INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
Published online 28 April 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.732

Clustering and Compatibility between
Tourism Attractions
Adi Weidenfeld1,*, Richard W. Butler2 and Allan M. Williams3
Department of Geography, SoGAER, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
2
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
3
Institute for the Study of European Transformations (ISET) and Working Lives Research Institute, London,
UK

1

ABSTRACT
Cumulative attraction or compatibility is a
powerful factor in locational decisions of
retail outlets, but it has received little
attention in the tourism literature. Existing
studies largely ignore the impact of spatial
and thematic clustering on compatibility
between tourism businesses. This research
questions whether and how spatial and
thematic clustering are related to tourist
movements between visitor attractions. The
study in Cornwall, England, is based on
in-depth interviews with tourist attraction

managers and key informants,
complemented by a survey of 435 tourists.
It provides insights into the relationship
between the nature of the tourism product,
spatial clustering and tourism behaviour.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 19 November 2008; Revised 21 March 2009; Accepted
24 March 2009

Keywords: tourism clusters; attraction
compatibility; visitor attractions
INTRODUCTION

T

he role of visitor attractions in shaping
the appeal of destinations is central in
destination development, being a core
element in generating demand and shaping
destination growth. Destinations of different
*Correspondence to: Dr. Adi Weidenfeld, Tourism
Researcher, Department of Geography, SoGAER, University of Exeter, Armory Building, Rennes Drives, Exeter
EX4 4RJ, UK.
E-mail:

and similar product attractions evolve, either
organically or planned, into spatial clusters,
thereby generating enhanced appeal across
an expanded range of tourism segments
(Swarbrooke, 2002). Although visitor attractions, individually and collectively, can be seen

as a key component of the tourism experience
product (Fyall et al., 2001; Middleton and
Clarke, 2001; Swarbrooke, 2002; Watson and
McCracken, 2002), and the starting point
for the development of tourism infrastructure
and services (Fyall et al., 2001), they remain
relatively understudied (Swarbrooke, 2001);
Watson and McCracken, 2002), especially with
respect to compatibility. In line with JansenVerbeke and Lievois (2002), a better understanding of the associations between the
activities offered by visitor attractions, their
spatial organisation and their attractiveness
will enhance policy making for tourism spatial
planning.
It is important to note two definitions. First,
a tourism space is a geographical area with
imprecise geographical boundaries in which
tourist activities take place (Shaw and
Williams, 2004), and can range from a small
area, through a resort to the regional scale.
There are few models (Miossec, 1976; Lundgren, 1982; Dietvorst, 1995; Fennel, 1996;
Papatheodorou, 2004) dealing with the influence of different types of tourists, travel motivations and spatial structures of tourism spaces
on spatial patterns of tourist flows and accommodation types. Other models (Piperoglou,
1966; Dredge, 1999); Jansen-Verbeke and
Lievois, 2002; Shoval and Raveh, 2004) refer
specifically to spatial structures of and tourist
movements between visitor attractions. Secondly, a visitor attraction is a single unit, an
individual site or a clearly defined small-scale
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.



2
geographical area, based on a single key feature
and perceived by visitors as such. Its attractiveness motivates people to travel some distance from home, usually in their leisure time,
for relatively short visits (Morrison and Mill,
1992). Although there is no generally accepted
definition applicable to all visitor attractions
(Swarbrooke, 2002; Leask and Fyall, 2006),
these are the most important components in
the tourism system and the core of the tourism
product by dint of being the main motivator of
tourist trips, and a key determinant of consumers’ choices. Frequently, they represent and
deliver the particular sense of place that provides the basis for competition between destinations (Middleton and Clarke, 2001).
This paper draws on the literature on tourism
appeal, and spatial and thematic clustering,
to examine how spatial proximity, density of
businesses and product similarity are related
to compatibility between tourist attractions at
low and high levels of spatial clustering. The
central concept of cumulative attraction
(Nelson, 1958) is the principle of compatibility
(Hunt and Crompton, 2008). Compatibility or
cumulative attraction (Nelson, 1958) describes
relationships of appeal between attractions.
Clusters are variously constituted, and this is
explored by examining two clusters, characterised as relatively high and low density. Spatial
scale is also important in the analysis of spatial
clustering (Simmie and Sennett, 1999; Malmberg and Maskell, 2002). Therefore, this paper
also examines the relationships of appeal and
compatibility between visitor attractions at
both the local scale, i.e. compatibility between

individual intra-cluster attractions, and the
regional scale, i.e. the sum of compatibilities
between attractions in a destination cluster as
a regional group. It builds on Hunt and Crompton (2008) by studying whether and how spatial
proximity and product similarity are related to
compatibility between attractions, using cluster
theory as a theoretical framework for this analysis. The paper assumes that within tourism
spaces, such as destinations, compatibility
between attractions is an essential element
for sustaining their appeal, generated by
various — largely
understudied — complementary relationships between tourist attractions (Fyall et al., 2001). These complementary
relationships and compatibility contribute to a
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A. Weidenfeld, R. W. Butler and A. M. Williams
destination’s unique character, and this study
argues that their spatiality plays a major role
in this.
These ideas were examined using quantitative and qualitative data collected through
interviews with key respondents and a survey
of tourists in Cornwall, England. The survey
specifically aimed to compare two attractions
(a farm attraction in Newquay and an amusement park on the Lizard) both centrally located
within their clusters, one with relatively low
and one with relatively high levels of spatial
and thematic clustering. The relationships
between appeal to visitors, product similarity,
spatial density of attractions at the regional
scale and spatial proximity between individual

intra-cluster attractions at the local scale are
explored in the following analysis. First,
however, we will discuss the concept of cumulative attraction and the idea of compatibility
between visitor attractions.
COMPATIBILITY OR CUMULATIVE
ATTRACTION
Nelson’s (1958) and Wall’s (1978) discussions
of cumulative attraction or attraction compatibility, in the context of retailing and recreation,
have been extended to visitor attractions at the
micro (local) level by Hunt and Crompton
(2008). In line with Nelson (1958), compatibility is the measure of the effect that one
business has upon an adjacent or proximate
business. Compatibility levels range from low
to high according to the percentage of customers shared by the same attractions; that is, the
degree to which two businesses interchange
customers (Crompton and Gitelson, 1979). In
this study, a visitor attraction’s appeal and
compatibility are measured in terms of number
of visitors shared by attractions, in relation to
their spatial location (intra-/extra-cluster)
and product similarity (including dissimilarity
and complementarity). In line with Hunt and
Crompton (2008), it is argued that a high percentage of visitors interchanged between
attractions reflects synergies of appeal between
them, and that visitors are unlikely to visit one
attraction without visiting others in the same
trip. Furthermore, ‘enhancing the perceived
critical mass of tourism attractions in the community is likely to have a positive impact on
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr



Clustering and Compatibility between Tourism Attractions
potential visitors’ (Hunt and Crompton, 2008,
p. 245). Two adjacent businesses or attractions
that affect each other in a positive manner
(number of visitors and volume of sales) are
considered compatible (Hunt and Crompton,
2008). Similarly, a cluster whose collective
attractions’ compatibility is relatively high is
considered a compatible cluster at the regional
scale. The impact of cumulative attraction,
which occurs as a result of the appeal of two
or more attractions, is crucial for generating
visits to destinations and preference for one
destination over another (Lue et al., 1993).
Hunt and Crompton (2008) criticise attractions for not identifying and collecting information on compatibility and complementarity.
They call on attractions to use such information and employ cooperative rather than competitive strategies in the context of destination
marketing. Similarly, Kim and Fesenmaier
(1990) argue that cooperative promotion
between visitor attractions can have a positive
impact on their cumulative attractions. This
study argues that the relationships between
product similarity and complementarity are
important in understanding the nature of compatibility. It provides further insight into these
arguments by examining relationships between
the levels of spatial agglomeration (high versus
low levels of clustering) and product thematic
similarity. The cluster concept also allows for
exploration of differences in attraction at the

