《WILDLIFE TOURISM SURVEYThe Tourism and Environment Forum.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《WILDLIFE TOURISM SURVEYThe Tourism and Environment Forum.doc（46页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、QUALITY OF WILDLIFE TOURISM SURVEYDuncan BrydenConsultancy in Rural Development and the EnvironmentSheneval, TomatinInverness IV13 7XYTel/Fax 01808 511271Mobile 07786 267998duncan.brydenQUALITY OF WILDLIFE TOURISM SURVEYContentsExecutive summary1. Background 12. Wildlife Tourism Sites 13. Methodolog
2、y34. The Survey55. Main findings6 Visitor Profile6 Trip Characteristics 7 Motivation for Visiting the Site 7 Visit Influences 7 Level of Interest in Nature 8 Membership of Conservation Organisations 86. Analysis of pre and post visit expectations 97. Desires138. Overall Expectations 149. Comments by
3、 visitors 1410. Discussion 1511. Areas of further research 1812. Appendices 1) Glossary 19 2) Questionnaire 223) Literature Review 38Executive Summary1. The Quality of Wildlife Tourism Survey was carried out in August and early September 2002 at 15 established wildlife tourism sites throughout the H
4、ighlands and Islands.2. The purpose of the survey was to establish baseline data on visitor perceptions of quality at wildlife sites.3. All the wildlife sites were selected from the Nature Based Tourism Initiative data base. Of the 15 sites, 14 have national or international nature conservation desi
5、gnations or are set up to watch protected species.4. The methods employed in the survey involved visitors being interviewed by researchers who filled in a 20 question questionnaire to establish basic visitor demographic characteristics and record their perceptions of before and after their visit. Du
6、ring the course of the study 466 questionnaires were completed.5. Questions were framed to test quality dimensions of reliability, responsiveness, assurance and tangibles these being the key elements surrounding any product.6. The survey findings suggest that wildlife site users are in the main, old
7、er and in a higher social grouping than the Highland norm and a third are on repeat visits. 7. The majority are from England and there are fewer overseas visitors than the Highland norm, but of those that do visit the Netherlands and Germany are the leading sources. Overseas visitors appear to prefe
8、r the wilder sites. 8. Almost 80% are actively interested in wildlife as beginners, dabblers or studiers while just over 20% are gazers and mainly interested in the scenery. 9. They are not using the web to get site information mostly are relying on recommendation and tend to have stayed in accommod
9、ation locally often as part of a 1-2 week trip.10. Visitors were given three choices to describe their main reason for visiting the site; 56% said it was to see wildlife, 31% said to visit a nice place and 14% indicated it was for some other activity like walking or cycling.11. Their expectations of
10、 sites are generally met but they do wish for an improved wildlife experience at sites purporting to be places where wildlife can be seen; although they recognise wildlife does not just appear on cue. 12. Assurance had the highest pre visit expectations, tangibles and reliability the second. Respons
11、iveness was lowest suggesting visitors did not expect to encounter staff at the sites. 13. Post visit the above average expectation of assurance was met. Responsiveness was better than expected, whereas reliability and tangibles expectations were met, but little exceeded. 14. Some help in improving
12、watching skills might add to the experience of almost half of users and sites need to cater for the times when wildlife is less observable.1Background As part of the Tourism Framework for Action, Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) has been tasked with identifying key tourism products and their a
13、ssociated scale of opportunity. Wildlife tourism has been consistently identified in visitor surveys as a key activity and research shows that participation levels in wildlife watching are on the increase. Over 80% of visitors indicate the environment is an important motivation in their decision to
14、visit the Highlands and Islands. Up to 36% of visitors participated in wildlife watching as part of their visit. A proportion of that watching is done at wildlife sites set up to receive visitors and interpret wildlife. Highlands and Islands Enterprise commissioned Duncan Bryden to conduct a survey
15、to explore quality issues surrounding the visitor product at wildlife sites across the Highlands and Islands during August and early September 2002. The aim of this research is to establish objective baseline data on visitor perceptions of quality at wildlife tourism sites. 2Wildlife Tourism SitesFi
