AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECOTOURISM DESTINATION IMAGE OF
THE CENTRAL BALKAN NATIONAL PARK IN BULGARIA
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Steven W. Richards, M.S.
*****
The Ohio State University
2006
Dissertation Committee:
Approved by
Professor Ted L. Napier, Advisor
Professor Robert J. Gates
Professor Gary W. Mullins
_________________________________
Advisor
Graduate Program in Natural Resources
ABSTRACT
Natural areas around the world are being planned, designed and promoted as
ecotourism destinations. International organizations such as the United Nations have
advocated for sustainable development through sound environmental practices that
include the implementation of tourism initiatives within protected national areas. Though
not universally endorsed as truly sustainable, ecotourism is being incorporated
nonetheless into the development plans of many countries around the world.
The management plan for the Central Balkan National Park (CBNP) in the Republic
of Bulgaria has called for ecotourism development within the park and surrounding
communities. A challenge remains in identifying how natural resource professionals and
ecotourism planners can best achieve the desired benefits of nature-based tourism, while
minimizing the degradation effects to the resource base within the park. Protecting the
biological integrity of natural areas within the park and successfully managing those
same areas for ecotourism development requires congruency between the image that
visitors have of the park as an ecotourism destination and the strategized image that park
planners have envisioned. Creating and managing an appropriate destination image is
important for effective positioning of the park as an ecotourism site. The descriptive
components of this study provide a baseline measurement and assessment of the CBNP’s
destination image.
ii
This study examines the ecotourism destination image held by visitors to the Central
Balkan National Park. Purpose of the study was to describe the visitors to the park and to
explore whether destination image is mediated by visitors’ demographic profile and
experience within the park. Specifically, the study explored the independent variables
that might influence a visitor’s evaluation of the park attributes defining destination
image as an ecotourism site.
Data were collected at several pre-selected sampling sites within and adjacent to the
park. The survey instrument was a questionnaire available in either the Bulgarian or
English languages. Participants were convenience sampled and participation was
voluntary (n= 195).
Study results showed weak association between destination image and the
independent variables investigated. Only visit frequency and salience of ecotourism
attributes were found to be significant at p ≤ 0.05. This suggests that a subject’s image
of the park as an ecotourism venue is influenced by the number of times the park had
been previously visited. Further, salience results suggest that park visitors who most
value the ecotourism attributes in the study were more likely to rate the park higher as an
ecotourism destination.
iii
To my parents,
Greg and Eleanore, who from the beginning
nurtured a vision of unbounded possibilities. . .
To Gary and Dawn, who to the end
walk with me to realize that vision. . .
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To my advisor, Dr. Ted L. Napier, my sincerest expression of gratitude and thanks for
his wisdom, his guidance and his support throughout my studies here at Ohio State. His
mark has been truly indelible and I am forever grateful. I would like to thank Dr. Gary
W. Mullins for his constant belief in my work, his counsel and his supportive
encouragement throughout my studies. From the first, Dr. Mullins epitomized the
scholarly, yet approachable mentor that I so earnestly sought when beginning my
program at Ohio State. I am richer for the experience. And, thanks to Dr. Robert J.
Gates for his advice and assistance. Dr. Gates helped me to better understand the
complex nature of the relationship between human dimensions and natural science. His
expertise and assistance were invaluable.
I would like to thank Dr. Neil J. Andrew for laying a solid foundation for my studies
in tourism and conservation management. To Dr. Cathy A. Rakowski, my heartfelt
thanks for serving on my doctoral candidacy committee. Dr. Rakowski encouraged my
interest in sustainability issues and I cannot thank her enough.
To my friends and fellow graduate students in the School of Environment and Natural
Resources at Ohio State University, my sincere thanks. Special thanks to Joe Bonnell for
v
enduring my moods in our shared office and to Kate Wiltz and Sunita Hilton for their
unconditional friendship.
I would like to thank my many friends in the Bulgarian community. There are not
words enough in the Bulgarian or English languages to express my sincerest thanks to
Svetoslav Chilikov and Tanya Chincheva for their friendship and support, without which
this study could not have been done. To Hristo Nenov and Alexy Chilikov, thank you for
your support and guidance during my stay in Bulgaria. To my friend Icho, special thanks
for the benefit of your company while hiking in the Balkan Mountains. I wish to thank
Ms. Nela Rachevitz and the Central Balkan National Park office staff for their support
and advice in conducting this study and for translation assistance into Bulgarian. Thanks,
too, to the rangers in the park who assisted me with logistics and provisions. Bulgaria
has forever changed me, and my relationships with these individuals are the tangible
proof.
Finally, I express my thanks to my family for their constant love and support. Without
them, there would be diminished reason to exult in life’s milestones and achievements.
With them, the quiet moments are worthy of celebration.
vi
VITA
July 2, 1955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Born – Norwalk, Ohio USA
1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B.S.B.A. Accounting
Bowling Green State University
1995 – 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Graduate Teaching Associate,
The Ohio State University
1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M.S. Natural Resources
The Ohio State University
1997 – 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Natural Resources Program Coordinator
The Ohio State University
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Fields: Natural Resources
Parks & Recreation
Sustainable Development
Business Administration
Accounting
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Vita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
Chapters:
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Problem Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Objectives of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Basic Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2. Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Summary of Destination Image Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The Image Construct and Destination Image Formation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Stage Theory and Destination Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Conservation Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Conservation Reserve Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
viii
3. Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Research Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Population and Sampling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Instrument Format. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Instrument Approval and Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4. Results & Preliminary Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Identification of Ecotourism Destination Attributes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Description of Park Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Measurement of the Destination Image of the Central Balkan National Park . . . . 84
The Relationship Between the Study’s Independent Variables and Destination
Image of the Central Balkan National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5. Conclusions and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103
Recommendations for Policy and Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Recommendations for Future Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116
List of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
3.1
Summary of data collection and useable responses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.1
Ecotourism attributes identified in interactive group sessions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
4.2
Response means for ecotourism attributes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.3 Citizenship and Residency of participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.4
Proportion of male and female participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.5
Age of participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.6
Frequency of visiting the CBNP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.7
Length of stay for current visit to the CBNP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.8 Number of Bulgarian parks visited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.9
Visit experience of foreign national parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.10 Group size. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.11 Reasons for visiting the Central Balkan National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.12 Education level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.13 Self-reported physical condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.14 Pearson correlation coefficients for independent variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.15 Factor component matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
x
4.16 Percentage frequencies for participant’s park visit length by residency . . . . . . . .100
4.17 Percentage frequencies for park visit frequency by residency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
2.1 Stage-theory of Destination Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.1
Introductory Script for Data Collection at Sampling Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1
Example of Components of Destination Image. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.2 List of Attributes Used for Development of Scale Items. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.3 Most Frequent Responses to Open-Ended Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.4
Attribute/Holistic and Functional/Psychological Components
of Destination Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.5
Common/Unique and Functional/Psychological Components
of Destination Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
4.6
Attribute/Holistic and Common/Unique Components
of Destination Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Tourism to natural areas has been widely endorsed as a mechanism for sustainable
development and for providing financial incentives to protect natural areas from
alternative economic transformation (Lindberg & Hawkins, 1993). The United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP), for example, has advocated sustainable development
through sound environmental practices, including the development of tourism initiatives
within protected natural areas (UNEP, 2004) (www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/sensitive/protareas.htm). Though not universally endorsed as truly sustainable, tourism is being
incorporated nonetheless into the development plans of many countries around the world.
UNEP argues that tourism can make an economic contribution to the protection of
ecologically sensitive areas through financial support for improvements to environmental
infrastructure such as wastewater treatment systems or environmentally sensitive
recreational trails. Visitor use may also bolster protected area management via training
programs for park personnel and provision of supplemental resources for law
enforcement. UNEP further claims that carefully crafted sustainable tourism
development has been instrumental in raising environmental awareness and in providing
in-situ visitor education about behavior in a natural environment.
1
Reflecting priorities expressed in recommendations originating from Agenda 21
adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio (1992), The European Charter for Sustainable
Tourism in Protected Areas asserts that “a balance between conservation objectives and
social, cultural and economic development is the best approach for the long-term viability
of tourism which itself depends heavily upon the quality of the environment, as well as
for the conservation of protected areas” (European Charter, 2002). Balancing the
objectives for conservation / preservation of biodiversity, indigenous cultures, and natural
resources with those for social and economic development is often difficult. The
international call for sustainable tourism development is a manifestation of this enduring
tension between the development of natural resources for present-day social and
economic utility and the conservation of natural capital for posterity.
From a conservationist’s standpoint, tourism to natural areas may encourage the
recognition, protection and designation of additional ecologically significant areas as
national parks, cultural monuments or natural preserves (UNEP, 2004). As people hear
about degradation of the environment and the loss of biodiversity around the world, some
become more aware of conservation issues (Drumm & Moore, 2002). Through their
travel decisions, many choose to learn first hand about endangered species and threatened
habitats. Visiting natural areas builds demand for more and varied experiences with
nature. Countries such as Costa Rica and Belize have seen dramatic increases in tourist
arrivals attributed largely to expanding demand for nature tourism (Drumm & Moore,
2002). In meeting this demonstrated demand, natural area managers have an opportunity
to place tourism development within a conservation context. Increasingly, natural area
managers are adopting a landscape perspective when designing management plans and
2
analyzing the environmental factors affecting species and habitats of interest (Noss,
1983). The objective has been to develop a sustainable tourism product dependent upon
a sustainable natural resource base. This requires protection and establishment of
conservation reserves that recognize the integrity of heterogeneous ecosystems at the
landscape level.
The tourism product can be thought of as the total bundle of goods, services and ideas
in the form of a recreational and/or educational experience that confers functional, social
and psychological utilities or benefits to the consumer. Typically, this product bundle
includes food and beverages, lodging, naturalist guides, local transportation, program
activities, and other amenities that provide varying degrees of comfort and satisfaction.
The product concept in a tourism context sometimes goes beyond the tangibles consumed
or purchased by the consumer while recreating. By protecting and promoting the
philosophy of environmentalism, ecotourism also introduces ideas as a product
component. This philosophy, integrated into the product, serves to reinforce the social
responsibility aspects of the message for those holding similar beliefs and elevates the
experience to a higher level. A niche market composed of individuals who find greater
satisfaction from purchasing a product from an organization that actively seeks to
maximize its positive impact and minimize its negative impact on society is foundational
to the whole concept of ecotourism.
Tourism is a large and growing industry. According to the World Tourism
Organization (WTO), tourism is the world’s largest growth industry, with receipts from
international travel reaching US $476 billion in 2000, measured in monetary terms by the
aggregation of consumption of goods and services by non-resident visitors in the
3
economic territory of the hosting country. Income streams from international tourism
have become a significant factor in the balance of payments for many countries. In 2003,
tourism represented approximately six per cent of worldwide exports of goods and
services (WTO, 2006).
Increasingly, places become arenas of competition in the regional and international
marketplace for attracting visitors (Jenkins, 1999). Not all visitors to a specific venue or
destination are tourists. For tourism studies, visitors are divided into tourist or resident
categories. A tourist is any person traveling to a place other than their usual environment
for less than 12 months and whose main purpose of visit is other than the exercise of an
activity remunerated from within the place visited (WTO, 2006). Tourists may be either
international or domestic. Domestic tourists are persons visiting within their own country
of citizenship, but whose usual environment lies more than 80 kilometers (50 miles) from
the visited destination. A resident is a person whose usual environment is within 80
kilometers of the place of visitation. Thus, a visitor to a destination may be one of three
broadly defined categories, an international tourist, a domestic tourist, or a resident.
Ecotourism or nature tourism is acclaimed as the fastest growing sector of the
international tourist industry (Cater, 1993). Though used interchangeably, the two terms
involve separate and distinct concepts. In order to differentiate the many aspects of
nature tourism, a confusing array of terms has been adopted into common usage. To
discriminate among these terms is more than a debate of semantic distinction. The terms
are not synonymous and the nuances of their separate meanings should be recognized.
Business and marketing language originating out of the travel industry has become
entangled with that of conservation and development nomenclature. Still, the notion of
4
ecotourism eludes precise definition because it is a complex concept that ambitiously
attempts to simultaneously describe an activity, frame a philosophy, and promote a model
for development.
One category of terms frequently encountered is merely descriptive. Tourism is
often segmented based on a description of the participants’ activities or interests; nature
travel, adventure travel or cultural travel, for example. Another aspect emphasizes the
approach and impact of travel regardless of the activities pursued; ethical travel,
responsible travel or alternative tourism.
The foundation of nature tourism rests on the behavior and motivation of the
individual participant, whereas ecotourism is a more comprehensive concept based on a
planned product approach by a host country or region designed to achieve community
objectives in addition to meeting those of the tourist (Lindberg & Hawkins, 1993). This
planned approach involves the process of designing and managing the ecotourism
product in order to achieve societal objectives that include conservation of the region’s
natural resource base and community development goals. Ziffer et al.(1989) makes the
case that nature tourism is not necessarily ecologically sound. Ecotourism incorporates
both a strong commitment to nature and a sense of social responsibility.
Natural areas earmarked as ecotourism destinations may position themselves
strategically via a carefully planned and managed destination image, one congruent with
visitor expectations, visitor use and management objectives. Positioning refers to the
systematic process of analysis and decision-making that guides managers of a destination
site in the achievement of compatibility and congruency among the destination’s
attributes, the demands of one or more market segments, and the targeted promotion
5
message (Reich, 1999). Management must be in a position to align visitors’ expectations
and the promotion message with an available array of destination attributes. Creating and
managing an appropriate destination image is critical to effective positioning and
marketing strategy (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993). Environmental communications and
marketing messages conveying an inaccurate image to potential visitors confuse and
alienate them once they experience the site. Reilly (1990) stated that an accurate
assessment of image is a key to designing an effective marketing and positioning
strategy. Management of image attributes by resource managers of natural areas requires
a level of understanding of how they influence visitor satisfaction and visitor
expectations. A research program of visitor satisfaction and destination image can
provide critical data for natural areas management of ecotourism sites.
Tourism destinations have one or more primary markets and several secondary
markets from which they attract the majority of their visitors (Reich, 1999). The ability
to attract these market segments is based on the destination’s market position – its image
in the minds of customers relative to competitors (Assel, 1985; Kotler, 1991). According
to Reich (1999), a destination’s position can be conceptualized from two primary
perspectives. A strategized market position is an explicitly or implicitly targeted position
purposely pursued by management. An objective market position is the overall opinion
of the destination held by the target market relative to competing destinations.
Discrepancies between the two positions represent a difference in congruency that may
hold consequences for future product development opportunities. Non-alignment of
strategized and objective positions for an ecotourism experience within a national park
for example, might entail management’s strategized position of interpretive programming
6
being inconsistent with the objective position held by park visitors once they experience
interpretive programming.
Positioning serves park managers and tourism policy-makers in four critical areas
(Reich, 1999; Calantone & Manzanec, 1991; Lovelock, 1991). It emphasizes the
relationship between visitor satisfaction and the performance of the destination vis-à-vis
competing locations; assists with identification of new market opportunities; matches the
park experience with those desired by the target audience; and communicates the
destination’s uniqueness through differentiation from all other natural areas.
Undifferentiated tourism products perpetuate an atmosphere of substitutability
among destinations (Gray, 1982). Tourists unable to distinguish uniqueness among
homogeneous ecotourism destinations are likely to discriminate by placing greater
emphasis on variables such as price or travel distance. This leaves undifferentiated
ecotourism products in less accessible locations vulnerable to erosion of financial
benefits, diffusion of product image and isolation in the international market.
Destination image has been shown to influence a visitor’s travel decision-making,
cognition and behavior at a destination as well as satisfaction levels and recollection of
the experience (Chon, 1992). Tourism marketers are interested in destination image
studies largely because of the affect on decision-making and sales of tourism products
and services (Jenkins, 1999). Park managers dealing with tourism policy and
conservation issues are interested in the concept of destination image primarily due to the
influence on visitor satisfaction levels, behavior and cognition of the park experience.
7
Problem Statement
Natural areas around the world are being planned, designed and promoted as
ecotourism destinations. Travelers are visiting natural areas, such as formally designated
parks and reserves, in increasing numbers and are looking to these experiences as a way
to appreciate and understand the natural environment (Boo, 1993).
Natural areas and the ecotourism experience they support are consumer products
like many other products offered in the marketplace. Tourists increasingly search out and
compare different places, particularly in terms of the perceived character of the physical
and built environment (Urry, 1995). Natural area managers should be aware that parks
and reserves, along with their attendant tourism products, compete in the international
and regional marketplace for visitors.
According to Echtner and Ritchie (1993), effective tourism product positioning and
marketing strategies require the creation and management of an appropriate destination
image. Though many national parks and reserves around the world are embracing
ecotourism as a vehicle for economic development and conservation management, few
have adopted a mechanism to position, manage, and evaluate image of the tourism
product offered. Mayo and Jarvis (1981) claim that destinations that are not easily
categorized or differentiated from other similar destinations incur a reduced likelihood of
selection. Thus, there is a need to investigate the images of natural areas organized for
tourism and to examine the perceptions of tourists and potential tourists with respect to
the associated attributes of ecotourism destinations. Though considerable destination
image research has been done on a macro level for a generic tourism product (where the
8
unit of analysis is a nation), little work has been directed at protected natural areas
specifically identified in the niche ecotourism market.
Need for the Study
Sustainable development initiatives for rural and impoverished communities
throughout the world have embraced nature-based tourism as a vehicle for attaining both
economic and non-economic benefits (United Nations Environmental Program, 2001). A
challenge remains in identifying how natural resource professionals and nature-based
tourism providers can best achieve those benefits while, at the same time, minimizing the
effects of degradation to the resource base (Stein, 2001). Effective management of
natural areas designated for nature-based tourism requires informed decision-making by
scientists, resource managers, policy makers and elected officials. Ideally, informed
natural resource managers have access to relevant social science research and need to be
aware of the preferences, beliefs and perceptions of the visitors to the natural areas they
manage.
This study examines the ecotourism destination image held by visitors and
potential visitors to the Central Balkan National Park in the Republic of Bulgaria. Less
than 2 decades ago, Bulgaria fully embraced a command economy where consumer
choice was severely limited. At that time, resource managers of natural areas did not feel
the need to do visitor research because decision-making had been centralized and
management objectives were set by the State. Though market forces may have
influenced visitation rates and visitor experience of the area, visitor satisfaction was
thought to be a secondary consideration. Tourists had the option to either visit the area,
experiencing the amenities as they existed, or self-select to not visit. Today, park
9
management recognizes the need to manage visitor experience and to assess visitor
satisfaction (Rachevitz, per. com., 2003).
Designated in 1991, the Central Balkan National Park is among Bulgaria’s newest
protected areas. Geographically, it entails 716 km² of diverse wilderness ranging in
altitudes from 640 to 2,376 meters at its highest peak, Mt. Botev. Biologically, it
encompasses nine nature reserves, four of which are recognized by the United Nations as
biosphere reserves of global significance (Rachevitz, per. com., 2003).
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), through its Biodiversity
Conservation and Economic Growth Project, has initiated support to the Bulgarian nature
protection management system via the development of a management plan for the Rila
and Central Balkan National Parks. The Project, through numerous initiatives, assists the
Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water to capture protected area revenue by
developing operational pilot projects for eco-enterprise, local ecotourism and non-timber
forest product activities in the park regions.
Given that the management plan for the CBNP has called for ecotourism
development within the park and surrounding communities, and that the tourism product
competes in the regional and international marketplace for visitors, park management and
tourism policy-makers might benefit from a greater understanding of visitors’ ecotourism
destination image as they position the park for ecotourism, plan and evaluate park
operations, and set priorities for action.