regional and the local scales.
SPATIAL PROXIMITY AND
TOURISM APPEAL
Some researchers refer directly to the linkage
between the appeal of tourism spaces and their
spatial relationships (Miossec, 1976; Kim
and Fesenmaier, 1990; Lue et al., 1993; Dredge,
1999; Jansen-Verbeke and Lievois, 2002;
Papatheodorou, 2004; Shoval and Raveh, 2004;
Hunt and Crompton, 2008). However, apart
from Hunt and Crompton (2008) and JansenVerbeke and Lievois (2002), none provide any
substantial empirical findings. This is surprising, given that ‘understanding the spatial patterns of visitors’ trips is a key to accessing the
potential market’ (Lue et al., 1993, p. 298). Some
previous studies have referred to the relationships between spatial clustering and tourism
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3

appeal among attractions. Kim and Fesenmaier
(1990) suggest that ‘. . . a strong trip generation
effect exists within a short distance range from
an origin’ (p. 378) and that spatial structures
should not be ignored. Dredge (1999) and
Miossec (1976) provide theoretical hypotheses
regarding the relationships between the appeal
of visitor attractions and the appeal of the
overall resort, as well as the relationships
between an individual visitor attraction’s
appeal and the appeal of neighbouring
attractions, but these were not empirically

supported.
Some researchers argue that a tourism cluster’s appeal as a whole is greater than the sum
of the individual attractions (Piperoglou, 1966;
Miossec, 1976; Dredge, 1999; Law, 2002). Lue
et al. (1993) suggest that attractions in spatial
proximity, located en route to a destination or
in a logical sequence to each other, draw more
visitors than if they were randomly distributed. This study similarly assumes that
these synergies are reflected by compatibility
between attractions that increases the overall
number of visitors and that the cumulative
attraction or compatibility between proximal
businesses is a major factor in relationships of
appeal between attractions. Based on these
assumptions, the paper explores whether
spatial density of and proximity between
attractions are positively related to their collective compatibility at the regional scale and
compatibility between individual attractions at
the local scale. In other words, whether higher
levels of clustering attract more visitors at both
the regional and local scales, and mutual
interchange of visitors.
PRODUCT SIMILARITY AND
TOURISM APPEAL
A few studies refer to the relationships between
product similarity and spatial proximity
between attractions. Some of these show a tendency among attractions to spatial and thematic clustering (Jansen-Verbeke and Lievois,
2002; Shoval and Raveh, 2004). Jansen-Verbeke
and Lievois (2002) suggest that the more a
cluster of heritage buildings are spatially and

functionally integrated in their city environment (e.g. by transport routes and degree of
centrality), the more attractive they are to
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


4
pedestrian urban tourists. Piperoglou (1966)
has evidenced this argument empirically,
adding that dissimilarity between visitor
attractions products further increases the
overall regional appeal. Hence, synergies are
assumed to be higher among different product
clustered attractions. In line with Swarbrooke’s
(2001) model, and Piperoglou’s (1966) study,
Lue et al. (1996) suggest that cumulative attraction or compatibility between dissimilar secondary (or satellite) attractions is stronger than
that between similar ones. Furthermore, they
argue that visitors prefer an area with multiple
but different types of attractions that appeal to
many market segments, e.g. heritage, nature
and recreation, thus reducing the risk of
individual group members being dissatisfied.
Hence, we assume that compatibility between
individual attractions at the local scale, and
compatibility between a group of attractions at
the regional scale, are higher among different
product clustered attractions than between
similar ones.
Complementary relationships between
attractions (Fyall et al., 2001) also influence the

appeal of visitor attractions at both the local
and regional scales. This is illustrated in
Dredge’s (1999) model, which postulates that
‘the complementary nature of attractions
usually increases the overall appeal of the individual nuclei [the attraction’s core product]
contained within the complex, and that the
secondary nuclei can contribute to the overall
attraction of the destination region when
similar destinations are being considered. The
complexes usually have a synergetic relationship with each other, thus increasing the overall
touristic interest to a level greater than the sum
of its individual parts’ (Dredge, 1999, p. 782).
This paper argues that synergetic relationships
between attractions are reflected in compatibility between them, i.e. sharing high numbers of
visitors, and that compatibility among attractions is positively related to complementarities
between them.
CLUSTERING AND COMPATIBILITY
This study adopts Jackson and Murphy’s (2006)
approach, which sees tourism clusters as a
form of industrial cluster based on Porter’s
(1998) cluster theory. Competitiveness in
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A. Weidenfeld, R. W. Butler and A. M. Williams
tourism clusters is determined by factor and
demand conditions, context for firms’ strategy
and rivalry and related and supporting industries (Porter’s ‘diamond model’, 1998). The colocation of firms does not guarantee clustering,
understood as the process of optimising gains
from economies of-scale and of-scope as a
result of reductions in the average costs of

member firms (Michael, 2007). Clustering produces a range of synergies which may enhance
the growth of market size, employment and
product (Michael, 2007), and in context of
tourism may create a localised chain whereby
a few sub-products ‘produce’ the overall
tourism product. Production complementarities and geographical proximity encourage
production networking, which in turn can lead
to inter-firm co-operation over innovation (De
Propris, 2002). Although clustering stimulates
complementarity, the co-location of complementary firms does not guarantee generation
of synergies or cost efficiencies among them.
Synergistic development is stimulated by
investment in networks of cooperation and
information transfer (Gordon and McCan,
2000). This paper argues that compatibility
among attractions may stimulate or be a result
of employing cluster mechanisms and strategies employed by co-located attractions.

Product similarity and level of compatibility
In line with both Nelson (1958) and Lue et al.
(1993), Hunt and Crompton (2008) differentiate between two types of cumulative attraction
(or compatibility) in the context of visitor
attractions — similar and complementary
— without specifying what similarity between
attractions actually means. In their view,
similar attractions draw more visitors because
they provide alternatives and price competition, and visitors’ choice is based upon their
preferences relating to such features as crowd
size; types of attractions; admission price;
nature of the theme; or other factors, e.g. several

theme parks at high proximity presenting different themes. They also argue complementary
attractions are ‘. . . dissimilar in type, but are
compatible as evidenced by their sharing a
relatively high percentage of visitors’ (Hunt
and Crompton, 2008, p. 238).
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Clustering and Compatibility between Tourism Attractions
Hunt and Crompton’s (2008) concepts of
similarity and complementarity are problematic, lack definitional coherence and ignore
their impact on tourism appeal. It is unclear
whether similarity between attractions refers
to product type or thematic associations
between products, or both. The term ‘complementary’ lacks specificity and refers to compatible dissimilar product type attractions. It
ignores other elements of complementarities
between attractions that may affect compatibility, such as thematic complementarity between
similar type attractions. This study argues that
other aspects associated with product similarity and complementarity of proximal attractions need to be addressed. In this study,
similarity between attractions refers to product
themes related to features of the tourism
product, such as heritage, wildlife, amusement, garden, etc. (Swarbrooke, 2001), and it is
argued that complementary relationships exist
not only between dissimilar attractions but
also between similar ones. ‘Similar-thematic
complementary’ refers to two similar product
attractions that do not offer an identical product
and therefore complement rather than compete
for the same market, e.g. two wildlife attractions that exhibit different types of animals

and are assumed to be compatible.

