INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfihn master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter frice, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margns, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zed) Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600
DEVELOPING BEACH RESORTS ; OPPORTUNITIES FOR
COASTAL RECREATION AND TOURISM
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Huey-Hsi Lo, B.L.A., M.L.A.
*****
The Ohio State University
1997
Dissertation Committee.
Dr. John L. Heywood, Adviser Approved by
Dr. John F. Disinger
Dr. R. Thomas George Adviser
Dr. Joseph E. Heimlich Interdisciplinary Graduate Program UMI Number: 9801736
Copyright 199 8 by Lo, Huey-Hsi
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9801736 Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI 300 North Zeeh Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48103 ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among visitors’
demographic characteristics and their setting preferences and needs for coastal recreation
in order to assess and facilitate the development of beach resorts in Taiwan, Republic of
China.
A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine the relationships among
various factors (demographic variables and items that help determine visitors’ setting
preferences and needs). The results indicated that age, gender, marital status, educational
level, and monthly income were significantly related to motivations (i.e., why visitors go
on beach vacations), environmental settings, and recreation experience preferences.
Principle component fector analyses were used to group the 32 items that pertained to
motivation from the Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scales into six major
categories, and to group the 25 setting attributes into five major categories. The results
indicated that the most strongly preferred recreation experience was a desire to experience nature. Specifically, the results showed that beach vacationers with higher educational
levels had significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than those with lower educational levels. Correlation between beach vacationers’ motivations and the attributes of beach resort sites resulted in a positive and significant association.
Additionally, the results showed that vacationers’ participation in some activities can be
characterized by their gender, age, and occupation.
Chi-square analysis revealed that only age and occupation had a significant
relationship to visitors’ previous visits to the beach resort area in Renting National Park.
The significant Chi-square values were then further explored using Goodman’s Multiple
Comparison Tests to “ransack” the cross classified data. No significant 2X2 interaction
was found in groups of different ages and occupations between previous visits to Renting
National Park.
Data fi'om this study showed a significant relationship between beach vacationers’ motivation and behavior and the physical settings of beaches, ffigher setting preferences
were associated with the availability of site facilities, accessibility, and the desire to experience nature. Vacationers strongly desired “environmental” settings such as clean and unpolluted sea water and favorable weather.
m Dedicated to my parents
rv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my advisor. Dr. John L. Heywood, for his guidance, patience and support, and his valuable assistance throughout the process of completing this dissertation.
Thanks are also extended to other dissertation committee members. Dr. John F.
Disinger and Dr. R. Thomas George for their assistance, advice, and encouragement during my research. Dr. Neil J. Andrew provided valuable feedback during the initial stage of research, and the project would not have been completed without the help of Dr.
Joseph E. Heimlich. I am also grateful to the staff of School of Natural Resources, especially Mrs. Jan Gorsuch for her encouragement and friendship.
I also wish to thank two agencies in Taiwan for their help and generosity; the
Tourism Bureau in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications; and the Renting
National Park Headquarters, Construction and Planning Administration in the Ministry of the Interior.
Special thanks are given to Ms. Susan M. Yadlon for her help in editing this dissertation.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Kai-Shan and Wu-Lo for their support and love during my study in the United States. VITA
April 29, 1962 ...... Bora in Taiwan, Republic of China
1980 - 1981 ...... Part Time Employment at Formosa
Plastic Corporation
1978 - 1983 ...... Diploma (Mechanical Engineering) Tunguan
Junior College of Technology, Taiwan
1983 - 1985 ...... Military Service, Army of Taiwan
1986 - 1989 ...... Bachelor of Science, Landscape Architecture,
Chinese Culture University
1990 - 1994 ...... Master of Landscape Architecture, The Ohio
State University (Thesis: Development of Site
Selection Guidelines for Ocean Front Tourism
Facilities in Taiwan)
1994 - Present ...... Graduate Studies, Interdisciplinary Program, The
Ohio State University ( Dissertation: Developing
Beach Resorts: Opportunities for Coastal
Recreation and Tourism in Taiwan, Republic of
China)
VI FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Interdisciplinary Graduate Program
Studies in Social Order and Behavior in outdoor settings. Associate Professor
John L. Heywood
Studies in Evaluation of Environmental Impact. Professor John F. Disinger
Studies in Hospitality Management. Associate Professor R. Thomas George
vu TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT...... ü
DEDICATION...... iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... v
VITA...... vi
LIST OF TABLES...... xi
LIST OF FIGURES...... xiv
CHAPTERS:
1. INTRODUCTION...... 1
Need for the Study ...... 1 Statement of the Problem ...... 6 Definition of Terms...... 7 Assumptions...... 8 Limitations of the Study ...... 8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW...... 10
Introduction...... 10 Tourism Studies...... 10 Sustainable Tourism Development...... 17 Natural Resources and Tourism...... 21 Taiwan’s Developing Need for Beach Resorts ...... 23 Coastal Recreation and Case Study ...... 28 Impacts of A New Beach Resort Development ...... 32
v iii 3 METHODOLOGY...... 40
Introduction...... 40 Instrument Development...... 41 Validity of the Instrument ...... 43 Reliability of the Instrument...... 44 Population and Sample ...... 45 Data Collection...... 46 Data Analysis...... 47
4. RESULTS...... 49
Introduction...... 49 Survey Procedure and Sample Response ...... 49 Sociodemographic Variables ...... 50 Vacationers’ Behavioral Patterns ...... 53 Results of Objective 1...... 59 Relationship between Demographic Variables and Motivating Factors for Going on Beach Vacations ...... 66 Results of Objective 2...... 77 Relationship between Demographic Variables and Site Attribute Factors for Choosing Beach Resort Sites ...... 83 Results of Objective 3...... 93 Results of Objective 4...... 93 Results of Objective 5...... 98 Results of Objective 6...... 100
5. DISCUSSION...... 102
Beach Visit Motivations ...... 106 Site Attributes...... 109 Relationships Between Beach Vacationers’ Motivations and Attributes of Beach Resort Sites...... 113 Relationships Between Demographic Variables and Beach Vacationers’ Previous Visits to the Beach Resort Area in Renting National Park 114 Beach Vacationers’ Major Sources of Information for Planning Their Trip to Renting National Park ...... 115 Types of Activities Beach Vacationers Would Like to Participate in More Frequency...... 115
6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 117
Introduction...... 117
ix Summary...... 117 Conclusion...... 118 Recommendations for Practice ...... 121 Recommendations for Further Research ...... 123
APPENDICES...... 126
A. Questionnaire (English Version) ...... 126
B. (Questionnaire (Chinese Version)...... 136
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 146 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Age Group Distribution of Respondents ...... 51
2. Monthly Income of Respondents ...... 52
3. Occupation of Respondents ...... 53
4. Primary Reasons for Visiting Renting National Park ...... 54
5. Group Composition...... 56
6. Group Size...... 56
7. Type of Accommodation ...... 57
8. Principle Mode of Transportation...... 58
9. Factor Analysis Results of Motivation Items...... 61
10. Means and Standard Deviation of Motivating Factors for Going on Beach Vacations...... 63
11. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Gender ...... 67
12. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Age ...... 68
13. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Marital Status...... 69
14. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Educational Level...... 71
15. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Monthly Income ...... 73
16. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Occupation...... 74
x i 17. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Visitation to Renting National Park ... 75
18. ANOVA Summary; Factor Responses for Length of Stay in Renting National Park...... 76
19. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Yearly Vacations at Renting National Park...... 77
20. Factor Analysis Results of Site Attributes Items...... 79
21. Means and Standard Deviation of Site Attribute Factors for Choosing Beach Resort Sites...... 81
22. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Gender ...... 84
23. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for A ge ...... 85
24. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Marital Status...... 86
25. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Educational Level...... 87
26. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Monthly Income ...... 88
27. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Occupation...... 89
28. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Length of Stay in kenting National Park...... 90
29. ANOVA Summary. Factor Responses for Yearly Vacations at Beach Resorts 91
30. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Number of Trips to Renting National Park Over the Last 5 Years...... 92
31. Relations Between Demographic Variables and Beach Vacationers’ Previous Visits to the Beach Resort Area in Kenting National Park ...... 94
32. Frequency Distribution of Age by Msitors’ Previous Msits to the Beach Resort Area in kenting National Park...... 95
33. Frequency Distribution of Occupation by Number of Previous Visits to the Beach Resort Area in Kenting National Park ...... 96
34. Sources of Information Most Frequency Used by Beach Vacationers for Planning Their Visit ...... 99
x ii 35. Activities Most Frequency Undertaken by Beach Vacationers...... 101
XUl LIST OF nOURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Conceptual Master Plan for a Beach Resort ...... 31
2. The Theoretical Zoning and Location of Accommodations ...... I l l
XIV CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Need for the Study
This study centers on the development of beach resorts in Kenting National Park in
Taiwan. Kenting is the only national park with access to the coastline. This study is significant because Taiwan is experiencing increased prosperity and a growing demand for more tourism opportunities. Therefore, this research can be used, to show that the establishment of beach resorts and the development of coastal recreation and tourism would appreciably benefit this nation of21,000,000 people.
Taiwan, an island with a distinctly attractive coastline, is located in a semi-tropical zone, with an agreeable and welcoming “season in the sun” to mark the popular months for tourism, especially fi’om September to May. This Pacific Ocean island is suitable for coastal tourism activities not only in terms of its climate, but also in terms of its geological environment; the latter includes a landscape enhanced by the sea and surroundings
proximate to mountains and urban centers.
However, due to specific and complex political conditions, Taiwan’s national
security has firequently been in jeopardy, and its emergence as a nation has been accompanied, until recently, by instability and changing concerns. Fear of invasion by its former enemy. Communist China, necessitated a state of military readiness along the long and narrow coastline. As a consequence, at times during the last forty years, enforced martial law has appreciably limited the development of coastal recreation/tourism activities in Taiwan, leaving the Taiwanese unable to compete with such nations as Japan. However in 1987, in response to growing demands for democracy and internationalization, and an encouraging rise in its Gross National Product (GNP), the government of the Republic of
China announced the termination of martial law. The change dramatically facilitated, and gradually promoted, the development of coastal tourism activities in this country. Today, visitors to Taiwan can be assured of a safe and welcoming environment.
It is worth noting that during recent years, various domestic, marine-activity clubs such as diving, sailing, and surfing clubs have been established in many coastal regions; these serve some, but not suflBcient, segments of Taiwan’s people. Such centers further indicate how recreation patterns of Chinese citizens have gradually altered, yet have not been adequately accommodated. Even though faced with restrictive governmental policies, such marine clubs are good indicators of people’s recreational preferences; with increased options for choosing destinations that are near the ocean for both short and long term stays, visitors are demanding a greater variety of sites. From such trends as these, it can be forecast that recreation demands, when met by Taiwan’s coastal areas, will steadily grow. Developers anticipate that coastal recreation serving such growth will accommodate the demand and satisfy the needs of citizens for seaside recreation opportunities, particularly those who are city dwellers.
Taiwan’s comparatively recent emergence as an outstanding representative of advanced nation status, and its excellent import-export status indicates its growing national prosperity and its improved prominence in the world (Tourism Bureau, Ministry of Transportation & Communications, 1992). Increased recognition of its citizens’ zealous determination to experience democratic principles makes it atypical, in some regards, to other neighbors in the Pacific Rim. It is a populous country with diverse aboriginal peoples who have notably exhibited an avid interest in democracy as the quality of life and economic stability have progressively improved.
Since this inquiry will concern beach resorts, Taiwan’s ideal geographical location becomes a significant factor. Its accessibility to travel routes and varied transportation, its many natural attributes - seaside vistas, landscape, vegetation, land elevation, water and shore variations - superbly lend themselves to potential coastal recreation and tourism venues as well as varied coastal areas for leisure time developments. It is anticipated that
Taiwan’s national needs for beach resorts can be adequately met, further encouraging the development of coastal recreation and tourism sites within the country.
This study focuses on Taiwan’s need for coastal recreation in light of its participatory role in an interrelated world community; at the same time, it reflects
Taiwan’s emerging prosperity and the current inadequate utilization of expanded leisure time available to its citizens. Its growing interest in recreation, which typifies a growing
international trend, is also compatible with retaining Taiwan’s natural assets and eventual
employment of its own assets to generate recreation, enhancing its own economic base
and utilizing its people’s preferences. The latter is a crucial factor since the Taiwanese need for leisure time also indicates their support for such potential opportunities. These
opportunities might well, in fact, also prove attractive to foreign and domestic investors.
In addition, the Vice Economic Minister of Taiwan, Shu-Chiu Lee, introduced the
Six-Year (1991-1996) National Development Plan, which according to Hsiu (1992) is the most important project being carried out by the government. The project addresses various commercial ventures, such as the creation of shopping centers, tourism facilities, parking lots, etc. Moreover, the Tourism Bureau now oversees and conducts the development plans of beach resorts; this coordinates development and helps expedite the development of leisure resources and facilities. The project also extends the
Transportation Department’s project of improving service to these areas. These factors contribute substantially to the strengthened well-being of the country, as they have appreciably affected cooperative efforts in improving travel accessibility, and its general quality and affordability.
In Taiwan, tourism has been recognized by the government as an important portion of the national economy. Because of rapid economic growth, the rise of personal income, and the increase of leisure time, tourism will continue to increase. Further, the government recognizes the need to balance beach resort development with preservation of the environment. This will be the first priority in future development strategies (Tourism
Bureau, Ministry of Transportation & Communications, 1992).
Development of coastal recreation and tourism also involves significant ecological and cultural issues; land accessibility, conservation of natural resources, conservation of
Taiwan’s traditional heritage, tourist travel, and other predicted trends relevant to the tourism industry. As Guim (1988a) argues, these issues are crucial: “For tourist attraction development, the natural and cultural resources of an area provide much of the foundation. In other words, the forces that protect the special qualities and quantities of natural and cultural resource assets directly support attraction creation for tourists providing much of the magnetism for tourists (p.276).” Further, “The best locations are easily accessible, lie within a reasonable radius of service centers, and are often supported by natural and cultural assets (p. 120).”
Taiwan, an island surrounded by the sea, is naturally endowed with abundant marine resources, and has excellent potential for diversified, coastal recreation and tourism. Its natural resources attract tourists, yet these natural resources must be protected. This study views coastal recreation as compatible with retaining these invaluable natural assets. It is hoped that this study will not only increase awareness of
Taiwan’s historical, cultural, and environmental heritage among members of agencies and tourism bureaus, but will also heighten consumer use of Taiwan’s various resources on many différent levels, fi-om personal to oflBcial, local to national. It is also hoped that future generations of Taiwanese will gain new appreciation of, and increasingly enjoy the rich heritage of their nation, especially its coastal areas. Statement of the Problem
Unfortunately, since coastal recreation and tourism in Taiwan have been
developing at a gradual pace, studies on coastal recreation and tourism have also been
limited. In order to bridge this gap and to provide useful information to both professional
and lay readers, this study’s main purpose centers on the development of beach resorts for
coastal recreation and tourism.
According to the World Tourism Organization (1994),
It is now recognized that tourism must be developed and managed in a controlled, integrated and sustainable manner, based on sound planning. With this approach, tourism can generate substantial economic benefits to an area, without creating any serious environmental or social problems. Tourism’s resources will be conserved for continuous use in the future, (p.viii)
To provide a rational basis for decision-making by both the public and private sectors on
beach resort development, the objectives of this study are as follows.
1 To determine relationships between demographic characteristics and visitors’
motivations for going on beach vacations.
2. To determine the relationships between demographic characteristics and
visitors’ setting preferences, i.e., the physical/biological, managerial, and social characteristics of a site.
3 . To determine the relationships between beach vacationers’ motivations and attributes of beach resort sites.
4. To identify relationships between demographic variables and beach vacationers’ previous visits to the beach resort area in Kenting National Park. 5. To identify the major sources of information vacationers use to plan their trip.
6 . To determine which types of activities beach vacationers would like to participate in more frequently.
Hopefully, this study on beach resort development will serve as a resource for travel and tourism industry and as an educational aid for hospitality management.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions are presented to clarify the intended meaning of terms used in this study;
Beach Resort. This term is defined as “A place to which people travel for water- focused recreation” (Smith, 1990, p. 11).
Recreation. Recreation is an activity undertaken for pleasure and satisfaction, or an activity that enriches the lives of people during leisure time (Bammel et al., 1982;
Gunn, 1988a; Newcastle and Lake Macquarie, 1987).
Tourism. Tourism is “the temporary movement of people to destinations outside their normal places of work and residence, the activities undertaken during their stay in those destinations, and the facilities created to cater to their needs.” (Mathieson and Wall,
1982, p.l)
Motivation. Causes of tourist behavior for going on beach vacation. Factor analysis was used to determining the motivations for going on beach vacation. Site Attributes. Beach vacationers’ perception of the characteristics of a
setting(s). Factor analysis was conducted to identify factors contributing to visitors’
setting preferences.
Tourists. Tourists are travellers who are away from home for any of a number of
reasons; pleasure, recreation, holiday, sport, business, family, health, religion.
Resort Condominiums. “A [resort] condominium is legally an individually owned residential unit within a multi-unit project together with an undivided interest in certain common areas and facilities.” (Gee et al., 1984, pp.217-218)
Destinations. Destinations are “specific areas that travelers choose to visit and where they may spend a significant amount of time” (Gee et al., 1984, p.90).
Assumptions
1. Taiwan, an island surrounded by the sea, provides numerous coastal recreation and tourism sites and opportunities, yet has not adequately utilized its resources.
2. Most tourists choose sites based on past experiences, and recommendations from fnends and family, i.e., people they trust.
Limitations of the study
I. The results of this study will be applicable only to beach resorts in the Kenting
National Park area of Taiwan. Respondents will be surveyed to obtain representative samples of what visitors believe they need and require. 2. The research questionnaire in this study is limited to specific beach resorts in a particular geographical location.
3. Governmental policies and/or regulations will be the dominant factor in the actual development of beach resorts along the coast.
4. Visitors such as tourists of all backgrounds most often will accept as necessary any resort feature that affects health and/or safety. It is crucial that the chief aims are safe and secure enjoyment of the resort and the activities. CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This literature review is divided into six parts:
1) Tourism Studies
2) Sustainable Tourism Development
3) Natural Resources and Tourism
4) Taiwan’s Developing Need for Beach Resorts
5) Coastal Recreation and Case Study
6) Impact of A New Beach Resort Development
Tourism Studies
In 1987, the tourism industry was the second largest industry in the world
(Inskeep, 1988). It has subsequently and quickly grown to become the world’s largest industry (Cobb, 1989; WTTC, 1991).
This study focuses on beach resort tourism. A beach resort is a place to which people travel for water-focused recreation (Smith, 1990). Traditionally, resorts have been
10 located at sites near the waterfront or a spa and a similar approach has been followed in newer resort developments. As Gunn (1988a, p. 19) points out; “Resort development along waterfronts have long used the rule of thumb that the establishment o f... accommodations tight to the water’s edge was a planning fundamental”.
Much of the tourism literature examines why visitors choose one place over another. Clark & Downing (1984, p. 67) indicated that “decision process for making recreation choices is complex from a research perspective: final decisions are conditional on interaction between people and places with a variety of mediating influences.” For example. Gee et al., (1984) pointed out that a study by the Pacific Area Travel Association concluded that five attributes influence visitors’ decisions to come to a Pacific destination.
Those attributes were 1) warm, fiiendly people; 2) comfortable accommodations; 3) beautiful, natural scenery; 4) reasonable prices; and 5) attractive customs and way of life.
It is also important to recognize that beach resort tourism not only provides seaside recreation, but can also relieve stress for many people. Mills (1983) and McIntosh et al.
(1990) argue that tourism promises both mental and physical relaxation.
There are several issues regarding the accommodation of visitors at sites, that are recurrent in the literature. For this study, the issue of accommodation involves travelers to, and within, Taiwan. Specifically, the Taiwanese, whose increased availability of free time must be taken into account, have necessarily come to expect, or hope for, accommodations for stays of varied lengths. Also, potential guests and/or visitors (of various ages, groups, families, businesses, etc.), increasingly seek recreational services and attractions. Many tourists prefer historic or cultural choices for their leisure pursuits; in
11 bound visitors (even from Pacific Rim countries) might prefer Taiwan's terrain and
scenery, seaside attractions, and the diversity of villages and cultures’ previously less
familiar. Hospitality includes the hotel, or other type of lodging, but also includes a
welcoming atmosphere and staff attention. A distinct ambiance can be the ideal promotion
and encourages return “clients” or “customers”; one visit can reap a return trade among
tourists and other guests that is beyond promotional price. Types of on-site reservation,
for brief or longer stays, with children or without children, or for family and/or others, make a variety of accommodations newly popular (Shirk & Klepper, 1995). Further, the ever increasing and diverse Taiwanese travel tourist market has embraced many attractions and unique uses for leisure time. Thus, this is an economic “winner”; if the government and citizens can add to the nation’s well-being by providing quality tourism, Taiwan’s many “star” rated vacation spots will be used fi’equently. Additionally, tourism is based on the concept of meeting human needs and desires, and the “business” of tourism requires finding what needs exist and meeting such needs (Crompton, 1979). As the demand for tourism grows, “marketing” or “promotion” can help show the public how their needs can be met.
Andrew (1995) pointed out that the components of a tourism system vary according to purpose. The seven components of tourism are defined as:
(I) Marketing is a method for promoting a product or service or both of these.
Marketing also indicates the demand for service, such as measured volumes of people- markets who are users interested in tourism and/or travel and their ability to use tourism and/or travel.