The CBNP is a particularly good venue for this study because the park is relatively
new so the naïve image of the park has been little influenced by extensive and persistent
promotion or media exposure. In addition, management has articulated an intentional
10
plan for ecotourism development within the park and this study provides an opportunity
for baseline measurement and assessment of the park’s destination image before
extensive investments are made in infrastructure, programming, or promotion. Results of
this study could serve to inform park managers and tourism planners of inaccurate or
inappropriate images, thus providing a foundation for strategic repositioning or reevaluation of the tourism product, if it were necessary. Further, results may provide
base-line data for visitor satisfaction levels of the park experience and amenities within
the park.
No previous destination image studies have specifically looked at national parks in
the niche market of ecotourism. Considerable work has been done to identify the
attributes of tourism destinations in general, but attributes have not been specified
uniquely for an ecotourism destination or experience. This study would add to current
destination image and tourism research by identifying specific attributes unique to an
ecotourism destination. This is significant because, according to Jenkins et al. (1999),
most destination image research has neglected to test for categories or attributes most
relevant to the study group. Instead, standardized instruments have tested for attributes
identified by researcher’s opinions or those derived from literature searches of generic
tourism destinations (Jenkins, 1999). Many conservationists and tourism planners argue
that an ecotourism experience is distinguished from conventional tourism experiences
(Isaacs, 2000). If so, it is particularly important to measure and study the construct based
upon attributes relevant to visitors to ecotourism destinations and consumers of natural
areas. Operationally, understanding the differing images that visitors and non-visitors
have of the Central Balkan National Park would provide managerial insight into the
11
salient attributes of the naïve image and the re-evaluated images of the park such that
they could be incorporated into tourism policy and park planning.
Purpose of the Study
This study explores whether destination image is mediated by visitors’ demographic
profile and/or experience within the park. The central research question focuses on
whether a visitor’s demographic profile and visitor’s experience with the park influences
his/her evaluation of the park attributes defining destination image. Essentially, the
research question asks, ‘What is the relationship between the independent variables
(visitor’s demographic profile, a visitor’s experience within the park and a visitor’s
reasons for visiting the park) and a visitor’s attitudinal ratings of the park’s attributes as
an ecotourism destination?
No destination image research has previously been done in the Central Balkan
National Park. A small number of surveys, limited in scope, have attempted to collect
data on visitation rates to the system of hijas (accommodations) scattered within the park.
Study results may provide park managers with a framework for future visitor satisfaction
and destination image research. Results are also meant to inform management about
visitors’ perceptions of the park during the study period. This could have implications
for policy decisions, program planning, resource allocation and promotional initiatives.
The study adds to theory by exploring destination image within the context of a
visitor’s perception of ecotourism attributes in a national park. It offers a model for
comparative ecotourism image studies for national parks and protected natural areas
around the world.
12
Objectives of the Study
1. To describe the visitors to the Central Balkan National Park.
2. To measure the destination image of the CBNP.
3. To explore the relationship between the study’s independent variables (visitor’s
citizenship, residency, visit frequency, length of stay, group size, reasons for visit,
gender, age, education, level of fitness and attribute salience) and the dependent
variable (destination image).
Definition of Terms
Destination Image – “The expression of all objective knowledge, impressions, prejudice,
imaginations and emotional thoughts an individual or group might have of a particular
place.” (Lawson and Baud Bovy, 1977)
Ecotourism – “Socially and environmentally responsible travel to natural areas which
conserves the environment and improves the welfare of local people.” (The International
Ecotourism Society)
Naïve image – “Image of a place based on perceptions derived from organic and
projected image; those sources that are non-experiential of the site.”
National park – “A protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and
recreation.” (United Nations Environmental Program)
Natural area – “A site largely unaltered by modern human activity, where vegetation is
distributed in naturally occurring patterns.”
Protected area – “An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and
maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and
managed through legal or other effective means.” (The World Conservation Union)
13
Re-evaluated image – “Image of a place that is formed during and following an on-site
experience.”
Sustainable development – “Development that meets the needs and aspirations of the
present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future.” (The Brundtland
Commission Report, 1987)
Tourism – “The activities of persons traveling to and staying in places outside their usual
environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other
purposes not related to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place
visited.” (World Tourism Organization)
Limitations of the Study
The study is limited to a convenience sample of visitors 18 years or older willing to
participate in or near the Central Balkan National Park between certain dates at certain
locations. Results, therefore, are not generalizable to larger populations.
Visitors surveyed are limited to the Bulgarian and English speaking population and to
those comfortable enough to respond in either written Bulgarian or written English.
Translation of the questionnaire from English to Bulgarian may render some
expressions and cultural concepts somewhat curious and ambiguous for respondents
unaccustomed to conventions of survey research or the construct of ecotourism.
Time and financial constraints limit data collection to five weeks during the summer
season. Visitors at other periods may or may not share perceptions and characteristics of
those surveyed during high-season in the park.
Attributes of an ecotourism destination image had to be identified prior to
administration of the survey. Time and financial constraints limit focus group research to
14
an American population of nature travelers, specifically residing within Ohio.
Perceptions of the construct of ecotourism and identification of attributes associated with
ecotourism destinations may differ from other populations.
Basic Assumptions
This study makes the following assumptions:
This study is based on self-reported data. It is assumed that respondents answered
survey questions truthfully regarding their perceptions about the variables of the study
and according to the instructions of the questionnaire.
That overall destination image can be statistically measured from a sample of the
population of visitors to the park during the 5week period of data collection.
That visitors participating in this study are visiting the park by choice.
That survey participants are representative of the general population of visitors to the
Central Balkan National Park during the study period.
15
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter is organized around several intersecting bodies of knowledge and
reflects the contributions to this study made by each area of literature. Undertaking
research investigating ecotourism destination image within protected areas involves
social, economic and ecological dimensions that interact in complex ways. This
researcher reviewed literature and supporting research regarding destination image,
image formation and measurement of image, providing theoretical support for the
objectives of this study.
Location of this study is in the Central Balkan National Park, a protected natural area
with a master plan designating significant sectors of the park and surrounding
communities for sustainable ecotourism development. Understanding the social and
economic context within which an ecotourism system operates requires familiarity with
sustainable development at the theoretical and operational levels. In addition, a literature
review of conservation biology and reserve design was undertaken as critical
acknowledgement of the essential linkage between the ecotourism product and the
conservation objectives inherent in protecting natural areas and biodiversity.
16
Summary of Destination Image Theory
Several concepts from destination image theory have been applied to this study.
Among them is the observation that human behavior is influenced by image as well as
objective reality. Humans form beliefs and feelings about places without having
personally visited or experienced them. The image construct has perceptual / cognitive
and affective dimensions (beliefs or knowledge about a destination’s attributes and
feelings about the place). Researchers agree that affective evaluation depends on
cognitive assessment of objects, and that the affective responses are formed as a function
of the cognitive ones – but these are interrelated (Baloglu & Brinbery, 1997). Further,
some researchers believe that a holistic or overall image of a place can be measured and
provides a means for representing at one point in time all external and internal stimuli
that influence perception of a destination.
The Emergence of Image Theory
Academic interest in the concept of image has developed from several fields and
disciplines. The early works of Boulding and Martineau (1958) proposed that human
behavior is dependent upon image rather than objective reality. Refinement and
enhancement of this foundational base and adoption of the image concept have led to
image theory, which suggests that the world is a psychological or distorted representation
of objective reality residing and existing in the mind of the individual (Myers, 1968).
Kotler et al (1993) note that image is commonly defined as a “set of beliefs, ideas and
impressions that people have of a place or destination.” It is a mental representation of
an object or place that is not physically before the observer (Fridgen, 1987). Assael
17
(1984) introduces a temporal aspect of image by defining image as a “total perception of
a product that is formed by processing information from various sources over time.”
Researchers in several disciplines and fields agree that the image construct has both
perceptual / cognitive and affective dimensions (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). The
perceptual / cognitive aspects refer to the beliefs or knowledge about a destination’s
attributes, whereas the affective aspects refer to feelings about it or attachment to it.
Researchers generally agree that affective evaluation depends on cognitive assessment of
objects, and the affective responses are formed as a function of the cognitive ones
(Anand, Holbrook & Stephens, 1988; Gartner, 1993). Although a distinction is made
between the two dimensions, it should be noted that they are interrelated.
A holistic or overall image of a place is formed as a result of both perceptual /
cognitive and affective evaluations of the destination (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999).
According to Proshonsky et al. (1983), people develop both cognitive and affective
responses and attachments to environments and places. Together, the perceptual /
cognitive and affective evaluations form the overall image of a place (Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999). Thus, image formation is both a process and an outcome.
Three behavioral science theories provide a perspective on image theory from the
viewpoint of cognitive structure, cognitive function, and symbolic interactionism.
Adaptation and Organization
Jean Piaget used biological analogies to describe the process through which cognitive
structures arise in a young child and develop over time (Bybee and Sund, 1982). Piaget
proposed four invariant stages of cognitive development that are age-related. According
to Tennant (1988), these stages represent “qualitatively different ways of making sense,
18
understanding and constructing a knowledge of the world.” In Piaget’s view, children
progress cognitively from innate reflex actions (sensory-motor stage), to being able to
represent concrete objects in symbols and words (preoperational stage), to an
understanding of concepts and relationships of ideas (concrete operational stage), to an
ability to reason hypothetically, logically and systematically (formal operational stage).
He distinguishes between intelligence and perception noting that perception originates as
a subset of sensory-motor activity in infancy and has a structure of less scope and
definiteness than intelligence (Myers, 1968).
According to Piaget, the principal components of intelligence are adaptation and
organization. Organization may be thought of as the “state of the system,” and adaptation
as the process through which the individual relates to reality. Two distinct mechanisms
are considered to be operating in the process of adaptation, referred to as assimilation and
accommodation. The process of cognitive growth from concrete to abstract and from
active to reflective is based on the continual transaction between assimilation and
accommodation. Learning involves successive stages, each of which assimilates that
which has gone before into a newer, higher level of cognitive functioning (Kolb, 1984).
Assimilation is the process through which new materials are brought into the system, and
accommodation is the process through which the learner adjusts himself to these new
items. Cognitive development continues via an increasing capacity for assimilation and
accommodation, from the object specific understanding of physical properties and events,
to higher order sets of operations capable of being reasoned with and structured in
elaborate, complex ways (Myers, 1968).
19
Representational Mediation
Charles Osgood (1957), working in the field of experimental psychology, is credited
with a paradigm for a psychological explanation of the symbolic process and semantic
differentiation of objects. Much of Osgood’s work has been applied to the field of
branding and marketing commercial products. For the image theorist, differentiation
refers to the degree to which one object (or brand) is psychologically different in meaning
or image from another (Myers, 1968). Osgood’s model of representational mediation is
an effort to explain how learning takes place. He proposes that two stages within a
stimulus-response paradigm interact and ultimately result in learning. In the first stage,
referred to as decoding, the individual associates a sign (e.g. a sound stimulus) with
representational mediators (internal responses or “dispositions” to that sign). The
individual may associate the sign with some sensory response (e.g. a shock). The sign
comes to both represent and to mediate the response.
The second stage, encoding, involves the process of self-stimulation resulting from
the representational mediation process and the subsequent instrumental acts that result
from stimuli. Responses resulting directly from a stimulus affect dispositions and explain
how learning takes place. Thus, a child who is burned learns to associate fire with pain,
and can experience the sensation symbolically (Myers, 1968).
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interactionism’s elementary principles had their genesis in the work of
George Herbert Mead, a social behaviorist, who argued that “understanding the human
being must be inferred from what he or she does” (Charon, 1995). That is, in order to
understand society, the focus of study should be on human interaction with the
20
environment, not solely directed toward individual personality or social structure. The
emphasis is on studying the action or behavior, not the actor. In this perspective, humans
are viewed as active rather than passive participants involved in a dynamic environment
that is ever changing. The individual is not a consistent, fixed personality, but rather, in a
state of “becoming,” constantly undergoing change in the process of interaction with self,
with others and with the environment (Charon, 1995).
Mead is associated with the school of philosophy known as pragmatism. Symbolic
interactionists see humans as social animals, unique in their ability to reason and to
communicate symbolically. This ability to communicate and symbolize changes the
relationship humans have with nature. Because of this relationship, humans interact in a
symbolic environment that mediates the physical one, and can be prompted to action by
stimuli both symbolic and physical.
Social objects are interpreted by the individual and have social meaning. Unlike
other organisms, humans define and redefine objects in nature through a dynamic process
of interactions. According to Blumer (1969), objects are given importance by people not
through fixed biological patterns but according to what importance others decide to
assign to them. The meaning of an object may change for the individual, not because the
intrinsic nature of the object changes, but because people change its definition. Social
behaviorism has influenced symbolic-interactionist thought by arguing that in the
observation of overt action, we must always consider what is going on in terms of
definition, interpretation and meaning (Charon, 1995). Thus, social objects are not seen
as physical stimuli but as “definitions of the situation.”
21
Humans see their world through perspectives, a conceptual framework that is
developed socially through interaction with others. These perspectives consist of a set of
symbols that enable the individual to interpret the world of reality in which they exist.
Symbols are used by the individual for representation and communication of meaning to
self and to others. According to Charon, symbols are social; they are defined in
interaction, not established in nature. They are human conventions with commonly
agreed meanings. Symbols are meaningful to the user and involve an understanding
rather than a simple response to their presence, and they are significant because they have
meaning to the participating parties of the communication transaction. From this
perspective, human beings are able to respond actively to reality, creating and re-creating
their world through manipulation of symbols, especially language.
The appeal of image theory, as it relates to physical destinations, is that it provides a
means for representing at one point in time all external and internal stimuli that influence
perception of a destination and have some common aggregate meaning. Social objects
including destinations take on certain meanings as a result of the human capacity to think
and reason symbolically and cognitively. Images, cognitive conceptions of self and
environment, develop because of a limited capacity to handle all the stimuli to which one
is exposed over time, and because of the need to synthesize, name, classify and
understand these stimuli. Strong social forces operate to build stereotypes and common
meanings in order to sustain social order from this flood of stimuli. Tourists as
consumers are considered to be attracted to public meanings appropriate to their private
conceptions of themselves. Tourists filter these public meanings and reject those not
congruent with their own private conceptions.
22
The Image Construct and Destination Image Formation
Destination image is a perceptual phenomenon that is formed through the individual’s
reasoned and emotional interpretation (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990). It entails elements that
are not only cognitive and affective in nature, but also involves self-evaluation based on a
dynamic re-interpretation of symbolic meanings of the attributes associated with the site.
Gartner (1996) et al., recognizing the dynamic nature of image, investigated the
structure and formation of a tourist’s destination image. In Gartner’s view, perceptions
of various attributes within a destination will interact to form a composite or overall
image. Tourists are individual actors that do not simply respond to physical stimuli or
individual attributes, they define and interpret their world symbolically, assimilating and
accommodating new information into revised perceptions of place (Charon, 1995).
Gartner asserts that destination image develops through three hierarchically
interrelated components: cognitive, affective and conative. The cognitive component
refers to the knowledge and beliefs about a destination’s objective attributes or physical
features derived from all sources of information. The affective component involves one’s
feelings, attachments and motivations toward individual attributes or the “gestalt” of the
destination. The conative component refers to intentions and preferences that are
manifested through behavior (Reich, 1999). Gartner argues that beliefs about the
destination first develop in the cognitive stage. Here the details are evaluated for their
positive, negative or neutral impact on the individual. The next hierarchical level is the
affective component dealing with the strength of “feeling” about the relevance of an
attribute as a motivator. The conative stage is the behavior that results from interaction
23
of the cognitive and affective components. An individual will ultimately rank a
destination’s image based upon a summary of the cultural, social and intellectual
experiences encountered through symbolic interaction with his or her environment.
Image is affected by both stimulus elements of the product and the characteristics of
the perceiver (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). Environmental psychology research supports
the notion that settings have both perceptual / cognitive and affective images (Hanyu,
1993). People develop both cognitive and affective responses and attachments to
environments and places (Proshonsky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983 as cited in Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999). Despite previous studies (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991, 1993; Baloglu &
Brinbery, 1997; Botterill & Crompton, 1996; Selby & Morgan, 1996), the process and
nature of destination image formation is not well understood.
Several researchers have investigated the factors influencing image formation
(Jenkins, 1999). Distance from the destination was found to influence the process or
stages of destination image formation, because individuals are more likely to have visited
those destinations nearer their home and to have been exposed to media and word-ofmouth information about the site (Hunt, 1975). Hunt concluded that destination image
was likely to be more valid and more realistic the closer the destination’s proximity to the
subject’s home.
Other researchers have investigated the sources of travel information. Nolan
(1976) found that the most frequently sought source of travel information for domestic
travelers in the U.S. was the advice of friends and relatives, followed by guidebooks /
commercial tourist information and promotional publications. Nolan also looked at
objectivity of travel information and found that respondents perceived an increasing bias
24
in the communication of travel information as one relied less on the advice of friends and
relatives and more on marketing messages originating from promotional media such as
travel brochures (Jenkins, 1999).
Stage Theory and Destination Image
Gunn’s (1972) seven stages of destination image is a theoretical framework that
attempts to describe the image formation process. It involves the construction, reevaluation and modification of destination image through time and space. It is procedural
and descriptive in nature, describing a process of somewhat discrete stages that a tourist
progresses through as cognitive and affective responses to a destination are accumulated
over time. Significant for this study is the notion that the stages of destination image
formation proposed by Gunn operate within a context of the physical environment
mediated by a symbolic one. An image is the result of the cognitive and affective
evaluations of the destination and the organization of beliefs and attitudes predisposing
one to respond in some consistent manner (Kerlinger, 1980).
According to Gunn, images are formed at three levels (Figure 2.1). Conceptually,
destination image can originate as an organic (also known as “naïve”) impression based
on the mental images of the place that result from internally processed, non-tourism
specific information sources. Organic agents may include exposure to newspaper reports,
magazine articles, television documentaries, experiential stories from friends, or formal
education lessons with respect to geography, history or culture (Jenkins, 1999)
25
1. Accumulation of mental
images of a place through
life.
Organic Image
2. Modification of images
through researching prior
to the decision to travel.
Induced Image
3. The Decision to travel based on
image efficiency, anticipated
experience but kept within
time, money and other constraints.
4. Travel to destination may
condition the image (e.g. road
signs, landscape, guides).
5. Participation or experience at the
destination; the activities,
accommodation and other services
all influence the image.
Modified-Induced Image
6. Return travel allows reflection
and evaluation, including discussing
experiences with fellow travelers.
7. New accumulation occurs after the
visit because the process is circular,
the end image may be the same or
different to the original one.
Figure 2.1: Stage-theory of destination image (source: Gunn, 1972).
26
An induced image arises out of promotion information such as travel brochures,
advertisements, signage, or publicity. Induced information originates from external
tourism-specific materials that an individual receives prior to an on-site visit.
A modified induced image, also known in the literature as “re-evaluated” image,
results from personal experience of the destination and includes all the subsequent
information following the visit. According to Gunn, a modified induced image is
influenced not only by the actual experience at the destination, but also by subsequent
stages of the travel experience: “return travel” and “new accumulation.” Thus, reflection
on the destination experience and the process of accumulating new information about the
destination once the visit has been completed influence the re-evaluated image of the site.
Stage theory implies that the images held by potential visitors, non-visitors, and
returned visitors will differ (Gunn as reported in Jenkins, 1999). Support for this theory
lies in a number of studies showing that images held by returned visitors tend to be more
realistic, complex and differentiated (Pearce, 1988; Chon, 1990, 1992).
The Intersection of Image, Conservation Management and Reserve Design
The focus of this study is on the exploration and measurement of destination image of
natural areas designated for ecotourism activities. Implicit in this study is the
fundamental assumption that visitation to natural areas can serve as a vehicle for
conserving critical habitats and protecting biodiversity upon which the ecotourism
experience depends. According to Meffe and Carroll (1997), “the stewardship of natural
biodiversity requires that a strong link be forged between conservation biology and
environmentally sustainable development.” In the CBNP, the linkage between
27
conservation of the resource base within the park and development of the communities
surrounding the park has been manifested through proposals for ecotourism development.