5

METHODOLOGY
Two clusters have been studied with contrasting features in terms of scale, density and
product similarity. In line with previous studies
(Jackson, 2006; Jackson and Murphy, 2006;
Novelli et al., 2006); Doncˇic et al., 2007),
information including material from tourism
associations’ websites, tourism leaflets, advertisements, guidebooks and nine interviews
with key informants provided the data for
selecting the clusters and for delineating their
boundaries.
The definition of a tourism cluster in this
study is an array of linked industries and other
entities in competition, which provide complementary products and services as a holistic
tourism experience, such as accommodation,
attractions and retail outlets (Wang and Fesenmaier, 2007). In order to facilitate the analysis
of cluster effects, this study focuses on two
relatively spatially discrete clusters within
Cornwall, the Lizard and Newquay. These
research areas are broadly similar in size and
are situated within Cornwall in the South West
of England (Figure 1).
For the purpose of this study, a business
was considered to be a tourism attraction if it
was a permanently established excursion

Research Area border line

Newquay

Cornwall

Lizard

Figure 1. The Newquay and Lizard research areas.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


6
destination that charged admission for the
purpose of sightseeing or allowed access for
entertainment, interest or education, rather
than being primarily a retail outlet or a venue
for theatrical, film or sporting performances; it
had to be open to the public and to attract
mostly tourists rather than local residents.
Public, private and voluntary sector attractions
were included as long as they charged entrance
fees and were Small and Medium Size Enterprises, understood as having between 10 and
499 employees (Shaw, 2004). All attractions in
Newquay and the Lizard that matched these
criteria were contacted with a view to inclusion in the study. Exclusion of other attractions
with fewer or more employees was essential to
ensure broad similarity in business size categories between the studied attractions and to
facilitate comparative analysis. All attraction

managers in the Lizard cluster (10) agreed to
be interviewed and therefore constitute the
entire ‘population’ of this area. In the Newquay
cluster, three attractions did not agree to be
interviewed, resulting in a sample of 13 attractions (out of 16).
In line with Waitt (2003), a form of ‘framework analysis’ was performed on the interviews with the nine key informants (tourism
officers, councillors and policy makers) and
the 23 attraction managers, which included the
procedures of familiarisation, classification
and indexation, and allowed the identification
of different themes and their coding using
NUD.IST (Non numerical Unstructured Data
Indexing Searching and Theory-building) software (QSR International Pty. Ltd. Melbourne,
Australia). All 32 interviews were undertaken
face to face between February and October
2006. The minimum average travel distance
and time by road between each pair of attractions is shorter in Newquay (20 minutes and
7.1 miles) than the Lizard (37 minutes, 9.33
miles) (based on The Automobile Association
data 2008). The Newquay area contains more
tourism attractions at a higher density and also
has better accessibility to private and public
transport than the Lizard Peninsula. Newquay
brands itself as the UK capital of water sports
and surfing, and its main appeal includes
beaches and rural and maritime landscapes
(Restormel Borough Council, 2005). While
most of its appeal lies in leisure attractions,
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


A. Weidenfeld, R. W. Butler and A. M. Williams
tailored for families and water-based
recreation, the Lizard’s main attraction is a
relatively undeveloped coast as well as a mix
of attractions (heritage and garden attractions
and a theme/fun park). There are greater
product similarity and thematic complementarities among attractions in Newquay than the
Lizard. While the Newquay area (28% of all
tourists in Cornwall) appears to be attracting
more visitors than the Lizard, the latter draws
from similar markets as well as more specialist
holidaymakers, particularly heritage tourists
in the off-peak seasons (Restormel Borough
Council, 2001).
The measurement of tourism attractiveness
or appeal is problematic because these concepts
have different meanings in different contexts,
and their measurement is necessarily subjective (Husbands, 1983; Fennel, 1996; Bonfiace
and Cooper, 2001). In line with Husbands
(1983), tourism appeal and compatibility were
measured in this study in terms of visitor
numbers. Given the lack of data, it was necessary to collect data on tourist numbers directly
by using tourist questionnaire surveys. Data
were also collected on compatibility in terms of
indications of number of tourists visiting more
than one attraction during the same holiday
trip (Hunt and Crompton, 2008). This form of
measurement has considerable limitations: it
assumes that tourist flows take place directly
between points, whereas real movement may

be more complicated with variable individual
travel routes (McKercher and Lew, 2004).
Sampling strategy and population sample
The visit preferences of two groups of tourists
were examined: one visiting the Lizard Peninsula, a tourism cluster with a lower level of
clustering, and the other visiting Newquay, a
tourism cluster with a higher level of clustering. The study involved a convenience sample
of 435 tourists: 219 at a farm attraction in
Newquay and 216 tourists at an amusement
park on the Lizard, both collected during the
high season of July–August 2006. Although
these two attractions are dissimilar in product
and size (in terms of number of employees and
annual visitors), they draw from a similar
visitor market and they have a central location
within their respective clusters. The samples
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Clustering and Compatibility between Tourism Attractions
were limited to British families with children
who are car users, and these represent the
largest market segment in the high season in
Cornwall (Acumenia, 2005); this also facilitates
comparison of the two clusters.
A random systematic sampling method,
whereby every tourist on the day of the survey
had an equal chance of being selected, was
utilised (Brunt, 1997). Every respondent provided evidence for both his/her visit behaviour and that of those travelling with him/her.

Non-parametric chi-squared tests of association (Wheeler et al., 2004) were used to identify
differences between visitor preferences to
Newquay and the Lizard in terms of the appeal,
location and product similarity of visited,
or planned to be visited, attractions. For the
purpose of employing chi-squared tests of difference, data grouping and recoding resulted
in five locational classifications of attractions
visited or to be visited during their holidays:
Lizard, Newquay, out of cluster, out of the
South West and ‘none’. Similarly, the same
methods resulted in the following thematic
classifications of product types: amusement,
wildlife, ‘other’ and ‘none’. However, this did
not permit the use of statistical analysis to

7

address the research question regarding
product similarity due to an insufficient
number of cases (violating the requirement
that no more than 20% of the cells have
expected values less than five). In line with
Wheeler et al. (2004), the risk of an incorrect
rejection of the null hypothesis was determined
at the 0.05 level, with a 5% chance of random,
non-casual variation; in some cases, sufficient
data allowed for testing for associations at the
1% (0.01) level of risk, thereby increasing
the reliability of the test.
FINDINGS: PREFERENCES FOR VISITING

TOURIST ATTRACTIONS
Respondents named the attractions they had
visited the day before the survey as well as
those planned for the following day. They
also named their three most preferred visited
attractions in Cornwall and the South West
(Preferred attraction 1–3, Figures 2–4), which
provided additional data about visiting preferences. At the data analysis stage, each
attraction mentioned by the respondents was
classified according to its type of product and

Figure 2. Differences in the locations of attractions visited a day before the survey: tourists in Newquay and
the Lizard.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


8

A. Weidenfeld, R. W. Butler and A. M. Williams

(Cornwall or Devon)

Figure 3. Differences in the locations of attractions planned to be visited: tourists in Newquay and the
Lizard.

100
90

80
70
60
50
40

Attractions Location

Distribution of

Attractions (%)

30

(Cornwall or Devon)

Out of Cluster

20

Lizard Cluster

10

Newquay Cluster

0

None
Newquay Cluster


Lizard Cluster

Figure 4. Differences in the locations of most favoured visited attractions: tourists in Newquay and the
Lizard.

location, as indicated in the previous section.
Given that opinions expressed by tourists
when interviewed at an attraction might
depend on contingent and/or incidental conditions such as weather and shifting consumption preferences (e.g. differences between
early or late in the holiday), rather than on
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

underlying preferences, these findings need to
be treated with caution. There were various
types of businesses and facilities that were perceived by respondents as attractions, but which
did not fall into the category of ‘visitor attraction’ used in this study, e.g. towns, villages,
leisure activities, nightclubs, restaurants, pubs
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Clustering and Compatibility between Tourism Attractions
and ‘the Beach’, and these were excluded from
the analysis unless otherwise stated.
Relationship between spatial density and
compatibility at the regional scale
Visitor preferences reveal differences in the
regional appeal of each cluster. The assumption was that the more tourists were visiting
other attractions within the same cluster, the

greater the regional compatibility between
attractions. Cross tabulation and Pearson chisquared tests were employed to explore differences between the clusters. To allow a sufficient
number of cases in the statistical tests, all businesses mentioned by respondents as attractions were included including those that did
not match the defined criteria of what constitutes a tourism attraction in this study (the
‘none’ category, Figures 2–4). Classifying them
in the ‘none’ category (together with those not
visiting any attractions) was deemed essential,
since these businesses included many tourist
facilities not charging admission as well as
non-tourist facilities and places, e.g. pubs,
town centre, ‘playing golf’, etc.
A percentage of the respondents (36.6%) on
the Lizard (Figure 2) visited an attraction
located out of the Lizard on the day before the
survey, including attractions in Newquay,
while 28% of Newquay respondents visited
an attraction away from Newquay (χ2 = 23.03;
p < 0.001, Table 1). Similar differences between
tourists’ preferences were found for the most
preferred attractions (Table 1), as well as for
attractions planned to be visited by the respondents on the following day (Figures 3 and 4).
For example, on the Lizard (Figure 4), almost
Table 1. Differences in the locations of visited
tourist attractions between tourists in Newquay
and the Lizard
Attraction

