    A balance between these two types of nature-based tourism segments . ... Mehmetoglu (2007) referred to nature-based tourism as a broad concept that includes ecotourism, adventure tourism ...

  14. Restoration of Visitors through Nature-Based Tourism: A Systematic

    Figure 2 shows that since 2009, an increasing number of publications have examined the restorative potential of nature in diverse types of nature-based tourism destinations. This indicates a paradigm shift in terms of restoration research by integrating environment, health, and tourism perspectives [ 27 ].

  15. Sustainability Comes to Life. Nature-Based Adventure Tourism in Norway

    Experience tourism is the fastest growing tourism sector (Fredman and Haukeland, 2017; Ministry of Trade, 2017) and tourism businesses that are based on nature-, food- or culture experiences represent the core of the Norwegian tourism product (Fredman and Tyrväinen, 2010; Ministry of Trade, 2017). From the government's perspective, it is ...

  16. Identification and classification of nature-based tourism resources

    Attraction levels were scored from 1 (very bad) to 10 (very good) in such a way as to include all characteristics of a place which may constitute a type of nature-based tourism, and evaluated in 10 sub-items. Infrastructure supports are needed for the long-term and sustainable development of a tourism area.

  17. Full article: Prospects for nature-based tourism: identifying trends

    Nature-based activities have become business constituents of increasing importance in the tourism industry. In this paper, trends in nature-based tourism with the largest commercial potentials are identified by means of surveys with 60 experts in five different countries/regions with a renowned nature-based tourism sector, collected in three ...

  18. The Nature of Nature in Nature-based Tourism

    based tourism servicescape, many nature-based tourism companies are small scale and target niche markets (Ateljevic & Doome, 2000; Lundberg & Fredman, 2012) which call for different forms of ...

  19. The European market potential for nature and ecotourism

    1. Product description. Nature tourism, also called nature-based tourism, is tourism based on the natural attractions of an area. It consists of responsible travel to experience natural areas and their landscape, flora and fauna, protecting the environment and improving the quality of life of locals.

  20. Nature-Based Tourism in National and Natural Parks in Europe: A ...

    Considered among the fastest-growing industries in the world, tourism brings immense benefits but also creates certain challenges. Conservation of natural resources is a stringent necessity, without which the extraordinary ecosystems' attributes that create the premises for nature-based tourism would reduce, alter, and subsequently disappear. The aim of the present review is twofold: gaining ...

  21. (PDF) Nature-Based Tourism, Nature Based Tourism Destinations

    Among all types of tourism in the World, nature-based tourism, having a quite high share such as %20, this share is cont inuously increasing (Center for Responsible Travel, 2018).

  22. 5 Retreats to Reconnect With Nature

    5 Getaways That Reinvent Eco-Tourism. From the Columbia River Gorge to the Chesapeake Bay, these retreats provide educational and volunteer experiences for travelers not only wanting to reconnect ...

  23. Nature-Based Tourism: Motivation and Subjective Well-Being

    Nature-based tourism has gained popularity worldwide over the last decade, ... As a result, "enjoying the natural environment and escaping from daily life", "pursuing new type of travel", "pursuing healthy life", and "pursuing intimacy" are classified as motivations for hiking tourists. Moreover, in order to investigate the ...

  24. The Nature of Nature in Nature-based Tourism

    These issues are addressed in this paper using a two-dimensional model of the nature-based tourism servicescape. Based upon a grounded theory mixed-method approach, we analyze to what extent nature-based tourism companies in Sweden depend upon natural environments and facilities (naturalness dimension), and open access and exclusive rights to ...