But, a central question remains for the CBNP and all natural areas designated for
ecotourism development. Can park planners and natural resource managers provide
ecotourism experiences that are consonant with dual objectives that include conservation
of the protected area’s biological and ecological integrity and sustainable development of
surrounding communities?
Because people define and interpret their world symbolically, assimilating and
accommodating new information into revised perceptions of place, destination image of
the park is influenced not only by the physical stimuli or individual attributes of the park,
but so too, by management policy and conservation practices that maintain the park in a
natural state. The search for authentic natural experiences by today’s ecotourists
necessitates the strategic alignment of visitor expectations, visitor use and conservation
management objectives for the site. Perceptual/cognitive and affective dimensions of
ecotourism destination image are influenced by conservation practices, policies and
programs within the park. Conservation management practices and the role that
conservation reserve design principles play in protecting critical habitats and biodiversity
not only delimits the attributes of a particular ecotourism venue, but also helps to define
the experience of the park and differentiate it from all other tourist experiences.
28
Conservation Biology
Scientists agree that habitat alteration is the greatest threat to biodiversity and to
ecosystems around the world (Soulé, 1991; Noss & Cooperrider, 1994). Habitat
alteration is a direct result of naturally occurring disturbance regimes and those that have
been human induced. Natural disturbance regimes such as fire, pathogens, insects or
wind have persisted over evolutionary temporal scales. White and Pickett (1985) defined
a disturbance as any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, community,
or population structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical
environment. Other scientists refined this definition to include as a disturbance any
“process that alters the birth and death rates of individuals” present within a given
landscape patch (Petraitis et al, 1989). Natural disturbance and the ensuing successional
processes, are ubiquitous landscape features and result in a landscape mosaic of patches
of various sizes whose biodiversity depends partially on patch dynamics providing
opportunities for evolutionary divergence of species (Pickett and Thompson, 1978).
According to Meffee and Carroll (1997), however, human induced disturbance regimes
have so adversely altered earth’s ecological support systems, that their powers of
resilience may have possibly been breached, posing a direct threat to biological diversity.
Diminution habitat quality has been called habitat decay. Some ecologists have
argued that there is increasing evidence that habitats decay over time through human
disturbances whether or not these areas are protected (Sinclair et al., 1995). Noss
delineates human-induced habitat alteration into three forms. There may be direct,
physical transformation of a natural area into alternative uses such as cattle pastures, golf
29
courses or parking lots. This he calls habitat destruction. Habitat fragmentation, another
form of habitat alteration, involves breaking up of large contiguous areas into
increasingly smaller patches. Changes in the composition, structure or function of an
ecosystem has been called habitat degradation and can occur on several spatial scales
ranging from relatively small patches to entire landscapes (Noss, O’Connell & Murphy,
1997).
Because habitat alteration effects are cumulative and have not abated under various
economic development models, the list of endangered and threatened species has grown
steadily worldwide (Wilson, 1985). Meffee and Carroll (1997) assert that the field of
conservation biology is a direct response “by the scientific community to the biodiversity
crisis.” In their view, conservation biology brings together the principles of ecology,
biogeography, population genetics, economics, sociology, anthropology and other
theoretically based disciplines in the interest of maintaining biological diversity and the
integrity of natural processes. Because the focus of conservation biology is on population
viability and on biological diversity in general, the long-term goal is primarily to
designate and restore diverse, connected landscapes where natural processes can operate
unencumbered. Conserving biodiversity involves efforts to link the assessment of the
conservation potential of landscapes to tangible actions of maintaining population
persistence (Opdam et al. 2002).
Several principles emerge from literature defining the theory and practice of
conservation biology. Conservation biology recognizes the concept of evolution as
central to biology and that evolutionary adaptation and ecological change are processes of
interest with respect to conservation action. The metrics by which conservation biology
30
is judged successful is the long-term viability of ecosystems and preservation of
biodiversity in perpetuity, not the measures of maximum sustained yield, economic
feasibility or public satisfaction commonly used in wildlife management (Meffee and
Carroll, 1997). For this reason, the genetic composition of populations is germane to
conservation biology because populations of organisms must be able to respond over time
to environmental change in an adaptive manner.
Conservation biologists have largely embraced a nonequilibrial paradigm for
ecological systems. The dominant paradigm in ecology now recognizes that ecological
systems are generally not in dynamic equilibrium and rarely have some stable
hierarchical point (Pickett et al. 1995). This contrasts with the classical paradigm equilibrium theory, a theoretical concept implying that closed natural systems with selfregulating structure and function, once subject to disturbance, eventually attain a stable,
climax community. This has been popularized as the balance of nature concept and
suggests that in the interest of preserving biodiversity, policy makers need merely to
select fragments of nature, provide undisturbed custodial oversight, and extant species
composition and function will indefinitely be maintained. Current research suggests that
context matters with respect to habitat fragments in the larger landscape, that regulation
of ecological structure and function is often externally driven, and that ecological systems
are dynamic and non-equilibrial. Change at multiple scales within ecological
communities is pervasive and must be incorporated into conservation planning.
Indigenous human cultures have historically been a part of the ecological landscape
and have existed for millennia, adapting their culture and livelihoods within unique
natural systems. Humans all around the globe remain a part of natural systems, both
31
relatively pristine and degraded. Meffe and Carroll argue that, “Conservation efforts that
attempt to wall off nature and safeguard it from humans will ultimately fail.” From the
perspective of conservation biology, it is not a question of whether humans will continue
to utilize the earth’s ecosystems, but rather, how they propose to sustainably use those
same natural systems that support existing biodiversity. Conservation biology is value
laden (Soulé, 1985) and recognizes the important contributions that the social sciences,
economics and political science can make toward advancing conservation objectives.
Conservation Reserve Design
Habitat has been protected indirectly for millennia as hunting reserves and for other
pursuits of royalty. Exclusive hunting rights within designated areas largely sought to
reserve selected game species for the recreational enjoyment of the nobility. Protection
of habitats within a system of reserves designated for the conservation of non-game
species is primarily a recent development (Meffe & Carroll, 1997).
More contemporary efforts to reserve natural areas reflect a shift in managerial focus
and the evolution of environmental thinking. Many original reserves in the United States,
such as Yellowstone, Yosemite and Grand Canyon National Parks were designated
because of their geologic attractions and for their aesthetic appeal rather than for
protection of their biological resources (Meffe & Carroll, 1997). Protection of the
watershed serving important agricultural interests in California’s Central Valley was the
primary reason for the creation of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, not the
preservation of the giant sequoia or the redwood trees. Noss and Cooperrider (1994)
argue that historically, the present reserve system in the United States has proven to be
inadequate because of its lack of emphasis on biodiversity. They note that enabling
32
legislation for U.S. national parks called for the conservation of scenery and other natural
objects along with providing for public enjoyment of the resources within. Protection of
biodiversity, representation of all plant and animal species, and establishment of reserves
sufficiently large to accommodate fully functional natural disturbance regimes have not
been accomplished (Cooperrider et al, 1999). While protection of natural areas in
reserves has been recognized as an essential component of an overall ecosystem
management plan (Christensen et al. 1996), according to Cooperrider, “we have a system
that is inadequate in terms of size and number of reserves.”
Diamond (1975), working in the field of ornithology and drawing on island
biogeographic theory (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967), proposed a series of guidelines for
the design of preserves intended to protect biodiversity. Similar rules were suggested by
Terborgh (1974). Six general principles for the design of nature reserves articulated by
Diamond are:
all else being equal,
1. Large reserves are better than small reserves.
2. A single large reserve is better than a cluster of small ones of equivalent total
area.
3. Reserves close together are better than reserves far apart.
4. Round reserves are better than long, thin ones.
5. Reserves clustered compactly are better than reserves arranged linearly.
6. Reserves connected by corridors are better than unconnected reserves.
Other scientists challenged Diamond’s principles citing a lack of supporting empirical
data. Simberloff and Abele (1976) contested the proposition that a single large reserve is
33
preferable to several smaller reserves of equivalent total area. They noted a paucity of
studies testing island biogeography theory, challenged the notion of equilibrium theory as
advanced by MacArthur and Wilson, and argued against the application by extrapolation
of concepts from real islands to habitat islands. This contested concept came to be
known by the acronym SLOSS - single large or several small and was debated among
biologists for more than a decade (Noss et al, 1997). Eventually, the debate became moot
when conservation scientists began to agree that reserve size and reserve multiplicity
were both essential criteria for establishing a system of reserves (Soulé and Simberloff,
1986). Noss and Cooperrider (1994) note that “real-life decisions about reserve design
will seldom involve scenarios so simplistic as a single large or several small potential
reserves.”
Reserve Networks
Conservation biologists, recognizing that parks and reserves established as isolated
habitat islands were necessary but not sufficient to protect biodiversity for the long-run,
began to approach the problem somewhat more systematically. Noss (1983), Harris
(1984), and others looked at conservation opportunities from a landscape or regional
perspective. Although single reserves may not be sufficiently large to support long-term
viability of populations within their isolated boundaries, reserves linked by corridors or
those offering opportunity for the movement of individuals and genetic interaction among
populations may fare better over time. Studies by Wegner and Merriam (1979) indicated
that animals use corridors when traveling through human-dominated landscapes and that
these corridors can enhance persistence of populations (Fahrig & Merriam, 1985).
Recognition of the importance of corridors and the adoption of a more regional approach
34
to protecting biodiversity presented a new perspective for designing nature reserves. The
reserve network concept is founded on the idea that a system of reserves, if functionally
connected, may be united into a whole that exceeds the sum of its parts (Noss &
Cooperrider, 1994).
Noss (1983) observed that a fragmented landscape may contain high species diversity
represented by mostly ubiquitous and edge-adapted species, while sensitive species
decline. He argued that management strategies for the protection of diversity required
evaluation and assessment at the landscape scale rather than site by site. This seems to
reinforce what Diamond (1976) had articulated previously, “Species must be weighted,
not just counted; the question is not which refuge system contains more total species, but
which contains more species that would be doomed to extinction in the absence of
refuges.”
Critical Issues in Reserve Success
Establishing a reserve network is a necessary step toward maintaining biodiversity,
but is not sufficient (Noss & Cooperrider, 1994). Conservation reserves exist within
human-built environments and social systems that present the reality of economic and
political constraints on conservation objectives. A system of reserves must be managed
not only for biological diversity and ecological integrity, but also for social support,
public education and competing interests for land. Noss and Cooperrider (1994) argue
that “prudence does not imply hands-off management in most cases. Indeed, much
human labor will be required to protect a reserve from harm, to substitute for natural
processes that have been disrupted, and to restore damaged habitats and recover
populations.”
35
Distilling a considerable volume of literature, Meffe and Carroll (1997) outlined six
critical issues to be considered when developing and maintaining successful conservation
reserves existing within a landscape matrix fragmented by human land use.
Reserve Size
All else being equal, large reserves are better for maintenance of biodiversity and
ecological functions than are smaller reserves (Soulé & Simberloff, 1986). Species-area
relationships argue in favor of large reserves because the larger the reserve size, the
greater the number of habitats captured within reserve boundaries and the greater the
capability to support species diversity. Another argument in favor of large reserve size
involves persistence. There is a well documented inverse relationship between
population size and extinction in animals (Noss et al, 1997). Large carnivores especially
have demanding range requirements. Meffe and Carroll (1997) assert that in general,
“large-bodied, low-density, upper trophic-level species with large individual ranges need
a greater area to maintain viable populations in the long term than do smaller-bodied,
higher-density, lower trophic-level species with smaller ranges.”
Heterogeneity
Nature is dynamic and changes over time and space through biotic and abiotic
disturbance. For this reason, spatially and temporally heterogeneous areas are generally
superior to homogeneous areas as conservation areas (Meffe & Carroll, 1997). Pickett
and Thompson (1978) noted the relationship between disturbance regimes and internal
habitat patch dynamics in maintaining overall diversity. Heterogeneity of habitat patches
within a reserve offers species a diversity of habitat types at any given time and at
differing successional stages. Heterogeneity within reserves that is generated by patterns
36
of disturbance and subsequent patterns of succession is referred to as patch dynamics by
Pickett and Thompson. They argue for the incorporation of patch dynamics into the
design of nature reserves. The size, frequency of occurrence and severity of disturbance
determine the size and configuration of patches (Pickett & Thompson, 1978).
The presence or absence of a species in any given habitat patch is a function of local
colonization and extinction rates (Meffe & Carroll, 1997). Aggregated across the pool of
extant species, maintaining overall patch diversity, as measured by relatively high αrichness and β-richness, is a function of colonization opportunities and extinction events.
According to Meffe and Carroll, because the probability of colonization from external
sources may be eliminated or otherwise impeded in reserves surrounded by the human
built environment, reserves themselves must provide the source areas - a strong argument
for internal heterogeneity of patches in any proposed reserve. Maintenance of patch
dynamics for those species maintained within a metapopulation structure requires studies
of population structure and movement. As recommended by Pickett and Thompson
(1978), reserve size should be based on a minimum dynamic area, the smallest area with
a complete, natural disturbance regime.
Landscape Context
Reserves exist within a larger landscape context. The surrounding, external matrix
influences their functions. According to Farino (2000), a landscape is a spatial
configuration of patches of dimensions relevant for the phenomenon under consideration.
Forman and Godron (1986) wrote of landscape as a heterogeneous land area composed of
clusters of interacting ecosystems. At multiple scales over time, biodiversity within a
37
reserve is a product of the patch dynamics within the reserve and the context of its
situation in the larger landscape.
Janzen (1986) argues that context matters with respect to reserves because they are
under constant threat, both natural and anthropogenic, from the surrounding landscape.
Biotic movement and subsidy from the surrounding matrix will invade reserves from the
perimeter inwards. According to Janzen, smaller reserves incur a greater effect from the
surrounding habitat as a source of problems, and have a greater need for habitat buffers
that minimize habitat differences between the core reserve and the adjacent areas (Meffe
& Carroll, 1997).
Several scientists have recognized that the administrative boundary of a reserve is
often designated based on political or legal considerations, rather than ecological factors.
Schonewald-Cox and Bayless (1986) developed a model recognizing the importance of
edge in reserve success. They write of legal reserve boundaries acting as a filter by
controlling internal and external human activities. These administrative boundaries are
often times incongruent with natural, ecological boundaries and generate false edges or
ecotones that create gradients affecting population dynamics, community structure, and
ecosystem function though active or passive buffering of organism movement and
nutrient flow. Hence, the permeability of this gradient and the area/perimeter ratio of a
reserve are important variables to consider when designating reserve boundaries.
Landscape Elements
Landscape elements are the basic, relatively homogeneous, ecological elements that
make up the overall landscape (Forman & Godron, 1986). These may take the form of
natural landscape elements such as rivers, slopes, ridge-tops, or other discrete natural
38
units of the landscape. They also exist in the form of modified landscape elements such
as roads, agricultural fields, housing developments and other features of the human built
environment. According to Meffe and Carroll (1997), natural and modified landscape
elements should be identified early in the conservation reserve design process and
considered for inclusion or exclusion within reserve boundaries.
Though, in general, a diversity of natural landscape elements will enhance the
conservation value of reserves and modified elements will detract from them (Meffe &
Carroll, 1997), rarely is the exclusion of modified landscape elements so clearly
accomplished. In reality, the human built environment is pervasive and ubiquitous,
requiring an evaluation to determine how to minimize the detrimental effects of any
particular element.
Buffer Zones
Noss and Cooperrider (1994) and others have called for the implementation of zoning
as a mechanism for influencing land use activities around reserves and to make the
surrounding matrix more compatible with conservation goals. Multiple use buffers
surrounding core conservation reserves are meant to provide a transition zone between
areas set aside for predominately hard-core conservation goals and those for human
commerce and activity. They serve to avoid conflicts among various user groups and
land uses. Multiple use buffer zones are characterized by increasingly restricted human
activities with increasing proximity to the core reserve.
Buffer zones enlarge the effective size of a reserve and provide a dimension of
temporal stability to the landscape (Noss & Cooperrider, 1994). If disturbances within a
core reserve temporarily make habitats unsuitable, buffers may act as refugia or provide
39
connectivity between habitats. Even though they may function as population sinks,
buffer zones can contribute to overall metapopulation persistence by temporarily
supporting individuals displaced by disturbance and can serve as connections between
source habitats (Howe et al., 1991).
Connecting Fragmented Habitats
Connectivity is a fundamental concept of conservation reserve networks and is
essentially the inverse of fragmentation. This involves reconnecting isolated reserve
habitat patches through corridors or other habitat linkages providing opportunities for
movement, genetic exchange and recolonization of target species. Conservationists are
interested in functional connectivity since variation in the quality of linkages affects their
use by organisms (Henein & Merriam, 1990).
Habitat fragmentation and isolation due to human activities has been a major
contributor to the loss of biodiversity (Meffe & Carroll, 1997). With respect to
conservation reserve design, habitat fragmentation leaves a remnant mosaic of habitat
patches differing in quality and embedded within a hostile matrix (Farino, 2000).
Corridors have been promoted as important features of reserves, allowing movement
among remnant high-quality habitats.
Corridors operate at different spatiotemporal scales due to an array of problems
presented at different levels of biological organization and differing scales of space and
time (Noss, 1991). Noss identifies three basic scales for corridors ranging in resolution
from that which is relatively fine to those coarser. The fencerow scale connects small,
proximate habitat patches using narrow, linear patches of appropriate habitat. Corridors
at this scale are entirely edge habitat and unsuitable for habitat interior species. Next, he
40
identifies the landscape mosaic scale, broader and longer corridors that connect major
landscape features rather than small patches. These corridors may function to facilitate
daily or season movement of resident species within a reserve. The regional scale is the
largest corridor scale. At this scale, corridors connect conservation reserves in regional
networks, acting as conduits through geopolitical jurisdictions and across ecosystems.
Integration of corridors into a conservation reserve network can enhance population
viability in fragmented and otherwise isolated habitats (Meffe & Carroll, 1997). Yet,
many questions remain about the biological value of corridors (Farino, 2000). More
empirical studies are needed. Disturbance effects, invasions by exotic species, and the
change in predation rates are all issues of concern. According to Meffe and Carroll
(1997), “every case of planned corridor use should involve some assessment of the
likelihood of real contributions to reserve success.”
41
CHAPTER 3
METHODS
Introduction
The primary objectives of this study are to describe the visitors to the Central Balkan
National Park in Bulgaria, to measure destination image of the CBNP and to explore
whether visitor experience with the park mediates destination image of the park. In
addition, the relationship between the study’s independent variables (visitor’s citizenship,
residency, visit frequency, length of stay, group size, and reasons for visiting the park)
and the attitudes they hold of ecotourism attributes of the park were investigated. A
secondary objective of this study is to identify attributes of an ecotourism destination.
This chapter describes the methods and procedures used to examine the research
objectives and explore the data collected.
Research Design
This study is a descriptive / correlational study of destination image. Data were
collected to describe visitors to the Central Balkan National Park (CBNP), their level of
experience with the park and other protected areas, and their reasons for visiting the park;
and to explore the relationship between visitor characteristics and their attitudes
regarding an array of park attributes defining an ecotourism experience. The focus of
42
study is on the descriptive and exploratory elements of visitors’ destination image
formation and utilizes an attitude survey.