12 (2) Policy means land use; law and local governments usually regulate this area.
Policy means also that certain rules or procedures are necessary or desirable.
(3) Programming means the on-site experiences available at a destination. Usually, programming is the role of the policy maker.
(4) Travel represents the selection of trips or of going to another place and satisfaction from such trips.
(5) Destination refers to the wide variety of physical settings and establishments that lure travelers to visit.
(6) Hospitality relates to site design, service and value, but most of all, these must be affected in a safe and secure environment. It can also mean friendly and generous entertainment or attractions for guests.
(7) Accommodations provide shelter and food, and refer to the variety and quality of food, lodging and products.
Tourism grows due to human need and the general economic conditions of the average consumer. Thus, the state of the world is actually the truest index for the state of tourism in this modem era because global conditions affect the tourism system.
Tourists often become more demanding after they accumulate enough experience to appreciate good versus poor tourism sites and begin to favor some while ignoring others
(McIntosh & Goeldner, 1990).
Another focus in the literature examines how managers can recognize why people choose a place to recreate. Realizing their motives, needs and preferences can help
13 managers match supply with demand and protect the integrity of quality recreation
opportunities (Clark & Downing, 1984).
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a tool for examining recreation
choice. The ROS is the standard outdoor recreation planning tool used by the U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management (Beaulieu& Schreyer, 1984; Clark & Stankey,
1979; Heywood, 1991; Newcastle & Lake Macquarie, 1987). The R O S is comprised of a range of settings in outdoor recreation (i.e., from primitive to urban), and is used to match setting attributes with recreation experience outcomes (Heywood & Richards,
1988; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). For this study, to help determine relationships among the respective visitors’ needs, demographic characteristics, and visitors’ setting preferences, i.e., the biophysical, managerial and social characteristics of beach resorts and beach areas are considered. For example, access is critical because it either facilitates or constrains recreational use (Clark & Stankey, 1979). It is important to note that the ROS model helps visitors fulfill their recreation experiences and goals by matching desired outcomes with settings (Beaulieu & Schreyer, 1984; Heywood, 1990). As Beaulieu & Schreywer
(1984, p.39) have noted: “the best way to approach the link between environment and behavior is to study the way that link is made in the mind of the users.”
Heywood (1991) indicated that the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum provides a useful framework for inventorying and mapping the biophysical, social, and managerial setting based on opportunity settings, activities, and experience. Thus, “visitors are seen as coming to sites with expectations and desires for specific types of satisfaction. They
14 engage in activities at sites where the combination of physical, social, and managerial
conditions helps them achieve their desired satisfactions” (McCool et al., 1984, p.2).
The ROS is useful because, as Smith (1990) argues, beach resort tourism has had
difficulty meeting the broad range of visitors’ needs and expectations. Visitors, while
having disparate backgrounds, often have similar expectations. Visitors seek rewarding
uses of leisure time. They swim, play on the beach, shop and do similar things at locales
around the world. Also, they prefer the special and/or natural areas with aesthetically
pleasing seascapes and landscapes: beaches, rocky shorelines and forests. Observing the
various birds, collecting shells, and photography provide variety of pleasurable
experiences, as diversified as the visitors themselves.
Another focus in this literature review is how to market beach resorts. Marketing
literature shares the concern over visitors’ needs. Richards (1988) indicated that the
nature of recreation opportunities available could be compared to the demand
characteristics of various market segments. Thus, it is crucial to identify the attributes of
the recreation opportunities in order to meet the perceived needs of the various market
segments. Marketing is officially defined by the American Marketing Association as “the process of planning and executing the concepting, pricing, promotion and distribution of ideas, goals and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational objectives” (Lewis & Chambers, 1989, p.6).
In addition to destination planning and development. Gee et al., (1984, p.92) concluded that “a destination must have an appeal of attraction, whether psychological or
15 tangible, to induce visitors to come”. They also indicated that more attractions will lead more market segments to a destination. The most important attractions are as follows;
1) Natural resources, such as climate, beaches, mountains 2) Cultural resources, such as historical sites, museums, theaters, and the people themselves 3) Recreational 6cilities, such as theme parks, ski slopes, marinas 4) Events such as Mardi Gras in New Orleans or Carnival in Rio 5) Specific activities, such as gambling in Las Vegas or Monaco, shopping in Hong Kong or theatre in New York 6) Psychological appeal of romance, adventure, remoteness (Gee et al., 1984, p.92)
In response to the variety of markets involved in developing beach resorts, the
Center for Tourism Policy Studies at the University of Hawaii recently developed several important guidelines:
1 ) Visitor Activities: Expand resort programs beyond the “relaxed retreat” image to accommodate more active itineraries (i.e., fitness programs, educational tours, night-life activities).
2) Development Scope: Strive for concentrated resort development as well as controlled rate of development. Ribbon or continuous development along the coastlines should be avoided. Limited groupings of development with adequate open space and natural vegetation in-between should plaimed.
3) Resource Preservation: Modify the traditional “water-intensive versus concrete- intensive” philosophy to mean “open space versus concrete-intensive.” In most resorts situations, water is a limited resource which should be conserved, not exploited. Open space left in natural conditions implies the preservation of water and land use.
4) Physical Environment: Preserve the general landscape character of the area, preserving native plants and animals while avoiding the importation of alien species. Maintain the coastline’s natural configuration by disallowing extensive building development.
5) Social Environment. Protect traditional lifestyles (i.e., fishing areas, villages, etc.) and fulfill the basic service needs so that local residents can continue their
16 customary daily activities without disturbances leadii% to greater acceptance of tourism as a complementary economic activity. (Ikeda et a!., 1994, p. 106)
Other literature has examined the effects of tourism. Respondents at many research sites seemed 6vorably inclined to tourists and the effects of tourism. From an economic standpoint, tourism was associated with better employment opportunities, higher incomes and better standards of living (Bystrzanowski, 1989). Hussey (1989) indicated that tourism leads to a spectacular increase in land values, personal income, employment, infrastructure and fecilities. Another key benefit of tourism development is higher government revenues through direct or indirect taxes (Smith, 1990).
However, the nature of the relationship between tourism and the environment is widely argued. While tourism is essentially resource-based, some have argued that tourism too often disregards cultural as well as ecological implications. Therefore, these implications must be integrated in order to minimize tourism’s impact and maximize its benefits (Dowling, 1992).
Sustainable Tourism Development
The World Tourism Organization (WTO, 1992) states that sustainable tourism development must: 1) improve the quality of life of the host community, 2) provide a high quality of experience for the visitors, and 3) maintain the quality of the environment on which both the host coiranunity and the visitor depend. A study conducted by the School
17 of Travel Industry Managem«it at the University of Hawaii at Manoa showed that the
most important issues in sustainable tourism development are ecological sustainability,
social and cultural sustainability, and economic sustainability. In this study:
1 ) Ecological sustainability ensures that development is compatible with the maintenance of essential ecological processes, biological diversity and biological resources;
2) Social and cultural sustainability ensures that development increases people’s control over their lives, is compatible with the culture and values of people affected by it, and maintains and strengthens community identity;
3) Economic sustainability ensures that development is economically eflBcient and that resources are managed so that they can support present and future generations. (University of Hawaii, 1994, p.56)
Of fundamental importance is the need to assess the impact of tourism
development. With its emphasis on the enjoyment of nature and man-made beauty spots,
if not carefully controlled, tourism development can have a serious impact on the natural
environment. Dowling (1992, p.41) pointed out that “the nature of the environment-
tourism relationship at present can be best summarized as one which is in equipoise ...
Therefore it is through their integration that conflicts can be minimized and symbiotic
possibilities advanced.” Other literature recognizes that tourism can play a role in the conservation of natural resources. As Whelan argues, “ tourism can be a tool for
sustainable development... it can indeed make an important contribution to the welfere of both the visited and the visitors and every aspect of the environment” (Whelan, 1991, p.20). Reynolds (1992) claimes that the only way to achieve a sustainable tourism is to protect natural and cultural resources in their natural environment. Ignoring the impact of
18 tourism development on the environment will in the end cost more money and lead to less
effective methods of preventing environmental problems. For example, timber harvesting
will lead to soil erosion and climate change because of loss of forest cover.
In addition to these complex problems, Valiante (1989) notes that “the satisfaction
of human needs and aspirations is the major objective of development but that where
living standards go beyond the fulfillment of basic minimum needs, consumption of resources must occur only with due regard for long-term sustainability” (p.27). Valiante also argued that it is important for all people to express their opinion about development, and particularly those who have not had a say historically - indigenous communities, etc.
Valiante also pointed out the importance of sustainable development to industrialized as well as developing countries. Yet developing countries are in a unique position.
Developing countries often use a disproportionate share of the world’s resources. They must allow other countries to grow, and ensure that such resources can be sustained without irreversible environmental consequences. Also for developing countries all over the world, tourism has a crucial effect on the economy and the environment. Gee et al.,
(1984) pointed out that establishing tourism planning is necessary to ensure the quality of future tourism growth in an area.
Since tourism can be both detrimental and beneficial, a structure to help make decisions about development is needed. Lo (1994) created The Decision Tree Model
(DTM) to help developers make decisions about sustainable development based on a number of criteria. The Decision Tree Model points out that there are substantive critical
19 issues which must be met and which override a simple numerical “counting up" of the
total points of all the guidelines. The decision tree model has four levels.
Level Number 1
The first level serves as the primary basis for all subsequent decisions, and actually
determines the initial option affecting the site selection. For example, despite the
fact that a particular site might score very high in total points, it is of little
importance i^ in fact, the site in question is improperly zoned and cannot be
changed. It is important to stress that under such circumstances the site under
consideration must be automatically disqualified.
Level Number 2
The second level pertains to the site’s compatibility with the proposed facility’s
general program and encompasses site size, usable area and expandability.
Level Number 3
The third level relates to natural issues.
Level Number 4
Level four includes social and fimctional aspects which interface with tourism.
Each level will determine if a criterion earns an excellent, good or poor rating. The total point scores can range from 0-130. Thus, a total score of less than 65 means it is a poor site for tourism and development should stop; 65-105 points suggests it is a good tourism site; greater than 105 points reflects an excellent site for tourism development.
In Levels 3 and 4 of the Decision Tree Model, a scoring box appears adjacent to the specific criterion in each level. After deciding the recommended scoring for each
20 criteria, a total can be inserted in the last box to represent a final summation. If this is less
than 35 points, a “stop” is automatic. A score of 35 or more means to go to level 4.
Level 4 scores can be then obtained and the total of the accumulated points will determine the final decision, proceeding or stopping the process.
The DTM not only provides a rational basis for both the public and private sectors to make decisions about tourism development, but also serves as a useiul resource for developers and planners for dealing with specific environmental issues such as conservation of coastal ecosystems and cultural resources. The DTM can help achieve sustainable tourism development.
Natural Resources and Tourism
Since the 1980s, ecotourism has gained increasing attention. Ecotourism “creates an understanding of cultural and natural history while safeguarding the integrity of the ecosystem and producing economic benefits that encourage conservation” (University of
Hawaii, 1994, p i). Ecotourism is crucial because as Butler reminds us (cited in Smith,
1990, p. 18)
We can visualize a destination e.g. a beach resort moving across a spectrum, however gradually or slowly, but far too often inexorably toward the potential of its own demise. Destination areas carry with them the potential seeds of their own destruction, as they allow themselves to become commercialized and lose their qualities which originally attracted tourists.
21 The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(lUCN) describes conservation as:
the management of the biosphere (the thin covering of the planet that contains and sustains life) so that it may yield the greatest benefit to present generations without losing its potential to meet the needs and ambitions of future generations. Such sustainable development cannot occur without conserving living resources, in the sea as well on land. (Salm & Clark, 1984, pp. 1-2)
Tourists can be actively involved in conservation, and as such can avoid any negative
impact on the natural environment.
Both sustained economic development and environmental protection are
everybody’s responsibility (Amir, 1983). In recent decades, environmental issues have
become a top international concern (Whelan, 1991). For example, the clearcutting of the
tropical rain forests has resulted in a significant rise in global temperatures. In addition,
Edward O. Wilson, often called the father of biodiversity, claimed that sustainable
development is economically beneficial. “Ecotourism shows great potential in many
places. People are eager to see and experience wildlife and wild places ... and they’ll pay to do i t ... so protecting biodiversity has very real economic benefits” (Cheater &
Stolzenburg, 1994, p.28).
Salm & Clark (1984) states that a category of management is needed, relating to terrestrial and marine areas, that can protect natural resources and ecological systems and yet contribute significantly to the economic, social, and material needs of nations. The multiple function of these lands or waters can provide a sustained yield of natural products, preserve genetic diversity, and protect natural features and systems. Amir
(1983) suggested that the management of coastal resources requires the identification of
22 resources for conservation and planning along the coastline, for example, all development should be set back a certain distance. In this manner, coastal resources can be utilized to delineate homogenous coastal units on the basis of local resource inventory and classification. Schoen (1978) also indicated that three important scientific data are needed in coastal zone management.
1) A summary of the major environmental features for use by planners and decision makers 2) Detailed investigations of specific critical sites 3) A continuing program of monitoring to evaluate management (p. 1589)
Salm & Clark (1984) indicated that living on the coast is common in many countries, as it is in the United States. Glomb (1995) contended that coastal areas have been so populated that many people are willing to live there year-round; coastal zones are home to over one-third of the American population and this is expected to increase to 75 percent in the next 15 years. This population may threaten coastal habitats and species.
However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in Washington, D C created the
Coastal Ecosystems Program to eliminate/reduce threats to coastal habitats and species.
More specifically, this program is conserving and protecting coastal habitats by catalyzing volunteers for on-the-ground actions and public education.
Taiwan’s Developing Need for Beach Resorts
Taiwan is an excellent site for beach resorts and tourism. Taiwan has a distinguished and rich history, and its cultural achievements are exceptional. For centuries, Taiwan has been familiar to the West as Formosa, a name derived fi-om the 16th
23 century Portuguese sailor who, on sighting the island from a galleon named it “illha
Formosa” (Beautiful Island).
Taiwan is situated in the Pacific Ocean, and has 1,566 km of coastline. Jehng
(1984) pointed out that Taiwan’s climate is subtropical, with an average annual temperature of 21.7°C (71.2°F) in the north and 24.1 °C (75.7°F) in the south. In addition, Taiwan has hours of prolonged sunshine, an important factor for beach resorts.
With approximately 200 hours per month of sunshine, Taiwan has optimal natural conditions for developing beach resorts. However, the southern portion of Taiwan has better weather than the north.
Taiwan, naturally endowed with abundant marine resources, has excellent potential for diversified, coastal recreation and tourism. When Durrell ( 1983, p. 175) wrote in
Reflections on a Marine Venus, that “[people] find islands somehow irresistible. The mere knowledge that they are on an island, a little world surrounded by the sea, fills them with an indescribable intoxication.” He may have had Taiwan in mind.
The study will focus on the scenic spot of Renting National Park in Taiwan.
Renting National Park is located on the southernmost tip o f Taiwan, and sits on a total area of 32,631 hectares, 17,731 on land and 14,900 on sea (Lu, 1992). Renting National
Park is not only suitable for coastal recreation activities in terms of its climate, but also because of its outstanding geological environs, which include landscapes enhanced by the sea and surroundings proximate to mountains and urban centers. Lu (1992) indicated that
“Renting National Park truly ‘possesses resources both natural and cultural and
24 encompasses the most beautiful scenery of land and sea. ’ It may well be the most ideal area in all of Taiwan for scientific research, sightseeing, and recreation” (p.5).
From the description above, it is easy to see why Taiwan is an excellent site for tourism. Indeed, in recent years, the tourism industry has dramatically increased in
Taiwan, partially due to an increase in population, and partially because other societal conditions have changed; extensive urbanization of the population, an increase in the
GNP, an increase o f leisure and thus, of recreational time, and further development of transportation facilities. Each of these changes is related to some degree to tourism.
Individual fi'ee time has been increased, and a fi'equent, popular-demand pattern is for the use of such leisure hours at different times of the year, and also for accumulating holiday or vacation periods. The need for recreational and leisure opportunities, and, of course, for tourism (both residents and visitors) has become a significant national concern. In addition, available sources of inland tourism constitute another growing need, since space for such facilities is increasingly limited, particularly in already overcrowded cities.
Coastal areas are growing as choices for tourism promotion and development. This would tend to indicate, therefore, that coastal tourism presents a viable option to land scarcity and would offer a popular benefit or bonus. According to Wang et al. (1993):
Because of the rapid economic development, the rise of per capita income, and increase of leisure time, tourism in Taiwan has become a multi-facet industry. Tourist and recreational demand on the part of the domestic population is on the rise and out-bound tourists have out-numbered in-coming visitors. The tourist industry is faced with international complex in terms of service quality, it also has to compete with other industries for scarce resources (e.g., land). By analyzing the present demand, issues involved, and development trends, as well as the development potential and limits on the resources supply side, we try to establish a set of goals, strategies for the future tourist development in Taiwan, (pp. 1-2)
25 This increase has prompted a change in ofBcial governmental policies. The Travel
and Tourism Bureau of Taiwan, Republic of China, has established various policies for
tourism development. These policies can be summarized as follows; 1) protect natural
scenery and explore the potential tourist resources; 2) reward investment in the tourist industry, especially hotels; 3) strengthen international publicity and attract more tourists;
4) make travel easier for local people; 5) set forth versatile recreational activities; 6) be courteous to international tourists; and 7) develop Chinese culture (cited in Gunn, 1988a, p.336). Additionally, present government regulations and policies regarding the development of beach resorts focus on upgrading existing resorts and developing new ones (Chung, 1994). Generating less negative environmental and social impact is a major consideration for developing beach resorts as a nmjor form of tourism and offering a better product for tourists in Taiwan.
The government has also tried to review the present, and establish new, tourism policies for various levels of government including the current tourist agency and special resources protection. They have examined the link between budgets and policies; measured the social, economic, and political impacts of tourism; and done feasibility studies for tourism-related training and education (Gunn, 1988a).
Additionally, Taiwan’s six year National Plan calls for a decisive focus on marketing. Governmental policy encourages lay persons’ involvement in the travel and tourist industry, both for the investor’s benefit but also for the nation’s interest.
In response to this, the relationship between the public/private sector has become more important. For example, convention and visitors’ bureaus as well as university-
26 sponsored tourism research centers report accurate visitor information and help target
potential marketing segments (Bonn et al., 1989). Jackson (1990) and Lickorish (1991)
have stated the importance and complexity of the public/private sector relationship for
expanded tourism planning.
In the 1990s, much attention has been given to the growing demand for tourist
opportunities. Accommodating the tourist program itself has generated incredible tourist traffic and accelerated the need for more services. However, changes need to occur in order to meet the tourism needs of Taiwan. First, Taiwan’s coastal areas need to be developed. Due to the national concern for safety, enforced martial law has appreciably limited the development of marine activities in Taiwan. During the last forty years, the military controlled much of the coastal zone, so no development could occur. However, due to the change in the political climate and tourism demand, the tourism industry has rapidly increased in recent years, making development now possible (Tourism Bureau,
NCnistry of Transportation & Communication, 1992).
Secondly, Taiwan needs to build different facilities for different types of visitors - long stays, short stays, high income visitors, families, etc. Taiwan needs to develop its coastal attractions such as ocean parks, scenic resorts, beaches, historical sites and geologic scenery. Taiwan needs to offer water and beach activities - swimming, sunbathing, bird watching, fishing, scuba diving, surfing, sailing, jet skiing, etc. - which can provide activities for people of all ages.
27 Coastal Recreation and Case Study
Boaden et al. (1985), Glomb (1995), and Walsh (1992) have pointed out that a high proportion of the world’s population lives in the coastal zone. Demographic trends also show that this migration towards the coastal areas will increase in the future (Rinehart et al., 1995). Thus, it is not surprising to learn that coastal-related leisure is a crucial segment of the tourism industry.
Worldwide, the number of people with disposable time and income for recreational use continues to grow. Traditional, “everyone-leave-at-the-same-time” vacation patterns are changing in Europe and Asia to permit more personal choice in the when and where of enjoying leisure time and taking time off from work. At the same time, the number of retirees is reaching new records. Concurrently, coastal populations are increasing, adding to the coastal recreation customer base. In addition, coastal recreation is already a large market; it can be made much larger by the creative development of facilities and opportunities for the public.
From the viewpoint of development in the coastal zone. Marsh (1983) describes several considerations necessary for such projects. He states that:
it is first necessary to know the makeup and dynamics of the coastline involved, which normally assumes inclusion of an inventory of coastal landsforms and lithology, and an assessment of recent erosion and disposition trends, (p.245)
This particularly applies when shorelines and structures are included.
28 Barton (1988) found the following noteworthy trends in current resort development. Although Barton’s study does not focus on coastal zone development, his trends are pertinent to this area.
1) Outstanding environmental attractions continue to be the major locational factor.
2) Broad family appeal is in demand, which means that housing and diversity of recreational experiences are required.
3) Complementary, mixed-use destination activities are increasingly important; a mix of high quality hotels, shopping and dining experiences, conference centers, sports facilities and water-and nature-oriented activities are now being developed at many ‘destination resorts’.
4) Resorts are increasingly designed to support media exposine and television converge as backdrops for special events, sports competitions and convention broadcasts. This illustrates the increased importance of television as a resource in creating awareness of and promoting tourism markets.