χ2 value

d.f.


p

Yesterday 1
Preferred attraction 1
Preferred attraction 2
Tomorrow 1
Preferred attraction 3

23.033
174.741
51.188
25.11
41.494

3
3
3
3
4

0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*
0.000*

* Significant at 0.001 level.
d.f., degrees of freedom.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


9

half of the respondents (49%) stated that the
most preferred visited attractions were located
on the Lizard, while in Newquay, tourists
stated that 57% of preferred attractions were
located in Newquay (χ2 = 174.741; p < 0.001;
Table 1). Interestingly, although more tourists
interviewed in the Lizard than in Newquay
could be expected to plan to visit other attractions in the Lizard, there was little difference
between them (6.8% in Newquay, 8.3% on the
Lizard, Figure 3, χ2 = 25.11; p < 0.001, Table 1).
The relatively low proportion of Lizard tourists visiting or expecting to visit other attractions on the Lizard, compared to the situation
in Newquay, may be explained by the fact that
the latter has a larger number and higher
density of attractions than the Lizard, particularly attractions such as amusement parks and
wildlife attractions, that are popular among
families with children
These findings support the argument that, at
the regional scale, spatial clustering is positively related to regional compatibility between
attractions, since tourists were drawn to visit
more attractions in the higher density Newquay
cluster than in the lower density Lizard cluster.
This is hardly surprising, given that Newquay
offers more attractions and accommodation
and service facilities than the Lizard peninsula.
The fact that more tourists in the denser
Newquay cluster preferred visiting intracluster attractions than those on the Lizard
supports this relationship. It should be

acknowledged that product similarity could
also have a substantial impact on this difference. It is possible that the greater product
similarity and thematic complementarity
between attractions in Newquay than between
attractions on the Lizard, was also an influential factor in increasing compatibility in
Newquay, as it is discussed in the following
section.
Relationship between spatial proximity and
compatibility at the local cluster scale
It was argued that spatial proximity between
intra-cluster attractions at the local scale is
positively related to the levels of compatibility
between them. There is some quantitative
empirical evidence (although not statistically significant) showing that compatibility
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


10

A. Weidenfeld, R. W. Butler and A. M. Williams

between intra-cluster attractions was higher
than between extra-cluster attractions. The
locations of attractions visited (yesterday,
tomorrow or preferred) most frequently by
tourists visiting Newquay and the Lizard were
examined. First, the top five ranked visited or
planned to be visited attractions by respondents visiting the Farm attraction in Newquay
and the Amusement park on the Lizard were

identified, and their location (intra- or extracluster) and product similarity (including dissimilarity and thematic complementarity) were
noted. With regard to the top five frequency
levels, if one of these levels contained multiple
attractions, all were included. The top five
most visited attractions listed by visitors to
each surveyed attraction are presented according to the category they appeared in: ‘yesterday’, ‘Preferred 1’, ‘Preferred 2’ and ‘Tomorrow’
(Tables 2 and 3). They are ranked by the total
number of these categories in which each
attraction was found to be among the top five
visited attractions.
Iconic attractions and other places/facilities
/activities, e.g. ‘beach’ or ‘swimming’, which
did not fall into the definition of attractions,
were excluded and replaced by the next most
frequently visited attraction. Iconic attractions
were considered to be exceptionally large
tourism businesses with major tourism appeal
compared to the majority of attractions, which

are non-iconic Small and Medium Tourism
Enterprises. It would have been difficult to
compare their appeal to that of other attractions, and their inclusion would have created
distortion in the comparative analysis.
Farm attraction 1 in Newquay shared most
tourists with an inter-cluster similarcomplementary wildlife attraction and an
extra-cluster Amusement Park (Table 2). These
were found to be the most compatible with the
Farm attraction in all four categories. The other
most visited attractions by tourists surveyed at
the Farm were, in descending order, an extracluster amusement park, an intra-cluster

Aquarium (three categories), an intra-cluster
amusement attraction and an intra-cluster
Waterpark (two categories) followed by other
intra- and extra-clusters, mostly dissimilar
attractions (one category). The tourists surveyed at the Amusement attraction on the
Lizard (Table 3) showed the highest compatibility with two intra-cluster attractions — a
wildlife attraction and a heritage attraction
(four categories) — followed mostly by extracluster attractions but also one intra-cluster site
(one category). In summary, the surveyed
attractions in both clusters have a higher compatibility with other intra-cluster attractions,
rather than with extra-cluster attraction. This
indicates positive relationships between spatial
proximity and compatibility at the local scale.

Table 2. Five most visited (‘Yesterday’ and ‘Preferred 1, 2’) and planned to be visited (‘Tomorrow’)
attractions by tourists visiting a farm attraction in Newquay
Type of attraction
Amusement
Wildlife
Amusement
Aquarium (wildlife)
Amusement 3
Farm (wildlife)
Waterpark
Adventure
Amusement
Waterpark
Wildlife
Thematic


Degree of cumulative
attraction*

Similarity to farm
attraction

Location
(intra-/extra-cluster)

4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1

Dissimilar
Similar-complementary
Dissimilar
Similar-complementary
Dissimilar
Similar
Dissimilar
Dissimilar

Dissimilar
Dissimilar
Similar-complementary
Dissimilar

Extra
Intra
Intra
Intra
Intra
Intra
Intra
Intra
Intra
Intra
Extra
Extra

* Four categories means that an attraction was one of the five most visited attractions among those visited (‘preferred 1–2,
yesterday)’ and planned to be visited (‘Tomorrow’).
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Clustering and Compatibility between Tourism Attractions

11


Table 3. Five most visited (‘Yesterday’ and ‘Preferred 1, 2’) and planned to be visited (‘Tomorrow’)
attractions by tourists visiting an amusement park on the Lizard
Type of attraction
Wildlife
Heritage
Heritage
Wildlife
Museum
Thematic
Farm (wildlife)
Amusement
Aquarium (wildlife)
Farm (wildlife)
Farm (wildlife)
Wildlife
Amusement park
Amusement
Amusement

Degree of cumulative
attraction*

Similarity to amusement
park

Location
(intra-/extra-cluster)

4
4

3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Dissimilar
Dissimilar
Dissimilar
Dissimilar
Dissimilar
Dissimilar
Dissimilar
Similar
Dissimilar
Dissimilar
Dissimilar
Dissimilar
Dissimilar
Similar
Dissimilar


Intra
Intra
Intra
Extra
Extra
Intra
Intra
Extra
Extra
Extra
Extra
Extra
Extra
Extra
Extra

* Four categories means that an attraction was one of the five most visited attractions among those visited (‘preferred 1–2,
yesterday’) and planned to be visited (‘Tomorrow’).

Further insights were obtained from the
interviews with attraction managers who were
asked which attractions their visitors were
likely to visit in Cornwall. The majority named
a few attractions, some gave vague responses
such as ‘they visit everywhere in Cornwall’,
and a few provided specific data based on ‘inhouse’ surveys. These findings (Tables 4 and
5) show that the two surveyed attractions were
perceived to be particularly compatible with
wildlife attractions and amusement parks. The
findings also show that many intra-cluster

attractions are considered compatible in both
clusters, and that more attractions were compatible in Newquay than on the Lizard. The
findings indicate, therefore, that spatial proximity between attractions is positively related
to compatibility at the local scale.
Interview data analysis also provides evidence of the influence of the spatial proximity
of attractions on their appeal to visitors, in
terms of managers’ positive approaches
towards neighbouring visitor attractions. Most
attraction managers consider having other
tourist attractions nearby to be advantageous,
and those supporting further tourism development in their vicinity did not object to having
more competitors nearby (though some would
prefer similar product complementary attracCopyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

tions). Many interviewees were conscious of
the fact that, at both the regional and local
scale, neighbouring attractions affect each
other’s appeal regardless of their type, size and
quality, and that this effect is directly influenced by the spatial proximity of attractions.
An attraction manager in Newquay argued
that, ‘It’s an advantage because [other similar
or dissimilar attractions] give extra facilities
for the visitors . . .’, and another manager on
the Lizard suggested that ‘. . . if on the Lizard
there was only one attraction, you wouldn’t
draw many people in. By clustering of attractions, we will draw people in but there is a
limit if you like’. While some interviewees
referred to positive impacts on their appeal on
the grounds of product quality, others complained about negative impacts; for example,
‘you won’t come here because you were gonna