Previous destination image studies have tended to use five- or seven-point Likert or
semantic differential scaling measurement techniques (Jenkins, 1999). Measurement
involves asking participants of the study to rate certain destinations according to a given
set of attributes. Some studies have elicited the attributes from the tourist population
whereas others have based them on previous research, the judgement of experts or the
researcher themselves. A number of different spatial scales have been employed in
destination image studies. Crompton and Duray (1985) examined the holistic image of a
state as a single destination, whereas others have investigated clusters of destinations
such as a group of states (Gartner, 1989), a country (Kale and Weir, 1986) or a group of
countries (Calantone et al., 1989). Jenkins (1999) argues that the geographic scale of the
image that is being measured and the characteristics of the population sampled are likely
to influence the image held by individuals, both in terms of the salience of certain
attributes and the evaluation of those attributes. This is because visitors tend to evaluate
larger scale destinations more holistically, synthesizing the gestalt of an area, rather than
relying on the evaluation of individual attributes of a particular venue.
The spatial scale of this study involves a single, contiguous site of protected natural
areas within a designated national park. A five-point Likert scale instrument required
that participants of the study rate a set of 39 attributes of the park and answer some
descriptive questions about themselves and their experience within the park. The
questionnaire was administered in booklet form rather than administered verbally for a
number of reasons. First, the questionnaire was extensive, requiring on average 24
43
minutes for completion. A written questionnaire allowed participants to complete the
questionnaire at their own pace. Second, the challenge of expressing complex constructs
in two different languages required that a thorough review of the translation for both the
instructions and the questions be accomplished in order to best capture the original intent
of the instrument. Third, some of the demographic questions requested personal
information that participants might have felt more comfortable answering in a private,
more anonymous situation.
Population and sampling procedures
The target population for this study was adult visitors (individuals 18 years of age or
older) to the CBNP and to tourist venues within 50 kilometers of the park. Potential
respondents were visitors to twelve sites offering overnight accommodations within the
delineated boundaries of the park and the trail system connecting these sites, along with
visitors to Etura, an ethnographic museum and park of touristic and cultural interest
located within ten kilometers of the park’s administrative office in Gabrovo.
Site Selection:
The park encompasses 716 square kilometers within the Central Balkan Mountain
range spanning more than 100 kilometers from east to west. It averages approximately 9
kilometers from north to south. Among the largest protected areas of Europe, the
national park protects the primary habitats of many rare and endangered species. Much
of the park is mountainous and difficult to access. A system of hiking trails within the
park connects a series of 20 hijas (mountain chalets) and four rest houses, often a day’s
hike from one another and offering a total capacity of 1,700 beds available for overnight
visitors.
44
Because of time and resource constraints and the large geographic area to be
considered, not every hija or rest house could be visited for sampling. Two consultation
sessions with Ms. Nella Rachevits, director of the park, resulted in selection of a target
list of twelve sites for sampling that would: offer a representative geographic sampling of
sites throughout the park; offer access to maximum numbers of visitors to the park during
high season and the duration of the study; offer access to high levels of demographic
diversity among visitors (such as nationality or age); and offer proximity to major
geologic and biologic resources of touristic interest to visitors.
Sites selected within the park were:
Western Sector: Vezhen, Eho, Kozja Stena, Benkovski.
Central Sector: Dermenka, Dobrila, Hubavetz, Vasil Levski, Beklemeto (Byala Reka).
Eastern Sector: Pleven, Rai, Mazalat.
Site selected outside the park was:
Etura (ethnographic museum and park)
Participant Selection:
Participation in this study was on a voluntary basis and non-random. Participants
were recruited by the researcher on-site with language assistance, in some cases, provided
by an accompanying park ranger. Potential participants were encountered along the
park’s system of hiking trails and at pre-selected hijas / rest houses providing overnight
accommodations. A convenience sample of participants was selected on a “nextavailable” basis as visitors were encountered along the trail or during their stay at a hija;
i.e. following the researcher’s completion of interaction with a participant, the next
45
visitor was approached. Only one participant was sought per group of individuals selfidentified as traveling together.
At Etura, all visitors must enter and exit the park grounds through a gated entrance.
Visitors were approached after exiting the park rather than before entering it in order to
intrude as little as possible on their park experience.
Administration of the Instrument:
The questionnaire was administered in person by the researcher at pre-selected
sampling sites. Questionnaires were available in either the Bulgarian or English
languages. For quick visual cues to the researcher in the field, Bulgarian language
questionnaires were printed on white paper and English language questionnaires were
printed on blue paper. Visitors to the sampling sites who did not feel comfortable reading
or writing in either Bulgarian or English did not participate in this survey. Very few
potential participants exempted themselves based on language. Two participants whose
first language is French indicated a degree of discomfort with responding in English, but
choose to participate because of sufficient English fluency and their interest in the study.
Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire in-situ at the time of approach
by the researcher. Some potential participants had asked to return the completed
questionnaire at a later time or to mail it back to the researcher. Those requests to mail
the questionnaire were denied based on the lack of a permanent Bulgarian address for the
researcher, time constraints in-country for data collection and the difficulty inherent in
cross-cultural follow-up requests for missing surveys.
46
Table 3.1 details a summary of useable data collected at sampling sites. Of the 202
questionnaires distributed, 96.5 percent yielded useable data for this study. Some
participants failed to respond to entire pages or sections of questions. Questionnaires
returned with a pattern of non-responses to more than 1 entire page of questions were
deemed not useable for this study because they likely had missed the questions while
turning pages of the instrument. Conversely, participants sometimes skipped questions
throughout the instrument, self-selecting questions they chose not to answer.
Questionnaires returned with greater than 90% of the questions answered were deemed to
be useable for this study (n=195).
Survey Site
Dates
Western Sites
(Vezhen, Eho,
Kozja Stena,
Benkovski)
Central Sites
(Dermenka,
Dobrila,
Hubavetz, Vasil
Levski,
Beklemeto)
Eastern Sites
(Pleven, Rai,
Mazalat)
August 9, 2002
To
August 14,2002
(6 days)
August 2, 2002
To
August 7, 2002
(6 days)
Etura
July 24, 2002
To
July 30, 2002
(7 days)
July 31, 2002,
August 8,2002
August 15,2002
August 17,2002
(4 days)
Number of
Number of
Questionnaires Useable
Responses
Distributed
41
40
%
Completed
Response
97.6
39
38
97.4
44
43
97.7
78
74
94.9
Table 3.1. Summary of data collection and useable responses.
47
Instrumentation
While considerable investigative work has been done to conceptually delimit tourism
destination image at the nation scale, no previous destination image studies have
specifically looked at national parks in the niche market of ecotourism (Gallarza, Saura &
García, 2002). Meeting the objectives of this study required that the researcher develop
an instrument specifically for the project.
Development of the instrument followed a systematic process outlined in the next
section, “Instrument Approval and Testing.” Before instrument development could
progress, it was necessary to identify a set of attributes of an ecotourism experience in
order to satisfy objective one of this study. A series of three interactive interviews were
held to identify these attributes. Twenty-three individuals who self-selected as
ecotourists were recruited from the membership ranks of several Ohio chapters of the
National Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy to participate in focused group
discussions. Screening for participation was based on the following criteria:
1. Participant must be 18 years of age or older.
2. Participant has visited at least one national park in the US or a foreign natural
area.
3. Participant must identify himself / herself as having had at least one previous
ecotourism experience.
4. Participant must be willing to honestly and openly discuss his / her opinions about
attributes of an ecotourism experience within a group setting and subject to tape
recorded sessions.
48
Once attributes were identified, instrument development followed a systematic
process that included: question development (in English), a review by panels of experts,
testing and revision, human subjects review, translation into Bulgarian, testing and
revision, review by CBNP office (Bulgarian version), testing and revision (Bulgarian
version), and approval by CBNP office (English and Bulgarian versions).
This instrument was designed to collect self-reported data about visitors’ attitudes of
the CBNP along an array of attributes defining an ecotourism experience within protected
natural areas. The questionnaire was developed and administered with three sections:
Part 1 – Three open-ended response questions designed to capture holistic, overall
impressions of the park in the visitor’s own words.
Part 2; Section A – Attitude questions rating specific attributes as they are perceived in
the park.
Part 2; Section B – Attitude questions rating the importance of specific attributes
(identified in Part 2; Section A) when making a visit decision to a natural area or park.
Part 3 – Demographic and descriptive questions relating to the visitor and the visitor’s
previous experience with the CBNP and other national parks / natural areas.
Echtner and Ritchie (1991, 1993) and others have acknowledged the existence of three
axes that define the dimensions of tourism destination image. These have been called the
functional/psychological, the common/unique, and the holistic/attribute-based axes.
Because unique and holistic components of destination image are not sufficiently
captured by quantitative scale items, a more qualitative method employing open-ended
questions was used in Part 1. Placement of these questions first in the instrument was
considered essential for two reasons; placement early in the instrument would least bias
49
the respondent to the terminology and concepts that followed, and according to Bourque
& Felders (1995), good questionnaires attempt to start with “the easiest questions first
and proceed to more complex and sensitive questions.” Part 2 consisted of two sections,
each with 39 Likert scale questions that asked participants about attributes of the park
(section A) and the importance of those attributes when making a decision to visit a
national park (section B). The final section (Part 3) included 15 questions designed to
capture previous experience with visitation to national parks and protected areas, reasons
for the participant’s visit, and demographic, descriptive information about the visitor.
Question Development: Part 1 – Holistic, Overall Impressions:
This part of the questionnaire consisted of three separate open-ended questions
involving free elicitation of the image construct. The purpose of these questions was to
capture holistic, less tangible aspects of destination image that are non-observable and
more abstract. Reilly (1990), in a destination image study of the state of Montana, asked
participants, ‘What three words best describe the state of Montana as a destination for
vacation or pleasure travel?’ According to Jenkins (1999), the primary advantage of free
elicitation for destination image research is “that it allows the respondent to describe the
target stimulus in terms that are salient to the individual, rather than responding to the
researchers’ predetermined image dimensions.”
Question Development: Part 2, Sections A & B – Attitude Ratings for Park Attributes and
the Salience of Specific Attributes:
This part of the questionnaire consisted of Likert scale attitude questions with a scale
range from one to five, where 1 was correlative to “strongly disagree” and 5 was
correlative to “strongly agree.” Thirty-nine attributes of an ecotourism experience in
50
protected natural areas were identified through focus group research and literature
review. Attributes were developed through qualitative research techniques involving
self-identified consumers of ecotourism or nature tourism destinations. Three focus
groups were convened to elicit constructs of an ecotourism destination. Results from this
qualitative research coalesced around 39 specific attributes identified during focus group
sessions. Theoretically, these attributes represent the components of destination image
containing functional and psychological characteristics that range from directly
observable and measurable aspects of an ecotourism experience to those which are less
tangible or more difficult to observe and measure. Attributes were categorized into six
general clusters.
Attributes labeled as psychological/emotional relate to emotional well-being or the
psychological aspects of a visit experience. These include opportunity for adventure,
opportunity for relaxation, opportunity for solitude, opportunity to connect with the land
(nature), and safety while visiting.
Infrastructure attributes relate to the built or physical environment supporting touristic
activities. Infrastructure attributes include availability of overnight accommodations,
availability of camping facilities, availability of eating facilities, system of trails,
accessibility of sites, and system of roads.
Service attributes are those that help to define the level of business or visitor services
available in the park. Service attributes include quality of overnight accommodations,
quality of camping facilities, quality of meals, honesty of personnel providing business
services, fairness of business practices, enforcement of park regulations, litter free, visitor
information availability, usefulness of visitor information, nature guides availability,
51
helpfulness of nature guides, knowledge level of nature guides and price level of goods &
services.
Natural amenities are those attributes dependent upon the natural resource base
specific to the site. Natural amenities included healthy environment, scenic beauty, plant
biological richness, animal biological richness, absence of urbanization, heterogeneity of
places of interest, heterogeneity of activities, opportunity to view wildlife and
opportunity for environmental learning.
Cultural amenities are those attributes dependent upon the local community and its
cultural/historical resources. Cultural amenities include experience of the local culture,
opportunity to visit historic sites, opportunity to learn about local culture and friendliness
of locals.
Two attributes were identified as allocation of benefits (through ecotourism). These
represent the definitional objectives of an ecotourism experience and include benefit to
local community and benefit to conservation.
As stated earlier, Section A of Part 2 assessed participants’ attitudes about 39
attributes of the park. Participants’ attitudes for each attribute were assessed through a 5point Likert scale question. This represents the visitor’s evaluative perception of a
specific attribute associated with an ecotourism experience within the park (Jenkins,
1999).
Importance of the actual attribute (or construct) is known as the construct preference.
In Section B of the instrument, the salience to the participant was rated for the 39
previously mentioned attributes presented in Section A. For this study, salience refers to
the relative importance for defining an ecotourism destination that a participant places on
52
an individual attribute. For example, a respondent to the survey may rate the construct
preference (salience) for ‘safety while visiting’ a 5 on the Likert scale, indicating high
importance placed on personal safety when evaluating his/her decision to visit a national
park for an ecotourism experience. Utilizing evaluative perception and construct
preference in combination allows the researcher to assign weights to those aspects of
destination image that are considered important by a particular individual or group of
individuals (Jenkins, 1999). Ultimately, identification of travel preferences can be
distilled and market segments identified, though this was not the focus for this particular
study. Aggregation of image for a specific destination could then be compared with the
image of another venue within identified market segments.
Question Development: Part 3 – Demographic / Descriptive Questions
About the Visitor, Visitor’s Experience, and Reasons for Visiting the Park:
This part of the instrument contained 12 categorical and 3 open-ended questions of
demographic and descriptive items that inquired about the participant’s motivation to
visit and personal information. Most responses were recorded by marking an X in the
appropriate answer box or boxes. Several questions could have multiple responses, but
most were designed for single appropriate answers. Three questions had ‘other’ as a
possible choice and provided opportunity to write in additional data. Group size and age
were asked as open-ended questions requiring subsequent categorization during the
analysis phase.
Questions can be clustered along the following general categories:
•
Citizenship and Residency (Bulgarian citizenship, Question 1; Residential distance
from park, Question 2; Foreign citizenship, Question 3).
53
•
Park Experience and Length of Stay (Visit Frequency, Question 4; Other Bulgarian
Parks, Question 5; Other Foreign Parks, Question 6; Duration of Visit, Question 7).
•
Group Dynamics (Group Size, Question 9; Group Gender/Age Distribution, Question
10).
•
Motivation (Ecotourist, Question 8; Reasons for Visit, Question 11).
•
Standard Demographics (Gender, Question 12; Age, Question 13; Education Level,
Question 14; Physical Health, Question 15).
Citizenship and residency: Three questions designed to identify visitors to the park
along categorical (nominal) values of citizenship, either Bulgarian or Foreign; residency
status, either Local or Visitor; and foreign citizenship, one of 14 nominal values for
country including ‘other’.
Park experience and length of stay: Four categorical questions designed to indicate
ordinal values such as:
Level of experience with the CBNP – Six ordinal categories ranging from ‘never visited’
to ‘13 or more visits.’
Other parks in Bulgaria – 13 ordinal categories of interval scale ranging from 0 to 12.
Foreign parks – Two nominal categories, no or yes; with an open-ended solicitation for
‘countries visited.’
Duration of visit – Eight ordinal categories ranging from ‘never visited the CBNP’ to
‘more than one week.’
54
Group dynamics: Two questions; one, an open-ended question designed to capture
number of people experiencing the park as a party, and one question of nominal values to
gather data about gender and age distributions within each party. The categories were as
follows: Male, less than 18 years of age; Male, 19-35 years of age; Male, 36-55 years of
age; Male, greater than 56 years of age; Female, less than 18 years of age; Female, 19-35
years of age; Female, 36-55 years of age; and Female, greater than 56 years of age.
Motivation: Two nominal categorical questions that ask participants to respond to their
reasons for visiting the CBNP and whether they consider their visit to be an ecotourism
experience.
Ecotourism experience – three nominal categories; no, yes, don’t know
Reasons for visiting – 14 nominal categories including ‘other.’ Based on a review of
literature and conversations with park administrative personnel, this question was meant
to assess the principal reasons for visiting the park.
Standard demographics: Questions within this cluster included gender, age, level of
education, and health/fitness assessment. Except for the age question, all questions were
measured categorically by marking the appropriate box. Age was presented in an openended format. The health/fitness question was included because access to much of the
park is dependent upon one’s ability to hike relatively strenuous distances within the
park. Ability to experience the park and impressions of the park may be dependent upon
one’s general level of health/fitness.
55
Instrument Format
The instrument utilized for this study was developed in a booklet format. This was
chosen for its professional appearance and convenience of use. Five sheets of legal size
paper were folded, printed double-sided and center stapled making 20 pages complete,
including front and back cover, for each questionnaire.
The front cover of the questionnaire included a banner with logo of the park (in
Bulgarian), the name of the park, the name of the researcher (Steven Richards) and of the
project partner (Nela Rachevitz, director of the CBNP), and the logo of The Ohio State
University. A graphic outline of the Republic of Bulgaria with the title of the instrument
enclosed within was centered on the front cover to echo a theme of the park’s national
relevance.
The instrument was written in English and translated into Bulgarian. The researcher
decided that color coded copies of the English and Bulgarian versions would lend quick
visual specificity while administering the instrument in the field as potential participants
were approached. Originally, blue was selected for the English version and goldenrod
was selected for the Bulgarian version. A test of the Bulgarian translations while incountry yielded some awkward expressions and misunderstandings of meanings that
required a subsequent rewrite and reprinting of the Bulgarian version. Since goldenrod,
legal-size paper was not available for duplication of the instrument, the new Bulgarian
version was printed on white paper.
56
Instrument Approval and Testing
This instrument was reviewed and tested as outlined below. Design and testing of
the instrument was an iterative process. Approval of the instrument required
authorizations granted from Ohio State University’s Human Subjects Review and from
the Central Balkan National Park’s administrative office. A description of these
processes follows.
Initial design of questionnaire: Includes a qualitative phase of construct development.
Forty-three attributes were identified in three focus group sessions. Question
development followed attribute identification. A three-part questionnaire design was
developed based on Echtner and Ritchie’s empirical assessment methods (1993).
Submitted to panel of experts: Questions were reviewed and evaluated by a panel of
experts. The panel included the following individuals: Dr. Ted Napier, Dr. Neil Andrew,
Dr. Joe Bonnell, Gina Zwerling, Kate Wiltz, Cindy Somers.
Changes made: Changes were made based on panel review. Questions that the panel
identified having problems of construct or content validity were either rewritten or
rejected.
Attribute questions tested on a convenience sample of OSU students: A test for face
validity was performed with ten volunteer graduate students from the School of Natural
Resources at The Ohio State University.
Changes made: Changes were made to question order and question semantics based on
comments received from the face validity test.
57
Reviewed by Bulgarian native speakers: Two reviewers, whose first-language is
Bulgarian, evaluated the English language version of the questionnaire and translated it
into Bulgarian. This review and translation was performed by Mr. Svetoslav Chilikov
and Ms. Tanya Chincheva.
Changes made: Language expressions that were awkward or misleading were revised or
rejected for greater clarity and precision of meaning and intent.
Review by Central Balkan National Park staff: A review of the questions, format and
content of the instrument was performed by park staff. A number of questions were
deemed to have Bulgarian translations that were confusing or unclear because of
imprecise biological or ecological Bulgarian terms. Others were found to lack clarity in
Bulgarian when compared to the original intent of the English version.
Changes made: Revisions required a rewrite of the original Bulgarian version of the
questionnaire.
Questionnaire tested – The instrument was pilot tested by eight Bulgarian speakers from
the city of Gabrovo, Republic of Bulgaria.
Final review and approval by CBNP: Instrument approved for permitting in the park by
Park Director, Ms. Nella Rachevitz.