5) Stronger theming is apparent; this is sometimes tied to regional, cultural events or technological achievement; often it is reflective of the more interactive nature of recreational environments where fantasy and a heightened intensity of experiences become an objective. The concern here is the sameness that can result where there can actually be a loss of regional flavor, or a loss of design integrity where design is based on maximizing photo options.
6) There is a greater water orientation and a greater emphasis on quality landscapes.
7) Both the designs and the programs have multi-seasonal features, primarily to lessen financial risks.
8) Recreational amenities have become the focus of some communities; the physical presence of these amenities adds to the value of adjacent real estate.
9) More complex and expensive development approval processes have resulted because resorts are located in attractive but environmentally and politically sensitive areas; in mountains, desert and coastal areas, recreational values compete with wilderness, wildlife habitats and scenic values. (Barton, 1988, pp.43-5).
29 The second part of this section of the literature review examines one theoretical and one “real world” case study of coastal recreation facilities. A conceptual master plan for beach resort planning is provided in Figure 1. This layout reflects maximum utilization of different land parcels for the resort — these parcels could be filled in when implemented the master plan. Furthermore, the master plan has an spatial integrative function; that is, it is a completely planned resort. This figure is an excellent resource for coastal recreation planning. Secondly, Hawaii is presented as a “real world” study of beach resort planning.
Since the greatest beach resorts in the world are in Hawaii, Taiwan can learn a lot from
Hawaii. Christmas (1994) indicated that Hawaii is a place of overwhelming beauty —good beaches, scenic landscapes, pleasant climate, exceptional outdoor activities, good restaurants, and fabulous beach resorts. Hawaii can also serve as an excellent resource for coastal recreation planning.
In recent decades, beach resorts have quickly expanded in Hawaii. To achieve a consistent quality of beach resort development and a healthy tourist industry, Farrell
(1982) stated that;
successful tourism can be expected in the future only if the public is deeply involved in every facet of planning and discussion; that baseline research, continuous monitoring, and the setting of limits must be done now; and that what has evolved as the Hawaii tourist industry is an expression of the interaction of an introduced economic activity, limited resources, a unique environment, conflicting values, and numerous cultures, (p.xviii)
As was seen in Hawaii, the success of beach resort development will rely on its ability to compete with others as well as two other key issues: “ 1) leadership on behalf of government to ensure that what gets plaimed at the destination level is as good as what
30 /gfCC&4/r^ /fS^'^CV/TXZ. kl JG SyO^AJTTA • â>««(éxc/u Figure 1 Conceptual Master Plan for a Beach Resort. (Source: Gee, 1996, p. 102) 31 gets planned at the resort level; and 2) cooperation between public and private sectors in arranging a long-term, sustainable tourism development agenda” (Ikeda et al., 1994, p.bc). Then, within the framework of national and regional planning, more detailed tourist attractions and successful tourism development can be achieved. Impact of A New Beach Resort Development Many studies have examined the social, economic, and environmental impact of resort development on a local economy (Boniface & Fowler, 1993; Cooper et al., 1993; Gunn, 1988a; Gunn, 1988b; Haider, 1991; Holloway, 1994; Inskeep, 1991; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Pearce, 1995; Pearce & Butler, 1993; Ryan, 1991; Smith, 1990; WTO, 1994). These studies can provide a basis for determining appropriate policies for development; they can help prevent negative impact and reinforce positive impact. From a social standpoint, tourism can generate both benefits and problems for the local culture (Boniface & Fowler, 1993; Cooper & Lockwood, 1992; Gee, 1996; Inskeep, 1991; McIntosh et al., 1995; Ritchie & Goeldner, 1987; Smith, 1990; WTO, 1994). Gee (1996) argued that the success of a beach resort development depends heavily on its acceptance in the local community. Indeed, a resort development is a long term, on-going process, and it is necessary to maintain a harmonious relationship with the community. To help understand the variety of social consequences involved in developing beach resorts, the Center for Tourism Policy Studies at the University of Hawaii recently conducted a study. This research found several positive advantages of development such as increased availability of jobs, shopping, restaurants, and entertainment. On the other 32 hand, there were some negative consequences, including increased food, clothing, and housing costs, as well as an increase in both crime and trafhc (Ikeda, 1994). According to the WTO (1994), well planned, developed, and managed tourism can bring several benefits to local society. They found that tourism; (1) Improves the living standards of people and helps pay for improvements to community facilities and services, if the economic benefits of tourism are well distributed. (2) Conserves the cultural heritage of an area which otherwise might be lost as a result of general development taking place. Conservation of archaeological and historic sites was referred to under environmental impacts. Cultural patterns of music, dance, drama, dress, arts and crafts, customs, ceremonies, life styles, traditional economic activities and architectural styles are also important attractions for tourists. If these are lost, cultural tourism will not successful in the area. Tourism helps justify their conservation. In some places, tourism can be the impetus for revitalizing cultural patterns which might be disappearing. (3) Helps develop and maintain museums, theaters and other cultural facilities. These are, in part, supported by tourism but are also enjoyed by residents. Many major museums and theaters in the world receive much financial support from the admission fees paid by tourists. (4) Reinforces or even renews a sense of pride by residents in their culture, when they observe tourists appreciating it. This is especially true of some traditional societies which are undergoing rapid change and losing their sense o f cultural self-confidence. (5) Provides the opportunity for cross-cultural exchange between tourists and residents who learn about, and come to respect, one another’s cultures. This exchange can best be achieved through certain forms of tourism-educational and other types of special interest tours; village tourism; and home visit programmes whereby tourists can arrange to visit local families. (WTO, 1994, pp. 35-6) Cooke suggests the following ways to alleviate many of the negative impacts: (1) At the local level, tourism planning should be based on overall development goals and priorities identified by residents. 33 (2) The promotion of local attractions should be subject to resident endorsement. (3) The involvement of native people. . . in the tourism industry should proceed only when the band considers that the integrity of their traditions and life-styles will be respected. (4) Opportunities should be provided to obtain broad-based community participation in tourist events and activities. (5) Attempts to mitigate general growth problems identified in a given community should precede the introduction of tourism or any increase in existing levels of tourist activities, (cited in Gunn, 1988a, pp. 242-3) According to Gee (1996), resort development inevitably generates some social changes in the local community. From a sociological perspective. Gee (1984, pp. 112-3) categorized resort development into five stages: 1 ) Discovery stage, include a low volume of visitors while local residents are not effected by the development; 2) Development stage: residents welcome and enjoy the resort development due to its visible contribution to the local economy such as raising the general income and improving infi-astructure within the community; 3) Conflict stage: local resentment first appears in the conflict stage, reflected in hostile attitudes toward visitors (i.e., competition over resources - land, recreational facilities, beachfront area, etc.); 4) Confi'ontation stage, problems resulting in organized opposition to new beach resort development, land use rights, etc.; and 5) Destruction stage: more problems raised by resort destination area, such as rampant crime and lack of safety. 34 Gee (1984) argued that these important social stages must be recognized in advance to avoid the problems. Gee (1984,1996) suggested finding out what the possible social impact might be and using this information to construct an action plan that will maximize the positive impact and minimize the negative. Also, it is mandatory that the local community be involved in the planning and development process. Residents should be made to feel that they have a stake in the success of the beach resort. Gee (1996) stated that the social impact of a new beach resort development includes many factors. These factors include the existing cultural and economic distance between guests and residents, the ability of a destination to absorb visitors without unduly affecting local traditions, the pace of development, and the activities undertaken by visitors. According to Gee (1996), a new beach resort development inevitably changes the lifestyle of the local community. These changes can be both harmful and beneficial to the community. He also pointed out that new jobs and increased income visibly raises the standard of living in the community. On the other hand, residents begin saving less and borrowing more to support their increased consumption. Additionally, Gee (1996) indicated that resort development creates an economic demand for the trappings of local culture. At the same time, this can paradoxically both enhance and degrade local art forms and customs. The advantages are employment and services provided by local artists, musicians, and craftsmen. Thus, it can spark a general renewal of interest by residents in their own cultural heritage. However, selling or performing for pay inwardly helps break down local residents’ value and respect for their own art forms, religion, and traditions, 35 because these cultural displays represent another way of achieving a different end - earned cash income. This may result in emigration - some established residents may leave. Gee argued that an initial emigration may occur as beach resort land use increases the value of all nearby property, while the hard work and low earnings of agriculture become less attractive compared to the apparently easy resort jobs. The World Tourism Organization (WTO, 1994) states that the benefits of developing tourism in developing countries are primarily economic. Gunn (1988a) pointed out that tourism is a smokeless industry that can help strengthen and stabilize the economy of the host areas. There are several standard types of economic measurements that indicate the general extent of tourism’s economic impact, such as income generated and contribution to Gross National Domestic Product, foreign exchange earned from international tourism, local employment generated by tourism, and contribution to government revenues (Cooper et al., 1993; Inskeep, 1991; McIntosh et al., 1995; Pearce & Butler, 1993; Smith, 1990; WTO, 1994). According to Inskeep (1991) and Gee (1996), one direct consequence of a new resort development is the provision of employment, which brings economic benefits and is welcomed by local community. Inskeep and Gee also noted that most of a resort’s jobs require no special skills. This can be an advantage for local employment, and the income will remain in the local economy. Additionally, resort development will lead to improved living standards in the local community and overall national and regional economic development. However, there is much evidence that the positive economic impacts of tourism have their disadvantages (Gunn, 1988a). Gee (1996) indicated that employment 36 related social problems that may occur. For example, when expatriate workers start making up a large percentage of the population, residents fear that their culture and way of life may be undermined. Many studies show that resort development has a social impact on residents. (Cooper et al., 1993; Gee, 1996; Inskeep, 1991; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Pearce & Butler, 1993; Ritchie & Goeldner, 1987; Ryan, 1991; Smith, 1990). This impact changes both directly and indirectly the quality of life in the local community in many ways. Tourists bring revenue into the resort community which does strengthen the level of income and improves living standards in the local economy (Gee, 1996; Hitchcock et al., 1993; Inskeep, 1991; Lundberg & Lundberg, 1985; Ryan, 1993). WTO (1994) and Gee (1996), on the other hand, found that a large portion of the revenues will be taken out of the resort community, for example, the resort industry is often supported by outside investment, and thus, some profits will be returned to the outside investor. Many studies have examined the significance of tourism for developing countries (Cooper et al., 1993; Gunn, 1988b; Hitchcock et al., 1993; Lundberg & Lundberg, 1985; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Pearce, 1995; Pearce & Butler, 1993; Smith, 1990; Uysal, 1994). Additionally, these studies offer powerful support to those arguments which encourage countries to promote their tourism industry. Resort development brings economic benefits, such as increased employment and tax revenues (Gee, 1996). According to Gee (1996), local governments generally use the economic benefits of tourism to improve transportation and other infi-astructure facilities. However, the host 37 community must also pay infrastructure costs which depends very much on local economic and cultural development policy. As indicated by Gee (1996), most beach resort destinations include public and private ownership of coastal lands. Therefore, local government agencies must be aware of public rights/accessibility issues and environmental protection concerns. Resort development can either be welcomed by local residents or can generate conflict between the resort and the local community, depending on whether the land, beachfront area, recreation facilities, etc., can amicably be shared by visitors and residents. For example, Inskeep (1991) and Gee (1996) argue that if the beaches are closed off to the local population and maintained for the exclusive use of tourists, residents lose access to their own amenities and can become hostile towards tourism. Further animosity is created when a new beach resort is developed primarily for visitors and hinders the traditional leisure activities of residents. In sum. Smith (1990) argued that beach resort development should maximize the positive impact and minimize the negative. Thus, tourism must protect a community’s social traditions, values, and natural and recreational resources. Further, leakages should be minimized by encourî^g local investment and promoting the utilization of local agricultural and industrial production. Moreover, opportunities for cross-subsidization of resort development for residents by tourists should be exploited. Additionally, Gee (1996) suggested that the local tourism bureau should locate all government agencies having an impact on the tourism industry and should keep them informed o f the bureau’s programs 38 and should monitor projects for other agencies having to do with the tourism industry. These crucial actions can help to clarify potential social and economic problems. 39 CHAPTERS METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this study was to assess the development of beach resorts to increase coastal recreation and tourism opportunities in the Renting National Park area of Taiwan. This study examined the relationships among visitors’ demographic characteristics, setting preferences, and needs for coastal recreation and tourism. Demographic characteristics include age, gender, marital status, educational level, occupation and income level. Visitors’ setting preferences, according to the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), include the physical/biological, managerial, and social characteristics of a site. For example, management considerations (access to a beach), and setting preferences (coastal locations) are important components of any recreation experience. The factors that pertain to visitors’ coastal recreation choices include the: time and money available, natural attractions, and facilities provided, i.e., hotels, restaurants, etc. 40 These &ctors are related because in combination, they help determine recreation experience preferences. Therefore, identifying the effects of resource management and understanding the process visitors go through, as well as Actors they consider, will help developers and planners match supply with demand, and satisfy^ visitors’ needs and preferences. This chapter explains the methodology that was used to achieve the purposes and objectives of this study. An in-depth discussion of each of the following research procedures is provided, instrument development, instrument validity and reliability, population sample, data collection, and data analysis. Instrument Development For this study, a Developing Beach Resorts Questionnaire (DBRQ) was prepared (Appendix A, B). The items of the questionnaire were formulated after compiling an extensive literature review of tourism studies, resort motivations, setting preferences, sustainable tourism development, natural resources and tourism, Taiwan’s developing need for beach resorts, coastal recreation, and the impact of new beach resort development. The development of the contents of the instrument represents a synthesis of information about the establishment of beach resorts and the development of coastal recreation and tourism in Taiwan. In order to refine the instrument to measure developing beach resorts and opportunities for coastal recreation and tourism, a pretest was used to reveal the ambiguities, clarity and comprehensiveness of the questionnaire (Fraenkel and Wallen, 41 1993). A pilot study was conducted at The Ohio State University with Taiwanese graduate students. The instrument of this study focused on visitors’ setting preferences and visitors’ needs. Additionally, it identified Taiwan’s need for sites appropriate for beach resorts, the terrain’s natural attractions, ecological gains relevant to natural resources, beach area conditions, tourist accommodation, and hospitality. The instrument includes three sections. The first section consists of 9 questions about demographic information and past travel experiences. Section two of the instrument includes 32 items regarding visitors’ motivations and visitors’ needs (e.g., facilities and activities needed), and was designed to assess developing beach resorts, opportunities for coastal recreation and tourism, and involvement with respect to each activity such as spending time at the beach (sunbathing, surfing, playing games, etc.). For these items, respondents were asked to check one of five statements about coming to sites and their expectations and desires for specific types of satisfaction. Visitors engage in activities at sites where the combination of biophysical, social, and managerial conditions help them achieve their desired satisfactions. Regarding biophysical considerations, respondents were asked to consider how they think an area should be. Respondents were also asked to consider how social attributes can lead to vastly different conditions (e.g., to talk to new and different people). Regarding managerial considerations, questions were asked about access to the site. Respondents then indicated how important each of these reasons was to their choice of Renting National Park as a beach resort destination. Section three contains 25 items pertaining to visitors’ setting preferences (i. e., beach vacationers’ participation in their preferred environmental setting), and several items 42 that were designed to measure visitors’ involvement, moods, attitudes and intentions concerning leisure activities (i.e., visitors’ subjective perceptions and preferences, the importance of an item as a reason to make a recreation choice). For these items, respondents were asked to rate the importance of beach resort related attributes for choosing the beach site visited on that trip. The responses were measured using a five- point Likert scale with the following anchors: (1) not at all important, (2) slightly important, (3) moderately important, (4) very important, and (5) extremely important. Fraenkel and Wallen (1993) indicated that a Likert scale works particularly well for measuring a subject’s attitude toward a particular concept. Validity of the Instrument According to Ary et al.(1990), the content validity of a questionnaire means that it measures what it intends to measure. The validity of this study’s instrument was determined in two ways, a panel of experts and a field test. In order to establish the content and construct validity, a panel of experts consisting of professionals with knowledge of beach resorts, natural resources, and/or recreation/tourism was invited to advise and improve the questionnaire. Following the judgments and recommendations fi’om the panel of experts, the instrument was modified as necessary. A field test was then used to assess the face and content validity. Ideally, the sample for the field test should be visitors to beach resorts in Renting National Park. However, due to the limitations of time and budget, an alternative sample for the field test was selected fi"om among Taiwanese students at The Ohio State University. Ten Taiwanese graduate students with different 43 majors were selected and asked to make comments about the questionnaire’s clarity and ease of use, and to give their opinions regarding the instrument’s Chinese translation. The suggested changes from the panel of experts and the field test were incorporated into the final instrument. The translation of the instrument from English to Chinese was critical. In order to evaluate the translation, two methods were used; I) the committee approach - a group of bilinguals translated from the source to the target, 2) pretesting (pilot testing) - field testing of the translation (Prieto, 1992). To this end, three bilingual persons (i.e., Xiaotnei Chen, Associate Professor, East Asian Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University; Su-Yu Lin, Graduate Student, Medical Science, The Ohio State University; Shih-Jang Hsu, Ph.D. Candidate, Natural Resources, The Ohio State University) were invited to evaluate the translation’s quality and equivalence. Also, as previously stated, a pretest was conducted to the ensure content validity of questionnaire. Reliability of the Instrument Reliability indicates the consistency of the instrument to measure whatever it measures (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1993). The instrument reliability test was established using data collected during a pilot test. The sample for the pilot test (n=30) was randomly selected from among Taiwanese students at The Ohio State University. The responses for the pilot study were not included in the final analysis. Reliability of the Developing Beach Resorts Questionnaire (DBRQ) was determined through the data gained from the participating subjects. Cronbach’s 44 coefBcient alpha was used to evaluate the internal consistency of the instrument (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1993, p. 149). Cronbach’s alpha for the summated hems of the Developing Beach Resort Questionnaire (DBRQ) was 0.90, measured by the pilot test for the motivation and site attribute scales. Population Sample The population for this study consisted of travelers to beach resorts in the Renting National Park area of Taiwan. In order to obtain representative samples of what special accommodations or other needs would be pertinent, a survey mode was chosen. Salant et al. (1994, p.4) indicated that, “Surveys can be used in a scientific way to realize the great benefits o f... a representative sample instead of the whole population.” The reason for selecting travelers to beach resorts in the Renting National Park as the population for this study were: 1. The population consists of visitors who show up at a particular location. The best approach is a sample drawn fi’om such a population as they arrive or leave (Salant and Dillman, 1994). 2. Beach resorts in Renting National Park ofier coastal recreation and tourism that provide, or allow for, pursuit of varied activities for different ages and duration of stays. 3. Renting National Park encompasses warm and beautiful beaches with some of the greatest swimming anywhere, great food and restaurants and offers snorkeling, sailing, scuba diving and many other water activities. It also includes a 5-star beach resort, beach scenery, and an ecology education center. 