[going to] think you were gonna get the same
treatment, so you’re not gonna visit it’ (attraction manager). The negative effect of other
attractions is positively related to their low
quality product: ‘So, the worst competition,
I feel, are the low-budget ones . . . when the
guests go there . . . not always, but often, they
don’t have a very good experience and that
deters them from risking another day of their
holiday’ (an amusement park manager in
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


12

A. Weidenfeld, R. W. Butler and A. M. Williams

Table 4. Other attractions visited: Newqay survey
Visited attractions
Extra-cluster
Attractions in Newquay
Amusement 1
Wildlife 1
Wildlife 2
Adventure 1
Adventure 2
Wildlife 3
Amusement 2
Amusement 3
Heritage 1


Intra-cluster
A wildlife attraction and an
amusement park
Two wildlife attractions
and an amusement park
Two wildlife attractions
Two wildlife attractions
None
Two wildlife, amusement
park and iconic attraction
Wildlife
Wildlife and an amusement
park
A wildlife attraction and an
amusement park

Lizard

Cornwall

Amusement park

n/a

n/a

n/a

A wildlife attraction


An iconic attraction
and a wildlife
attraction
n/a
Two iconic attraction
An iconic attraction, a
wildlife attraction
n/a
An iconic attraction

An amusement park
Amusement park
None
n/a
n/a
An amusement park

Wildlife 4
Amusement 4

Wildlife
Wildlife

Two wildlife attractions
n/a

Wildlife 5

Three wildlife and an

amusement park

A heritage

Wildlife 6

Two amusement parks and
a farm park and a
wildlife attraction

An amusement park

Newquay). It appears that accommodation is
also an important consideration, as well as
general attraction appeal: ‘It’s a two-way
whammy but it’s, well, the accommodation
sector needs to get their bit right, as do the
attractions. . . . So, it’s the mixture of the two
things that brings people down here and it’s
making sure that they’re both doing it right’
(garden manager, Lizard).
The last two sections suggest that a comparison of the locations of attractions visited by
tourists to Newquay and the Lizard illustrates
that spatial clustering of attractions is positively related to compatibility at the regional
and local scales. Differences in the visit preferences of tourists between the clusters at
both scales show that more Newquay tourists
visited more intra-cluster attractions and fewer
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

An iconic attraction,

heritage attractions
and gardens
Iconic attraction
Two iconic attractions,
a heritage attraction
2 Iconic attractions, a
wildlife, a thematic,
heritage attractions
and gardens
Iconic attraction

extra-cluster attractions than tourists on the
Lizard. The interviews broadly confirm the
positive attitudes of attraction managers to
the impact of other attractions, and their
product quality on the tourism appeal of the
cluster as a whole.
Relationship between product similarity
and compatibility
The study has argued that compatibility among
dissimilar and among thematic-complementary visitor attractions is higher than between
similar product attractions because visitors
prefer an area with multiple types of attractions that appeal to diverse market segments,
reducing the risk of dissatisfaction among
individual group members (Lue et al., 1996).
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Clustering and Compatibility between Tourism Attractions

At the regional scale, it has been shown that
similar and similar-complementary attractions
in Newquay were more compatible than dissimilar attractions on the Lizard at the regional
scale. However, a direct link between product
similarity and compatibility was not identified. At the local scale, some limited quantitative and qualitative findings (based on visitor
numbers and managers’ views and estimations) showed how product similarity and
thematic complementarity are related to the
level of compatibility between intra-cluster
individual attractions.
Many wildlife attractions in Newquay are
thematic complementary rather than similar
i.e. they offer different types of the same
product, and therefore were argued to appeal
to similar markets and encourage visits to multiple attractions. The study shows that thematic-complementary attractions are more
compatible than other types of attractions
(Tables 2 and 4). For example, the surveyed
farm attraction in Newquay is similar complementary to a neighbouring aquarium in displaying different types of wildlife to similar

13

markets (Table 2). Dissimilarity is also positively related to compatibility; most of the top
five most visited attractions in Newquay and
the Lizard were dissimilar to the attractions
with which they are more likely to share the
same tourists (Tables 3 and 4). For example, all
dissimilar amusement parks in Newquay
attract a similar market segment and are compatible to other intra-cluster and extra-cluster
wildlife attractions.
On the Lizard, heritage attractions and
gardens also share the same tourists with other

intra- and extra-cluster heritage and garden
attractions (Table 5). Gardens are less competitive and, notwithstanding their thematic
similarity, they manage to remain compatible
while avoiding fierce competition. By contrast,
heritage attractions on the Lizard are fairly dissimilar (e.g. a museum and a heritage mine),
but their managers did not report high mutual
compatibility (Table 5). This finding implies
that a separate study is required to unravel the
complexities of the compatibility and tourist
behaviour relating to heritage and garden
attractions. Data from the interviews about

Table 5. Other attractions visited: Lizard survey
Visited attractions
Extra-cluster
Attractions on the Lizard

Intra-cluster

Newquay

Garden 1

Garden

None

Wildlife 1
Amusement park 1


Unknown
Unknown

Unknown
Farm attractions

Heritage 1
Heritage 2

Amusement park
Inter- and intra-cluster
attractions
A garden
Thematic, amusement
park and wildlife
attraction
Amusement park and
a wildlife attraction
Amusement park and
a wildlife attraction
None

None
Unknown (CATA
attractions)
n/a
n/a

Garden 2
Thematic 1

Garden 3
Thematic 2
Garden 4

Cornwall
Gardens and iconic attractions
(similar and dissimilar)
Unknown
Gardens and heritage attractions
(dissimilar)
Beach and a garden (similar)
Unknown (CATA attractions)
n/a
n/a

n/a

Iconic and a heritage attraction

A wildlife
attraction
None

A wildlife attraction and two
iconic attractions
Other gardens and iconic
attractions

CATA, Cornwall Association of Tourist Attractions.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


14
compatibility between extra-cluster attractions
in relation to their product similarity (Tables 4
and 5) reveal similar findings to those about
intra-cluster attractions; among similarcomplementary wildlife attractions and among
dissimilar attractions, there is more compatibility than among similar product attractions.
Hence, product dissimilarity is positively
related to compatibility between individual
attractions at the local scale, and also between
extra-cluster (distant) attractions. The study
does not provide clear evidence about these
relationships at the regional scale. However,
the greater product similarity and complementarity between attractions in Newquay than
between attractions on the Lizard tentatively
indicates that product similarity is positively
related to compatibility at the regional scale.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has sought to improve understanding of the associations between visitor
attractions in terms of product types, spatial
organisation and appeal. A comparison of two
contrasting clusters, in terms of density and
product similarity between visitor attractions,
included quantitative and qualitative data
illustrating compatibility between attractions.
Existing research has been limited to studying

the linkage between the appeal of tourism
spaces and their spatial relationships, such as
in spatial clustering, including the relationships between product similarity and spatial
proximity between visitor attractions, but
provide limited substantial empirical findings.
This study has sought to make an original
contribution in several ways. First, by linking
notions of clustering and compatibility and
highlighting the importance of scale, in terms
of regional versus local relationships, it
employed the cluster concept as a particular
spatial articulation for exploring differences in
compatibility among visitor attractions (Hunt
and Crompton, 2008) at the regional and the
local scales. The paper assumed that synergies
are reflected by compatibility between attractions that increases the overall number of visitors to a destination cluster. Compatibility may
be a result of cluster mechanisms, such as joint
marketing. Therefore, compatibility between
the examined attractions can be an indicator of
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A. Weidenfeld, R. W. Butler and A. M. Williams
and/or a catalyst for clustering. Further studies
are needed to explore the linkage between
compatibility between attractions and their
levels of clustering in terms of marketing
mechanisms and strategies. Second, by recognising that clusters are variably constituted,
and this can affect the appeal and compatibility of individual attractions, the study has
shown that spatial density and proximity
between attractions are positively related to

their collective compatibility at the regional
scale, and compatibility between individual
attractions at the local scale (Piperoglou, 1966;
Miossec, 1976; Lue et al., 1993; Dredge, 1999;
Law, 2002).
Third, by starting to disentangle the complex
inter-relationships between product and spatial
proximity, it has explored the relationships
between spatial proximity/product similarity
of visitor attractions and their collective appeal
to tourists.
In line with Swarbrooke (2001), Piperoglou
(1966) and Lue et al. (1996), compatibility
between individual attractions is positively
related to product dissimilarity at the local
scale. Furthermore, in line with Dredge (1999),
thematic complementarity between attractions
is also positively related to compatibility at the
local scale. The relationship between product
similarity and compatibility at the regional
scale requires further study. Regardless of their
product similarity, attractions develop complementarities other than thematic ones (Fyall
et al., 2001). These complementarities and their
impact on the relationships between spatial
proximity, product similarity and compatibility need to be explored. Further studies could
also examine the relationships between firms
and establishments in other tourism subsectors, such as accommodation, in terms of
compatibility.
Similar to other studies and models of spatial
structure in tourism (Shaw and Williams,