In social science, validity is one of the criteria that serves as a benchmark for
inquiry (Schwandt, 1997). In addressing issues of validity for this study, instrument
questions were reviewed using the following methodologies:
Construct Validity – Construct validity refers to the degree to which inferences can
legitimately be made from operationalizing the theoretical constructs in the study. For
58
this research project, it is an assessment of how well the ideas or theories of the study
have been translated into an actual measurement program for destination image. To test
for construct validity, a panel of experts was assembled. The panel included the
following individuals: Dr. Ted Napier, Dr. Neil Andrew, Dr. Joe Bonnell, G. Zwerling,
K. Wiltz, C. Somers.
Content Validity – Content validity refers to the extent to which a measurement
reflects the intended domain of content (Carmines & Zeller, 1991). Content validity
addresses the representativeness of the instrument content as it is related to the domain or
universe of content from which information is being collected. Content validity is
concerned with the question of what is being measured by the instrument. In other
words, does the questionnaire measure what it sets out to measure in terms of visitors’
attitudes of park attributes? The panel of experts was able to verify content validity of
the instrument along with personnel from the CBNP administrative office.
Face Validity – Face validity is not to be confused with content validity. Face
validity refers not to what the instrument actually measures, but to what it superficially
appears to measure. That is, for those participants of the study, to what extent does the
questionnaire look like it is a valid measurement of visitors’ attitudes of the park? A test
of face validity was conducted with the collaboration of ten colleagues in the School of
Natural Resources at The Ohio State University who volunteered their evaluations of the
questions.
Ohio State University- Human Subjects Review
The purpose of the Ohio State University Human Subjects Review is to “ensure the
protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects who participate in research
59
activities conducted on behalf of the Ohio State University” (OSU, 2002). The nature of
this research project dictates that it be reviewed by the Behavioral and Social Science
Institutional Review Board (IRB). Researchers are required to submit their research
protocols, including instruments (questionnaires) to the IRB for either full review or
establishment of ‘exempt’ status. This research involved only adults and was completely
anonymous and voluntary. The researcher applied for exempt status under category 1
and category 2 (OSU, 2002). Copies of the questionnaires were submitted to the IRB for
review and exempt status was granted and the Protocol Number 02E0251 was assigned to
the research.
Data Collection
Though the park is visited throughout the year, there is a distinct seasonality to
visitation patterns. Foreigners, especially, tend to visit during the summer season.
Communications with park administrators informed the researcher that a five week
period in July / August 2002 would provide the greatest exposure to both foreign and
domestic visitors along with the greatest number of visitors during the summer high
season. This research period was also timely for park staff to assist the researcher with
logistics and transportation within the park.
Following two meetings with the park’s director, a research schedule was agreed upon
in order to satisfy several competing objectives and consider several limitations. It was
necessary to sample at sites within the park where the greatest number of visitors
congregated and where the probability to sample foreigners was highest. In addition,
though the park is geographical vast, it was desirable to sample across an array of sites
60
distributed throughout the park. This required a systematic approach to sampling because
arrangements had to be made to reserve overnight accommodations for both the
researcher and an assisting park ranger and allow for travel time between sites. Visitation
of sampling sites was dependent upon the availability of a park ranger to accompany the
researcher in the backcountry. Park management approved twelve sites within the park
for sampling. One site outside the park was selected for its proximity to the park and its
high tourist visitation rates.
While on-site, the researcher collected data at each scheduled sampling venue by
approaching potential participants while they were at leisure within social areas of each
hija. Some participants were encountered on the trails while transiting between sampling
sites. The researcher used an approved introductory script to approach potential
participants (see Figure 3.1 for the English translated version). Individuals that did not
speak Bulgarian were approached in English.
Hello, my name is Steven Richards. I’m from Ohio State University doing a research
project in partnership with the Central Balkan National Park. Our purpose is to learn
more about the visitors to the park. Your participation in the project is voluntary. The
responses you give will be confidential and completely anonymous. Would you be
willing to participate? If you choose to participate, it will take about 24 minutes to
complete. Whether or not you participate, we hope you enjoy your visit to the Central
Balkan National Park. Thank you for your time.
(Time 45 seconds)
Figure 3.1: Introductory script for data collection at sampling sites.
61
In the field, fewer foreign visitors were encountered within the park than anticipated
based on park administrators’ statements of projected foreign visitation rates. Eleven
foreigners sampled within the park participated in the study. Three more foreign visitors
participated in the study at Etura, outside the park boundaries. This presented a limitation
for the comparison of attitudinal scores of the destination image recorded by foreign and
domestic visitors.
Another limitation on distribution of questionnaires related to relative scarcity of
visitors to the park during the study period. Inclement weather, especially at higher
elevations during the sampling period may have contributed to a sample size that was
lower than expected. Though fewer questionnaires were distributed that had been
expected, a higher than expected completion rate was achieved (see Table 3.1).
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using descriptive and correlational statistics with SPSS 13.0
statistical software. Because the study sample was not randomly selected, inferential
statistics cannot be applied to any except the study population.
All central tendencies, other than demographic and descriptive information, were
analyzed and reported as means. Missing data were minimal in this study. Any cases of
missing data were addressed through an extrapolation procedure in the SPSS statistical
package.
The initial step was to summarize the data and report frequency distributions and
means. Descriptive statistics using crosstabulations were run using SPSS to establish the
presence or absence of a relationship between and among variables.
62
Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the
degree of linear relationships between and among interval/ordinal independent variables.
A Chi-square test of statistical significance at the 0.05 level was run on SPSS to analyze
the relationships between independent variables. Factor analysis of attributes defining
destination image was employed in order to explore the relationship among dependent
variables in the study and to discover emerging patterns in those relationships. A stepwise regression analysis was run to determine which independent variables of citizenship,
residency, visit frequency, duration of stay, ecotourist, group size, gender, age, education
level, fitness and salience sum explained the greatest amount of unique variance in
destination image composite scores in the Central Balkan National Park.
Results of the study and preliminary discussion are presented in Chapter 4.
Interpretation of these results and conclusions follow in Chapter 5.
63
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS & PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter documents the results from this study of visitor destination image of the
Central Balkan National Park (CBNP). It is organized into four major sections as
follows:
a.) Identification of the attributes of ecotourism destinations used in this study.
b.) Description of park visitors based on selected demographic characteristics of
participants, previous park experience, length of stay within the park, group size
and reasons for visiting the park.
c.) Description of the destination image of the CBNP.
d.) The relationship between the study’s independent variables and the dependent
variable, destination image of the CBNP.
Summary of Purpose of Study, Research Question and Objectives
This study is a descriptive / correlational study of destination image of the CBNP.
The focus of the study was to explore whether destination image of natural areas is
mediated by visitor demographic characteristics, reasons for visiting, and experience of
the area. This is operationalized as a research question as follows: What is the
relationship between a visitor’s demographic profile, a visitor experience within the park,
64
a visitor’s reasons for visiting the park and a visitor’s attitudinal ratings of the park’s
attributes as an ecotourism destination?
To address these questions, the study was guided by the following research
objectives:
Objective 1: to describe the visitors to the CBNP
Objective 2: to measure the destination image of the CBNP
Objective 3: to investigate the relationship between the study’s independent variables
(visitor’s citizenship, residency, visit frequency, length of stay, group size, reasons for
visit, gender, age, education and health) and destination image of the CBNP
Organization of Results
Identification of Ecotourism Destination Attributes:
Few published studies have used visitors to natural areas to elicit the constructs or
attributes used to investigate destination image (Jenkins, 1999). A review of the
literature reveals that none have specifically used tourists self selecting as ecotourists to
elicit the attributes used to investigate cognition of a destination’s ecotourism image.
According to Jenkins (1999), few studies prior to the 1990s elicited attributes, constructs
or dimensions that were used for measurement from the population being sampled
through qualitative techniques. One of the earliest studies to do so was by Crompton
(1979) who used content analysis of reading material, travel brochures and unstructured
interviews with students to determine the attributes used in a survey of American
students’ perception of Mexico. Content analysis has also been used on data gathered
through interactive interviews or focus groups (Jenkins, 1999; Echtner & Ritchie, 1993).
65
The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire designed to survey participants’
attitudes of park attributes defining an ecotourism experience within the CBNP.
Identification of constructs or attributes that are used by visitors in their cognition and
perception of a park or natural area as a suitable ecotourism destination was necessary in
order to develop the instrument for the study. In order to mediate against researcher bias
for selected attributes to be studied, three interactive groups comprised of seven to eight
people each were convened and asked to identify attributes of an ecotourism experience.
Twenty-three individuals who self-selected as ecotourists were recruited from the
membership ranks of several Ohio chapters of the National Audubon Society and the
Nature Conservancy to participate in focused group discussions. Screening for
participation was based on the following criteria:
1. Participant must be 18 years of age or older.
2. Participant has visited at least one national park in the US or a foreign natural
area.
3. Participant must identify himself / herself as having had at least one previous
ecotourism experience.
4. Participant must be willing to honestly and openly discuss his / her opinions about
attributes of an ecotourism experience within a group setting and subject to tape
recorded sessions.
Transcriptions of tape recorded sessions were analyzed and coded by the researcher.
Thirty-nine attributes were identified and categorized into six general areas. Attributes
labeled as psychological/emotional relate to emotional well-being or the psychological
66
aspects of a visit experience. Infrastructure attributes relate to the built or physical
environment supporting touristic activities. Service attributes are those that help to
define the level of business or visitor services available in the park. Natural amenities are
those attributes dependent upon the natural resource base specific to the site. Cultural
amenities are those attributes dependent upon the local community and its
cultural/historical resources. Those attributes identified as allocation of benefits refers to
the definitional objectives of an ecotourism experience, i.e. benefits accruing to local
communities and those accruing to conservation. It should be noted that these categorical
constructs are complex and multi-dimensional in nature. They may, therefore, possess
aspects that call for inclusion into one or more categories. Assignment of attributes into
categories was done for organizational and reporting purposes only. Table 4.1 presents
those attributes of an ecotourism experience identified in at least two of the three
interactive group sessions.
67
Category
Emotional/Security
Infrastructure
Services
Natural Amenities
Cultural Amenities
Allocation of
benefits
Attribute
Opportunity for adventure
Opportunity for relaxation
Opportunity for solitude
Opportunity to connect with the land
(nature)
Safety while visiting
Availability of overnight
accommodations
Availability of camping facilities
Availability of eating facilities
System of trails
Accessibility of sites
System of roads
Quality of overnight accommodations
Quality of camping facilities
Quality of meals
Honesty of personnel providing
business services
Fairness of business practices
Enforcement of park regulations
Litter free
Visitor information - available
Visitor information - useful
Nature guides - available
Nature guides - helpful
Nature guides - knowledgeable
Price level of goods & services
Healthy environment
Scenic beauty
Biological richness - plants
Biological richness - animals
Absence of urbanization
Heterogeneity of places of interest
Heterogeneity of activities
Opportunity to view wildlife
Opportunity for environmental
learning
Experience local culture
Opportunity to visit historic sites
Opportunity to learn about local
culture
Friendliness of locals
Benefit to local community
Benefit to conservation
Group 1
(n=8)
X
Group 2
(n=7)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 4.1. Ecotourism Attributes Identified in Interactive Group Sessions.
68
Group 3
(n=8)
X
X
X
The nature of destination image can be understood as a mulit-item construct where
multiple attributes are the elements of the final composite image (Gallarza et al., 2002).
Baloglu and McCleary (1999) concluded that over-all impression of a destination is
dependent upon individual attributes. For this study, the attributes relating to an
ecotourism experience, listed in Table 4.1 above and identified through the interactive
group sessions, were operationalized as a set of 39 Likert scale questions to be rated by
visitors to the park. As conceptualized by this study, these attributes represent elements
of the over-all image of the CBNP and influence the holistic image held by visitors to the
park.
Table 4.2 shows the mean participant response (n=195) for each attribute. Variables
with higher means indicate participants’ perception of higher association for that
particular attribute existing in the park. For example, the mean response (4.16) for
Opportunity for Adventure indicates a strong perception of adventure associated with a
visit to the CBNP. Quality of Camping Facilities had a mean score of 2.90, indicating
that participants to the study had low association with the park for this attribute.
Cronbach’s alpha, a coefficient of reliability, measures how well a set of variables
measures a single unidimensional latent construct. Standardized Cronbach’s alpha is a
function of the number of test items and the average inter-correlation among the items.
Cronbach’s alpha for the 39 attribute items in this study was .89, indicating high
reliability; i.e. high positive correlation among items and could legitimately be summed.
A reliability coefficient of 0.7 or greater is generally considered acceptable according to
Nunnaly (1978).
69
Calculation of the dependent variable for this study was derived through a summary
scale of destination image developed from summing all attribute variables supported by
strong reliability; Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.7. The summary scale mean was 147.25 (195
maximum) with a mean attribute score of 3.77. This suggests that the average visitor to
the park generally agreed that the surveyed attributes were, on average, present in
satisfactory condition.
70
Category
Attribute
Mean
Emotional/Security
Opportunity for adventure
Opportunity for relaxation
Opportunity for solitude
Opportunity to connect with the
land (nature)
Safety while visiting
Availability of overnight
accommodations
Availability of camping facilities
Availability of eating facilities
System of trails
Accessibility of sites
System of roads
Quality of overnight
accommodations
Quality of camping facilities
Quality of meals
Honesty of personnel providing
business services
Fairness of business practices
Enforcement of park regulations
Litter free
Visitor information - available
Visitor information - useful
Nature guides - available
Nature guides - helpful
Nature guides - knowledgeable
Price level of goods & services
Healthy environment
Scenic beauty
Biological richness - plants
Biological richness - animals
Absence of urbanization
Heterogeneity of places of interest
Heterogeneity of activities
Opportunity to view wildlife
Opportunity for environmental
learning
Experience local culture
Opportunity to visit historic sites
Opportunity to learn about local
culture
Friendliness of locals
Benefit to local community
Benefit to conservation
Infrastructure
Services
Natural Amenities
Cultural Amenities
Allocation of
benefits
4.16
4.55
4.39
4.68
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
143.09
142.70
142.86
142.57
Cronbach’s alpha if
Item Deleted
.888
.890
.888
.889
3.47
3.79
143.78
143.46
.888
.891
2.90
3.24
4.01
3.67
3.33
3.46
144.35
144.01
143.24
143.58
143.92
143.79
.887
.887
.886
.886
.887
.885
2.70
3.31
3.46
144.55
143.94
143.79
.887
.884
.887
3.30
3.49
3.65
3.48
3.91
2.90
3.43
3.37
3.64
4.34
4.82
4.64
4.14
3.64
4.28
3.56
3.85
4.51
143.95
143.76
143.60
143.77
143.34
144.35
143.82
143.89
143.61
142.91
142.43
142.61
143.11
143.61
142.97
143.69
143.40
142.74
.889
.886
.888
.887
.888
.885
.885
.886
.888
.887
.889
.888
.887
.887
.887
.886
.886
.888
3.47
3.72
3.67
143.78
143.53
143.58
.883
.885
.884
4.39
4.00
142.86
143.25
.887
.887
3.91
143.34
.887
Table 4.2: Response Means for Ecotourism Attributes
71
Description of Park Visitors:
Objective 1 of the study was to describe the visitors to the Central Balkan National
Park. Development of the CBNP as an ecotourism destination site would benefit from a
better understanding of the visitor’s demographics, motivation to visit, and experience
with the park. This study contributes by documenting demographic and attitude data of
park visitors to the CBNP during the study period.
The accessible population for this study was visitors 18 years of age or older to the
Central Balkan National Park and to the Etura National Ethnographic Park during four
weeks of data collection in July and August 2002. A convenience sample was drawn
from the accessible population of those visitors self-selecting to participate in the study.
Questionnaires were given to 202 visitors. Seven questionnaires were incomplete,
resulting in 195 useable participant responses. For those individuals traveling in a group,
only one person per group was recruited to participate in the study. The demographic
characteristics investigated for this study were: citizenship and residency, visitor’s
frequency experience with the park, visitor’s experience with other parks, group size,
visitor’s reasons for park visit, gender, age, education level, and health/fitness. Each
characteristic is discussed in the following section.
Citizenship and residency:
Respondents to the survey included visitors from an array of locations around
Bulgaria and from five foreign countries. For purposes of investigation, a resident was
defined as a visitor whose normal habitation was ≤ 50 kilometers from the declared
borders of the park. Table 4.3 shows the distribution of respondents across two
categories of residency and citizenship. Not unexpectedly, the majority of participants
72
(181) were citizens of Bulgaria, representing 92.8% of all respondents. About 45.1% of
all participants in the survey resided within 50 kilometers of the park’s boundary. About
48.6% of the Bulgarian respondents lived within 50 kilometers of the park. Foreign
citizenship was held by 14 respondents, representing 7.2% of the total respondents and by
definition these individuals were considered non-residents.
In summary, although most respondents were Bulgarian citizens (92.8%), residency
was more evenly distributed (45.1% residents, 54.9% non-residents).
Citizenship
Bulgaria ≤ 50 kilometers
Bulgaria > 50 kilometers
Foreign
Belgium
France
Germany
Great Britain
Russia
Total Foreign
Frequency
Resident
Non-resident
88
93
Percent
45.1
47.7
3
6
2
2
1
14
7.2
Table 4.3: Citizenship and Residency of Participants (n = 195)
Gender:
Male participants outnumbered female participants in the study, but not significantly
so. About 47.2% of respondents were female and 52.8% were male. Table 4.4 shows the
distribution of the participant’s gender in the study.
73
Gender n = 195 Percent
Female 92
47.2
Male
103
52.8
Table 4.4: Proportion of male and female participants.
Age:
This study included adults over the age of 18. Participants were asked how old they
were on their last birthday. Responses are categorized and displayed below in Table 4.5.
The mean age for all visitors to the park was 36 years. The mean age for male visitors to
the park was 37.9 years and for female visitors 34.0 years.
Age
n = 195 Percent
18 - 21
28
14.4
22 - 25
25
12.8
26 - 29
23
11.8
30 - 34
27
13.8
35 - 39
17
8.7
40 - 44
21
10.8
45 - 49
14
7.2
50 - 54
21
10.8
55 - 59
8
4.1
60 - 64
6
3.1
65 - 69
2
1.0
70+
3
1.5
Table 4.5: Age of participants.
Visitor experience with the park:
As conceptualized in this study, visit experience has two components; visit frequency
and duration of current visit. Participants in this study were asked two separate
74
questions regarding their visit experience with the CBNP. Respondents were asked to
report the number of times within the last three years that they had visited the park.
Subsequently, they were asked the length of their stay for their current visit. Cronback’s
alpha was computed for the two variables to determine if a composite measure could be
produced from the responses given to both questions. The average inter-item correlation
(α = .69) of these two variables indicated an acceptable, but not strong level of internal
consistency, therefore the items were retained as two separate variables. For the
distribution of frequency of visit to the CBNP, see Table 4.6 below.
Participants were recruited within the park and at an historic ethnographic park within
10 kilometers of the park’s boundary. A total of 46 individuals (23.6 percent of
participants to the study) had never visited the CBNP.
Visit Frequency n = 195 Percent
Never visited
46
23.6
Visit 1-3 times
66
33.8
Visit 4-6 times
26
13.3
Visit 7-9 times
7
3.6
Visit 10-12 times
12
6.2
Visit 13+ times
38
19.5
Table 4.6: Frequency of Visiting the CBNP
Duration of visit was also investigated. Because of the lack of motorized
transportation infrastructure available within the park, visiting the CBNP requires a
commitment of time if one is to experience its amenities. Table 4.7 shows the
distribution of participants’ length of stay for their current visit to the park. Compared to
75
visitation patterns at most American national parks, visitors to the CBNP appear to
devote a longer period of time to their visit experience. About 56.5 percent of
participants to the study indicated a stay of three days or more within the park’s
boundaries.
Length of Stay
n = 195 Percent
Never visited
46
23.6
Less than 1 day, no overnight
10
5.1
One day-One overnight
10
5.1
Two days-one overnight
19
9.7
Three days-two overnights
23
11.8
Less than one week
29
14.9
One week
22
11.3
More than one week
36
18.5
Table 4.7: Length of Stay for Current Visit to the CBNP
Visitor experience with other parks:
Bulgarian parks other than the CBNP
About 76.4 percent of the participants in this study had visited at least one other
national park or reserve in Bulgaria prior to their visit to the CBNP. About 41.9 percent
of participants had visited five or more Bulgarian national parks or protected areas.