45 According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1993), the target population is the population to which the researcher could generalize the result of the study. In this study, the target population is all the visitors to beach resorts in the Renting National Park area of Taiwan. The accessible population is the population from which the researcher can realistically select subjects for the sample, and to which the researcher is enabled to generalize findings (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1993). In this study, the accessible population is the visitors who show up at regional resorts (i.e., an international resort hotel) in Renting National Park. Data collection Since obtaining a list of visitors to Renting National Park from hotels and various businesses was prevented (for privacy reasons), the data collection method used was a self-administered questionnaire, DBRQ. A systematic sampling procedure was employed where every 5th person was approached and asked to complete the survey. This method was chosen in order to get the highest possible response rate, and to compensate for two restrictions - a small budget and minimal available personnel. A practical and time efficient method was applied to the distribution of the questionnaire. Data collection was conducted during the summer of 1996 and included two stratums: on weekdays (Monday to Friday) and weekends (Saturday and Sunday). Data were collected over a period of 20 days (August 6 to August 25) from a total of 500 visitors to Renting National Park. On each of these days vacationers were approached at beach resorts, hotels, or scenic spots and asked to complete the questionnaire. In order to increase and/or yield a high response rates, an incentive was provided (Morton-Williams, 46 1993; Salant and Dillman, 1994). A free scenic postcard was provided to respondents for participating in the survey. Data analysis The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for windows, provided by Academic Technology Services (ATS) at The Ohio State University was used for statistical analysis of data. The first stage of data analysis involved computing frequency distributions, presented as frequency, percentages, means, and chi-square analyses. Chi- square analysis was used to analyze cross classified data for recreation behavior and to determine the significance of the interactions between recreationists’ trips and demographic variables (Christensen, 1985). One-way analysis of variance was used for Likert type variables. In stage two, factor analysis was used to perform principal components factoring with varimax rotation in order to maximize different variances of loadings to simplicity (Lawley & Maxwell, 1971). Therefore, factor analysis served as a reliable measure to assess the frctors which determined visitors’ reasons for going on a beach vacation and their setting preferences (good beaches, scenic surroundings, climatic desirability and availability of land and security/safety for beach resorts development). Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient ( r ) is computed to determine the relationship between beach vacationers’ motivations and the attributes of beach resort sites. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was used to measure the linear relationship between two variables on an interval scale (Norusis, 1993). 47 One-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine the relationships among the fectors of respective visitors’ needs and demographic characteristics. Additionally, all research questions in this study were tested at the .05 level of significance. 48 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction In this chapter, the results of the data analysis are presented. After a discussion of the survey procedure and a description of the respondent group, the results are organized into two sections. The first section includes information about sociodemographic variables and vacationers’ behavioral patterns. The second section reports visitors’ needs and setting preferences for their beach vacations. Survey Procedure and Sample Response The visitor questionnaire (see Appendix A, B) was administered at 12 beach resort hotels and scenic spots over a period of 20 days (August 6 to August 25) to 500 visitors to Renting National Park. The questionnaire was administered on-site. Vacationers were approached at beach resorts, hotels, or scenic spots and asked to complete the questionnaire. The completion rate (the number of usable questionnaires) was 95.2% (476/500). The sampling was very successful because most respondents showed an interest in 49 participating and they received a firee scenic postcard if they completed the questionnaire. Twenty four questionnaires were discarded as either incomplete or illegible. Sociodemographic Variables The following gives an overview of the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents. These characteristics include gender, age, marital status, educational level, personal monthly income, and occupation. Males accounted for 57.4% (273) of the respondent group; 42.6% (203) were female. Additionally, 58.2% reported that they were single, and 41.4% listed themselves as “married.” Regarding educational level, the largest group consisted of those who were in or had finished “junior college” (32.4%). The second largest group had attended “college or university” (29.8%), and the third largest group had finished “high school” (24.2%). A full 70.8% of the respondents had a junior college or higher educational degree. The breakdown of respondents according to age group is shown in Table 1. The largest categories were the “25 and less” and “26 to 35 year old” age groups, 38.4% and 31.9% respectively The smallest group was the “66 and over” age range. 50 Age Group Frequency % 25 and less 183 38.4 26-35 152 31.9 36-45 77 16.2 46-55 41 8.6 56-65 15 3.2 66 and over 8 1.7 Total 476 100 0 Table 1. Age Group Distribution of Respondents Respondents’ personal monthly income is shown in Table 2. Over two thirds (72.3%) of the respondents reported a monthly income of under $1481 (NTS 40,000). More than 37% had monthly incomes under $741; 34.7% reported their income to be in $741 - $1,481 range, and 15.3% earned between $1,481 - $2,222 per month. Approximately 7% of the total sample reported their income as between $2,222 - $2,963, and 5.7% listed their income as above $2,963. 51 Monthly Income Frequency % Less Than $741 179 37.6 (NT$20,000) $741 -$1,481 165 34.7 (NTS20,000-NT$40,000) $1,481 - $2,222 73 15.3 (NT$40,001-NT$60,000) $2,222 - $2,963 32 6.7 (NT$60,001 -NT$80,000) Above $2,963 27 5.7 (NT$80,001) Total 476 100.0 Table 2. Monthly Income of Respondents Table 3 illustrates the occupational breakdown of the respondents. The largest percentage listed “student” (34.9%) as their occupation. The second largest occupational group was “Military, Government OflScial or Educator” (19.1%), followed by “professional” (14.5%), and “business person” (13.9%). Only 1.3% were “retired”. 52 Occupation Frequency % Student 166 34.9 Military, Government OfBcial, Educator 91 19.1 Professional 69 14.5 Business Person 66 13.9 Laborer 30 6.3 Homemaker 25 5.3 Other 12 2.5 Farmer, Fisherman 11 2.3 Retired 6 1.3 Total 476 100.0 Table 3. Occupation of Respondents Vacationers’ Behavioral Patterns The survey data contained significant variation in terms of vacationers’ participation rates in coastal recreation and tourism. Most respondents listed the primary reason for visiting the beach resorts in Kenting National Park as “holiday” (77.5%). The data further revealed that 10.7% were there for a “school or educational excursion”. Only a very small percentage (2.3%) of the sample visited for business reasons or a 53 conference/seminar. A summary of primary reasons for visiting Kenting National Park is provided in Table 4. Reasons for Visiting Frequency % Holiday 369 77.5 School or Educational Excursion 51 10.7 Other 33 6.9 To Visit Friends or Relatives 12 2.5 Business 10 2.1 Conference or Seminar 1 0.2 Total 476 100.0 Table 4. Primary Reasons for Visiting Kenting National Park Length of stay The majority of respondents (62.0%) planned to stay at Kenting National Park for 2-4 days. More than 25% intended to stay for one night, and 10.9% of the respondents were only there on a day trip. Only 1.7% of the respondents indicated that they planned to stay 5 nights or more. 54 Previous Visits to Kenting National Park The results indicated that 78.2% of the respondents were repeat visitors. In contrast, 21.8% were visiting Kenting National Park for the first time. Group Composition and Size As seen in Table 5, the majority of respondents came to Kenting National Park with "friends" (46.4%). More than 22% came with their “family”, and 14.7% reported they were with both “family and fiiends.” Only 1.7% of all respondents came to Kenting National Park alone. In reference to group size (Table 6), the largest category (41.0%) was “3 to 5 people.” More than 28% reported a group size of “more than 10 people”; 16.8% came with a group of “6 to 10 people”, and 12.2% came with one other person. Only 1.5% of all respondents were visiting Kenting National Park alone. 55 Group Composition Frequency % Friends 221 46.4 Family 107 22.5 Family and friends 70 14.7 Other 48 10.1 Organized club or group 22 4.6 Individual 8 1.7 Total 476 100.0 Table 5. Group Composition Group Size Frequency % 3 to 5 people 195 41.0 More than 10 people 136 28.6 6 to 10 people 80 16.8 2 people 58 12.2 1 person 7 1.5 Total 476 100.0 Table 6. Group Size 56 Type of Accommodation Responses to this item are shown in Table 7. Approximately 28% of the visitors stayed in a “local guesthouse”. The second largest category was a tie between “medium priced hotel” and “all inclusive resort hotel”, 20.2% and 20.0% respectively. Approximately 15% listed “other” as their type of accommodation, while 10.9% stayed in a “condominium”. Only 5.9% of the visitors indicated that they either stayed in a “cottage or villa” or “club” Type of Accommodation Frequency % Local guesthouse 133 27.9 Medium price hotel 96 20.2 All inclusive resort hotel 95 20.0 Other 72 15.1 Condominium 52 10.9 Cottage or villa 17 3.6 Club 11 2.3 Total 476 100.0 Table 7. Type of Accommodation 57 Principal Mode of Transportation Table 8 shows that the majority (53.8%) of respondents used a “car” as their principal mode of transportation. The second largest group came on a “sightseeing bus” (17.4%). Approximately 10% came by “motorcycle” while 10% flew to Kenting National Park, 5.9% took the train, and 2.9% came by bus. Principal Mode of Transportation Frequency % Car 256 53.8 Sightseeing bus 83 17.4 Motorcycle 48 10.1 Air 47 9.9 Train 28 5.9 Bus 14 2.9 Total 476 100.0 Table 8. Principal Mode of Transportation 58 Mode of Booking The results indicated that the majority (80.9%) of respondents purchased transportation and accommodation services separately. In contrast, all inclusive charter tours (TTC), which include accommodation and transportation, were used by 19 .1% of the vacationers. Section 2: Results of Research Objectives The following will present the results of data analysis as they relate to the six objectives of this study. Results of Objective 1 Objective 1 : To determine relationships between demographic characteristics and visitors’ motivations for going on beach vacations. Respondents were asked to rate their motivation for going on a beach vacation according to a 5 point scale, with 5 being “extremely important”; 4 “very important”; 3 “moderately important”; 2 “slightly important”; and 1 “not at all important”. The eight most frequently cited reasons for taking a beach vacation were; 1) to be close to nature 2) to release tension and anxieties 3) to give my mind a rest 4) to enjoy the sight, sound and smell of nature 5) to obtain a feeling of harmony with nature 59 6) to view the scenery 7) to forget the pressures of my daily work 8) to learn more about nature All of the above eight items scored higher than 3 .9 on a 5 point Likert-type scale. This study used principal component factoring with varimax rotation. Varimax rotation was used because fector rotation maximizes the loadings (Lawley & Maxwell, 1971). Additionally, component analysis only retained the factors considered significant, that is, factors having eigenvalues greater than one (Hair et. al., 1979). The Kaiser- Meyer-OIkin (KMO) value was used to test the suitability of factor analysis (SPSS, 1997). For the motivation variables in this study, the KMO had a suitable value of .86010. Kaiser (1974) indicated that .5 KMO value is the line of demarcation for determining the appropriate technique for factor analysis. Therefore the results presented here were suitable to proceed with factor analysis. Factor analysis grouped the 32 motivation items into six major categories named. (1) challenge; (2) relationship with nature; (3) social contact; (4) relaxation; (5) curiosity; and (6) family togetherness. The REP scales have been grouped into domains (e.g. challenge and relationship with nature), and scale items were assigned to each factor based on which domains each factor fell into (Manfi'edo et al., 1996). Each category had an eigenvalue greater than 1.00, and in combination, they accounted for 55.5% of the explained variance. The criterion for factor loading was a factor score of .3. The results of the factor loading for the motivation statements are shown in Table 9. 60 MOTIVATION STATEMENTS Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Challenge Nilure Social Relaxation Curiosity Family To show olhm I can do it ,82417 .05256 .17562 .09221 .03814 11802 To gain a sente of self confidence 8t)946 .13497 .13524 .15650 .00679 .12921 To keep physically fit .79527 .06738 .07319 .11956 .02874 08104 1'o test my abilities and skills .58544 .04929 .24459 .10860 .34095 .14342 To experience new challenges .56076 .14074 .10101 .21678 .48281 -.23239 To experience a sense of discovery .54140 .23451 .22635 .06818 .18220 12731 To be close to nature -.00493 .77553 .04522 .18523 .06885 .04947 To enjoy the sight, sound and smell of nature .19132 .71834 .01185 .11100 .13523 .03906 To learn more about nature .19449 .71495 .06717 .10426 .14880 .12240 To otaain a feeling of harmony with nature .19760 .69126 .12929 .23730 -.00319 .19827 To view the scenery -.04081 65265 -.07702 .08115 .27208 -.11032 To talk to new and difierent people .21278 -.09859 .71949 -.04063 .22129 .14632 To be with friends .00974 .16227 .71749 .07050 .02340 -.29528 To be with people having similar interests .14970 .14651 .70728 .11504 -.00628 -.32431 To meet new people .31452 -.02911 .66338 .03786 .11993 .25667 To share what I have teamed with others .41232 .21104 .48945 -.06867 .13001 .23203 To forget the pressures of my daily work .17765 .14960 -.01953 .68778 .06770 .09824 To release tension ind anxieties .11059 .39522 .01192 .67694 .14721 -.02568 To have a change of routine .07691 .07353 -.02024 .67070 .08757 14342 To be away from others -.00599 .10351 .07128 .61060 .08201 -.06274 To give my mind a rest .18830 44577 .12693 .56383 .05326 .04500 To be on your own .18968 -.07418 .35319 J6508 .00295 .14856 Continued on next page Table 9. Factor Analysis Results of Motivation Items Table 9 (Continued) MOTIVATION STATCMRNTS Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Fador 5 Fador 6 Challenge Nature Social Relaxation Curiosity Family To satisfy my curiosity .04701 ,11651 -04185 -07779 .69767 -08996 To experience santi^ beaches -.09844 ,31623 ,10651 ,08788 .57468 ,05519 To have thrills and excitement .47814 06)83 12135 ,20788 .56756 -23947 To surf ,01217 -11751 ,35305 ,18237 .49405 ,22818 To tell cxhcrs about your trip ,30204 ,15785 ,22810 ,01216 .47978 ,24228 S To do something creative such as photography ,27876 ,18553 -08260 ,16905 .43038 ,04874 To know what to expect when you visit ,14102 ,19866 ,19885 ,27711 .41802 ,16000 To use your leisure equipment ,20760 ,02216 ,12203 ,29694 .37726 ,20340 To do something with my family ,14656 ,11124 -04459 ,11854 ,06830 .80705 To do what your children wanted you to do ,14628 ,12377 ,02996 ,10827 ,04913 .75632 Factor means* 2,61 4,12 2,68 2,48 3,42 2,53 Factor standard delation 1,12 ,79 1,14 1,01 112 1,4 Cronbach's alpha ,854 ,821 ,766 ,702 ,721 733 Eigenvalue 8,106 2,961 2,023 1,616 1,541 1,520 Percent of variance explained 25,3 9,3 6,3 5,0 4.8 4,8 Cumulative variance explained 25,3 34,5 40,9 46,0 50,8 55,5 • Means ranged from " 1 " to "5" with " I " representing "nrt at all important" and "5" representing "extremely important", The mean and standard deviation of the six categories were calculated by using the raw scores of the factors which comprised each category. Table 10 shows that “relationship with nature” was most important to the respondents. Relaxation had the lowest mean score of 2.48. Factor Mean Std. Dev. 2. Relationship with Nature 4.12 0.79 5. Curiosity 3.42 1.12 3. Social Contact 2.68 1.14 1. Challenge 2.61 1.12 6. Family Togetherness 2.53 1.40 4. Relaxation 2.48 1.01 Table 10. Means and Standard Deviation of Motivating Factors for Going on Beach Vacations The following is a description and overview of the results for each category. Factor 1 : Challenge Six items were loaded on this factor, accounting for 25.3% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 8.11). This factor referred to responses which focused on “experiencing a sense of discovery” and “challenge” as reasons why people go to the beach. This factor 63 had a moderate mean of 2.61 and a standard deviation of 1.12, indicating a moderate range of agreement in the responses. The hem “to experience new challenges”, however, also had a high loading (.48) in the curiosity dimension. This is logical because challenge implies adventure. Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .85. Factor 2: Relationship with Nature This factor was comprised of five items and accounted for 9.3% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 2.96). All five items related to “relationship with nature” and included; “to be close to nature”, “to enjoy the sight, sound, and smell of nature”, “to learn more about nature”, “to obtain a feeling of harmony with nature”, and “to view the scenery”. This factor had a mean of 4.12, which indicated it was the most important motivation. This domain also exhibited the lowest standard deviation ( 79), indicating the greatest amount of agreement among the whole sample. Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .82. Factor 3: Social Contact The five items loaded on this factor accounted for 4.8% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 2.02). The items focused on “social contact” and included: “ to talk to new and different people”, “to be with fiiends”, “to be with people having similar interests”, “to meet new people”, and “to share what I have learned with others”. This factor had a “slightly high importance” with a mean of 2.68 and a relatively high standard deviation of 1.14, indicating that respondents agree less on the importance of this domain. Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .77. 64 Factor 4. Relaxation Six items loaded on this factor accounted for 5.0% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 1.62). This factor related to “relaxation” and included: “to forget the pressures of my daily work”, “to release tension and anxieties”, “to have a change of routine”, “to be away from others”, “to give my mind a rest”, and “to be on your own”. This domain had the lowest mean (2.48). The standard deviation was also low (1.01) reflecting relatively little disagreement in responses. Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .70. Factor 5: Curiositv The eight items loaded on this factor referred to “satis^ng personal curiosity” — : “to satisfy my curiosity”, “to experience sandy beaches”, “to have thrills and excitement”, “to surf’, “to tell others about your trip”, “to do something creative such as photography”, “to know what to expect when you visit” and “to use your leisure equipment”. It accounted for 4.8% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 1.54). This factor was “moderately important” with a mean of 3 .42 and a relatively high standard deviation of 1.12, indicating a moderate range of agreement in the responses. Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .72. Factor 6: Family Togetherness The two items loaded on this factor referred to family togetherness. Items included “to do something with my family” and “to do what your children wanted you to do”. This factor accounted for 4.8% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 1.52). This dimension 65 had a mean of 2.53, which meant it was between “slightly important” and “moderately important”. This domain also had the highest standard deviation (1.4), which indicated that vacationers had the least amount of agreement regarding this domain. Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .73. Relationship between Demographic Variables and Motivatiing Factors for Going on Beach Vacations As discussed in Chapter 3, ANOVA was used to determine statistically significant differences (p < .05). Then, a Tukey’s multiple comparison test was conducted to determine which means were significantly different from one another. The results revealed that “Nature” (Factor 2), “Social Contact” (Factor 3), and “Curiosity” (Factor 5) were significantly related to gender (Table 11). A significant difference was found between the mean scores of males and females for three factors. In all cases, males had significantly higher scores than females. 66 Factor df MS Frado Prob(F) Factor I 1 94.40 3.69 .06 Factor 2 1 41.70 4.53 .03 Factor 3 1 229.26 14.04 .00 Factor 4 1 37.22 2.39 .12 Factor 5 1 128.98 4.66 .03 Factor 6 1 18.87 2.92 .09 Table 11. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Gender “Social Contact” (Factor 3), “Curiosity” (Factor 5), and ‘Tamily Togetherness” (Factor 6) were significantly related to age (Table 12). Age was found to have no significant relationship with “Challenge”, “Relationship with Nature”, or “Relaxation”. A Tukey multiple comparison analysis was performed for the three factors which showed statistically significant levels of difference (p < .05). The analysis revealed that for “Social Contact” (Factor 3), younger beach vacationers (“25 or less”) had a significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than older ones (“26 to 35”, “36 to 45”, and “56-65”). For “Curiosity”, younger beach vacationers (“26 to 35”) had a significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than older ones (“46 to 55” and “56 to 65”). 67 Within the ‘Tamily Togetherness” domain, these in the youngest age group (“25 or less”) had significantly lower motivations for going on beach vacationers than all other groups. Respondents in the “36 to 45” and “45 to 55” age ranges had significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than their younger counterparts (“26 to 35”). Those between the ages of “36 to 45” had significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than older vacationers (“46 to 55”). Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 5 23.65 0.92 .47 Factor 2 5 19.54 2.13 .06 Factor 3 5 78.30 4.86 .00 Factor 4 5 25.88 1.67 .14 Factor 5 5 90.18 3.31 .01 Factor 6 5 155.56 31.70 .00 Table 12. ANOVA Summary; Factor Responses for Age The following section explains the results of the one-way analysis of variance used to test the relationship between marital status and motivating factors for going on beach vacation. Three factors, “Relationship with Nature” (Factor 2), “Social Contact” (Factor 3), and ‘Tamily Togetherness” (Factor 6) were significantly related to marital status 68 (Table 13). However, for “Relationship with Nature”, no two groups showed significant difference at the .05 level. Marital status was found to have a significant relationship to “Social Contact”; beach vacationers who are “single” had significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than married persons. For “Family Togetherness”, beach vacationers who were married had a significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than their single counterparts. Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 2 24.07 0.94 .39 Factor 2 2 45.60 5.00 .01 Factor 3 2 107.37 6.55 .00 Factor 4 2 31.80 2.04 .13 Factor 5 2 7.43 0.27 ,77 Factor 6 2 551.11 131.62 .00 Table 13. ANOVA Summary; Factor Responses for Marital Status Educational level was shown to be significantly related to three factors: “Social Contact” (Factor 3), “Relaxation” (Factor 4), and “Curiosity” (Factor 5) (Table 14). Again, a Tukey multiple comparison analysis was performed for all three factors. 69 The results indicate that for “social contact,” beach vacationers with the educational level of “high school” had significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than those with an educational level of “elementary/junior high school” and “graduate school”, and those with an educational level of “college/university” had a significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than those who had completed “graduate school”. For “Relaxation” (Factor 4), beach vacationers with higher educational levels (“high school”, “junior college”, or “college/university”) had significantly greater motivation for going on beach vacations than those with a lower educational level (“elementary/junior high school”). Finally, in the “Curiosity” domain (Factor 5), visitors with higher educational levels (“high school”, “junior college”, or “graduate school”) had significantly greater motivation for going on beach vacations than those with a lower educational level (“elementary^unior high school”). 