2004), the findings of this study are, of course,
contingent on time and place. Given that the
Newquay cluster offers more attractions than
the Lizard, which in turn offers more coastal
walking and outdoor natural attractions than
Newquay, it would be expected that visitor
numbers to attractions in Newquay would be
higher regardless of product similarity. This
may be another reason for the differences
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Clustering and Compatibility between Tourism Attractions
observed, an important qualification in relation to the findings of this study.
It has been assumed that that if attractions
are thematic complementary, but do not recognise and encourage the development or commodification of complementarities between
neighbours, they are unlikely to have strong
positive relationships of appeal; therefore,
compatibility will remain low in practice. This
paper has focused only on consumption. It has
not dealt the ways in which tourism production manages different types of complementarities and their impact on compatibility between
attractions in relation to spatial proximity and
product similarity between them.
REFERENCES
Acumenia. 2005. The Cornwall Visitor Survey Results
Summer 2004 to Spring 2005, commissioned by Visit
Cornwall. Available at nwall
touristboard.co.uk/documents/Headlines
2005Clear.pdf (accessed 20 December 2006).

Boniface B, Cooper C. 2001. Worldwide Destinations,
the Geography of Travel and Tourism, Third
Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.
Brunt P. 1997. Market Research in Travel and Tourism.
Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.
Crompton J, Gitelson RJ. 1979. The theory of cumulative attraction and compatibility: a case study
of two major commercial leisure attractions.
Baylor business. Studies 10: 7–16.
De Propris L. 2002. Types of innovation and interfirm co-operation. Entrepreneurship and Regional.
Development 14: 337–353.
Dietvorst A. 1995. Tourist Behaviour and the Importance of Time-Space Analysis. In Tourism
and Spatial Transformations, Implications for Policy
and Planning. Ashworth GJ, Dietvorst AGV
(eds). CAB International: Wallingford, UK; 163–
183.
Doncˇ ic Sinisˇ a H, Horvat D, Sˇ mid I. 2007. Clustermodel for inter-regional linking of continental
agrotourist destinations. Acta Turistica Nova 1(1):
1–122.
Dredge D. 1999. Destination place planning
and design. Annals of Tourism Research 26(4):
772–991.
Fennel DA. 1996. A tourist space-time budget in
the Shetland Islands. Annals of Tourism Research
23(4): 811–829.
Fyall A, Leask A, Garrod B. 2001. Scottish visitor
attractions: a collaborative future. International
Journal of Tourism Research 3: 211–228.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

15


Gordon IR, McCan P. 2000. Industrial Clusters:
complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks? Urban Studies 37(3): 513–532.
Hunt MA, Crompton JL. 2008. Investigating attraction compatibility in an East Texas City. International Journal of Tourism Research 10: 237–246.
Husbands WC. 1983. Tourist Space and Touristic
Attraction: an Analysis of the Destination Choices
of European Travellers. Leisure Sciences 5(4):
289–306.
Jackson J. 2006. Developing regional tourism in
China: The potential for activating business
clusters in a socialist market economy. Tourism
Management 27(4): 695–706.
Jackson J, Murphy P. 2002. Tourism destinations
as clusters: analytical experiences from the
New World. Tourism and Hospitality Research 4:
36–52.
Jackson J, Murphy P. 2006. Clusters in regional
tourism — An Australian case. Annals of Tourism
Research 33(4): 1018–1035.
Jansen-Verbeke M, Lievois E. 2002. Analysing heritage resources for urban tourism in European
cities. In Contemporary issues in tourism development, Pearce D, Butler RW (eds. Routledge:
London, 81–108.
Kim SI, Fesenmaier DR. 1990. Evaluating spatial
structure effects in recreation travel. Leisure
Sciences 12: 367–381.
Law CM. 2002. Urban Tourism: The Visitor Economy
and the Growth of Large Cities. 2nd edn. Continuum: London.
Leask A, Fyall A. 2006. Researching international
visitor attractions. Tourism Recreation Research
Volume 31(2): 23–32.

Lue CC, Crompton JL, Fesenmaier DR. 1993. Conceptualization of multi-destination pleasure trips.
Annals of Tourism Research 20: 289–301.
Lue CC, Crompton JL, Stewart WP. 1996. Evidence
of cumulative attraction in multidestination
recreational trip decisions. Journal of Travel
Research 35: 41–49.
Lundgren JOJ. 1982. The tourist frontier of Nouveau
Quebec: functions and regional linkages, Tourist.
Review 29(4): 124–131.
Malmberg A, Maskell P. 2002. The elusive concept
of localisation economies: towards a knowledgebased theory of spatial clustering. Environment
and Planning a 34: 429–449.
McKercher B, Lew A. 2004. Tourist flows and the
spatial distribution of tourists. In A Companion to
Tourism, Lew A, Hall MC, Williams AM (eds).
Blackwell: Malden, MA; Oxford; 36–48.
Michael EJ. 2007. Micro-clusters: antiques, retailing
and business practice, Micro Clusters and Networks:
The growth of Tourism. Elsevier: Oxford.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


16
Middleton VTC, Clarke J. 2001. Marketing in Travel
and Tourism. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.
Miossec J. 1976. Eléments pour une Théorie de
l’Espace Touristique. Les Cahiers du Tourisme,
C-36. CHET, Aix-en- Provence.
Morrison, AM, Christie Mill R. 1992. The Tourism

System, An Introduction Text, 2nd Edition. PrenticeHall International Editors: New Jersey.
Nelson RL. 1958. The Selection of Retail Location.
R.W. Dodge Corporation: New York.
Novelli M, Schmitz B, Spencer T. 2006. Networks,
clusters and innovation in tourism: A UK experience. Tourism Management 27: 1141–1152.
Papatheodorou A. 2004. Exploring the evolution of
tourism resorts. Annals of Tourism Research 31(1):
219–337.
Piperoglou J 1966. Identification and definition
regions in Greek tourist planning. Regional Science
Association Papers 18: 169–176.
Porter M. 1998. On Competition. Harvard Business
School Press: Cambridge, MA.
Restormel Borough Council. 2001. Restormel Borough
Council Local Plan 2001–2011. Available at http://
www.restormel.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=
10112 (accessed 18 March 2008).
Restormel Borough Council 2005. Newquay Action
Plan, Local Development Framework (LDF). Available at />adobe/f/c/Newquay_Action_Plan_web_1.pdf
(accessed 14 November 2008).
Shaw G. 2004. Entrepreneurial cultures and small
business enterprises in tourism. In A Companion
to Tourism, Lew A, Hall MC, Williams A (eds).
Blackwell: Oxford; 122–145.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A. Weidenfeld, R. W. Butler and A. M. Williams
Shaw G, Williams A. 2004. Tourism and Tourism
Spaces. Sage: London.