Table 4.8 shows the distribution of participants’ visitation experience with other national
parks and natural protected areas in Bulgaria.
76
Number of Parks /Protected Areas Visited Frequency n=195 Percent
0
46
23.6
1
17
8.7
2
16
8.2
3
20
10.3
4
15
7.7
5
23
11.8
6
18
9.2
7
12
6.2
8
11
5.6
9
11
5.6
10+
6
3.1
Table 4.8: Number of Bulgarian Parks Visited
Foreign parks
About 27.2 percent of participants in the study had visited a national park within a
country other than Bulgaria. Of the foreign parks previously experienced by participants
to the survey, the national parks in Germany were most frequently cited, followed by
those in the Czech Republic and France. Especially for French parks, this may be partly
explained by foreign visitors’ experience with their own country’s national parks. Six
French and two German nationals participated in this study. See Table 4.9 for the
distribution of visitors’ experience with foreign national parks.
Only 22.1 percent of Bulgarian visitors to the CBNP participating in the study had
previously visited a national park within a foreign country. Not surprisingly, 92.9 percent
of foreign visitors to the CBNP indicated prior visitation to a national park outside of
Bulgaria. The majority of Bulgarian participants, 77.9 percent, had never visited a
77
foreign park. The questionnaire did not investigate foreign travel opportunities for
Bulgarian citizens.
Country
Frequency Percent
Germany
15
7.7
Czech Republic
13
6.7
France
13
6.7
Slovakia
12
6.2
Poland
8
4.1
Russia
7
3.6
Romania
6
3.1
USA
6
3.1
Austria
5
2.6
United Kingdom
5
2.6
Switzerland
4
2.1
Greece
3
1.5
Italy
3
1.5
Macedonia
3
1.5
Israel
1
.5
Kenya
1
.5
Tajikistan
1
.5
Ukraine
1
.5
Table 4.9: Visit Experience of Foreign National Parks
Ecotourist:
Participants were asked whether they considered their current visit to the CBNP to be
an example of an ecotourism experience. Ecotourism was defined within the question as
“Environmentally responsible travel and visitation to natural areas, in order to enjoy and
appreciate nature, promote conservation and provide socio-economic involvement of
local peoples.” The original intent for this question was to explore whether or not image
of the park differed significantly between those visitors self-identifying their experience
78
as an example of ecotourism and those visitors responding that it was not. About 79.5
percent of all visitors to the park responded that their experience in the park was an
example of ecotourism. Only four (2.1 percent) participants indicated that their visit was
not. About 18.5 percent did not know whether or not their visit was an example of
ecotourism. Because there was insufficient data to compare means between groups, the
concept was dropped as an independent variable in the study.
Group Size:
Group size is thought to have an affect on destination experience and image formation
(Baloglu and McCleary, 1999). Participants were asked to report whether they were
visiting alone or as a member of a group. Respondents were asked to indicate the number
of people, including themselves, traveling with their group during the current visit to the
park. About 96.4 percent of participants to the survey experienced the park with at least
one or more other companions or family members. Only 3.6 percent of respondents were
visiting the park alone. About 19.5 percent of respondents were visiting with only one
other person in their party. Relationship to the respondent was not asked in the
questionnaire. Establishment of the relationship among group members was deemed to
be intrusive to privacy and might have influenced questionnaire response rates. Mean
group size for all visitors was 6.4 persons.
Foreign visitors to the park were not encountered in numbers approaching
expectations. Only 14 respondents to the questionnaire indicated that they held foreign
citizenship. The most frequently encountered foreign nationality was French with six
respondents, followed by Belgian (3), British (2), and German (2). Only one respondent
was Russian. No Americans or Canadians were encountered within the park during the
79
study period. Though the questionnaire was available only in Bulgarian or English
language versions, language was not deemed to be a limiting factor for willingness to
participate in the survey. No park visitor approached to participate in the survey refused
on the basis of language. All of the foreign visitors chose to respond using the English
copy of the questionnaire. On two occasions, the researcher assisted a French speaking
participant with translation of the English copy in order to clarify question intent. In all
other cases, foreign respondents completed their questionnaire unaided with translation.
Mean group size did not vary significantly between Bulgarian or Foreign visitors.
Bulgarian mean group size was 6.4 and foreigner mean group size was 6.8. While
sample size for foreign visitors was too small for statistical analysis, it is interesting to
note some group size differences among foreign visitors to the park. Foreign visitors
traveling alone or in a group of two were mostly Belgian or British. French and German
visitors were most likely to be traveling with a commercial tour as a group. Mean group
size for French and German participants was 9.8 and 11.0 respectively. One Russian
participant indicated visitation to the park in a party of four.
Because only one individual from each group was recruited to respond to the
questionnaire, average group size can be misleading with respect to aggregated visitor
numbers. Visitors traveling together as one large group may offer relatively fewer
subjects for study when compared to more numerous, but smaller groups. For this
reason, although only two German respondents were recruited for the survey, German
visitors were well represented among foreign visitors. German visitors in this study
apparently travel in organized commercial tours led by a bilingual guide fluent in the
language of the host country. French visitors were also likely to travel with an organized
80
commercial tour group led by a Bulgarian guide fluent in French. In contrast, British and
Belgian visitors were more likely to travel on their own with no assistance from a
professional guide. Table 4.10 shows the distribution of group size for participants in the
study.
Number in Group Frequency Percent
1
7
3.6
2
38
19.5
3
22
11.3
4
32
16.4
5
13
6.7
6
16
8.2
7
5
2.6
8
12
6.2
9
4
2.1
10
14
7.2
11
3
1.5
12
8
4.1
13
4
2.1
14
2
1.0
15
6
3.1
16
2
1.0
17
1
.5
20
3
1.5
25
1
.5
36
1
.5
37
1
.5
Table 4.10: Group Size (n = 195)
Reasons for visit:
Previous tourism studies of behavior and destination choice have accepted motivation
as a central concept in understanding the socio-psychological forces that predispose an
individual to select for and participate in a touristic activity (Baloglu and McCleary,
81
1999). Crompton (1990) found motivation for a touristic experience to be a major
influence factor on destination choice and image formation of a destination.
Participants in the study were asked to report their reasons for visiting the park.
Responses were recorded by marking appropriate boxes that applied to each participant’s
motivations. Multiple responses were allowed, including an open-ended category for
reasons other than those captured in the provided list. Table 4.11 displays the distribution
of the reasons for visiting the park. The three most cited reasons for visiting the park
were: to relax / relieve stress (75.4 %), to experience nature (67.7%), and to sightsee /
view scenery (62.1%).
Reason(s) for Park Visit
Frequency Percent
Passing through the park
18
9.2
To sightsee/view scenery
121
62.1
To experience solitude
115
59.0
To experience nature
132
67.7
For education / To learn about the park
52
26.7
On a commercial tour
64
32.8
Time with friends / family
87
44.6
To view wildlife
56
28.7
For recreational opportunities
97
49.7
To photograph nature / park features
76
39.0
To relax / relieve stress
147
75.4
To visit a national park
59
30.3
To collect medicinal plants where permitted
57
29.2
Other
6
3.1
Table 4.11: Reasons for visiting the Central Balkan National Park
82
Education level:
Prior research has indicated that education level may be a major determinant of image
(Baloglu and McCleary, 1999). The relationship between a visitor’s education level and
his/her perceptual/cognitive and affective evaluations of destination image is an
interesting one. Participants in this study were asked to self-report education level
achievement. Table 4.12 shows the distribution of education level achievement for
participants in the study. Mean education level was 4 years of university. About 59.9
percent of participants had completed four or more years of university.
Education Level Achievement Frequency Percent
No formal education
0
0
th
Less than 8 grade
0
0
Completed 8th grade
11
5.6
High School
67
34.4
4 years of university
48
24.6
6 years of university
50
25.6
7+ years of university
19
9.7
Table 4.12: Education Level (n = 195)
Health / Fitness:
The terrain within the study park is largely rugged and mountainous. Accessibility to
overnight accommodations in the park is mostly via hiking trails that require several
hours of fairly rigorous, if not strenuous climbs in elevation.
Some of the hijas offering
visitors sleeping accommodations require that supplies be brought in by packhorse since
the nearest vehicle access point is several miles away.
83
Paved and roaded access to vast areas of the park is limited or non-existent. An
extended experience within the park requires considerable physical exertion. Individuals
with physical handicaps or those in poor health would find it difficult to fully explore the
vast majority of the park. Attitude of park attributes may be related to one’s physical
condition and ability to experience the park. For this reason, participants were asked to
self-report their perceived physical condition as it relates to ability to actively experience
the park. Not surprisingly, 92.3 percent of all respondents to the survey indicated that
their physical condition was good or very good.
See Table 4.13 for the distribution of
participants’ self-reported physical condition.
Physical Condition Frequency Percent
Very Good
116
59.5
Good
64
32.8
Fair
15
7.7
Poor
0
0
Very Poor
0
0
Table 4.13. Self-reported Physical Condition (n = 195)
Measurement of the Destination Image of the Central Balkan National Park.
Objective 2 of this study was to measure the destination image of the CNBP. The
conceptual framework employed for this study was adapted from Echtner and Ritchie
(1991). Destination image is conceptualized as multi-faceted, with ranges of aspects that
can be represented on three continua. An attribute-holistic component of image
acknowledges the individual pieces of information about selective features or attributes
84
that a place is evaluated on, along with the more gestalt, or overall holistic impressions
that are held by visitors or potential visitors. These components contain functional and
psychological characteristics that range from directly observable / measurable aspects to
those which are less tangible or more difficult to observe and measure. The functionalpsychological continuum recognizes the distinction between directly observable
characteristics such as price levels or physical features and those that are less tangible
such as hospitality or atmosphere. Figure 4.1 provides an example of image
characteristics that can be clustered along the attribute-holistic and functionalpsychological continua.
________________________________________________________________________
FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Mental Picture
of Physical
Characteristics
Costs
Trails
Accommodations
ATTRIBUTES
HOLISTIC
(Imagery)
General
Feelings of
Atmosphere
or Mood
Personal Safety
Friendliness of
People
PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Figure 4.1: Example of Components of Destination Image (Adapted from Echtner and
Ritchie).
The third continuum involves the importance of unique, often iconic elements that
MacCannell (1989) has referred to as markers or must-see sights. Symbols have been the
85
subject of several tourism researchers and can be a significant factor of destination image
(Echtner & Ritchie, 1991). The common-unique continuum refers to the range of
characteristics that a decision-maker uses to evaluate a site, ranging from those
commonly encountered at all sites, such as customer service or accommodations to those
specifically identifiable to place, such as Mount Rushmore or the Effiel Tower.
According to Echtner and Ritchie, images of destinations can include unique features and
events (functional characteristics) or special auras (psychological characteristics).
CBNP- Destination Image
Part II Section A of the questionnaire developed for this study consisted of 39
questions asking participants to rate selected ecotourism attributes of the park. A fivepoint Likert scale was employed for each of these questions. Attributes were identified
through literature search and focus group research (see Chapter 3 for methods). Over 220
statements of ecotourism characteristics were produced from focus group sessions. The
literature search tended to yield destination attributes for mass-market tourism
destinations in general, not specifically for ecotourism destinations. Following content
analysis of these characteristics, 44 categories were identified and labeled. Results of the
literature search and focus group sessions were merged to produce a final list of 39
attributes. These attributes have been arranged along the functional-psychological
continuum (Figure 4.2). The primary objective in the analysis of attribute-based item
was to develop a set of scales with which to measure the common, attribute-based
components of destination image.
86
FUNCTIONAL (physical, measurable)
Biologically rich / flora
Biologically rich / fauna
Trail system
Road / transportation infrastructure
Scenery / landscape attractions
Variety of natural attractions
Variety of activities / recreation
Historic / cultural sites
Costs / price levels
Park guides available
Visitor information available
Opportunity to view wildlife
Regulations are enforced
Accessibility of attractions / sites
Availability of meals
Accessibility of rooms
Accessibility of camping
Degree of urbanization / development
Litter-free / cleanliness
Solitude / crowdedness
Personal safety
Visitor information is useful / applicable
Park guides are knowledgeable
Park guides are helpful
Restful / opportunity for relaxation
Local culture
Opportunity for environmental learning
Opportunity for cultural learning
Healthy environment to visit
Fairness / equity of business practices
Honesty of service providers / lack of corruption
Friendliness of locals / hospitality
Benefits conservation
Benefits community
Opportunity for adventure
Quality of meals
Quality of camping
Quality of rooms
Opportunity to relate to the land
PSYCHOLOGICAL (abstract)
Figure 4.2: List of attributes used for development of scale items.
87
Though attribute-based items could measure common, attribute-based components of
destination image, the more holistic and unique aspects of image required open-ended
questions meant to classify and label various descriptions used by respondents to the
survey. Three questions in Part 1 of the survey instrument asked respondents to answer
open-ended questions relating to their perception of overall atmosphere to be experienced
in the park (holistic component) and to list any distinctive or unique features, attractions,
or activities in the park (unique component). Responses were analyzed using frequency
analysis. The researcher did coding and classification of responses and a detailed
classification system was developed. See Figure 4.3 for the most frequent responses to
the three open-ended questions included in the questionnaire. Responses given by more
than 10% of the survey sample are listed. Holistic image was constructed from those
responses that were greater than 20% of all respondents and are grouped separately in
Questions 1 and 2.
88
________________________________________________________________________
1.
(Psychological) What comes to mind when you think about the Central Balkan
National Park as a tourism destination?
Beautiful mountains (62.4%)
Natural state (46.4%)
Relaxing place (40.4%)
Healthy surroundings (32.7%)
Quiet (29.3%)
Wild (22.1%)
Old oak forests (18.0%)
Socialization with friends (16.3%)
Biologically rich (14.8%)
Preservation of nature (10.4%)
Adventure (10.2%)
2.
3.
(Holistic) What words would you use to describe the overall atmosphere of the Central Balkan
National Park?
Beautiful (72.0%)
High mountain peaks (64.3%)
Natural (untouched by man) (55.5%)
Flora richness (47.3%)
Relaxing (38.9%)
Healthy (37.2%)
Recreation opportunities-hiking (28.8%)
Clean (18.5%)
Quiet (15.4%)
Invigorating (12.3%)
(Unique) Please list any distinctive or unique features, attractions, or activities
that can be experienced in the Park.
Rare plants (41.9%)
Old forests (36.2%)
Mount Botev (35.7%)
Hiking, trail system (33.2%)
Rai falls (28.4%)
System of hijas (23.7%)
Natural state or wildness (21.6%)
Mountain climbing (18.4%)
Fauna (14.0%)
Hijas (12.5%)
Figure 4.3: Most Frequent Responses To Open-Ended Image Questions (Central Balkan
National Park
89
Results for the destination image of the Central Balkan National Park are represented
in two-dimensional diagrams shown in Figures 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6. As stated earlier,
components of destination image are conceptualized as falling within three continuums;
attribute-holistic, functional-psychological, and common-unique. Data sources are
indicated for each figure (whether scale item or open-ended question).
________________________________________________________________________
FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
*
Scenic (4.82)
Flora Richness (4.64)
Environ. Learning (4.52)
Place Variety (4.28)
Fauna Richness (4.14)
Trail System (4.01)
Camping Access (2.90)
Availability -Guides
(2.90)
**
High Mountain Peaks (64.3%)
Natural-no development
(55.5%)
Flora Species Richness (47.3%)
Relaxing atmosphere (38.9%)
Hiking Opportunities (28.8%)
ATTRIBUTES
HOLISTIC
(Imagery)
Relaxation (4.55)
Solitude (4.39)
Benefits Community
(4.00)
Adventure (4.16)
Healthy Environ (4.34)
Locals Friendly (4.39)
Relate to Land (4.68)
Beautiful Mountain Site (62.4%)
Natural State (46.4%)
Relaxing Place (40.4%)
Healthy Air-Surrounding
(32.7%)
Quiet (29.3%)
Wild (22.1%)
*
**
PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
________________________________________________________________________
* Data source for quadrant: scale items (mean values).
** Data source for quadrant: open-ended questions (% of participants responding).
Figure 4.4: Attribute/Holistic and Functional/Psychological components of destination
image – Central Balkan National Park (Adapted from Echtner and Ritchie).
90
______________________________________________________________________
FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
**
Rare Plants (41.9%)
Old Growth Forests (36.2%)
Mount Botev (35.7%)
System of Hiking Trails (33.2%)
Rai Falls (28.4%)
System of Hijas (23.7%)
Wildness (21.6%)
Scenic (4.82)
Flora Richness (4.64)
Environ. Learning (4.52)
Place Variety (4.28)
Fauna Richness (4.14)
Trail System (4.01)
Camping Access (2.90)
Availability – Guides (2.90)
*
COMMON
*
UNIQUE
Relaxation (4.55)
Solitude (4.39)
Benefits Community (4.00)
Adventure (4.16)
Healthy/Clean Environ. (4.34)
Locals Friendly (4.39)
Relate to Land (4.68)
Beautiful mountain site (62.4%)
Natural State (46.4%)
Relaxing Place (40.4%)
Healthy Air-Surroundings(32.7%)
Quiet (29.3%)
Wild (22.1%)
**
PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
* Data source for quadrant: scale items (mean values).
** Data source for quadrant: open-ended questions (% of participants responding).
Figure 4.5: Common/Unique and Functional/Psychological components of destination
image – Central Balkan National Park (Adapted from Echtner and Ritchie).
91
COMMON
Scenic (4.82)
Flora Richness (4.64)
Environ. Learning (4.52)
Relaxation (4.55)
Relate to Land (4.68)
Locals Friendly (4.39)
*
**
Beautiful Mountain Site (62.4%)
Natural State (46.4%)
Relaxing Place (40.4%)
Healthy Air-Surroundings (32.7%)
Quiet (29.3%)
Wild (22.1%)
ATTRIBUTES
**
HOLISTIC
(Imagery)
Rare Plants (41.9%)
Old Growth Forests (36.2%)
Mount Botev (35.7%)
System of Hiking Trails (33.2%)
Rai Falls (28.4%)
System of Hijas (23.7%)
Wildness (21.6%)
High Mountain Peaks (64.3%)
Natural-No Development (55.5%)
Flora Species Richness (47.3%)
Relaxing (38.9%)
Hiking Opportunities (28.8%)
**
UNIQUE
* Data source for quadrant: scale items (mean values).
** Data source for quadrant: open-ended questions (% of participants responding).
Figure 4.6: Attribute/Holistic and Common/Unique components of destination image –
Central Balkan National Park (Adapted from Echtner and Ritchie).
Results of this study indicate that respondents to the survey generally regard the park
highly for its scenic, natural beauty and mountainous terrain. Not surprisingly, Mount
Botev, highest peak in the Balkan range, emerged as an iconic symbol of the park.
Respondents were, in general, more attuned to the biological richness of the flora within
the park and relatively less expressive about its faunal richness. Rare and medicinal
92
plants that are protected within mountain reserves are held in high esteem by visitors and
are an important component of the unique and holistic image of the park. Cultural
richness, although valued moderately in the scale items, was mentioned infrequently in
the open-ended questions for unique and holistic image. Foreign visitors tended to rate
cultural richness more highly than domestic visitors, though the sample size for foreign
visitors was too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. On average, the park is
valued by respondents to the survey for its system of trails and the recreational
opportunities they offer. This is not surprising since many of the amenities and sites of
interest within the park require considerable hiking.