70 Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 4 59.06 2.32 .06 Factor 2 4 6.92 0.74 .56 Factor 3 4 86.84 5.37 .00 Factor 4 4 45.59 2.96 .02 Factor 5 4 96.62 3.54 .01 Factor 6 4 2.67 0.41 .80 Table 14. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Educational Level Monthly income exhibited a significant relationship with four domains; “Relationship with Nature” (Factor 2), “Social Contact” (Factor 3), “Relaxation” (Factor 4), and ‘Tamily Togetherness” (Factor 6) (Table 15). Regarding “Relationship with Nature” (Factor 2), beach vacationers with a moderate monthly income (“$1,481 to $2,222”) had significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than those with a lower monthly income (“less than $741”). There were no other pairs of group means that showed significant difference. For “Social Contact” (Factor 3), beach vacationers with a moderate monthly income (“$741 to $1,481”) had higher motivation for going on beach vacations than those with higher monthly incomes (“$1,481 to $2,222” or “above $2,963”), and those with a 71 lower monthly income (“less than $741”) had significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than those with higher monthly incomes (“$1,481 to $2,222” or “above $2,963”). With respect to “Relaxation” (Factor 4), beach vacationers with a moderate monthly income (“$741 to 1,481”) were more likely to go on beach vacations than those with lower monthly incomes (“less than $741”). The pattern was the same for “Relationship with Nature”. Only one pair of group means revealed significant difference. Significant difference was found for the relationship between monthly income and “Family Togetherness” (Factor 6). Beach vacationers with higher monthly incomes (“$741 to $1,481”, ”$1,481 to $2,222”, “$2,222 to $2,963” or “above $2,963”) were more likely to go on beach vacations than those with lower monthly incomes (“less than $741”). Further, those with higher monthly incomes (“$1,481 to $2,222”, “$2,222 to $2,963”, or “above $2,963”) had significantly higher motivation than those with a moderate monthly income (“$741 to $1,481”). 72 Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 4 16.96 0.66 .62 Factor 2 4 31.41 3.45 .01 Factor 3 4 100.65 6.27 .00 Factor 4 4 68.57 4.51 .00 Factor 5 4 8.94 0.32 .87 Factor 6 4 116.80 21.01 .00 Table 15. ANOVA Summary; Factor Responses for Monthly Income Table 16 illustrates that occupational status varied systematically with “Social Contact” (Factor 3), “Relaxation” (Factor 4), and “Family Togetherness” (Factor 6). However, in factors 3 and 4, no two group means exhibited significant difference at the .05 level. Visitors with higher scores on “Family Togetherness” (Factor 6) tended to have high socioeconomic status/occupational attainment. A Tukey multiple comparison analysis revealed that beach vacationers in the occupational categories of “military, government oflScial, educator”, “laborer”, “business person”, “professional”, “homemaker”, and “other” had significantly higher motivation mean scores than those 73 who were “students”. Beach vacationers in the occupational category of “homemaker” had significantly higher motivation than those who listed themselves as “professionals”. Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 8 37.07 1.45 .17 Factor 2 8 8.75 0.94 .48 Factor 3 8 39.28 2.40 .02 Factor 4 8 35.80 2.34 .02 Factor 5 8 53.00 1.93 .05 Factor 6 8 63.55 11.52 .00 Table 16. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Occupation Table 17 illustrates “social contact” had a significant relationship with whether or not respondents had visited Renting National Park previously. However, no pairs of group means showed statistical différence. 74 Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 1 54.49 2.12 .15 Factor 2 1 8.65 0.93 .33 Factor 3 1 291.84 18.02 .00 Factor 4 1 39.11 2.51 .11 Factor 5 I 14.05 0.50 .48 Factor 6 1 21.19 3.28 .07 Table 17. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Visitation to Renting National Park Table 18 presents the relationship between “length of stay at Renting National Park” and two factors, “Curiosity” (Factor 5) and ‘Tamily Togetherness” (Factor 6). “Curiosity” (Factor 5) had a strong relationship to length of stay. That is, vacationers with higher scores on the Curiosity factor tended to spend more time on vacation, i.e., vacationers who spent “2 to 4 nights” had significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than those who spent “0 nights”. For “Family Togetherness” (Factor 6), results of the Tukey multiple comparison analysis also showed that beach vacationers who spent “1 night”, “2 to 4 nights”, or “5 or more nights” had significantly higher motivation than those who spent “0 nights”. 75 Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 3 5.38 0.21 .89 Factor 2 3 21.10 2.29 .08 Factor 3 3 41.15 2.48 .06 Factor 4 3 27.48 1.77 .15 Factor 5 3 130.17 4.78 .00 Factor 6 3 27.58 4.33 .01 Table 18. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Length of Stay in Renting National Park Results showed that “Challenge” (Factor 1), “Social Contact” (Factors 3), “Relaxation” (Factor 4), “Curiosity” (Factor 5), and “Family Togetherness” (Factor 6) were significantly related to “vacation at beach resorts at least once a year”. Importantly, the relationship between whether respondents vacationed at Renting National Park on a yearly basis and 5 of the 6 factors was significant. These results are summarized in Table 19. 76 Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 1 411.95 16.54 .00 Factor 2 1 29.53 3.20 .07 Factor 3 1 450.24 28.40 .00 Factor 4 1 65.98 4.25 .04 Factor 5 1 221.36 8.06 .00 Factor 6 1 184.86 30.20 .00 Table 19. ANOVA Summary; Factor Responses for Yearly Vacations at Renting National Park Results of Objective 2 Objectivez. To determine the relationship between demographic characteristics and visitors’ setting preferences, i.e., the physical/biological, managerial, and social characteristics of a site This section focuses on reasons why visitors selected certain site(s) for their beach vacations. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of physical, biological, social, and managerial aspects of beach resorts and beach areas, and beach resort related attributes for choosing the beach site visited on the trip. 77 For site attributes variables in this study, the KMO had a suitable value of .90587. Therefore, the results presented here were suitable for proceeding with factor analysis. Results of the factor analysis grouped the 25 attributes into five major categories; Factor 1: Site Facilities Factor 2: Nature/Convenience Factor 3: Access/Convenience Factor 4: Solitude Factor 5: New Site Each category had an eigenvalue greater than 1.00, and in combination, they accounted for 52.7% of the explained variance. The criterion for factor loading was a factor score of .30. The results of the factor loading for the site attributes statements are shown in Table 20 . Means and Standard Deviation of Factors The mean and standard deviation of the five factors were calculated by using the raw scores of factor items. Table 21 shows that “Nature/Convenience” was most important (3.82) to the respondents. “Access/Convenience” had the lowest mean score of 2.15. 78 sm - A n RimrrEs statf-m e n i s Factor I Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Facilhy Nature Access Solitude New she Facilities are available for large groups .75880 .02356 .11541 -.15220 .15414 To experience safety Imowingtliat the area is patrolled by lifeguards .72620 .17649 .16815 .14970 .03040 Fitter facilities are it the she .70837 .06436 .22173 .14534 .01576 Information signs about the area are on she .65877 .36613 -.08231 .11024 .01319 Facilities are available for children .65165 .01289 .29362 -.15153 .20548 There are shady trees at the she .64909 .33472 .04947 .17170 .03316 There are safe/secire facilhies for people and vehicles .62414 .23016 .27277 .12728 .09659 Restroom, campshes, picnic tables, etc., are available 53150 .17878 .25857 .27064 .08430 Bathroom, changing rooms, or showers, etc., are available .46563 .41317 .10003 .43473 .03208 Parking lots, troal launches, etc., are available .41978 .40930 .34529 .17226 -.17519 Wildlife appears close to the she .41695 .14877 -.10135 .33537 .32218 The she has scenic treauty and wilderness ■ 00660 .72945 -.01305 .07748 -.04003 The sea water is clean and unpolluted .19136 .65577 .04452 .18053 .16246 Warm, sunny, and favorable weather .2)969 .61963 -.04164 .11253 .08198 To experience peace and calm ,20344 .56530 .27983 -.17666 .28752 The she is convenient to get to .28464 .44369 .42317 .03942 .10818 The length of the trip is suhabte for my schedule ,34549 J8331 .01416 .31568 .13691 1 am familiar whh the she .06082 .03043 .75578 .01157 .16896 The she is dose to my homeAvork .19717 -.14933 .64964 .29903 .05784 There are commercial outfittcrs or organized groups .29328 .09696 .58562 .06204 .13339 My companions warned to go there .1)199 -.03898 J4990 .18561 .32547 Continued on next page Table 20. Factor Analysis Results of Site Attributes Items Table 2(1 (Continued) SITE ATTRimrreS s t a t e m e n t s Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Facility Nature Access Solitude New she Itio site only has a small number of other beach vacationers i:8S8 .17040 .09954 .70365 .05390 A friend suggested that I go there -.01876 .04968 .33562 .50375 .12738 The site is far away from my homeAvork .09712 .12787 .20722 -.04068 .74207 I have never vacatintcd there before 01953 .07354 ,10553 .41359 .64681 § Factor means* 323 3.82 2.15 2.65 2.70 Factor standard deviation 1.22 .99 I.IO I I I 1.29 Cronbach's alpha .883 .713 .620 .400 .498 Eigenvalue 7.504 1.893 1.577 1.154 1.045 Percent of variance explained 30.0 7.6 6.3 4.6 4.2 Cumulative variance explained 30.0 37.6 43,9 48.5 52.7 Note. • Means ranged from "I "to “5" whh "I" representing "not at all important " and representing "extremely important". Factor Mean Std. Dev. 2. Nature/Convenience 3.82 0.99 1. Site Facilities 3.23 1.22 5. New Site 2.70 1.29 4. Solitude 2.65 1.11 3. Access/Convenience 2.15 1.10 Table 21. Means and Standard Deviation of Attributing Factors for Choosing Beach Resort Sites Factor 1; Site Facilities Eleven items were loaded on to the Site Facilities factor, and accounted for 30.0% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 7.50). This factor had a mean of 3.23, and a relatively high standard deviation (1.22) which indicated it was between “moderately important" and “very important”. This factor referred to responses which focused on beach resort facilities. Items included ; ‘Tacilities are available for large groups”, “To experience safety knowing that the area is patrolled by lifeguards”, “Litter facilities are at the she”, “There are shady trees at the site”, “There are safe/secure facilities for people and vehicles”, “Restrooms , campsites, picnic tables, etc., are available”, “Bathrooms, changing rooms, or showers, 81 etc., are available”, “Parking lots, boat launches, etc., are available”, and “Wildlife appears close to the she”. Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .88. Factor 2: Nature/Convenience This fector was comprised of six hems and accounted for 7.6% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 1.89). This factor was labeled as “Nature/Convenience” because the hems referred both to a she’s natural attributes (beauty, water, weather) and to a site’s convenience (easy to get to, suhable for my schedule). This factor had a mean of 3.82 which indicated it was the most important she attribute. This domain also displayed the lowest standard deviation (.99), which indicated the greatest amount of agreement among the whole sample. Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .71. Factor 3: Access/Convenience The four items loaded on this factor pertained to “access/convenience”. This factor was labeled “Access/Convenience” because the hems reflected issues of access (i.e., distance and the presence of commercial tours) as well how easy h was to choose this vacation site (fiiends wanted to go; the she was familiar, etc.). Items included “I am familiar whh the she”, “The site is close to my home/work”, “There are commercial outfitters and organized groups”, and “My companions wanted to go there”. This factor accounted for 6.3% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 1.58). This factor had the lowest mean (2.15) and standard deviation (1.10) which indicates that the respondents agreed on the low importance of this attribute. Cronbach’s alpha for this fector was .62. 82 Factor 4: Solitude The two factors loaded on this factor accounted for 4.6% of the variance (Eigenvalue =1.15). This factor related to “solitude” and included; “The site only has a small number of other beach vacationers” and “A friend suggested that I go there”. This factor had a mean of 2.65, and a relatively high standard deviation of 1.11, which indicated it was between “slightly important” and “moderately important. Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .40. Site Factor 5: New Site The two items loaded on this factor were “The site is far away fi'ora my home/work” and “I have never vacationed there before.” The factor accounted for 4.2% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 1.05). It had a mean of 2.70, and the highest standard deviation (1.29) which indicated that respondents had the least amount of agreement regarding this domain. Cronbach’s alpha for this factor was .50. Relationship between Demographic Variables and Site Attribute Factors for Choosing Beach Resort Sites The findings presented in Table 22 demonstrate that only gender had a significant relationship with “Site Facilities” (Factor 1 ). However, the remaining output showed no pairs of group means with significant diflference at the .05 level. 83 Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor I 1 1150.51 14.30 .00 Factor 2 1 31.28 2.11 .15 Factor 3 1 30.78 3.41 .07 Factor 4 1 1.64 0.54 .46 Factor 5 1 0.52 0.12 .73 Table 22. ANOVA Summary. Factor Responses for Gender As can be seen in Table 23, age had a significant relationship with “Site Facilities’ (Factor 1), “Nature/Convenience” (Factor 2), and “Access/Convenience” (Factor 3). For “Site Facilities” (Factor 1 ), the results indicated that older beach vacationers (“26 to 35”, “36 to 45”, or “46 to 55”) had significantly higher setting preferences for choosing beach resort sites than younger ones (“25 or less”). Regarding “Nature/Convenience” (Factor 2), younger beach vacationers (in the “25 years old or less”) showed statistically significant difference from the other age groups. That is, older beach vacationers (“26 to 35” and ‘36 to 45”) had significantly higher setting preferences for choosing beach resort sites than younger (“25 years old or less”) category. 84 Age also had a statistically significant relationship with the “Access/Convenience’ (Factor 3). Older beach vacationers (“46 to 55” and “66 and over”) had significantly higher setting preferences than those in the “56 to 65” category. Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 5 554.94 7.15 .00 Factor 2 5 54.85 3.79 .00 Factor 3 5 27.72 3.13 .01 Factor 4 5 4.19 1.38 .23 Factor 5 5 2.85 0.64 .67 Table 23. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Age The data in Table 24 indicates that “Site Facilities” (Factor 1) and “Nature/Convenience” (Factor 2) were significantly related to marital status. Regarding “Site Facilities” (Factor 1), beach vacationers who were married tended toward higher setting preferences than those who were single. The same relationship was foimd for “Nature/Convenience” (Factor 2). 85 Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 2 1432.72 18.62 .00 Factor 2 2 89.26 6.12 .00 Factor 3 2 15.49 1.72 .18 Factor 4 2 4.83 1.59 .21 Factor 5 2 2.07 0.47 .63 Table 24. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Marital Status Educational level exhibited a significant relationship to “Access/Convenience” (Factor 3) and “New Site” (Factor 5). This is illustrated in Table 25. The relationship between educational level and Access/Convenience appeared to vary with vacationers. Beach vacationers with the educational level of “high school” tended toward higher setting preferences than those with the educational level of “elementary/junior high school” or “graduate school”. For “New Site” (Factor 5), those who had completed “high school” or “junior college” tended to have higher setting preferences than those with the educational level of “elementary/junior high school”. 86 Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor I 4 174.34 2.13 .08 Factor 2 4 69.66 1.17 .32 Factor 3 4 34.21 3.87 .00 Factor 4 4 4.68 1.54 .19 Factor 5 4 10.91 2.50 .04 Table 25. ANOVA Summary; Factor Responses for Educational Level Table 26 summarizes the relationship between monthly income and each factor. “Site Facilities” (Factor 1), ‘'Nature/Convenience” (Factor 2), and “Access/Convenience” (Factor 3) were significantly related to monthly income. For “Site Facilities” (Factor 1 ), vacationers with monthly incomes of “$741 to $1,481”, “51,481 to $2,222”, or “$2,222 to $2,963” placed significantly more importance on site facilities than did those who monthly incomes were “less than $741”. Similar results were found within the “Nature/Convenience” (Factor 2): beach vacationers with monthly incomes of “$741 to $1,481”, “$1,481 to $2,222”, or “$2,222 to $2,963” had significantly higher setting preferences than those with monthly incomes of “less than $741”. 87 Regarding “Access/Convenience” (Factor 3), beach vacationers with monthly incomes of “$741 to $1,481” had a higher mean value than those with monthly incomes of “less than $741” Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 4 553.33 7.03 .00 Factor 2 4 80.79 5.64 .00 Factor 3 4 33.98 3.84 .00 Factor 4 4 1.39 0.45 .77 Factor 5 4 10.32 2.36 .05 Table 26. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Monthly Income Occupational status was significantly related to four factors: “Site Facilities” (Factor 1), “Nature/Convenience” (Factor 2), “Access/Convenience” (Factor 3), and “New Site” (Factor 5). Table 27 illustrates these results. However, for factor 3, no two groups showed significant difference at the .05 level. For “Site Facilities” (Factor 1), a Tukey multiple comparison analysis revealed that beach vacationers in four occupational groups (“military, government official, educator”, “business person”, “professional”, and “homemaker”) had significantly higher setting preferences than those who were “students”. In Factor 2, “Nature/Convenience”, beach 88 vacationers who listed their occupation as “military, government o£5cial, educator” or “professional” had significantly higher setting preferences for choosing beach resort sites than those who were in the “farmer or fisherman” category. For “New Site” (Factor 5), a clear trend emerged; vacationers in the “professional” category had higher means than those in the “farmer or fisherman” category. Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor I 8 351.48 4.50 .00 Factor 2 8 46.23 3.22 .00 Factor 3 8 22.22 2.52 .01 Factor 4 8 4.05 1.33 .22 Factor 5 8 11.96 2.79 .01 Table 27. ANOVA Summary; Factor Responses for Occupation This study also asked questions designed to uncover vacationers’ behavioral patterns. Table 28 illustrates that “Length of Stay at Kenting National Park” was significantly related to “Site Facilities” (Factor 1), “Nature/Convenience” (Factor 2), “Access/Convenience” (Factor 3), and “Solitude” (Factor 4). For the “Site Facilities” factor, the results indicated that beach vacationers who spent “ 1 night” or “2 to 4 nights” tended to have higher setting preference than those who 89 did not stay overnight. In contrast, less experienced visitors preferred to take quick and easy trips. Similarly, in regard to “Nature/Convenience” (Factor 2), the results revealed that beach vacationers who spent “ 1 night” or “2 to 4 nights” had significantly higher setting preferences than those who spent “0 nights”. For “Access/Convenience” (Factor 3), the results revealed that beach vacationers who spent “ 1 night” had significantly higher setting preferences than those who spent “2 to 4 nights”. Similarly, with regard to “Solitude” (Factor 4), beach vacationers who spent “ 1 night” had significantly higher setting preferences than those who spent “2 to 4 nights”. Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 3 529.54 6.63 .00 Factor 2 3 60.66 4.15 .01 Factor 3 3 23.63 2.64 .04 Factor 4 3 8.36 2.77 .04 Factor 5 3 2.65 0.60 .62 Table 28. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Length of Stay in Renting National Park An examination of the relationship between fi’equency of vacations at Kenting National Park and site attribute factors revealed that “Site Facilities” (Factor 1), 90 “Access/Convenience” (Factors 3), “Solitude” (Factor 4), and “New Site” (Factor 5) were significantly related to whether respondents visited Kenting National Park at least once a year (Table 29). However, there were no pairs of means that were significantly different at the .05 level. Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor I 1 523.02 6.40 .01 Factor 2 1 50.00 3.37 .07 Factor 3 I 399.34 48.51 .00 Factor 4 1 43.60 14.71 .00 Factor 5 I 47.06 10.88 .00 Table 29. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Yearly Vacations at Beach Resorts In order to check the relationship between the number of trips to Kenting National Park and site attribute factors for choosing beach resort sites, a one-way ANOVA was used. Appropriate multivariate tests were completed before these univariate tests were conducted. It is notable that only “Access/Convenience” (Factor 3) was significantly related to the number of trips respondents had taken to Kenting National Park over the last five 91 years (Table 30). This result is reasonable since access is the key determinant influencing recreationists’ decisions. Lastly, for “Access/Convenience” (Factor 3), a Tukey multiple comparison analysis revealed that beach vacationers who had visited Kenting National Park “2 to 4 times” or “5 or more times” over the last 5 years had significantly higher setting preferences for choosing beach resort sites than those who had never visited to Kenting National Park. Factor df MS Fratio Prob(F) Factor 1 3 82.51 1.00 .39 Factor 2 3 7.77 0.52 .67 Factor 3 3 33.59 3.77 .01 Factor 4 3 0.97 0.32 .81 Factor 5 3 5.31 1.20 .31 Table 30. ANOVA Summary: Factor Responses for Number of Trips to Kenting National Park Over the Last 5 Years 92 Results of Objective 3 Objective 3. To determine the relationship between beach vacationers’ motivations and the attributes of beach resort sites. The following section summarizes the relationship between beach vacationers’ motivations and the attributes of beach resort sites, in order to analyze if any significant relationships existed between this relationship, a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient ( r ) was computed between the total scores of motivations and attributes. The results revealed a positive correlation coefficient of 0.59 ( p = .000) between beach vacationers’ motivations and the attributes of beach resort sites. Results of Objective 4 Objective 4. To identify significant relationships between demographic variables and beach vacationers’ previous visits to the beach resort area in Kenting National Park. This section presents the results of the summarized relationships between beach vacationers’ previous visits to the beach resort area in Kenting National Park and demographic variables. Of the six demographic variables in Table 31, the Chi-Square analyses revealed that only “age” and “occupation” had a significant relationship to the variable “previous visits to Kenting National Park.” 93 Demographic Variables df Chi-Square Value P Gender 1 0.67 .41 Age 5 14.44 .01* Marital Status 2 4.88 .09 Educational Level 4 6.02 .20 Monthly Income 4 8.47 .08 Occupation 8 17.46 .03* Note. * Significant at the .05 alpha level Table 31. Relations Between Demographic Variables and Beach Vacationers’ Previous Visits to the Beach Resort Area in Kenting National Park Table 32 shows the general trend indicating most people had made previous visits to Kenting National Park before but the results did not reveal where the difiFerences are. The significant Chi-square was then further explored using Goodman’s Multiple Comparison Test to “ransack” the cross classified data (Christensen, 1985). No significant 2X2 interaction was found between groups of different ages and previous visits to the beach resort area in Kenting National Park. 94 Age Previous Visits Row Yes No Total 25 and less 136 47 183 143.0 40.0 38.4% 26-35 111 41 152 118.8 33.2 31.9% 36-45 66 11 77 60.2 16.8 16.2% 46- 55 38 3 41 32.0 9.0 8.6% 56 -65 13 2 15 11.7 3.3 3.2% 66 or above 8 0 8 6.3 1.7 1.7% Column 372 104 476 Total 78.2% 21.8% 100.0% Note. Chi-square = 14.44, 5 d.f. p = .01 Table 32. Frequency Distribution of Age by Visitors’ Previous Visits to the Beach Resort Area in Kenting National Park 95 Table 33 shows the general trend indicating most people had made previous visits to Kenting National Park before but the results did not reveal where the differences are. The significant Chi-square was then fiirther explored using Goodman’s Multiple Comparison Test to “ransack” the cross classified data (Christensen, 1985). No significant 2X2 interaction was found between groups o f different occupations and previous visits to the beach resort area in Kenting National Park. Occupation Previous Visits Row Yes No Total Student 122 44 166 129.7 36.3 34.9% Military, government official, educator 70 21 91 71.1 19.9 19.1% Farmer, fisherman 11 0 11 8.6 2.4 2.3% Continued on next page Table 33. Frequency Distribution of Occupation by Number of Previous Visits to the Beach Resort Area in Kenting National Park 96 Table 33 (Continued) Occupation Previous Visits Row Yes No Total Laborer 20 10 30 23.4 6.6 6.3% Business person 61 5 66 51.6 14.4 13.9% Professional 53 16 69 53.9 15.1 14.5% Homemaker 19 6 25 19.5 5.5 5.3% Retired 6 0 6 4.7 1.3 1.3% Other 10 2 12 9.4 2.6 2.5% Column 372 104 476 Total 78.2% 21 .8 % 100.0% Chi-square = 17.46, 8 d.f. p = .03 97 Results of Objective 5 Objective 5. To identify the major sources of information beach vacationers use to plan their trip to Kenting National Park. The major sources of information used by visitors are shown in Table 34. Almost one-third (31.9%) listed “Friends, family or acquaintances” as a significant source of information. The second most important source was visitors’ previous experience in the area (19.1%). Third were books about the area (15.1%), and fourth was the Kenting National Park Tourist Bureau (14.5%). The fifth most important source was “maps, brochures, or posters” (6.1%). 