16、fteen sites were selected from the Nature Based Tourism Initiatives site database of 89 sites. The Nature Based Tourism Initiative is a partnership programme involving HIE, SNH, HC, FE, RSPB, AILST and the private sector. The initiative aims to improve the management and promotion of nature and wild
17、life experiences for visitors to the Highlands and Islands. As an integral part of these improvements the initiative will seek to demonstrate clear economic social and environmental benefits to communities and businesses supporting nature-based tourism. The initiative is a key element in the drive t
18、o make the Highlands and Islands a premier European destination for nature-based tourismThe sites selected were considered to provide a mix of visitor experience, ownership, size, location and wildlife that reflected the broader sweep of sites. Some sites were discounted as the main wildlife attract
19、ion was no longer active at the site during the survey period in August and September; for example nesting raptors and seabirds. The sites selected all have significant wildlife or scenic qualities as defined by the 10 different designations represented across the sample (with the exception of Rogie
20、 Falls, although all Forestry Commission sites are managed under UK Forest Standards). See appendix 1 for a description of the designations. Little mention is made of the designations in the promotional literature for the sites the Beinn Eighe leaflet does have a list. Permissions were sought from s
21、ite managers and the survey work was managed in conjunction with other visitor survey work being carried out at some of the sites over the same period.Table 1 - Sites included in surveyWILDLIFE TOURISM SITESAnnual Visitor Numbers(Peak month)DESIGNATIONS OR WILDLIFE INTERESTAbernethy RSPB37kSSSI ,NNR
22、, ESA, SPA OspreypNational ParkAros Centre PrivateSea Eagle CCTVBeinn Eighe SNH11k(1999)SSSI, NNR, NSA, SAC,Biosphere reserve, Council of Europe Diploma Site.Chanonry Point PrivateNo countcSACCreag Meagaidh SNH7kApril SSSI, NNR, cSAC, SPA, Forsinard RSPB5k June SSSI, SPA, RAMSARHanda SWT5kJuly SSSI,
23、 SPA, NSAKylerhea FC19kAugustcSAC, - Otter Knockan SNH18kSSSI Geology, NNR, NSALoch an Eilein Private80 -100kSSSI, cSAC/SPA, NSApNational ParkMoray Firth Wildlife Centre Private24kAugustSSSI, cSAC,- DolphinRiver Affric FC70kAugustSSSI, NNR, NSARogie Falls FC57kAugustUlva Ferry Private5kJulySSSI, NSA
24、, ESACalgary Bay PrivateNo countSSSI, ESASee appendix 1 for explanation of designations3MethodologyCustomer decisions are based on relative benefits not benefits and perceptions not facts. Parasuraman et al (1985) identified 5 dimensions that consumers use in forming expectations and desires of serv
25、ice quality across a range of services. This was further refined by Hamilton and Crompton (1991) for a park context. The five dimensions can be described as follows: Reliability refers to the ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately Responsiveness is the willingness to help
26、visitors and provide prompt attention through staff Assurance indicates good information and safe facilities Tangibles represent the physical facilities of the site Empathy represents caring and individualized attention to customersThe first four dimensions were taken to be identified by visitors in
27、 respect of the wildlife tourism product quality for the purpose of the survey. Empathy was considered a part of responsiveness. Visitors were asked to consider their expectations prior to their visit and their experiences after the visit by answering 13 questions representing the four dimensions. T
28、he questions are designed to test how visitors perceive wildlife tourism site quality. At a primary level, achieving a good level of service quality means consistently conforming to, or exceeding, a visitors expectations. Service quality may be defined as the gap between what a visitors expectations
29、 are from a service and what is perceived to be received. VisitScotland research indicated that the tourism industry needs to focus on four dimensions integrity, pride, proficiency and innovation. It is suggested that integrity is equivalent to reliability, responsiveness to proficiency and pride. B
30、eyond expectations, which can be manipulated by pre visit promotional material for example, are desires held by visitors to a site. This survey does not directly address visitor desires regarding wildlife tourism. Desires are broadly considered in one of the questions. Yet at a secondary level achie
31、ving a good level of service quality means consistently conforming to, or exceeding, a visitors desires. True service quality may thus be defined as the gap between what a visitors desires are from a service and what is perceived to be received. The HIE brief asked for methodology that would allow t