Shoval N, Raveh A. 2004. Categorization of tourist
attractions and the modeling of tourist cities
based on the co-plot method of multivariate
analysis. Tourism Management 25: 741–750.
Simmie J, Sennett J. 1999. Innovative clusters: global
or local linkages? National Institute Economic
Review 170: 87–98.
Swarbrooke J. 2001. Key challenges for visitor
attraction managers in the UK. Journal of Leisure
Property 1(4): 318–336.
Swarbrooke J. 2002. The Development and
Management of Visitor Attractions. ButterworthHeinemann: Oxford.
The Automobile Association (‘AA’). 2008. Available
at (accessed 2 January
2008).
Waitt G. 2003. Social impacts of the Sydney Olympics. Annals of Tourism Research 30(1): 194–215.
Wall G. 1978. Competition and complementarity:
a study in park visitation. International Journal
of Environmental Studies 13: 35–41.
Wang YC, Fesenmaier DR. 2007. Collaborative
destination marketing: A case study of Elkhart
County, Indiana. Tourism Management 28(3):
863–875.
Watson S, McCracken M. 2002. No attraction in strategic thinking: Perceptions on current and future
skills needs for visitor attraction managers. International Journal of Tourism Research 4: 367–378.
Wheeler D, Shaw G, Barr S. 2004. Statistical Techniques in Geographical Analysis. David Fulton
Publishers: London.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 1–16 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr



INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 17–33 (2010)
Published online 7 May 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.734

The Self-presentation and Selfdevelopment of Serious Wildlife Tourists
Susanna Curtin*
School of Services Management, Bournemouth University
ABSTRACT
The notion of self-concept and choice of
tourism products has yet to be applied to
wildlife tourism. The question of how
consumers perceive themselves is
considered fundamental to understanding
purchase and consumption behaviours. This
ethnographic study is based upon ‘serious’
wildlife tourism participants, for whom
studying fauna and flora is the primary
motivation for travel. The findings
demonstrate how the ‘culture’ of ‘serious’
wildlife tourism is made up of individuals
who differentiate themselves from other
tourists in terms of dress, behaviour,
development of skills, equipment and
intellectual capital, illustrated by their
desire to scope, identify and photograph
wildlife. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.

Received 7 July 2008; Revised 27 March 2009; Accepted 31
March 2009

Keywords: serious leisure; wildlife tourism;
self-concept
INTRODUCTION

T

he last five years has seen an incremental
growth in the number of different types
of commercial wildlife-watching activities developed, the number of tourism businesses offering these activities worldwide, and
the number of tourists engaging in them, either
as the primary motivation for travel or as a day

*Correspondence to: S. Curtin, Bournemouth University
— School of Services Management, Dorset House, Talbot
Campus Fern Barrow Poole BH12 5BB
United Kingdom. Email:

trip while on a standard rest and relaxation
holiday (UNEP/CMS, 2006). The wildlifewatching sector embraces a number of activities including specialist mammal watching,
habitat specific tours, floral and butterfly tours,
thrill and adventure-seeking activities, safaris
and cruises, conservation or researchorientated trips and finally, opportunities for
direct embodied experiences such as feeding
wildlife or ‘swim-with’ (snorkelling) tours
with marine mammals and other large charismatic marine fauna.
Charismatic and accessible free-ranging
animals have experienced a recent increase

in demand for interaction opportunities. For
example, mountain gorillas (Shackley, 1995);
whales and dolphins (Orams, 1994; Hoyt, 2001)
West Indian manatees (Shackley, 1992), whale
sharks (Davis et al., 1997), polar bears (Lemelin,
2006), royal albatrosses (Higham, 1998), sea
turtles (Tisdell and Wilson, 2000), stingrays
(Shackley, 2001; Lewis and Newsome, 2003)
and penguins (Schanzel and McIntosh, 2000),
plus a multitude of other bird and terrestrial
species.
Up until recently, much of the wildlife
tourism literature was orientated towards the
quantification of motivations, satisfactions and
impacts. Several researchers indicated the need
for more in-depth analysis and narratives of
the individual tourist experience (May, 1996;
Desforges, 2000, Moscardo et al., 2001;
Reynolds and Braithwaite, 2001; Moscardo
et al., 2004). Since then, a number of qualitative
inquiries have explored what wildlife travel
means to various tourist groups (Cloke and
Perkins, 2005; Sorice et al., 2006; Lemelin and
Wiersma, 2007) Their findings, among other
things, reveal the complex personal experiences and motivations of wildlife tourists.
Given the infinite spectrum of touristwildlife opportunities, it follows that wildlife
tourists are not a homogenous market, there
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.



18
are significant variations in typologies. In
America, for example, Eubanks et al. (2004) discovered that there is a wide variety of birdwatching sub-populations ranging from the
‘serious’ to the ‘casual’. Thus, it is dangerous
to assume that there is a general, uniform and
one-dimensional profile of wildlife tourists
which can inform the strategies for planners
and managers at wildlife destinations (Lemelin
and Smale, 2006). Tourists can vary in experience and outlook from specialist visitors to
relatively undiscovered destinations, to the
larger numbers of mass tourists influenced
by the marketing and promotion of wildlife
destinations by tour operators.
Therefore, some wildlife tourists are lifelong
enthusiasts who choose to visit destinations
purely to see the indigenous flora and fauna,
although others merely partake in wildlifewatching opportunities while on a typical rest
and relaxation or independent holiday. For the
former category, i.e. the wildlife enthusiasts,
Ballantine and Eagles (1994) contend that there
are common psychographic characteristics.
They tend to possess an environmental ethic,
focus on intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivations and are biocentric rather than anthropocentric in orientation. In addition, they aim to
benefit wildlife and the environment, they
strive for first-hand experience with the natural
environment, and they expect an educative and
interpretative element. Equally they have a predictable demographic profile in that they are
predominantly aged 35–65 years, with middleaged, older or retired people as the most
common, they are reasonably well-educated
with a high proportion having post-secondary

education, and they are relatively affluent
usually within the higher income brackets.
Some studies also suggest that there are
proportionally slightly more females to males
(Muloin, 1998; Lemelin and Smale, 2006).
The participants chosen for this study fit the
more dedicated and ‘serious’ end of the wildlife tourist spectrum. Looking at and studying
birds, mammals, butterflies and flowers is the
primary motivation for their travel. Stebbins
(2007) defines six qualities that distinguish
‘serious leisure’ from ‘casual leisure’ pursuits.
He suggests that to partake in serious leisure
(i.e. to be ‘devotees’ or ‘skilled amateurs’
(Stebbins 1992)), there must be evidence of:
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

S. Curtin
(1) perseverance in the activity;
(2) ‘career’ or experience development;
(3) evidence of knowledge, training and
development of skills;
(4) durable benefits such as a sense of
accomplishment, enhancing social image
and facilitating social interaction;
(5) a unique ‘ethos’ or social world and idioculture; and finally,
(6) a tendency to identify with the chosen
pursuit (social identification).
How much this can be applied to wildlife
tourism is yet to be ascertained in the recent literature. As this paper will demonstrate, most
aspects of serious wildlife tourism have resonance to this framework given the intensity

of some wildlife watching activities such as
bird-watching. Further to the consideration
of ‘serious’ or ‘casual’ leisure pursuits, Bryan
(1979) characterises tourists according to their
level of specialisation and involvement. Known
as the leisure specialisation continuum, one end
of the spectrum is anchored by specialists and
the other end by generalists. This is evidenced
by their knowledge, experience and level of
investment in any recreational activity. In the
case of wildlife tourism, specialists are people
who have a high degree of knowledge about
a particular animal (marine mammals, birds,
butterflies, bats, etc.), own expensive equipment in order to view the species (e.g. telescopes, binoculars, camera, field guides) and
devote extensive time to specifically participating in wildlife-watching activities. Generalists,
on the other hand, are interested in a wide
variety of wildlife, have limited knowledge and
visit a range of attractions where wildlife
viewing is just one activity out of many that
they participate in (Pearce and Wilson, 1995;
Higham, 1998; Pennisi et al., 2004).
The tourism literature frequently alludes to
a more active holiday market and a growing
propensity to see travel and tourism as a way
to develop knowledge and skills (Stebbins,
1996; Mitchell, 1998; Beh and Bruyere, 2007).
Although wildlife tourism might not necessarily be physically demanding, there are a
number of challenges and mental activities
which make up a vital part of the tourist
experience beyond merely seeing interesting