98 Major Sources of Information Rank % Friends, femily or acquaintances I 31.9 Previous experience in the area 2 19.1 Books about the area 3 15.1 Kenting National Park Tourist Bureau 4 14.5 Maps, brochures or posters 5 6.1 Other tourism enthusiasts 6 3.2 Magazines and newspapers 7 2.1 Schools or organized groups 7 2.1 Restaurant/hotel employees 8 1.9 Road signs 8 1.9 Other 8 1.9 Television or radio 9 0.2 Table 34. Sources of Information Most Frequently Used by Beach Vacationers for Planning Their Visit 99 Results o f Objective 6 Objective 6 . To determine which types of activities beach vacationers would like to participate in more frequently. Respondents were asked to “circle all those year-round activities you would like to participate in.” Typically, beach resorts offer the following year-round activities; swimming (indoor and outdoor), golf, tennis, boating, fishing, water sports, bicycling, horseback riding and entertainment. Table 35 shows that the most often-cited activity was “scenic viewing” (86.1%); the second most frequently mentioned activity was “swimming” (57.6%); the third “photography” (43.7%); the fourth was “picnicking/barbecuing” (34.9%), the fifth was a tie between “trail bike riding” (33.4%) and “collecting shells” (33.4%); the sixth was “nature study” (32.4%), and the seventh was “diving/snorkeling” (32.1%). 1 0 0 Activity Type % Scenic Viewing 86.1 Swimming 57.6 Photography 43.7 Picnicking or Barbecue 34.9 Trail Bike Riding 33.4 Collecting Shells 33.4 Nature Study 32.4 Diving or Snorkeling 32.1 Table 35. Activities Most Frequently Undertaken by Beach Vacationers 101 CHAPTERS DISCUSSION This chapter analyses the results in Chapter 4 in order to highlight several interesting issues for resort development research and to indicate certain areas requiring further research. Overall, the findings strongly suggest that Kenting National Park attracts resort visitors who are seeking to satisfy various needs influenced by psychological motives and individuals’ preferred attributes. Responses to the demographic variables revealed that males were overrepresented in the sample; they accounted for 57.4% (273) of the total while females accounted for 42.6% (203). Indeed, this overrepresentation exceeds the gender ratio of Taiwan as a whole; on a national scale 51.9% of the population is male, 48.1% female (Department of Budget, Accounting & Statistics, 1996). The overrepresentation of males in the sample is probably explained by the fact that males are more likely to participate in coastal recreational activities. This is consistent with the findings of a study conducted by National Cheng Kung University (1989) which examined tourism development in the Kenting National Park area. The study concluded that gender differences are a factor in 102 determining recreational behavior — males were more likely to seek many different challenges and participate in “active” activities. Regarding the age variable, most respondents came from the “25 and less” or “26 to 35” age groups (38.4% + 31.9%). Only 4.9% of the respondents were 56 years old and older. The overrepresentation of younger groups and underrepresentation of older travellers cannot be explained by the demographics of the Taiwanese population as a whole: in 1995, 20% of population were 25 and less; 19% were 50 years or older (Department of Budget, Accounting & Statistics, 1996). The results support Gee’s (1996) contention that younger populations exhibit greater interest in active recreational opportunities. Additionally, the relatively low representation of older people in the sample might reveal that a primary difference exists in the tourist behavior among generations. This is interesting because older vacationers are generally characterized as having more free time, more money and a tendency to travel more than the younger age groups; yet, this survey’s sample is primarily constituted by younger travelers. More than half of the respondents (58.2%) were not married. Also, the findings indicate differences between married and single population regarding their motivations for a beach resort trip. Uysal et al. (1990) found similar results - - that married and single populations have different needs and expectations regarding resort vacations. Response to the monthly income question indicated that most respondents made “less than $741” (NT$20,000) (37.6%). Most of this percentage can be accounted for by students who had either no income or low-incomes, and travelled as dependents. Only 5 .7% of the respondents had incomes “above $2963” (NT$80,00I). In fact, most 103 respondents were below the national per capita monthly income of $1007 (NT$27,460) (Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, 1996). These findings indicate that the beach resort areas at Kenting National Park are more attractive to the lower than to the higher income groups. As for educational level, the results indicated that the respondents were well educated with a majority (70.8%) having a junior college degree or higher. This fer exceeds the national percentage: 8.7% of the general population has a junior college degree or higher (Department of Budget, Accounting & Statistics, 1996). This suggests that more educated populations are more likely to have the highest preferences for resort vacations. In other words, the higher the education, the higher the interest in travel. In terms of vacationing fi-equency, 45.4 % take a vacation annually, and 78.2% had previously taken a beach vacation. This confirms research done by the government of Taiwan. As suggested by the general plan for recreation/tourism system in Taiwan, Taiwanese take four to five trips a year. In 1996, this amounted to 100.6 million trips (Tourism Bureau, Ministry of Transportation & Communications, 1992). Notable difiFerences emerged regarding the “type of accommodation.” The majority stayed in a local guesthouse (27.9%), at a resort (20.0%), or in a medium priced hotel (20.2%). The remainder of the respondents stayed in other forms of accommodation, ranging fi*om condominiums to cottages or villas. It comes as something of a surprise, however, that 15 .1% of the respondents answered “other” (mostly camping near the shoreline areas). This finding supports the value of providing beach campsites. 104 This result also probably reflects those visitors who either cannot afford a hotel or preferred to be close to nature. As suggested by previous research (Murphy, 1979), campers are most often young and have limited financial resources, therefore they need self-catering accommodation. Specifically, this result implies that visitors are coming to the site with special expectations and desires for specific types of satisfaction. For example, McCool, Stankey, and Clark (1984) stated that if solitude is the desired outcome, then a setting with few other people is necessary. The “principal mode of transportation” to Kenting National Park was by car (53.8%). This result indicates that the use of private cars is emerging as a dominant trend in tourism demand. In addition, the results were consistent with Gee’s (1996) study, which suggests that cars and recreational vehicles are the most popular mode of transportation of all travel. In this study, sightseeing bus (17.4%) was the second most important mode of transportation. The “mode of booking” variable revealed that more than four-fifths of the respondents (80.9%) purchased transportation and accommodation services separately. The reason for this may be that more than 70% of the respondents are younger vacationers and they prefer to make their own travel arrangements. Additionally, as Gee (1996) points out, in many cases packages do not have discount prices and simply inform the purchaser of the price of the entire vacation. Concerning travel group sizes, most consisted of three to five individuals (41%), and 62% of the respondents planned to stay two to four days. The results suggested that those in larger groups were more likely to have longer lengths of stay. 105 Lastly, responses to the “sources of information” variable revealed that “friends, family or acquaintances” and “previous experience in the area” were the most significant sources for beach vacationers. In combination these two categories accounted for slightly more than half of the respondents (51%). The results indicated that vacationers were most influenced in their choice by people they trust and their own previous visits. Beach Visit Motivations The specific motivations compiled for this study are based on references drawn from many previous studies (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1981; Driver & Bassett, 1977; Driver et al., 1991; Haider, 1991; Heywood et al., 1991; Iso-Ahola, 1982; Lee, 1993; Pearce & Caltabiano, 1983; Richards, 1988; Roggenbuck & Schreyer, 1977; Uysal & Hagan, 1993). Bishop (1970) and Uysal et al. (1990) suggest that resort developers should recognize that visitors’ motivations can suggest some fruitful directions for resort development. Of the six motivational frctors, “relationship with nature” had the highest mean. These findings suggest that it is in developers’ best interest to practice sustainable development because nature draws tourists. Other research supports this finding as well. Clark and Dowing (1984) and Adelman et al (1982) found that when faced with diverse recreation choices, vacationers often focus on “natural attractions.” Moreover, in a 1986 Market Opinion Research Survey about why people choose a beach recreation area, natural beauty was the most important criteria (Americans Outdoors, 1987). Ryan (1991) found that visitors rated the attractiveness of a tourist resort area by its scenic quality and degree of uniqueness. 106 The data reported here highlight the importance of sustainable development - that is, creating new recreational facilities while simultaneously protecting natural and cultural resources. Thus, future generations of Taiwanese can gain new appreciation of and increasingly enjoy, the rich heritage of their nation. The most important issues in sustainable tourism development are ecological sustainability, social and cultural sustainability, and economic sustainability (University of Hawaii, 1994). As Smith (1990) argues, beach resort development should maximize the positive impact and minimize the negative, thus, tourism must protect a community’s social traditions, values, and natural and recreational resources. The second most important factor was curiosity. Ryan (1991) observed that people may use holidays as a means to find out and know things, i.e. to see new and strange sights, to learn about digèrent cultures and to obtain more opportunities to discover differences all over the world. This result can be related to Ryan’s idea that holidays meet a series of psychological needs for travelers. This is an important concept for developing beach resorts. Resort developers and planners should recognize visitors’ motivations based on their demographic and psychographic data in order to provide satisfying travel experiences. Third, Ryan (1991) pointed out that “the success of... holidays is that it creates a group of like-minded people with a common interest in all sharing an experience”. The factor of “social contact” included “to talk to new and different people”, “to be with fiiends”, “to be with people having similar interests”, “to meet new people”, and “to share 107 what I have learned from others”. These items may help to explain humans’ desire to seek interpersonal relationships, i.e. meet new people in new places. The fourth motivational frictor was “challenge.” Ryan (1991) argues that “in recreational pursuits the degrees o f satis&ction to be obtained are determined by the dimensions of challenge and skill. If the challenge exceeds the level of skill, dissatisfaction results with a reduction in participation. If skill exceeds challenge, then boredom results.” (p.43) Challenge may not always be physical; this factor may relate to self-discovery; The voyage of discovery may not be simply a discovery o f new places and people, but also the opportunity of catalyst of self-discovery... A secular age permits individuals to create their own holy places, which may be the places of natural beauty, or areas where they challenge their own sporting skills or body. The search of self-discovery may be directed and purposeful as the tourist specifically seeks a type of holiday experience. (Ryan, 1991, p.28) Thus, people may use holidays as a way to achieve self-fulfillment. Fifth, with many parents working full-time, vacations can be the time to renew the whole family relationship. Thus, holidays can be utilized as family reunions, i.e. parents can spend more time with their children in order to strengthen family bonds (Ryan, 1991). It should be noted that in another study addressing this issue. Shirk and Klepper (1995) stated, “the most important thing to consider when you select a resort for a family destination is whether it will feel right for your family. If you like to show up for dinner in shorts and sandals, then one of the sedate grand old resorts is probably not for you” (p. xxiv). This result is consonant with the general plan for the recreation/tourism system in Taiwan. Trends in tourism demand show that overnight stays will become popular and 108 family travel will continue to dominate the tourism market (Tourism Bureau, Ministry of Transportation & Communications, 1992). Additionally, Holman and Epperson (1984) suggested that leisure behavior appears to be afifected by marriage and hunily Actors. Data presented here would appear to support that argument. That is, the results of this study indicated that differences do exist between married and single beach vacationers in their motivations for resort vacations. Finally, Holman (1984) indicated that leisure must include relaxation to provide recovery from fatigue. Ryan (1991) defined relaxation as the wish for recuperation. To some extent, relaxation is probably the most important pastime at beach resort areas — sunbathing, swimming in the ocean or the swimming pool, or spending an afternoon bicycling, then returning to the resort for dining and entertainment. However, this study found that the relaxation factor had the lowest domain mean score (2.48). It also had a standard deviation of 1.01, indicating a moderate range of agreement in the responses. This is an interesting and somewhat surprising finding, and is not consistent with the findings of Hill et al. (1990) and Uysal et al. (1990). In their studies, vacationers named relaxation as the most important motivation for a resort vacation. Site Attributes According to Clark and Downing (1984), the attributes of place can attract or detract and can facilitate or constrain a specific activity. That is, the setting plays an especially important role in influencing recreation behavior. This study categorized attributes into five factors: (1) site facilities, (2) wilderness/convenience, (3) 109 access/convenience, (4) solitude, and (5) new site. However, these distinct setting preferences are often interrelated. The results of this study support what Stansfield (1993, p.923) claims; “seashore resorts provide a variety of perceptions on the nature of tourism and the interrelationships apparent among tourism, geographic site and situation, accessibility factors ... and the interaction of form and function in seashore resorts.” The findings presented here suggest several important issues for the design of beach resort sites. First, the nature/convenience factor had the highest mean of all five factors, indicating that the respondents agree on the high importance of this factor. This suggests that both nature and convenience serve as important clues to understanding visitors’ decision making and behavior. The results tend to confirm what Schreyer & Beaulieu (1986) assert — that recreationists identify natural settings as the most important factor in their recreation choices. It is apparent that the results can help planners and developers recognize and fulfill visitors’ needs and expectations when developing beach resorts. Also of great importance to visitors were site facilities. Smith (1990), in summarizing the most cited model of beach resort development by Barrett, said: Barrett’s theoretical resort is seen as radiating fi'om a core of major recreational developments with hotels occupying prime locations around core facilities and boarding-houses and bed-and-breakfast accommodation located less centrally. Intensity of accommodation services decreased with distance from the core, creating a concentric pattern of architectural and social stratification, (p. 15) In Barrett’s model, frontal land is the most significant zone of the beach resort. Specifically, the core area is (Figure 2) the most important property and economically vital area because it provides accommodation, entertainment facilities, restaurants, and shops 110 and to serve both residents and visitors. In other words, the nearer the beachfront, the higher the land values. This model would provide useful guidelines for resort development in all coastal areas in Taiwan with scenic shorelines. HOTELS BOARDING HOUSES BED AND BREAKFAST ^ Decreasing Intensity of Letting Activity Acconunodation Area Frontal Amenities Figure 2. The Theoretical Zoning and Location of Accommodations. (Source: Smith, 1990, p. 16) It has been noted that Taiwan’s emerging need for beach resorts development accompanies its participation in an interrelated world community. Despite Taiwan’s ascendant prosperity, it has yet to adequately utilize its expanded leisure time (Lo, 1994). I ll In other words, current trends in Taiwan indicate an increasing standard of living, greater availability of leisure time, and a desire for more active living and leisure time for rest and relaxation. Developers and planners should find out what the market wants and design the resort facilities to appeal to those wants. Further, they must identify the factors that could aid the development of successful seaside tourism facilities in Taiwan. This will encourage tourism and innovatively contribute to the country’s best interests. Third, the results fi’om this study provide insights into the "New Site” factor. In general, beach vacationers showed a strong tendency to visit familiar environs. That is, one may conclude that most visitors like a familiar environmental setting. On the other hand, the "New Site” factor had significant relationship with whether respondents visited Renting National Park at least once a year. This result suggests that visitors may be interested in traveling to seek personal or interpersonal rewards. That is, visitors wish to escape their daily environments to attain satisfaction through travel and to satisfy needs such as relaxation and/or cultural activities. Additionally, travel reflects inner needs and may be an attempt to satisfy known needs. These results help resort developers understand the process visitors go through, as well as the factors they consider. Fourth, respondents rated “solitude” as moderately important. This confirms other studies which highlight the importance of environment on participant preferences. Sparsely populated areas appeal to a particular type of vacationer - self dependent. This is consistent with the work of Ewert and Hollenhorst (1994, p. 180) who found that “remote and natural settings imply less availability of outside aid and corresponding increases in the need for self-sufficiency.” 112 Fifth, the factor of “access/convenience” was the least important site attribute in the study sample. This is interesting in light of the 6ct that access was significantly related to several demographic variables. The results showed that visitors are more educated, more demanding and more sophisticated with respect to travel experience sought and information they need for traveling and decision-making. This suggests that vacationers considered access and convenience to be highly important. Additionally, this result seems inconsistent with previous studies which suggest that easy access is a very important element for tourism and recreation. Clark & Downing (1984, p.65) concluded that “Access is a key determinant influencing recreation choices and the location and amount of use.” Moreover, Stansfield (1993, p.920) argued that “The socioeconomic orientation of any particular seaside resort often is thus tied directly to its relative accessibility, in both contemporary and historical contexts ... increased accessibility and decreased time and cost-distances with socioeconomic traits of tourists continues in evidence.” Relationships Between Beach Vacationers’ Motivations and Attributes of Beach Resort Sites Although the relationships between vacationers’ motivations and site attributes are complex, the results of this study offer insights into the interactions. A positive association between visitors’ motivations and site attributes was found in this study. The findings reported here suggest that visitors with higher motivations for going on beach vacations more often valued the facility attribute. In other words, physical environmental 113 settings could be a major consideration for travel, for without these environmental settings, there would be no recreation opportunities. Further, it also appears that visitors may have different perceptions about their ideal resort vacations. Hecock (1970, p.249), in a study of beach vacation behavior found that “Provision of a large variety of Polities may be the most plausible method of maximizing user satisfaction.” Additionally, the relationship with nature factor was the most desired motivation and had a great amount of agreement among the entire sample. The same trend was found in the attribute “nature/convenience”. That is, vacationers who were interested in natural settings were also more concerned about convenience attributes. Relationships between Demographic Variables and Beach Vacationers’ Previous Visits to the Beach Resort Area in Kentine National Park This study showed that age and occupation had significant correlation with beach vacationers’ previous visits to the beach resort area in Renting National Park. In general, most people had made previous visits to Renting National Park before. Since visitor satisfaction is achieved by providing the types of experiences expected, and this can be achieved through improving the social and managerial settings (Harrison and Husbands, 1996), these findings could provide a baseline for resort development and help facilitate more informed product development and marketing decisions. 