32、he work to set a baseline and to be repeated as required to identify any changes. The questions and scoring system were designed to be used across a range of sites and the absolute scores can be readily compared over time or between sites. The quality matrix used in the survey was designed to repres
33、ent a broad spectrum of sites. Further site specific questions representing the core dimensions could be added to the meet the research needs of individual sites. Analysis was via a spreadsheet using Lotus 123 and each question was cross referenced against 18 variables. The data was also stored on E
34、xcel. A web based literature review was carried out to try and identify previous work on quality perceptions at wildlife sites. Little comparable research was located. The results of the search are included in appendix 3.Source (Parasuraman A, Ziethaml V, and Berry L (1985) A conceptual model of ser
35、vice quality and its implications for future research Journal of Marketing 49 41 50)Hamilton J and Crompton J (1991) Identifying the Dimensions of Service Quality in a Park Context Journal of environmental management 32 211-2204The surveyInterviews were carried out at the main access point to the si
36、te. 466 visitors were surveyed- questionnaire in appendix 3. Visitor flows at some of the less visited sites were low and there was not an equal spread of respondents between the sites Visitors were selected on the basis of the next person to pass the interviewer on completion of the previous interv
37、iew. This approach ensured as random a selection of visitors as possible. When a family or group of visitors passed the interviewer, the next birthday rule was used to select which member of the group responded. Refusals were minimal and usually occurred due to language difficulties. A number of int
38、erviews were curtailed due to the density of midges at the interview site. Show cards were used for questions 15 and 16.Surveys were carried out during August and early September. Survey days were rotated across various days of the week and interviews were conducted at various times of the day betwe
39、en 9am and 8pm. Questions 1 and 2 were completed by the surveyor to ensure a spread of survey days. Questions 3 to 10 in the survey set out to identify the characteristics of visitors to wildlife sites. Questions 11 to 14 clarify their motivations for visiting and comparing those to the profile of v
40、isitors to the Highlands. Questions 15 and 16 (each with 13 sub sections) in particular explore visitor expectations prior to the wildlife site experience and then how the actual experience shapes up after the visit. It was considered most responses would be positive and consequently the neutral poi
41、nt in the 1-7 scale was weighted to give a larger range in the positive part of the scale. Descriptions were added to the scale to give respondents a reference point. Question 17 goes some way towards assessing visitor desires.5 Main findingsThe survey findings suggest that wildlife site users are i
42、n the main, older and in a higher social grouping than the Highland norm and a third are on repeat visits. Almost 80% are actively interested in wildlife while just over 20% are principally interested in the scenery. They are not using the web to get site information mostly are relying on recommenda
43、tion. Their expectations are generally met but they do wish for an improved wildlife experience at sites purporting to be places where wildlife can be seen; although they recognise wildlife does not just appear on cue. Some help in improving watching skills might add to the experience of almost half
44、 of users and sites need to cater for the times when wildlife is less observable.5.1 Visitor profileCompared to the profile established through the 1997 Highland Visitor Survey, wildlife sites appear to attract a different age profile. Significantly fewer younger people and more in the economically
45、active 35 to 54 age bracket visit wildlife sites. However, younger children in family groups are less likely to answer the questionnaire and are thus under recorded.Average group size is 3.1, a larger party size than the average for the Highlands as a whole (2.76) reflecting a significant (29%) prop
46、ortion of families and mixed social groups (24%). A very small number of commercially organised groups were recorded.Wildlife sites appear to attract a high social grouping, 45% are in the AB category with 31% in the C1 category. Only 18% are in the C2, DE category. The comparable figures for the Hi
47、ghlands are 60% for AB and C1 combined; wildlife site visitors are 76% for the same combination. Individual wildlife watchers appear rare at 5%, although they may be under represented in the survey; 40% are couples, families make up 29% and groups 24%. Compared to the Highland profile of 32% of Scottish visitors only 28% of visitors to wildlife sites are from Scotland. Overseas visitors to wildlife sites at 19% are less than the Highland profile of 27%. This could be due