Amenities within the park are limited and this is reflected in relatively low attribute
scores and the lack of holistic, open-ended responses. Though camping facilities exist
within the park, respondents to the survey generally perceive camping opportunities as
limited and of poor quality when available. Park Rangers, though respected and valued,
are generally perceived as unavailable. Notably inconsistent were results indicating high
attribute scores for the opportunity to learn about nature/environment and the lack of
organized interpretation within the park during the study period. The system of hijas
(chalets), although somewhat austere by Western standards, is highly regarded by
respondents to the survey. Availability and quality of accommodations was rated
moderately high on average and was appreciated in open-ended responses. Day hikes
from hija to hija form an iconic experience for many visitors to the park.
In summary, results from this study indicate that image of the park is narrowly
focused on its scenic mountain beauty and recreational hiking opportunities. Image of
the park is easily differentiated and categorized from other natural areas and tourism
93
experiences. The park is perceived as a place of exceptional natural, scenic beauty and
for relaxation and quiet reflection of nature.
The Relationship Between the Study’s Independent Variables and Destination Image of
the Central Balkan National Park.
The findings for this study partially supported the theoretical model for predicting that
there would be a significant relationship between attribute scores of destination image of
the Central Balkan National Park and the independent variables. Since multiple
independent variables were being tested in the study, stepwise regression was used to
examine the relative explanatory power of the independent variables as they were
considered simultaneously. The original independent variables included in the statistical
model as predictors of destination image were as follows: Residency, Citizenship, Visit
Frequency, Visit Duration, Ecotourist, Group Size, Gender, Age, Education Level,
Fitness, and Salience Sum.
Strength of association between the dependent variable and the independent variables
was relatively low. Only Salience Sum and Visit Frequency were found to be significant
( p ≤ 0.05). Analysis of several iterations of stepwise regression yielded a predictive
model for Destination Image with an adjusted R square of 0.179 that included Salience
Sum and Visit Frequency. Standardized Beta coefficients provide the following:
Y = 0.380 X1 + 0.212 X2
Where : Y = Destination Image (Composite Score)
X1 = Salience Sum
X2 = Visit Frequency
94
Salience Sum was associated with ecotourism destination image and represented the
importance that respondents placed on each of the attributes making up the independent
variable. Respondents rated each attribute from 1 to 5 and then a composite score was
calculated by summing each of the 39 attribute scores. Study results indicate that
destination image increases, on average, 0.380 points for every unit increase in Salience
Sum. Visitors to the park who rate the importance of the study attributes more highly,
tend to score the existing attributes of the park more highly, indicating general
satisfaction with the park as an ecotourism destination. Another variable found to be
associated with ecotourism destination image was Visit Frequency. Visit Frequency was
coded as a categorical variable from 1 to 6. Those never visiting the park were coded as
1; those visiting 13 or more times were coded as 6. Respondents to the survey who had
visited the park more frequently in the last three years tended to rate image attributes of
the park more highly.
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to demonstrate the correlations
between interval/ordinal independent variables. Findings are shown in Table 4.14.
95
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6
X7
X8
1.000
-0.243**
0.190**
0.131
-0.010
0.173*
0.088
-0.070
1.000
0.523**
-0.043
0.106
-0.021
-0.034
-0.006
1.000
0.254**
0.112
-0.015
0.049
-0.053
1.000
-0.005
-0.024
-0.066
0.050
1.000
0.168* 1.000
0.372** -0.018 1.000
-0.080
0.008 -0.072 1.000
** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
________________________________________________________________________
Where:
X1= Residency (Local or Visitor)
X3= Duration of Stay
X5= Age
X7= Fitness
X2= Visit Frequency
X4= Group Size
X6= Education Level
X8= Salience Sum
Table 4.14: Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Interval/Ordinal Independent Variables
96
Results from Table 4.14 show the highest significant correlations are between visit
frequency and duration of stay in the park; age and fitness; and group size and duration of
stay. Study participants reporting more frequent visits to the park also tended to report
longer durations for their current visit. This may indicate a willingness to invest more
time in subsequent visits to the park as one becomes more familiar with the park through
experience. Not surprisingly, younger participants reported higher levels of fitness than
did older participants. That is, age was inversely related to fitness. Group size was
associated with longer visit durations for the sampled visit. Stated another way, study
participants traveling in larger groups tended to report longer durations of stay for their
current visit during the study period.
A factor analysis of the attributes of ecotourism destination image using principal
component analysis was run in order to discover possible patterns in the relationships
among the variables in question. The primary purpose was to discover if the observed
attribute variables could be explained, at least in part, in terms of a smaller number of
underlying characteristics or factors. See Table 4.15 for the Factor Pattern Matrix.
97
Eigenvalues →
Local culture
Cultural learning
Historic places
Quality of meals
Quality of rooms
Guides helpful
Variety of activities
Guides available
Wildlife viewing
Regulations enforced
Locals friendly
Bio-richness, faunal
Benefits to community
Trail system
Site accessibility
Healthy environment
Visitor info available
Benefits to conservation
Evidence of human development
Quality of camping
Accessibility of camping
Bio-richness, floral
Accessibility of meals
Environmental learning
Scenic
Relate to the land
Road system
Visitor info useful
Litter
Room accessibility
Relaxing
Adventure
Price level
Business practices fair
Business persons honest
Guides knowledgeable
Safety
Variety of places
Solitude
7.812
Factor 1
.657
.634
.596
.559
.552
.539
.525
.521
.513
.504
.499
.482
.471
.466
.464
.443
.441
.429
.418
.396
.414
.441
.411
.391
.279
.265
.406
.400
.382
.178
.191
.368
.340
.331
.397
.476
.381
.428
.401
3.356
Factor 2
-.142
-.240
-.403
.363
2.671
Factor 3
-.188
.232
.302
-.222
.419
-.128
-.321
-.419
-.296
.326
.293
-.240
.196
.119
.556
.543
-.538
.459
-.430
-.377
-.144
.275
.160
-.124
-.257
.103
.201
.386
-.280
-.376
-.270
-.189
.138
.302
.306
-.298
.381
.136
-.389
-.293
-.119
.137
.242
2.118
Factor 4
-.172
-.143
.373
.397
-.253
-.206
-.167
-.270
.226
-.301
-.233
-.157
.333
.244
.546
.434
.422
-.399
.417
.231
-.378
-.293
-.261
.311
-.390
-.116
.533
.467
.390
.154
.316
.288
-.201
-.229
-.361
Table 4.15 Factor Component Matrix.
Heavy loading on factor one demonstrates the uni-dimensionality of the 39 attributes
measuring the dependent variable and supports the use of Cronbach’s alpha as a
legitimate measure of the single latent construct, ecotourism destination image.
98
Interpreting the results of the principal component analysis is hypothetical and tentative
especially when compared to direct observation of independent variables (Bryman and
Cramer, 2001). Yet, one interpretation that might serve as a heuristic for understanding
the characteristics that emerge from the factor analysis of attributes is to note the
coalescence of relatively heavy factor loadings for factor one on the “socio-cultural
experience” of the park. Attributes that relate to cultural experience of the park and
social interaction with others while in the park emerge as a common characteristic of
factor one. This is noteworthy since most individuals experience the park as groups or
couples and may indicate social interaction as an important aspect of the ecotourism
experience within the park.
Investigation of the relationships between independent variables of the study included
a chi-square (Χ²) test of statistical significance. In several cases, variables were
collapsed into smaller ordinal groupings in order to allow a contingency table and the
associated chi-square value to be provided. Chi-square is not a strong statistic for
strength of a relationship, but rather indicates the level of confidence that a relationship
exists between two variables (Bryman and Cramer, 2001).
Two relationships were found to be statistically significant at p < 0.05. Residency
was found to be associated with length of visit during the study period. Those
participants to the study living more than 50 kilometers from the border of the park
reported longer periods for their current stay within the park (Χ² = 6.07, p < 0.05). It is
not surprising that a larger investment in travel to the park might result in a tendency to
stay longer once there. Table 4.16 presents the percentage frequencies of visit length by
residency category.
99
Residency
Length of visit stay
Local %
Visitor %
(within 49K)
(more than 50K)
Never visited
31.8
16.8
Less than one week
40.9
51.4
More than one week
27.3
31.8
n = 88
n = 107
Total
Note: Χ² = 6.07 S, p < 0.05.
Table 4.16: Percentage frequencies for participant’s park visit length by residency.
Residency was also found to be associated with visit frequency to the park (Χ² =
36.21, p < 0.05). It is perhaps surprisingly to note that participants in the study living
more than 50 kilometers from the park border indicated relatively frequent visits to the
park during the last three years. Apparently, visitors are willing to travel to experience
the park. 30.8% of participants living more than 50 kilometers from the park had visited
four or more times in the last three years. Though 56.8% of participants reporting local
residency (within 49 kilometers of the park) indicated visiting the park four or more times
in the past three years, about 31.8% of local participants had never visited the park. The
study did not look at specific location of residency and it is unclear whether visitation to
100
the park is influenced by geographic remoteness from major population centers within the
country. Future study may look at distance decay factors influencing park visitation
rates. Clearly, Bulgarian visitors traveling more than 50 kilometers to reach the park are
willing to repeat their visit experience. Results may indicate, however, a need to promote
the park more aggressively at the local community level. Table 4.17 presents the
percentage frequencies of visit frequency by residency category.
Residency
Frequency of visit
Local %
Visitor %
(within 49K)
(more than 50K)
Never visited
31.8
16.8
Visited 1 – 3 times
11.4
52.3
Visited ≥ 4 times
56.8
30.8
n = 88
n = 107
Total
Note: Χ² = 36.21 S, p < 0.05.
Table 4.17: Percentage frequencies for park visit frequency by residency.
Residency was defined by a dichotomous variable labeled as either local (residing
within 49 kilometers of the park) or visitor (residing more than 50 kilometers from the
park). Differences between the two groups were analyzed using t tests for two unrelated
101
means for each of the attribute components of the dependent variable. Adjusting for
foreign participants to the survey yielded 181 Bulgarian respondents. Only four of the 39
attributes of destination image emerged as statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) for
difference between local and visitor groups. Locals rated the park less litter-free and the
availability of nature guides lower than did visitors. Locals rated the trail system and the
opportunity for cultural learning more highly than did visitors.
In summary, although the theoretical model had only limited utility for predicting
destination image of the CBNP, interpretation of these research findings may provide
valuable reference to future researchers of destination image. This study has identified
attribute salience and visit frequency as two variables that are associated with ecotourism
destination image of a natural area. Familiarity with the park and social interaction
opportunities while visiting the park may also influence ecotourism destination image.
These findings are incorporated into the study’s conclusions and recommendations
offered in Chapter 5.
102
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study is a descriptive / correlational study of destination image of the Central
Balkan National Park (CBNP) in the Republic of Bulgaria. The primary focus of the
study is to explore whether destination image of a natural area used for ecotourism
activities is mediated by demographic characteristics of the visitor, reasons for visiting
the natural area, and the visitor’s experience. The findings described in the previous
chapter partially supported the theoretical model used to guide this research. The
theoretical model predicted that there would be a significant relationship between
destination image of the CBNP and the following independent variables: an array of
visitor demographic characteristics, reasons for visiting the park, and visitor experience.
A major contribution of this study has been to demonstrate that the construct of
ecotourism destination image can be conceptualized and measured through identification
of underlying attributes of an ecotourism experience. Ecotourism destination image, the
dependent variable for the study, is a composite score of 39 attributes measuring the
functional and psychological characteristics of an ecotourism experience within a natural
area managed for sustainable tourism. The dependent variable represents the selective
features used by visitors to evaluate a place for an ecotourism experience. Higher scores
on the dependent variable indicate a respondent’s perception that the park is more highly
103
rated as an ecotourism venue. Future studies may explore these attributes in order to
refine the definition of the construct and simplify the array of variables employed to
capture the multi-dimensional aspect of ecotourism destination image.
Results of this study provide a baseline measurement and assessment of the CBNP’s
destination image. Prior to this study, no visitor satisfaction research or assessment of
destination image had been done in the park. The study sample was purposely drawn and
participants self-selected to participate, therefore, conclusions and recommendations
resulting from the study may not be generalized to other locations and populations.
Study results revealed that the strength of association between the dependent variable
and the independent variables was relatively low. Only salience sum and visit frequency
were found to be statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.
The salience variable represents the importance that respondents placed on each of
the attributes making up the independent variable. Results of the study revealed that
visitors to the park who rated the importance of the study attributes more highly, tended
to score the existing attributes of the park more highly, indicating a general satisfaction
with the park as an ecotourism destination. This finding has important implications for
park planners involved in the design and implementation of ecotourism policies and
activities. Salience scores were positively correlated with higher assessment scores for
those same individual attributes found in the park. That is, participants that most highly
valued the study’s ecotourism attributes were more likely to perceive higher values for
those same attributes, as they exist in the park. This indicates a general consonance
between the park’s suitability as an ecotourism venue and ecotourists’ satisfaction with
the park. It is important to note that foreign visitors were not well represented in the
104
study sample population. Therefore, extrapolation of these results beyond the domestic
market is not advisable. Foreign visitors may perceive the park and the ecotourism
experience within the park differently than do domestic visitors. This becomes an
important consideration as park managers target different market segments for
ecotourism development.
Analysis of findings revealed a significant positive relationship between destination
image and visit frequency. As conceptualized in this study, visit experience has two
components; visit frequency and duration of current visit. The theoretical model
predicted that an individual’s previous and current experience with the park would
influence his/her evaluation of destination image. Findings from this study help to
support the theoretical notion that visitors to a destination assimilate and accommodate
new information into revised perceptions of place. In other words, as visitors become
more familiar with the park through increasing numbers of visits, image theory suggests
that the destination image held by those visitors will vary.
Curiously, while visit frequency was associated with destination image, visit duration
was not. Respondents to the survey who had visited the park more frequently were
increasingly likely to rate the destination image more highly. Frequent visits may
indicate a familiarity with the park that led to more assertive, positive evaluations by
survey respondents. Those respondents who had never visited or visited less frequently,
may have hedged their responses with more conservative evaluations. Visit duration, the
length of time to be spent in the park for the current visit, was not associated with
destination image. Study results did not support the theoretical model that predicted that
the longer the stay within the park during each visit, the more positive the evaluation of
105
the park’s destination image. This contradiction of the theoretical model may have a
reasonable, although untested explanation. Given that 75.4 percent of respondents in the
study indicated that at least one of the reasons for their visit was to relax/relieve stress, it
is reasonable to assume that a longer stay within the park would not necessarily result in
enhanced exposure or intimacy with the park. Those visitors seeking only relaxation
during their stay within the park would not necessarily avail themselves of all the park’s
amenities nor seek out those attributes of a more ecotourism-defined experience. For this
reason, extended stays may not translate into higher evaluations of ecotourism valueladen attributes.
Regression results indicated no statistically significant differences for a participant’s
citizenship or residency. The theoretical model predicted that a visitor’s residency might
influence their perception of the park. Previous research found that distance from a
destination influenced the stages of destination image formation (Jenkins, 1999). Hunt
(1975) argues that this is because individuals are more likely to have visited those
destinations nearer to their home and to have been exposed to media and work-of-mouth
information about the site. Evidence from this study did not support the theoretical
model and residency was not found to be associated with ecotourism destination image.
No significant differences were found for group size, gender, age, educational level or
fitness. Of these, educational level was most surprising. Prior research has indicated that
a visitor’s educational level may be a major determinant of image. Results did not
support a significant difference across education levels as predicted. This may be
because a simple measure of educational level does not capture the concept of
environmental literacy or predispose a person for particular sensitivity to environmental
106
issues. Subjecting the results of this study to findings of similar studies from other parks
around the world might reveal whether educational level, fitness or age, for example may
influence destination image differently across cultures.
Results from analysis of the correlation matrix provide some insights into the
relationships between the independent variables in the study. There is a significant,
positive correlation between residency (whether local or visitor) and duration of stay
within the park. There is a significant, negative correlation between residency and visit
frequency within the last three years. These findings show that those participants in the
study residing more than 50 kilometers from the park tend to visit less frequently, but
stay longer than participants living within 49 kilometers of the park. Distance imposes a
cost on the travel decision, and results from the study support the notion that visitors will
choose to stay longer within the park to optimize their experience of the destination as the
cost of travel to the site increases.
There is a significant, positive correlation between group size and duration of stay
within the park. Participants traveling through the park in larger groups tend to stay
longer than those visiting the park in smaller groups. One possible explanation is that
larger groups were more likely to be professionally guided or led through the park,
though investigation of group leadership was not a part of this study. Professionally
guided experiences of the park may indicate a visitor’s greater investment of time
through more structured programming activities while visiting the park. This represents
an opportunity for park planners to reinforce targeted destination image through a more
managed experience of the park.
107
An analysis of residency of Bulgarian visitors (n = 181) to the park did not reveal a
statistically significant difference in attitude behavior for most of the 39 attributes
defining the dependent variable. Locals and visitors clustered differently only for ratings
on the litter-free state of the park, quality of the trail system, availability of nature guides,
and opportunity for cultural learning. Locals rated quality of the trail system and
opportunity for cultural learning more highly than visitors living more than 50 kilometers
from the park. Since locals visit the park more frequently, they may enjoy a familiarity
with the trail system as a result of repeated experience. Locals, residents living nearest
the communities bordering the park, may also have an inherent sense of the opportunity
to learn about the local culture and reflect this in their ratings. Results indicate, however,
that at least for the domestic Bulgarian market, visitors to the park do not cluster attribute
ratings differently according to residency.
Recommendations for Policy and Practice
The management plan for the Central Balkan National Park has called for
ecotourism development within the park and surrounding communities. The U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID), through its Biodiversity Conservation
and Economic Growth Project, initiated support to the Bulgarian nature protection
management system. This has been manifested through development of a management
plan crafted to assist the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water to capture
protected area revenue by developing operational pilot projects for eco-enterprise, local
ecotourism and non-timber forest product activities in the park regions.
108
Based on the findings of this study and review of the literature, the following
recommendations are made and may be useful in planning and organizing an effective
ecotourism program for the Central Balkan National Park.
Environmental education / interpretative programming:
One curious result of the study was relatively strong positive ratings for attributes
related to the opportunity for environmental learning and the opportunity to learn about
the local culture. Responses to the survey indicated particularly high levels of
satisfaction with the opportunity for environmental learning (mean score 4.51), despite
the fact that no organized interpretive programming was available at any of the data
collection venues during the study period, except for some newly erected signage at
major trailheads. Findings indicate that Bulgarian visitors to the park are generally
satisfied with the park as an ecotourism destination. Less clear, however, is the degree of
satisfaction that foreign visitors have for the park’s congruency as an ecotourism
destination vis-à-vis the opportunity for an educational experience within the park.
Learning within the park is largely experiential, based on self-discovery and/or
through interaction with other visitors within one’s group or individuals encountered
while visiting the park. While this approach to environmental education clearly satisfies
some of the visitors to the park, it may not meet all visitors’ educational needs and
expectations when visiting the park for an ecotourism experience. One of the central
tenets of ecotourism is the opportunity for an educational experience that may be cultural
or environmental. Absent an organized interpretation program readily available within
109
the park, many visitors will not optimize their experience of the park. In addition, park
planners and administrators will lose an important opportunity to manage the
environmental messages they hope to convey to the visiting public and to differentiate the
image of the park from all other natural areas.
While some of the gate communities to the park are currently developing visitor
centers with interpretive displays, an interpretive program operating out of some of the
more frequently visited hijas might strengthen the environmental message of the park,
showcase some of the unique natural attributes of the reserves and serve to bolster visitor
experience. For example, guided tours to see alpine species such as Alpine accentor
(Prunella collaris), Edelweiss (Leontopodium alpinum), and Chamois (Rupicapra
rupicapra) would not only provide an educational, recreational experience for
participating visitors, but would position park management to better control both access
to the resource and the educational messages about the resource. Absent an organized
interpretation program for these resources, park visitors could easily experience the
CBNP without knowing that the park provides critical habitat for threatened and
endangered species. While participants of the study rated both faunal and floral
biological richness within the park very highly, the opportunity to view wildlife was rated
more moderately, perhaps indicating the need for an organized interpretation program.