114 Beach Vacationers’ Major Sources of Information for Planning Their Trip to Renting National Park Respondents stated that the two most important sources of information for planning the trip to the beach resort area in Renting National Park were “friends, family or acquaintances” (31.9%) and “previous experience in the area” (19.1%). These results are consistent with Haider’s (1991) findings that recommendations from fiiends/relatives and previous visits were the most influential in choosing a destination. It also confirms Pridgen’s ( 1987) study. Pridgen found that familiarity with a setting influenced tourists’ attitudes toward a site. On the other hand, first time visitors may use brochures and the information provided by travel agents. Additionally, based on the findings of this study one can conclude that from the consumer’s perspective, locational factors are highly relevant. This study found that locational attractions and tourist services contribute significantly to the overall image of a destination and the success of a beach resort. Types of Activities Beach Vacationers Would Like to Participate in More Prequentlv The results from this study reveal that the most often-cited activity was “scenic viewing” (86.1%); the second most frequently mentioned activity was “swimming” (57.6%); the third “photography” (43.7%); the fourth was “picnicking/barbecuing” (34.9%); the fifth was a tie between “trail bike riding” (33 .4%) and “collecting shells” (33.4%); the sixth was “nature study” (32.4%); and the seventh was “diving/snorkeling” (32.1%). These results indicated that activities participated in by vacationers are related 115 to environmental setting and recreation experience preferences. For example, among all respondents, the most strongly preferred environmental setting and recreation experience was scenic viewing that was oriented toward nature appreciation. Additionally, the results showed that beach vacationers had higher motivation to go to beaches which had attractive settings such as white sand and blue water. This finding reinforces the findings fi'om other studies that found a significant relationship between visitors with high socio-economic characteristics and beaches having above- average aesthetic quality (Hecock, 1970; Stansfield, 1993). This may be because these visitors have a relatively high set of demands for quality recreation experiences. 116 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to present conclusions and recommendations based on the study’s results. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section provides the background for drawing conclusions by summarizing the study’s purpose, objectives, and findings. The second section presents conclusions of the study’s results, and the final section addresses recommendations for fiirther study. Summary Since coastal recreation and tourism opportunities in Taiwan have been developing at such a gradual pace, there has been limited research on beach firont development, coastal recreation, or tourism in Taiwan, or about current employment in the industry. This lack of data makes this study’s inquiry especially useful. The purpose of this study was to assess the development of beach resorts in order to increase coastal recreation and tourism opportunities in the Renting National Park area of Taiwan. From the results o f this study, visitors’ setting preferences and visitors’ needs 117 for coastal recreation and tourism were identified and categorized into meaningful factors to help developers and planners match supply with demand, and satisfy visitors’ needs and preferences. The relationships among motivations and setting attributes and demographic variables were analyzed with respect to the reasons why people choose certain sites for beach vacations in order to provide the basis for developing beach resorts. Conclusions Before recommending suggestions for beach resort development, the most pertinent results will be reiterated. 1. The results indicated that those who participate in beach resort vacations are generally supportive toward beach resort development. Developers and planners will find the strongest allies among persons and groups who participate in resort activities. 2. Age, gender and socio-economic status were found to be significant factors in predicting beach resort vacations. Evidence firom the research indicated that younger men with high socio-economic status had a strong tendency to take beach vacations. 3. An important finding was that the attributes of sites were extremely important to vacationers. Therefore, the success of newly developed recreation areas will rely on the ability of developers and planners to understand which setting preferences influence people to travel and select resort destinations. 4. Over 80 percent of respondents reported that they had come to Renting National Park to spend time with family or fiiends. Although this may not be the primary reason, social contact must be considered when designing beach resorts. 118 5. Vacationers strongly desired “environmental” settings such as clean and unpolluted sea water; warm, sunny, and favorable weather. In addition, the most important desired outcome for all resort vacationers was to experience nature. 6. A significant difiference was found between the mean scores of males and females for three factors - “relationship with nature”, “social contact”, and “curiosity” motivation factors and males had significant higher scores than females. 7. The “social contact” motivational factor revealed that younger beach vacationers (“25 or less”) had significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than older ones (“26 to 35”, “36 to 45”, and “56 to 65”). Conversely, the “family togetherness” factor indicated that older beach vacationers had significant greater motivation for beach vacations than younger. 8. The “social contact” motivational factor showed that “single” beach vacationers had significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than married persons. In contrast, the “family togetherness” factor indicated that married beach vacationers had significantly greater motivation for beach vacations than their single counterparts. 9. In general, the educational level was shown to be significantly related to “social contact”, “relaxation” and “curiosity”. The results indicated that beach vacationers with higher educational levels had significantly greater motivation for going on beach vacations than those with a lower educational level. 10. Monthly income exhibited a significant relationship to “relationship with nature”, “social contact”, “relaxation”, and “family togetherness”. Basically, the results of 119 this study indicated that beach vacationers with moderate incomes had significantly higher motivation for going on beach vacations than those with a lower monthly income. 11. Most older beach vacationers exhibited significantly higher setting preferences than younger ones among in forms of “site facilities”, “nature/convenience”, and “access/convenience”. 12. The “site facilities” and “nature/convenience” site attributes were significantly related to marital status. Married beach vacationers tended toward higher setting preferences than those who were single. 13. The “site fecilities”, “nature/convenience”, and “access/convenience” site attributes were significantly related to monthly income. In general, beach vacationers with higher monthly incomes had significantly higher setting preferences than those with lower monthly incomes. 14. “Holiday” (mentioned by 77.5% of respondents) was the primary reason for visiting Renting National Park. 15. Most beach vacationers were interested in purchasing transportation and accommodation services separately (80.9%). 16. Most visitors used cars (53 .8%) as their principle mode of transportation. 17. The importance of the beautiful scenery was mentioned by 90.1% of respondents; the beach was mentioned by 83.8% of all respondents; the exotic atmosphere was mentioned by 60.9% of all respondents. Between 20% to 50% of respondents mentioned cultural activities and a safe environment followed by good watersports. 120 18. More importantly, the results of this study have shown that the major sources of information used by visitors to plan their trip was friends, family or acquaintances, and their previous experience in the area. In developing beach resorts, planners and developers are not simply concerned with the facilities and activities, but rather, with the type of facilities or setting preferences required by potential users. This study focuses on coastal resort development of the Renting National Park area, located on the southernmost tip of Taiwan with a total area of 32, 631 hectares, 17, 731 on land and 14,900 on sea (Lu, 1992). Renting National Park is not only suitable for coastal recreation activities in terms of its climate, but also because of its outstanding geographical environs, which include landscapes enhanced by the sea and surroundings proximate to mountains and urban centers. Once again. Lu (1992, p.5) indicated that “Renting National Park truly ‘possesses resources both natural and cultural and encompasses the most beautiful scenery of land and sea.’ It may well be the most ideal area in all of Taiwan for scientific research, sightseeing, and recreation.” Recommendations for Practice Taiwan is an excellent site for coastal resorts and tourism. Taiwan has a distinguished and rich history, and its cultural achievements are exceptional. Naturally endowed with abundant marine resources, Taiwan has excellent potential for diversified coastal recreation and tourism. The specific recommendations for practice are as follows: 121 1. The results of this study provide insight into the relationships among recreation experience preferences and independent variables such as gender, age, marital status, educational level, income, and occupation. For example, the findings show that younger visitors prefer active activities and that differences exist between what motivates married and single populations to take beach vacations. In other words, the findings indicate that motives are highly related to environmental settings and recreational experience preferences which affect visitors’ behavior. Therefore, developers and plaimers should recognize the importance of sociodemographic information and their relationships to recreation behavior and environmental settings in order to meet visitors’ needs and develop appropriate beach resorts in Taiwan. 2. Increased government coordination and communication among hsiens & municipalities and local agencies with regards to tourism activities, land use planning, natural resource management, and marketing might create criteria and/or regulations to reinforce and to supervise developers and planners and offer a better product for beach vacationers. 3. Research on motivations, setting preferences and leisure behavior can be used to help upgrade existing resorts. 4. There is a need for increased educational and training opportunities for tourists, developers, planners, government officials and the local community so that they can be properly informed on the value of successful development of beach resorts in Taiwan while respecting and protecting the potential sites’ natural, historic and cultural resources. 122 s. The results of this study can be utilized as a fundamental tool for developing beach resorts in Taiwan and designing services and programs to provide appropriate recreational activities and facilities (e.g. goK tennis, swimming, boating, and the health centers) for different age groups and creating a successful resort with long-term viability to attract more people to travel for pleasure in order to meet market demands and new trends. 6. The most desired outcome for all resort vacationers was to experience nature. This finding underlines the importance of beautiful natural surroundings and there is a need to protect/create spectacular natural elements (e.g. graceful trees, exotic bushes or flowers) to heighten emotional pleasure. 7. The major sources of information used by visitors to plan their trip were fiiends, family or acquaintances, and their previous experience in the area. In order to fulfill visitors’ needs and expectations, it is necessary to provide hospitality and quality service to visitors because people will remember the resort and publicize (i.e., word of mouth) the news to their friends and family. Recommendations for Further Research The results of this study suggest several directions for further research; 1. This study demonstrated the usefulness of the Developing Beach Resorts Questionnaire (DBRQ) for measuring Taiwan’s developing need for beach resorts and coastal recreation. Future research is needed to replicate this research during different 123 seasons (such as winter beach vacationers) to further refine and validate the instrument and to test the generaiizability of this study. 2. There is a need for multidisciplinary studies (e.g., sociology, psychology, economics, geography, hospitality, natural resources, and ecology) because uncovering the multitude of Actors that influence decisions regarding participation in beach recreation activities is a multidisciplinary process. 3. Driver’s REP items were used to analyze the responses. The development of more items for coastal recreation and tourism settings should add to the understanding of the association between visitors’ motivations and setting preferences. Additionally, the final analysis accounted for 55.5% of the total variance in motivations, further research should concentrate on explaining the remaining 44.5% of the variance in order to further understand the reasons why people go on beach vacations. 4. This study used on-site systematic sampling method for the survey. Therefore, distribution of a mail questionnaire with multi-stage follow-up procedures should be considered. Many studies have shown that on-site techniques cause unnecessary decision making on an immediate, high-pressure basis (Babbie, 1990; Morton-Williams, 1993; Moser & Kalton, 1971; Salant & Dillman, 1994). Additionally, a mail survey is less sensitive to biases introduced by researchers and helps prevent respondents from supplying answers th ^ think researchers want to hear. 5. The results of this study suggest further research is needed to identify additional Actors associated with other important motivations (e.g., beach exploration, boat 124 aiüliation, etc.) and site attributes (e.g., resort amenities, unique historical sites, etc.) and should gather additional data to examine in more depth resort environments. 125 APPENDIX A Questionnaire (English Version) 126 SURVEY OF VACATION AT BEACH RESORT 1996 The purpose of this study is to collect information about the development of beach resorts for coastal recreation and tourism. Your effort in completing this questionnaire is of enormous importance for us to obtain valid results. This research will prove valuable, for both destination planning and the tourism industry. This survey contains three sections. The first section includes questions regarding your personal situation and your past travel experiences. The second section is comprised of statements that describe the reasons why you travel. The third section asks you to look at the reasons why you choose certain sites for your beach vacation and your needs for beach resorts. The impact of this study depends on the number of questionnaires returned. Your answers are very important as they will help us to obtain a representative sample. We would like to assure you that all your answers will be treated with the strictest confidence and that no information whatsoever will be publicly disclosed. With your help this study will aid resort developers and tourism bureaus, and administrations to better serve your needs/requirements as a beach vacationer. Thank you for your participation. Should you have any questions, we would be most happy to answer them. Sincerely, Huey-Hsi Lo Dr. John L. Heywood Ph.D. Candidate Associate Professor School of Natural Resources School of Natural Resources The Ohio State University The Ohio State University 127 PART ONE: YOUR BACKGROUND INFORMATION The following questions ask for personal information that will help us to know more about beach vacationers. We should stress that all your answers are strictly confidential. 1) Please indicate your gender. □ Male □ Female 2) Please indicate the age group you belong to. 0 25 and less □ 26-35 □ 36-45 □ 46-55 □ 56-65 □ 66 and over 3) Please indicate your marital status. □ Single □ Married □ Others 4) Please check the category that best describes your highest current educational level. □ Elementary / junior high school □ High school □ Junior college □ College / university □ Graduate school 5) Please indicate your monthly income. □ Less than $741 (NT$20,000) □ Above $741 to $1,481 (NT$20,001-NT$40,000) □ Above $1,481 to $2,222 (NT$40,001-NT$60,000) □ Above $2,222 to $2,963 (NT$60,001-NT$80,000) □ Above $2,963 (NT$80,001) 6) Please state your occupation. □ Student □ Military, government oflRcial, educator □ Farmer, fisherman □ Laborer □ Business person □ Professional □ Homemaker □ Retired □ Other (please specify) ______ 128 7) What was your major reason for visiting Renting National Park during you recent stay? (please check one) □ To visit friends or relatives □ Holiday □ Business □ Conference/seminar □ School/educational excursion □ Shopping □ Other (please specify) ______ 8) Howr many nights did you spend in Renting National Park? □ 0 □ 1 □ 2-4 □ 5 or more 9) Had you ever visited Renting National park before your recent stay? □ Yes □ No 129 PART TWO: MOTIVATIONS FOR GOING ON BEACH VACATIONS The following is a list of reasons why people may go to the beach. Referring to the primary beach site you visit, how important are each of these reasons to you when you go to the beach. Please circle only one response on each item. If things are not applied to you, please circle not at ail important Not at all Slightly Moderately Verj’ Extremely Impoitant Important Important Important Important 1. To experience sandy beaches 1 2 3 4 5 2. To satisfy my curiosity 1 2 3 4 5 3. To view the scenery I 2 3 4 5 4. To be close to nature 1 2 3 4 5 5. To be away from others 1 2 3 4 5 6. To have a change of routine 1 2 3 4 5 7. To be with friends 1 2 3 4 5 8. To talk to new and different people 1 2 3 4 5 9. To surf 1 2 3 4 5 10. To obtain a feeling of harmony with nature 1 2 3 4 5 11. To tell others about your trip 1 2 3 4 5 12. To test my abilities and skills 1 2 3 4 5 13. To release tension and anxieties I 2 3 4 5 14. To give my mind a rest 1 2 3 4 5 15. To know what to expect when you visit 1 2 3 4 5 130 Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Important Inqxtrtant Important Important Important 16. To learn more about nature I 2 3 4 5 17. To have thrills and excitement 1 2 3 4 5 18 To experience new challenges 1 2 3 4 5 19. To enjoy the sight, sound and 1 2 3 4 5 smell of nature 20. To share what I have learned 1 2 3 4 5 with others 21. To do what your children wanted 1 2 3 4 5 you to do 22. To meet new people 1 2 3 4 5 23. To experience a sense of 1 2 3 4 5 discovery 24. To forget the pressures of 1 2 3 4 5 my daily work 25. To be with people having similar interests 1 2 3 4 5 26. To be on your own 1 2 3 4 5 27. To do something creative such as 1 2 3 4 5 photography 28. To keep physically fit 1 2 3 4 5 29. To gain a sense of self confidence 1 2 3 4 5 30. To show others I can do it 1 2 3 4 5 131 Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Important Important Important Important Important 31. To use your leisure equipment 1 32. To do something with my family PART THREE; ATTRIBUTES OF YOUR BEACH RESORT SITE The following are some statements that describe reasons why people may select certain sites for their beach vacation. In general, how important are each of these reasons to you when choosing sites for your beach vacations. If things are not applied to you, please circle not at all important. Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Important Important Important Important Important 1. The site is convenient to get to 2. The site has scenic beauty and wilderness 3. Parking lots, boat launches, etc., are available 4. My companions wanted to go there 5. The site only has a small number of other beach vacationers 6. Bathroom, changing rooms, or showers, etc., are available 7. The length of the trip is suitable for my schedule 8 .1 have never vacationed there before 2 3 4 5 9. The site is far away from my home/work 2 3 4 5 10. Restroom, campsites, picnic tables 2 3 4 5 etc., are available 132 Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely Important Important Important Important Important 11. There are commercial outfitters or 1 2 3 4 5 organized groups 12. To experience peace and calm 1 2 3 4 5 13 . 1 am familiar with the site 1 2 3 4 5 14. The sea water is clean and unpolluted 1 2 3 4 5 15. A fiiend suggested that I go there 1 2 3 4 5 16. Warm, sunny, and favorable weather 1 2 3 4 5 17. There are safe/secure facilities for people 1 2 3 4 5 and vehicles 18. Wildlife appears close to the site 1 2 3 4 5 19. The site is close to my home/work 1 2 3 4 5 20. To experience safety knowing that the I 2 3 4 5 area is patrolled by lifeguards 21. There are shady trees at the site 1 2 3 4 5 22. Information signs about the area are on site 1 2 3 4 5 23. Litter facilities are at the site 1 2 3 4 5 24. Facilities are available for large groups 1 2 3 4 5 25. Facilities are available for children I 2 3 4 5 The following are particular questions about your trips to the beach resort. 26. Do you take a vacation trip to the beach □ Yes resorts at least once a year? □ No 133 27. How many vacation trips have you taken to C O Renting National Park over the last 5 years? □ 1 □ 2-4 □ 5 or more 28. Please describe the following features of vour last beach vacation in Renting National Parks; a) Type of accommodation: □ All inclusive resort hotel □ Condominium □ Medium priced hotel □ Cottage or Villa □ Local guesthouse □ Club Other (please specify) b) Principal mode of transportation: □ Air □ Bus 0 sightseeing bus G Car □ Train □ Motorcycle □ Other (please specify) ______ c) Mode of booking: G ITC (all inclusive tour charter that includes at least accommodation and transportation) □ Separate arrangements for accommodation and transportation d) How many people were in your group on this trip, including yourself? □ 1 □ 2 □ 3 -5 □ 6-10 □ More than 10 e) What was the composition of your group ? G Individual □ Family □ Friends □ Family and friends □ Organized club or group u Other (please specify) ______ 134 f) Please select all applicable items for your selection of this particular trip; □ Beach □ Good watersports □ Exotic atmosphere □ Other sports activities □ Beautiful scenery □Cultural activities □ Nightlife □ Friendly local people □ Price □ Exotic food □ Safe environment □ Local food □ Other (please specify) 29. Please circle all those year-round activities you would like to participate in. □ Sunbathing G Trail bike riding □ Collecting shells □ Fishing □ Swimming □ Horseriding G Water skiing D Camping D Sailing/windsurfing □ Scenic viewing G Diving/snorkeling □ Nature study □ Picnicking/Barbecue □ Photography G Games □ Other (please specify) 30. What sources of information did you use in the planning the trip to the beach resort area in Renting National Park you enjoyed most ? (please circle the major one) □ Friends, family or acquaintances u Other tourism enthusiasts □ Previous experience in the area □ Maps, brochures or posters □ Books about the area □ Magazines and newspapers [j Television or radio □ Schools or organized groups □ Restaurant/hotel employees Ü Road signs □ Renting National Park Tourist Bureau r Other (please specify ) THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE ! 135 APPENDIX B Questionnaire (Chinese Version) 136 85 # - ^ -#4pe# P9 7 ## 6t#/V ^ 7 ##M6Ù %:%. Dr. John L. Heywood a m # Ê # . :^ # , #1 137 A f i T « 0 .r \ 1) S6t#;g'JÆ : □ ^ '\ k □ - k ‘\k 2) S604-AÆ : □ 25 * d lW T □ 26-35 m □ 36-45 A □ 46-55 m □ 56-65 j& □ 66 3) #pqm w#am Æ : □ □ 6 # □ *46 4) i^fA^'l 8 □ □ i®i □ $ # # % □ A# 5) : □ !>':s^ 20.000:^ □ ^ 20.001-40,OOOjLPg □ ^ 40.001-60,OOOjLPq □ Æ 60.001-80,OOOjLPO □ 80.001Æ 6 ) □ □ X □ □ m e # □ □ □ * f k 138 7) □ □ □ ' îâÆ ' □ # # a *fk (#%%) :______ 8) □ 0 □ 1 □ 2-4 □ 5 □ t □ M 139 T f'j A : * ^ 4 -* 4 * 4 * f f 4 * « .4 * & A 4* 1. T È - a e ^ '* 1 2 3 4 5 2. 1 2 3 4 5 3. 1 2 3 4 5 4. 1 2 3 4 5 5. a # A.# 1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 2 3 4 5 7. 1 2 3 4 5 8. [5] 6t A # A 1 2 3 4 5 9. 1 2 3 4 5 10. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I 2 3 4 5 12. 1 2 3 4 5 13. 1 2 3 4 5 14. 1 2 3 4 5 15. 1 2 3 4 5 140 & $ $ 16. 1 2 3 4 5 17. 1 2 3 4 5 18. 1 2 3 4 5 19. 1 2 3 4 5 20. 1 2 3 4 5 21. 1 2 3 4 5 22. 1 2 3 4 5 23. A%-$re% 1 2 3 4 5 24. .$i& a 1 2 3 4 5 25. 1 2 3 4 5 26. m A 1 2 3 4 5 27. 1 2 3 4 5 28. 1 2 3 4 5 29. 1 2 3 4 5 30. i È t ê 1 2 3 4 5 31. ' 1 2 3 4 5 32. 1 2 3 4 5 141 %$$- &AH- 1. # .$ :# :'] iÈ 1 2 3 4 5 2. f - 6 # ^ 1 2 3 4 5 3. # # e $ # 1 2 3 4 5 4. 1 2 3 4 5 5. ii#^6.%60iE^;Ff 1 2 3 4 5 6. 1 2 3 4 5 7. ##36t-&^iâ'È'A6tem 1 2 3 4 5 8. 1 2 3 4 5 9. 1 2 3 4 5 10.% '*#Ar ' 1 2 3 4 5 11.4"#:^###^:^ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 15.agj6.#j^ 1 2 3 4 5 142 t\D ro CO COCO CO COCO H-• H-* fr—» V—* - 4 CT> CJ1 CO CO C 3 CO o o CX> a« > iiV fM- ê k k g # W jiy - $ 4 $ $ $ # / $ $ ? -tfr c O 4 * # s o ) ^ 1«1 H v m iiV # - IvP 4 ) i s -1* % # •^ > h v - » # m :sH H i s ? îji g k 4 * $ # H- > H* w * % > > 4 $ M l- IB # # % >> y UÜUDS 3 : cn to H— O ^ jp » # -M A 6H ?il« •o s >4 (S? # N) Csû to to to to to to to to 14 >4 -fr cc CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 4% 4^ 4^ 4^ 4^ 14 >4 IK en CJl cn CJl CXI CXI *4 >4 □ % * # .