Accessibility:
The park is mountainous with a poor infrastructure network. Few paved or graveled
roads suitable for standard passenger vehicles are available, serving as a barrier to
110
visitation for some segments of the population. Hiking is the primary means to access
sites within the park and to reach overnight accommodations. While remote
accommodations serve to preserve the natural experience for some visitors to the park,
they also pose a tangible barrier to other groups wishing to visit the park. These barriers
might exist for any number of reasons, including the diminished fitness condition of
potential visitors, lack of time to invest in the physical hiking itself, or a lack of interest
in expending strong physical exertion in order to experience the park’s more interesting
attributes.
Development of the park’s ecotourism product that targets the international visitor
must factor park accessibility into the planning process. Fewer foreign visitors were
encountered during the data collection period than anticipated. Although a number of
factors could account for this, the remote nature of accommodation sites where data were
collected might tend to depress foreign visitation and experience of the park. The sample
size of foreign visitors to the park was too small to make generalized conclusions about
their experience of the park, but clearly foreign tourists will be an important component
of the visiting population if a successful ecotourism program is to be developed for the
CBNP. Although domestic visitors to the park can repeat their visit experience as time
permits, foreign visitors often have limited schedules and must effectively employ their
time in situ. For this reason, park planners must provide venues and opportunities for
optimizing the ecotourism experience for the foreign guest. Limited accessibility to park
resources degrades the potential experience for all visitors, but may especially serve to
diminish foreign visitor satisfaction with the park. It also limits seasonal enjoyment of
the resources within the park.
111
Development of a hotel complex within the interior of the park that includes paved
access might be considered in the future. Upgrades to transportation infrastructure within
the park could serve to provide greater access and visitation options for all park visitors.
Language barriers:
92.8 percent of the respondents in the study were Bulgarian citizens. While some
newer signage at major trailheads within the park is bilingual; English and Bulgarian,
most of the literature, signage and other information encountered in the park is only in
Bulgarian. Nearly all service providers within the park speak only Bulgarian and perhaps
some Russian. English, French and German were not commonly spoken by service
providers in the hijas or at the visitor’s centers in gateway communities adjacent to the
park. While this is not a problem for domestic visitors, foreign visitors are not likely to
speak or understand written Bulgarian. Language barriers can be problematic for the
development of an international market pull of foreign visitors to the park.
During the study period, the most frequently encountered foreign nationals were from
France and Germany. The majority of Germans also spoke English. Fewer French
nationals spoke English, but many could understand written English. If park planners
hope to reach beyond the domestic market for ecotourism development of the park, an
effort must be made to strategically place bilingual service providers within those sites
favored by the foreign visitor. This is especially vital if the target market for foreign
visitors is to include the independent traveler, those not on an organized, guided tour of
the park.
112
Amenities within the park:
Participants in this study tended to rate the natural and cultural amenities of the park
very highly. Scenic beauty, for example, was the highest rated attribute of the park with
a mean score of 4.82. Friendliness of the locals, a cultural amenity, had a mean score of
4.39.
The lowest rated attributes tended to be those for infrastructure and service. Camping
facilities, availability of nature guides, and quality of meals had relatively low mean
scores. Curiously, quality of overnight accommodations, although not rated highly by
study participants, had a mean score of 3.46. This score was higher than anticipated
given the existing level of infrastructure and service. By western standards, quality of the
overnight accommodations might be considered rather crude or even unacceptable.
Quality expectations for accommodations within the park may have been more modest,
given that 92.8 percent of the participants in the study were domestic visitors, many with
little experience of national parks outside of Bulgaria. Only 22.1 percent of Bulgarian
visitors to the park had previously visited a national park within a foreign country, while
92.9 percent of foreign visitors had done so.
If park planners hope to attract greater numbers of foreign visitors to the park,
infrastructure improvements, especially in the provision of overnight accommodations,
should be considered. Further study is warranted.
113
Park guides/interpreters:
The park has an excellent system of trails connecting a series of hijas (chalets) and
other park attractions. Hijas are generally located one full day’s hike away from one
another. Trails are marked with blaze marks painted on rocks or trees, and with
occasional signage. Conditions in higher elevations of the park can quickly turn foggy
and slippery. Moderate snows could cover most trail markers, effectively rendering
segments of the trail indistinguishable for most hikers. For this reason, hiking in the
park’s higher elevations can be a serious and dangerous activity. Park guides and
interpreters play an important role in providing a safe and educational park experience.
The park system has a number of dedicated employees that serve as park rangers.
They are well trained in the biological sciences, law enforcement and in rescue
operations. However, the park system lacks an organized group of park-trained guides
and interpreters that can interact with the visiting public. This study revealed that
respondents to the study rated availability of nature guides (interpreters) very low, with a
mean score of 2.90. The absence of park guides represents a lost opportunity to refine the
park experience for the guest, improve environmental education messages and to manage
the ecotourism benefits for the park and surrounding communities.
During the study period, it was observed that foreign visitors to the park are
particularly insulated from interactions with the local community and other visitors to the
park. Nearly all the French and German visitors to the park during the study period were
traveling in organized groups led by bilingual Bulgarian guides from the capital, Sofia.
These guides were not employees of the park and are contracted to provide guiding
114
services with foreign tour companies. On one occasion, a German tour group utilized a
German bilingual tour guide. In all cases, these groups were observed to bring in all their
food provisions for the duration of their visit. Interaction with other visitors and local
Bulgarian service providers was limited.
This represents a problematic model for ecotourism development of the park. With
no locally available bilingual guides, foreign visitors come to rely on tour companies
within their home country to organize a visit to the park. This circumvents the local
community and denies economic benefits and employment opportunities to local
individuals. These economic leakages violate one of the anticipated benefits of
ecotourism for the local communities dependent upon the park’s natural resource base,
diverting many of the economic benefits to larger, better-financed companies from either
Germany, France or Sophia, the Bulgarian capital.
Foreign and non-local guides also shift control of the environmental message and the
visitor’s experience away from park management and planners. Control and management
of destination image can similarly be affected. A program of accreditation or permitting
of park guides might be considered to address this concern. A trained and organized
bilingual staff of park interpreters / guides might best present the environmental and
cultural message deemed most appropriate for the park. Local guides would be better
prepared to provide opportunities to acquaint the visitor with cultural amenities within the
local community.
115
Recommendations for Future Study
This study explored the relationship between independent variables such as
demographic characteristics of the visitor, reasons for visiting the park, and visitor
experience on the dependent variable, destination image of the Central Balkan National
Park. Future studies could explore other affective and cognitive variables that might
influence destination image, such as motivation for visiting a park or environmental
literacy. Though education level was not found to be associated with destination image
in the study, environmental literacy may be a better indicator of environmental awareness
and sensitivity to the ecotourism construct. Future studies could compare destination
image across varying levels of environmental literacy to explore whether destination
image is more closely associated with environmental awareness rather than a more
generalized notion of education level.
If image of a destination is shown to influence park visitation/satisfaction rates within
an ecotourism context, then further studies are needed to better understand and measure
the construct. The endorsement of ecotourism as a viable model for achieving dual
objectives of conservation of the natural resource base and economic development of
local communities requires additional study of visitor use patterns, visitor
expectations/satisfaction levels and destination image of the natural areas devoted to
sustainable tourism activities. Additional studies of destination image measurement and
assessment in other countries and administration of this instrument to more
heterogeneous populations may help to identify strategies for planning sustainable
ecotourism programs around the world.
116
Future studies might make a distinction among various environmental dispositions
towards ecotourism within the population, recognizing that a participant’s rating of
ecotourism destination image may be influenced by the degree to which he or she
embraces the concept. Two groups, ecotourists and non-ecotourists could be compared
for differences in destination image ratings.
Application of this study in other natural areas used for ecotourism programming may
begin to validate the survey instrument based on what was learned about the variables
under investigation during the course of this study and the methods employed. Potential
exists for methodological development and refinement of an instrument for measurement
of ecotourism destination image of protected natural areas around the world. This is
important because as conservationists and natural resource managers develop globally
threatened natural areas for ecotourism programming, assessment of these venues for
consonance between visitor use / experience and ecotourism’s dual objectives of
conservation and sustainable development will be critical. Validation of the instrument
used in this study through additional studies with more heterogeneous populations and in
other ecotourism venues could serve to provide an assessment protocol of destination
image within the context of natural areas. This would allow park planners and resource
managers a means to assess and evaluate park ecotourism operations with the ultimate
goal of achieving congruency between the ecotourism experience offered to visitors, the
conservation imperatives for sustained ecological / biological integrity, and ecotourism’s
desired community development goals.
117
LIST OF REFERENCES
Anand, P., M.B. Holbrook, and D. Stephens. (1988). The formation of affective
judgments: The cognitive-affective model versus the independence hypothesis.
Journal of Consumer Research 15: 386-391.
Assael, H. (1984). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Kent Publishing, Boston.
Assael, H. (1985). Marketing Management: Strategy and Action. Kent Publishing.
Boston.
Baloglu, S., and D. Brinberg. (1997). Affective images of tourism destination. Journal
of Travel Research 35(4): 11-15.
Baloglu, S., and K.W. McCleary. (1999). A model of destination image formation.
Annals of Tourism Research 26: 808-889.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Prentice Hall.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Botterill, T.D., and J. L. Crompton. (1996). Two case studies exploring the nature of the
tourist’s experience. Journal of Leisure Research 28(1): 57-82.
Boo, E. (1993). Ecotourism planning for protected areas. In Ecotourism: A Guide for
Planners and Managers. K. Lindberg and D.E. Hawkins, (Eds.). The Ecotourism
Society. North Bennington, VT.
Bourque, L. B., and E.P.Felder. (1995). How to Conduct Self-Administered and Mail
Surveys. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bryman, A., and D. Cramer. (2001). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS Release 10
for Windows. Taylor & Francis, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.
Bybee, R.W., and R.B. Sund. (1982). Piaget for Educators. Charles Merrill.
Columbus, OH.
118
Calantone, R.J., C.A. di Benedetto, A. Hakam, and D.C. Bojanic. (1989). Multiple
multinational tourism positioning using correspondence analysis. Journal of Travel
Research, 28 (Autumn): 25-32.
Calantone, R.J., and J.A. Mazanec. (1991). Marketing management and tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research 18: 101-119.
Carmines, E.G. and R.A. Zeller. (1979). Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage.
Newbury Park, CA.
Cater, E.A. (1993). Ecotourism in the third world: Problems for sustainable tourism
development. Tourism Management 14(2): 85-90.
Charon, J.M. (1995). Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, an Interpretation, an
Integration. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Chon, K.S. (1990). The role of destination image in tourism: A review and discussion.
The Tourist Review 2: 2-9.
Chon, K.S. (1992). The role of destination image in tourism: An extension. The Tourist
Review 2:2-7.
Christensen, N.L., A.M. Bartuska, J.H.Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D’Antonio, R. Francis,
J.F.Franklin, J.A. MacMahon, R.F.Noss, D.J;.Parsons, C.H.Peterson, M.G.Turner,
and R.G.Woodmansee. (1996). The Report of the Ecological Society of America
committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecological
Applications 6(3): 665-691.
Crompton, J.L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination
and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel
Research, 17(4): 18-23.
Crompton, J.L. and N.A. Duray. (1985). An investigation of the relative efficacy of four
alternative approaches to importance-performance analysis. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 13 (Autumn): 69-80.
Diamond, J.M. (1975). The island dilemma: Lessons of modern biogeographic studies
for the design of natural preserves. Biological Conservation 7: 129-146.
Diamond, J.M. (1976). Island biogeography and conservation: Strategy and limitations.
Science 193: 1027-1029.
Dobni, D., and G.M. Zinkhan. (1990). In search of brand image; A foundation analysis.
Advances in Consumer Research 17: 110-119.
119
Drumm, A., and A. Moore. (2002). Ecotourism Development, A Manual for
Conservation Planners and Managers: Vol. I- An Introduction to Ecotourism
Planning. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA.
Echtner, C.M., and J.R.B. Ritchie. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination
image. Journal of Travel Studies 2(2), 2-12.
Echtner, C.M., and J.R.B. Ritchie. (1993). The measurement of destination image: an
empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research 31(4): 3-13.
Fahrig, L. and G. Merriam. (1985). Habitat patch connectivity and population survival.
Ecology 66: 1762-1768.
Farino, A. (2000). Landscape Ecology in Action. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston.
Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. (1986). Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Fridgen, J.D. (1987). Use of cognitive maps to determine perceived tourism region.
Leisure Sciences 9: 101-117.
Gallarza, M.G., I.G. Saura, and H.C. Garcia. (2002). Destination image: Towards a
conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research 29(1): 56-78.
Gartner, W.C. (1989). Tourism image: Attribute measurement of state tourism products
using multidimensional scaling techniques. Journal of Travel Research 28 (Autumn):
16-20
Gartner, W.C. (1993). Image Formation Process. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing 2(2): 191-215.
Gartner, W.C. (1996). Tourism Development: Principles, Processes, and Policies. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.
Gray, H.P. (1982). The contribution of economics to tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research 9(1): 105-125.
Gunn, C.A. (1972). Vacationscape- Designing Tourist Regions. Taylor and
Francis/University of Texas. Austin, TX.
Hanyu, K. (1993). The affective meaning of Tokyo: Verbal and nonverbal approaches.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 13: 161-172.
120
Harris, L.D. (1984). The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the
Preservation of Biotic Diversity. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL.
Henein, K. and G. Merriam. (1990). The elements of connectivity where corridor
quality is variable. Landscape Ecology 4: 157-170.
Howe, R. W. and G.J. Davis, and V. Mosca. (1991). The demographic significance of
“sink” populations. Biological Conservation 57: 239-255.
Hunt, J.D. (1975). Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal of Travel
Research 13: 1-7.
International Ecotourism Society. <http://www.ecotourism.org.> (November 24,
2006).
Isaacs, J.C. (2000). The limited potential of ecotourism to contribute to wildlife
conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(1): 61-69.
Janzen, D.H. (1986). The eternal external threat. In M.E.Soulé (Ed.), Conservation
Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
pp. 286-303.
Jenkins, O.H. (1999). Understanding and Measuring Tourist Destination Images.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 1: 1-15.
Kale, S.H., and K.M. Weir. (1986). Marketing third world countries to the western
traveler: The case of India. Journal of Travel Research, 25 (Autumn): 2-7.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1980). Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston. New York.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation &
Control. Prentice-Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kotler, P., D.H. Haider, and I. Rein. (1993). Marketing Places: Attracting Investment,
Industry, and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations. The Free Press. New York.
Lawson, F., and M. Bond-Bovy. (1977). Tourism and Recreational Development.
Architectural Press, London.
Lindberg, K., and D.E. Hawkins. (Eds.). (1993). Ecotourism: A Guide For Planners &
Managers. The Ecotourism Society, North Bennington, VT.
121
Lovelock, C.H. (1991). Services Marketing. Prentice-Hall. New York.
MacArthur, R.H. and E.O.Wilson. (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography.
Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ.
Martineau, P. (1958). The personality of the retail store. Journal of Retailing
52(Autumn): 37-46.
Mayo, E.J., and L.P. Jarvis. (1981). The Psychology of Leisure Travel. CBI Publishing,
Boston.
Meffe, Gary K. and Carroll, C.Ronald. (1997). Principles of Conservation Biology.
Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA.
Myers, J.G. (1968). Consumer Image & Attitude. Institute of Business & Economic
Research. University of California, Berkeley.
Nolan, D. (1976). Tourist’s use and evaluation of travel information. Journal of Travel
Research 14:6-8.
Noss, R.F. (1983). A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience
33:700-706.
Noss, R.F. (1991). Landscape connectivity: Different functions at different scales. In
W.E. Hudson (Ed.), Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington,
DC, pp. 27-39.
Noss, R.F. and A.Y.Cooperrider. (1994). Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and
Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Noss, R.F., M.A. O’Connell, and D. Murphy. (1997). The Science of Conservation
Planning: Habitat Conservation Under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press.
Washington DC.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill. New York.
Opdam P. and Wiens J.A. (2002). Fragmentation, habitat loss and landscape
management. In: Norris K. and Pain D (Eds.), Conserving Bird Biodiversity,
Cambridge University Press, UK, pp. 202-223.
Osgood, C.E. (1957). The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press,
Chicago.
122
Pearce, P.L. (1988). The Ulysses Factor: Evaluating Visitors in Tourist Settings.
Springer-Verlag. New York.
Petraitis, P.S., R.E. Latham and R.A. Niesenbaum. (1989). The maintenance of species
diversity by disturbance. Quarterly Review of Biology 64: 418-464.
Pickett, S. and Ostfeld, R. (1995). The shifting paradigm in ecology. In R.L. Knight and
S.F. Bates (Eds.), A New Century for Natural Resources Management. Island Press,
Washington, DC, pp. 261-278.
Pickett, S. and J.N.Thompson. (1978). Patch dynamics and the design of nature
reserves. Biological Conservation 13: 27-37.
Proshansky, H.M., A.K. Fabian, and R. Kaminoff. (1983). Place-identity: Physical
world socializations of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3: 57-83.
Reich, A.Z. (1999). Positioning of Tourist Destinations. Sagamore Publishing.
Champaign, IL.
Reilly, M.D. (1990). Free elicitation of descriptive adjectives for tourism image
assessment. Journal of Travel Research 28(4):69-76.
Schonewald-Cox, C.M. and J.W.Bayless. (1986). The boundary model: A geographical
analysis of design and conservation of nature reserves. Biological Conservation
38:305-322.
Schwandt, T.A. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Scott, D.R., C.Schewe and D. Frederick. (1978). A multi-brand/mulit-attribute model of
tourist state choice. Journal of Travel Research 17(3): 23-29.
Selby, M. and N.J. Morgan. (1996). Reconstruing place image: A case study of its role
on destination market research. Tourism Management, 17(4): 287-294.
Simberloff, D. and L.G.Abele. (1976). Island biogeography theory and conservation
practice. Science 191: 285-286.
Sinclair, A.R.E., D.S.Hik, O.J. Schmitz, D.H. Turpin, and N.C. Larter. (1995)
Biodiversity and the need for habitat renewal. Ecological Applications 5(3): 579-587.
Soulé, M. (1991). Land use planning and wildlife maintenance: Guidelines for
conserving wildlife in an urban landscape. Journal of the American Planning
Association 57: 313-323.
Soulé, M. (1985). What is conservation biology? Bioscience 35:727-734.
123
Soulé, M.E. and D. Simberloff. (1986). What do genetics and ecology tell us about the
design of nature reserves? Biological Conservation 35: 19-40.
Stein, T.V. (2001). Making ecotourism a reality: An integrated approach. Renewable
Resources Journal, Autumn: 6-12.
Tennant, M.C. (1988). Psychology and Adult Learning. Routledge. New York.
Terborgh, J. (1974). Preservation of natural diversity: The problem of extinction prone
species. BioScience 24: 715-722.
United Nations General Assembly. (1987). Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development.
Urry, J. (1995). Consuming Places. Routledge Publishing. New York.
Wegner, J.F. and G. Merriam. (1979). Movements of birds and small mammals between
a wood and adjoining farmland habitat. Journal of Applied Ecology 16: 349-357.
White, P.S. and S.T.A. Pickett. (1985). Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: An
introduction. In S.T.A Pickett and P.S. White (Eds.), The Ecology of Natural
Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press. Orlando, FL. pp. 3-13.
Wilson, E.O. (1985). The biological diversity crisis. BioScience 35: 700-706.
World Tourism Organization. <http://www.world-tourism.org/facts/menu.html.>
(September 25, 2006).
Ziffer, K. (1989). Ecotourism: The uneasy alliance. In Conservation International.
Washington DC: Ernst & Young, Working Papers on Ecotourism.
124