# □ # # # □ (# % % ) b)A$3.ia%*A : □ m # □ ^ 4 □ □ □ :k.4 □ # $ □ (# % % ) c)tr<â:6<;:ÿKA • lJ 1 □ 2 □ 3-5 Q 6-10 □ 10 ^ □ #Aj@Km □ □ M A □ A A f=M A □ □ ^ { 6 ( # % M )______ 144 CO to CO □□□□□□□□# □□□□□□¥ K- iti ^ # 4^ îÿf â ^ $« 4% "5 % a- ^ ï*i : : ^ >> # # ^ jk A- m a m > 4: » fe S # &IP àjt ^ ÜK4 -9- }® M- C: a s # □ □□□□□□□°R □□□□□□□I & # $ R $ 44 a*> )|w Jin- H iH +{î ED> ^ S(( 45 3ÿ )^ iifi c-M a: # ^ a: ^ ià\ <% s 4a :S m ^ <% # pq 0 4( a: & S^. m # it^- & #% BIBLIOGRAPHY Adelman, B J E., Heberlein, T. A., & Bonnicksea, T. M. (1982). Social psychological explanations for the persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the boundary water canoe area. Leisure Sciences 5(1): 45-61. Americans outdoors (1987). The legacy, the challenge with case studies/the report o f the President's Commission. Washington, D. C. : Island Press. Amir, S. (1983). Tools for a coastal resources management framework with multiple objectives. Journal o f Environmental Management 17. 121-132. Anderson, B. B., & Langmeyer, L. (1982). The under-50 and over-50 travelers: A profile of similarities and differences. Journal o f Travel Research 20(4): 20-24. Andrew, N. J. (1995). Outdoor recreation and tourism. Natural Resources 643 course notes (1995, Winter), The Ohio State University. Ary, D , Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to research in education. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. Babbie, E. R. (1990). Survey research method. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Bammel, G., & Burrus-Bammel, L. L. (1982). Leisure and human behavior. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C Brown Company Publishers. Barton, C. (1988). Resort development in the United States. In Resort and landscape fo r the 21st century. International resort committee, Japan. Tokyo: Tokyo University Press. Beaulieu, J. T., & Schreyer, R. (1984). Choice of wilderness environments: Differences between real and hypothetical choice situations. In P roceeding - symposium on recreation choice behavior. Missoula, Montana: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Bishop, D. W. (1970). Stability of the factor structor of leisure behavior: Analyses of four communities. Journal o f Leisure Research 2(3): 160-170. 146 Boaden, P. J. S., & Seed, R. (1985). An introduction to coastal ecology. New York; Blackie & Son Ltd. BoniAce, P., & Fowler, P. J. (1993). Heritage and tourism in ‘the global village New York: Routledge. Bonn, M. A., & Strick, S. K. (1989). The utility of hospitality market research for today’s convention and visitors bureaus: A multiple criterion approach. Journal o f Hospitality Education and Research 13(3): 517-528. Bremner, M. J. (Ed.) (1991). Taiwan: Background notes. Washington D. C. : The United Stated Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs. Brent, R. J., & Zins, M. (1978). Culture as determinant of the attractiveness of a tourism region. Annals o f Tourism Research 5(2): 252-270. Bultena, G., & Wood, V. (1970). Leisure orientation and recreational activities of retirement community residents. Journal of Leisure Research 2(1): 3-15. Bystrzanowski, J. (Ed.) ( 1989). Tourism as a factor o f change: A social cultural studies. Vienna, Austria: International Social Science Council European Coordination Center for Research and Documentation in Social Science. Card, J. A., & Kestel, C (1988). Motivational factors and demographic characteristics of travelers to and from Germany. Society and Leisure 11(1): 49-58. Carter, E. A. (1987). Tourism in the least developed countries. Annals o f Tourism Research 14: 202-226. Chambers, A. (1983). Dream resorts. New York: Crown Publishers. Chang, Tzu-Chyang. (1996). Annual report on tourism statistics, 1995, Republic of C hina. Taipei, Taiwan: Tourism Bureau, Ministry of Transportation and Communication. Cheater, M., & Stolzenburg, W. (Eds.) (1994). A conversation with E. O. Wilson. Nature Conservancy 44(4): 24-29. Chon, Kye-Sung. (1990). A tourism development strategy for rural areas. Journal o f Hospitality Research 14(2): 600-601. Chon, Kye-Sung., & Damonte, L. T. (1992). Hands across the border Annual conference of the society of travel and tourism educators. Journal o f Hospitality & Leisure M arketing 1:95-100. 147 Christensen, J. E. (1985). Multiple comparison tests for cross classified recreation data. Journal o f Leisure Research 17(4); 296-304. Christmas, R. J. (1994). Fielding's Hawaii 1995. Redondo Beach, California: Fielding Worldwide, Inc. Chung, Uen-Jing. (1994). The planning and managing o f seaside recreation activities in Taiwan. Taichung, Taiwan. Clark, R. N., & Downing, K. B. (1984). Why here and not there: The conditional nature of recreation choice. In P roceeding - symposium on recreation choice behavior. Nfissoula, Montana: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Clark, R. N., & Stankey, G. H. (1979). The recreation opportunity spectrum: A framework fo r planning, management, and research. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service Generd Technical Report PNW-98. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Seattle, Washington. Cobb. C. E. (1989). Tourism and resort development: A global perspective 1st interruAional resort conference. Chiba, Japan. Coccossis, H. (1985). Public policy for coastal areas. In D O Hall, N. Myers, & N.S. Margaris (Eds), Economics o f ecosystem management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Dr. W. Jank Publishers. Cohen, E. (1992). Tourist arts. In C. Cooper (Ed ), Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management. London: Belhaven Press. Cooper, C , & Jackson, S. (1993). Destination life cycle: The isle of man case study. Annals o f Tourism Research 16. 377-397. Cooper, C. P., & Lockwood, A. (Eds.) (1992). Progress in tourism recreation and hospitality management. London: Belhaven Press. Crask, M. R. (1981). Segmenting the vacationer market: Identifying the vacation preferences, demographics, and magazine readership of each group. Journal o f Travel Research 20(2): 29-34. Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals o f Tourism Research 6(4): 408-424. Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourist motivation. An appraisal. Annals o f Tourism Research 8(2): 187-219. 148 Dana, G. M. S., Nash, D , & Pearce, P. (1988). Methodology in tourism research. A nnals o f Tourism Research 15; 1-28. Dekadt, E. (Ed.) (1979). Tourism: Passport to development? Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Department of Budget, Accounting & Statistics. (1996). Statistical yearbook of Taiwan province. Nantou Hsiens, Taiwan: Taiwan Provincial Government. Department of Urban and Housing Development. (1983). Tourism and recreation system stucfy o f Taiwan area. Taipei, Taiwan: The Department of Transportation. Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan. (1996). Quarterly national economic trends, Taiwan area, the Republic o f China. Taipei, Taiwan. Veterans Printing Works. Dorward, S. (1990). Design for mountain communities. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Dowling, R. K. (1992). Tourism and environmental integration: The journey from idealism to realism. In C. Cooper (Ed ), Progress in tourism, recreation cmd hospitality management. London: Belhaven Press. Driver, B L., & Bassett, J. R. (1977). Problems of defining and measuring the preferences of river recreationists. In Proceeding: River recreation management and research sym posium USDA . Forest Service General Technical Report NC-28, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Minneapolis, MN. Driver, B. L., & Brown, P. J. (1978). The opportunity spectrum concept and behavioral information in outdoor recreation resource supply inventories: A rationale. Integrated inventories of renewable natural resources: Proceeding of the workshop. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-55, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Driver, B L., Brown, P. J. & Grégoire, T. G (1987). The ROS planning system: Evolution, basic concepts, and research needed. Leisure Sciences 9: 201-212. Driver, B. L., Tinsley, H. E. A. & Manfiredo, M. J. (1991). The paragraphs about leisure and recreation experience scale: Results from two inventories designed to assess the breadth of the perceived psychological benefits of leisure. In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds), Benefits o f leisure. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc. 149 Durrell, L. (1983). Reflection on a marine Venus. In A. Chambers, Drecan resorts. New York: Crown Publishers. Edington, J. M., & Edington, M. A. (1986). Ecology, recreation, and tourism. Cambridge, England; Cambridge University Press. Ewert, A., & HoIIenhorst, S. (1994). Individual and setting attributes of the adventure recreation experience. Leisure Sciences 16(3): 177-191. Farrell, B. H. (1982). Hawaii, the legend that sells. Honolulu, Hawaii: The University of Hawaii Press. Fasi, F. F. (1991). Waikiki master plan. Department of General Planning, City and country of Honolulu. Fedler, A. J. (1987). Are leisure, recreation and tourism interrelated? Annuals o f Tourism Research 14:311-313. Fowler, F J. Jr. (1984). Survey research methods. Beverly Hills, CA. Sage Publications. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. Fridgen, J. D (1987). Use of cognitive maps to determine perceived tourism regions. Leisure Sciences 9(2): 101-117. Gee, C. Y. (1996). Resort development and management. East Lansing, Michigan: Educational Institute of the American Hotel & Motel Association. Gee, C. Y., Choy, D. J. L , & Makens, J. C. (1984). The travel industry. Westport, Connecticut: The AVI Publishing Company, Inc. Getz, D. (1983). Capacity to absorb tourism: Concepts and implications for strategic planning. Annals o f Tourism Research 10: 239-263. Giedion, S. (1959). Space, time, and architecture . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Glomb, S. (1995). Protecting coastal ecosystems. Endangered Species Bulletin 20(5): 4-7. Gunn, C. A. (1982). Destination zone fallacies and half-truths. Tourism Management 3(4): 263-269. 150 Gunn, C. A. (1988a). Tourism planning. New York: Taylor & Francis. Gunn, C. A (1988b). Vacationscape: Designing tourism region. New York: Van Nostrand. Haider, W. (1991). The choice behaviour o f Caribbean winter beach vacationers - An experimental study in the Ottawa area. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University. Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Grablowsky, B. J. (1979). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Petroleum Publishing Company. Harrison, L. C , & Husbands, W. (1996). Practicing responsible tourism: International case studies in tourism planning, policy, and development. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hays, S. P. (1959). Conservation and the gospel o f efficiency. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard University Press. Hecock, R. D. (1970). Recreation behavior patterns as related to site characteristics of beaches. Journal o f Leisure Research 2(4): 237-250. Helleiner, F. (1979). Applied geography in third world setting: A research challenge. Annals o f Tourism Research 6. 330-337. Heywood, J. L. (1987). Experience preferences of participants in different types of river recreation groups. Journal o fLeisure Research 19(1): 1-12. Heywood, J. L. (1990). Social order in forest recreation settings. A report prepared for USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station Wildland Recreation and the Urban Culture Project. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press. Heywood, J. L. (1991). Visitor inputs to recreation opportunity spectrum allocation and monitoring. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 9(4). 18-30. Heywood, J. L , Christensen, J. E., & Stankey, G. H. (1991). The relationship between biophysical and social setting factors in the recreation opportunity spectrum. Leisure Science 13(3): 239-246. Heywood, J. L., & Richards, G. P. (1988). A territory-wide application o f the opportunity spectrum approach using marketing techniques. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University. 151 Hill, B. J., McDonald, C., & Uysai, M. (1990). Resort motivation for different life cycle stages. Visions in Leisure and Business 8(4): 18-27. Hitchcock, M., King, V. T., & Pamwell, M. J. G. (Eds.) (1993). Tourism in south-east A sia . New York: Routledge. Holloway, J. C. (1994). The business o f tourism. Long Acre, London. Pitman Publishing. Holman, T. B , & Epperson, A. (1984). Family and leisure: A review of the literature with research recommendations. Journal o fLeisure Research 16(4): 277-294. Hopkins, K. D., Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, B. R. (1987). Basic statistics fo r the behavioral science. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Hsieh, Chiao-Mm. (1964). Taiwan - ilha formosa, a geography in perspective. Washington: Butterworth. Hsiu, Liang-Yen. (1992). Overseas Chinese unending investment in Taiwan. Journal o f Cosm oram a 6; 6-16. Hsu, Shih-Jang. (1994). An assessment o f environment knowledge and attitudes held by community leaders in the Hualien area o f Taiwan. Unpublished Master thesis. The Ohio State University. Hussey, A. (1989). Tourism in a Balinese village. Journal o f Geographical Review 79(3): 311-325. Dceda, G. K., Patoskie, J. D., Bone, W. W., & Iramina, H. (1994). Hawaii neighbor islands - the evolution o f master - planned integrated resorts: A stucfy o f the development o f masterplanned integrated resorts on the islands o fMaui and Hawaii and the life-cycle model. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Inskeep, E. (1988). Tourism planning: An emerging specialization. Journal o f the American Planning Association 54(3): 360-372. Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning: An integrated and sustainable development approach. New York, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals o f Tourism Research 9(2). 256-262. Jackson, G. A. (1990). Tourism planning and the public/private sector relationship. Journal o f Hospitality Research 14(2): 475-484. 152 Jackson, J. B (1984). Discovering the vernacular Umdscape. New Heaven; Yale University Press. Jehng, Tain-Jyuer. (1984). Users' perception o f recreational resources o f nortlKm coastal areas o f Taiwan: A comparison stucfy o f six beaches between Tanshui and Keelung. Unpublished Master thesis. National Taiwan University. Jenkins, C. L. (1982). The effects of scale in tourism projects in developing countries. Annals o f Tourism Research 9(2): 229-249. Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 31: 31-36. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience o f nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kenchington, R. (1993). Tourism in coastal and marine environmental - A recreational perspective. Journal of Ocean and Coastal Management 19(1): 1-16. Lawley, D. N., & Maxwell, A. E. (1971). Factor analysis as a statistical method. London: Butterworth & Co Ltd. Lee, Su-Hsin. (1993). Recreational choice behavior: The interrelationships o f specialization levels, motivations, perceptions o f site attributes and spatial choice patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University. Lewis, R. C. & Chambers, R. E. (1989). Marketing leadership in hospitality: Foundations and practices. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Lickorish, L J. (1991). Developing a single European policy. Journal o f Tourism M anagem ent 12(3): 178-184. Lo, Huey-Hsi. (1994). Development o f site selection guidelinesfo r ocean front tourism facilities in Taiwan. Unpublished Master thesis. The Ohio State University. Loukissas, P. J. (1982). Tourism’s regional development impacts: A comparative analysis of the Greek islands. Annals o f Tourism Research 9(4): 523-541. Lu, Chia-Hwang. (1992). The scenic spots o f Renting National Park. Pington, Taiwan: Renting National Park Headquarters. Lundberg, D. E., & Lundberg, C. B. (1985). Intematioruil travel and tourism. New York: John Wiely & Sons, Inc. 153 Manfredo, M J., Driver, B L., & Tarrant, M. A. (1996). Measuring leisure motivation; A meta-analysis of the Recreation Experience Preference scales. Journal o f Leisure Research 1%0). 188-213. Mash, W. M. (1983). Landscape planning: Ermronmental application. New York: Addision-Wesley Publishing Company. Matheison, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism - economic, physical and social impacts. London: Longman. McCleary, K. W. & Meeske, J. F. (1983). The entreneurial concept of resort financing. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 24(4): 18-24. McCool, S. P., Stankey, G. H., & Clark, R. N. (1984). Choosing recreation settings: Processes, findings, and research directions. In P roceeding - symposium on recreation choice behavior. Nfissoula, Montana: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. McIntosh, R. W., & Goeldner, C. R. (1990). Tourism principles, practices, philosophies. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. McIntosh, R W , & Goeldner, C. R , Ritchie, J. R. B. (1995). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies. New York. John Wley & Sons, Inc. Menninger, E. A. (1964). Seaside plants o f the world. New York: Hearthside Press. NClls, E. D. (1983). Design fo r holidays and tourism. London: Butterworth & Co Ltd. Minerbi, L. (1991). Alternative forms o f tourism in the coastal zone: Searching for responsible tourism in Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii. Moore, R L , & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: the case of rail- trail users. Leisure Sciences 16(1): 17-31. Morton-Williams, J. (1993). Interview approaches. Brookfield, Vermont. Dartmouth Publishing Company. Moser, C. A , & Kalton, G. (1971). Survey methods in social investigation. London: Heinemann Education Books Limited. Murphy, P. E. (1979). Tourism in British Columbia: Metropolitan and camping visitors. Annals o f Tourism Research 6(3): 294-306. 154 Nash, D. (1989). Tourism as a form of imperialism. In V. L. Smith (Ed.), H osts and guests: The anthropology o f tourism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. National Cheng Kung University. (1989). Incorporate the need o f increasing visitors o f Kenting National Park and facilitate the development o f Hengchtm township. Final Project Report for Kenting National Park Headquarters, Construction and Planning Administration, Ministry of Interior, R. O. C. Tainan, Taiwan: National Cheng Kung University. National Research Council. (1990). Managing coastal erosion. Washington, D. C : National Academy Press. Newcastle & Lake Macquarie. (1987). Open space stucfy. Newcastle/ Lake Macquarie City Council, Australia. Newsletter. (1988). Honolulu waterfront project. Honolulu, Hawaii: OflBce of State Planning. Norusis, M. J. (1993). SPSSfor windows: Base system user’s guide, release 6.0. Chicago, Illinois; SPSS Inc. Otaguro, J. (1991). Tourists! can’t live with 'em ... can’t live without 'em. Honolulu M agazine, August, pp.43-44, 147-149. Pearce, D. (1995). Tourism today: A geographical analysis. New York; John Wiely & Sons, Inc. Pearce, D. G , & Butler, R. W. (Eds.) (1993). Tourism research: Critiques and challenges. New York: Routledge. Pearce, P. L. (1979). Towards a geography of tourism. Annals o f Tourism Research 6:245-272. Pearce, P. L. (1982). Perceived changes in holiday destinations. Annals o f Tourism Research 9{2). 145-164. Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1983). Inferring travel motivation from traveler’ experiences. Journal o f Travel Research 22(2): 16-20. Phillips, P. L. (1986). Developing with recreational amenities: Golf termis, skiing, and marinas. Washington D C ; ULI - the Urban Land Institute. Pigram. J. J. (1977). Beach resort morphology. Habitat International 2. 525-541. 155 Prieto, A. J. (1992). A method for translation of instruments to other languages. A dult Education QuarterlyA3{\y. 1-14. Republic of China Yearbook 1991-1992. (1991). Taipei, Taiwan. Kwang Hwa Publishing Company. Reynolds, P. C. (1992). Impacts of tourism on indigenous communities - the Australian case. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Progress in tourism, recreation and hospitality management. London. Belhaven Press. Richards, G. P. (1988). Outdoor recreation: The opportunity spectrum approach applied in the Australian capital territory. Master thesis, Canberra College. Rinehart, J. R., & Pompe, J. J. (1995). Property rights and coastal protection. Lucas and the U. S. supreme court. Society and Natural Resources 8(2): 169-176. Ritchie, B. J. R., & Goeldner, C. R. (Eds.) (1987). Travel, tourism, and hospitality research: A handbook fo r managers and researchers. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Roggenbuck, J. W., Schreyer, R. M. (1977). Relations between river trip motives and perception of crowding, management preference, and experience satis&ction. In Proceedings: River recreation management and research symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NC-28, North Central Forest Experiment Station, NCimeapolis, MN. Rothman, R. A. (1978). Residents and transients: Community reaction to seasonal visitors. Annals o f Tourism Research 16(3): 8-13. Ryan, C. (1991). Recreational tourism: A social science perspective. New York: Routledge. Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Salm, R. V., & Clark, J. R. (1984). Marine and coastal protected areas: A guide fo r planners and managers. Gland, Switzerland. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Schoen, R (1978). Role of earth science in coastal management. Journal o f Coastal Zone 78: 1589-1601. 156 Schreyer, R_, & Beaulieu, J. T. (1986). Attribute preferences for wildland recreation settings. Journal o f Leisure Research 18(4); 231-247. Schwaninger, M. (1984). Forecasting leisure and tourism: Scenario projections for 2000- 2021. Tourism Management 5(4): 250-257. Sessa, A. (1988). The science of systems for tourism development. A nnals o f Tourism Research 15(2): 219-235. Shirk, M., & Klepper, N. (1995). Superfam ily vacations: Resort and adventure guide. New York, NY. Harper Perennial. Smith, R. A. (1990). Beach resorts: A model o f development evolution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University. SPSS. (1997). SPSS base 7.5 fo r wiruJows user's guide. Chicago, Illinois: SPSS Inc. Stansfield, C. A. Jr. (1993). Development of seaside resorts. In M. A. Khan, M. D. Olsen, & T. Var (Eds), VRN's encyclopedia o f hospitality and tourism. New York. Van Nostrand Reinhlod. Sterling, E. P., & Summers, C. C. (1978). Sites o f Oahu. Honolulu, Hawaii: Bishop Museum Press. Stem, S. B. (1990). Stem 's guide to the greatest resorts o f the world. Chicago, Illinois: Stem’s Travel Guides. Strapp, J. (1988). The resort cycle and second homes. Annals of Tourism Research 5: 504-516. Summers, C. C. (1971). Molokai: A site survey. Honolulu, Hawaii: Bishop Museum Press. Susan, H. (1991). Whither Waikiki ?. Hawaii Business, September, pp. 33-38. Tourism Bureau, Ministry of Transportation & Communications. (1992). General plan fo r recreation/tourism system in Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Department of Transportation. Travis, A. S. (1982). Physical impacts: Trends affecting tourism - managing the environmental and cultural impacts of tourism and leisure development. Tourism M anagem ent 3(4): 256-262. 157 Trkla, N. V. (1992). Five visions for Waikiki: A coordinated “competitive” approach to planning. Urban Land, June, pp. 35-40. Tunnard, C., & Pushkarev, B. (1963). Man-Made America: Chaos or control. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Turner, R. K., Pearce, D. & Bateman, I. (1993). Environmental economics. Baltimore: The John Hoskins University Press. University of Hawaii. (1994). Ecotourism opportunities for Hawaii's visitor industry. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. Uysal, M., & Hagan, L. A. R. (1993). Motivation of pleasure travel and tourism. In M. A. Khan, M. D. Olsen, & T. Var (Eds), VRN's encyclopedia o f hospitality and tourism. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhlod. Uysal, M., & Zimmerer, P. & Bonn, M. (1990). Marketing resorts to the “gray” traveler. Leisure Information Quarterly 16(4): 4-7. Valiante, M. (1989). Forging future options. Queen's Quarterly 96(1), 23-35. Virden, R. J., & Brooks, R. R. (1991). Wilderness managers in the southwest: The relationship between wilderness philosophy, experience, and practice. Jo u rn a l o f Park and Recreation Administration 9(4): 71-84. Walsh, D. (1992). Marine recreation: The fest-track ocean resource. Journal o f Sea Technology 33: 53-56. Wang, Hung-Kai., Liu, Hui-Ling., & Li, Chun-Ju. (1993). Development trends and suggested strategies for recreation/tourism system in Taiwan. Journal o f Outdoor Recreation Study ^{2). 1-23. Whelan, T. (Ed.) (1991). Nature tourism: Managingfor the environment. Washington D C : Island Press. World Tourism Organization. (1992). Tourism trends worldwide and in East Asia and the Pacific 1980-1992. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization. World Tourism Organization. (1994). National and regional tourism planning: Methodologies and case studies. New York: Routledge. WTTC. (1991). The WTTC report: Travel and towism in the world economy. Brussels, Belgium: World Travel and Tourism Council. 158