flora and fauna; particularly learning about
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 17–33 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Wildlife Tourism and Self-identity
habitats, being able to identify species and
taking photographs. Using an ethnographic
approach, this paper focuses on the voices
of a small sample of serious wildlife tourists
who demonstrate the importance of their selfidentity as a ‘wildlife tourist’ and how this is
reflected in their behaviour in terms of learning or appreciating the nature around them.
METHODS
Given that language and self-identity define us
as human, it follows that the exploration of
these identities be in a qualitative, subjective
manner which is grounded in language. Therefore, in order to gain insight into how wildlife
tourists perceive themselves and their wildlife
activities, the author joined two tour groups
within the dedicated (serious) wildlife tourism
market: one bird-watching tour to Andalucia
to watch the autumn migration and one
whale- and bird-watching tour on the Sea of
Cortez, Baja California.
These tours were undertaken with a specialist wildlife tour operator based in the UK,
whose main market are tourists with a more
relaxed and general interest in wildlife, but for
whom serious ‘wildlife watching’ is still their
primary motivation (see Curtin and Wilkes,
2005). Although the primary focus of these two

trips was different (i.e. one was predominantly
bird watching, while the other was predominantly whale watching), the bird-watching
tour participants had previously been on
whale-watching trips, and the whale watchers
had previously been on bird-watching trips;
thus, they represented a very similar market
segment.
While on tour, field diaries were kept to
record the days’ events, participants’ responses
to wildlife and the author’s own observations
while on tour. These diaries were coupled
with in-depth interviews of tour participants
while on tour (and the two tour leaders), and
were later followed by additional in-depth
interviews with people who regularly take
dedicated wildlife holidays which were
sourced from a wildlife tour operator’s client
database.
Clients were carefully selected based on
the criteria that they had taken at least two
dedicated wildlife holidays within the last two
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

19
years, their gender — in order to have an even
number of male and female participants — and
finally, that they lived within a reasonable
travelling distance for the author to conduct
the interview. This is a standard, purposive
sampling method adopted by qualitative

researchers who aim to select participants who
have the knowledge and experience to answer
the research questions (Patton, 1990; Rubins
and Rubins, 1995). The participants’ profile is
outlined in Table 1. Names have been changed
to protect anonymity.
In all, 20 qualitative interviews were conducted, recorded and transcribed, allowing a
systematic approach to data reduction based
on the clustering of invariant meaning units
into themes (Moustakas, 1994). One of the
hardest tasks is the reordering of verbal data
and participant observations into a linear
arrangement as the tourist narrative does
not unfold in such a neat and organised way
(Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983). Through
the analysis of participants’ transcripts, the
author’s travel diaries and the contextual literature, several themes with regard to self-presentation and development emerged which
enabled the production of a major thematic
framework which comprises the major themes
(or categories) as section headings of the results
and discussion section (see Figure 1). These
themes are derived from the a priori research
questions and the in vivo or emergent themes
derived from the data, i.e participants’ actual
words or invariant meaning as perceived by
the author.
Coffey and Atkinson (1996, p. 108) suggest
that the analysis and writing up of qualitative
research is not ‘simply a matter of classifying,
categorising, coding and collating data into

forms of speech or regularities of action’. It is
about the ‘the representation or reconstruction
of social phenomena’. In the writing-up
process, the ethnographer creates accounts of
the social world and the social actors that have
been observed and interviewed.
The final product is a reconstruction of a
social phenomenon that is revealed by what
Geertz (1973, p. 20) refers to as ‘thick’ description which interprets and portrays the participants’ experiences, incorporates the context,
the cultural meaning and the ethnographer’s
analysis. It aims to bring the research to life,
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 17–33 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


20

S. Curtin

Table 1. Participant profiles
Name
Mark
Ian
Simon
Peter
Rebecca
Dawn
Sophie
Marie
Tanya

Michelle
Joe
Linda
Carol
Michael
Penny
Matthew
David
James
Edward
Diane

Source

Gender

Age

Occupation

Tour 1: Andalucia
Tour 1: Andalucia
Tour 1: Andalucia
Tour 1: Andalucia
Tour 1: Andalucia
Tour 2: Baja California
Tour 2: Baja California
Tour 2: Baja California
Tour 2: Baja California
Tour 2: Baja California

Tour 2: Baja California
Client database
Client database
Client database
Client database
Client database
Client database
Client database
Client database
Client database

Male
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Female
Female
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male

Female

Mid 30s
Mid 50s
Mid 30s
Early 70s
Late 50s
Mid 40s
Early 60s
Late 50s
Late 40s
Mid 60s
Mid 60s
Late 50s
Early 60s
Early 60s
Late 60s
Early 60s
Early 50s
Early 50s
Mid 60s
Early 50s

Tour leader
Software engineer
Accountant
Retired accountant
Educational welfare officer
NHS worker
Retired headmistress

Retired
Nursing administrator
Retired headmistress
Marine biologist
Retired
Retired
Retired farmer
Retired
Administrator
Tour leader
Vicar
Geologist
Administrator

A priori questions

What is it like to be a
wildlife tourist?

The emergent thematic
framework

The culture of wildlife tourism

Self concept

Presentation of self

‘Learning’ whilst on
holiday


Importance of identification
How important is
developing skills?

Knowledge and theories
deduced from the literature

Sense of Achievement

Gendered disposition
towards wildlife

Photography

Figure 1. Thematic framework: wildlife tourism as an opportunity for self development (source: author).

allowing the reader, through the writer, to
converse with and observe for themselves
those who have been studied. Verbatim quotations are an intrinsic part of ethnography as
they are a permanent record of a person’s
thoughts and feelings as well as providing
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

factual data. They are used extensively in the
results and discussion section to illustrate participants’ experiences, so too are the verbatim
extracts from the author’s diaries.
The research has internal validity as it accurately portrays the multiple social realities of
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 17–33 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr



Wildlife Tourism and Self-identity
those participating in it; however, as with all
qualitative studies, the results may not be
transferable or applicable to other wildlife
tourist populations. However, the depth of
qualitative enquiry enables insight into some
core experiences and themes; therefore, external validity may be later explored by the testing
of these key themes in a wider population.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As is customary with qualitative research, the
results and discussion are presented simultaneously using the major thematic headings as
a framework, predominantly the presentation
of self, the importance of identification, the
sense of achievement, photography, the culture
of wildlife tourism and the gendered differences. Figure 1 sets out the research questions,
the emergent themes and the body of literature
that was referred to.
The presentation of self and culture of
‘serious’ wildlife tourism
Some participants were introduced to wildlife
via their friends or partners or following a
surprise and memorable wildlife encounter.
However, for most of them, their interest in
nature and wildlife tends to begin in early
childhood where role models, usually parents
or grandparents but occasionally teachers and
friends, introduced them to the natural world.
Family members in particular contributed to

wildlife value development in important ways,
namely in family activities, knowledge transfer, love of the outdoors, and being interested
and introduced to gardening or tending land,
thus, a correlation between this small sample
and a propensity for wildlife gardening.
These findings are not totally surprising
and support other studies which show how
wildlife values are passed down through
family members (Chawla, 2002; DeRuiter and
Donnelly, 2002). This socialisation process is
well documented by research into valueorientations. Results typically suggest that
parents are the most significant source of value
transmission (Glass et al., 1986; Grusec and
Kuczynski, 1997) which is equally apparent for
nature and wildlife, and that values laid down
in an individual’s childhood tend to remain
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

21
constant (Solomon et al., 2002). It follows,
therefore, that for this highly involved market
segment, interest in wildlife begins long before
the holiday experience, and that looking at
wildlife and appreciating nature becomes
inherent in their biography of who they are
and how others see them.
The notion of self-concept and choice of
tourism products has produced some interesting tourism literature (Moscardo et al., 1995;
Desforges, 2000; Sirgy and Su, 2000; Ryan,
2002; Tao et al., 2004) but has yet to be applied

to wildlife tourism. In consumer psychology,
the question of how consumers perceive
themselves is considered fundamental to
understanding purchase and consumption
behaviours, and stems from the belief that
consumers choose products that are consistent
with their perceptions of themselves and reject
those which are incongruous with them (Sirgy,
1982). For Allport (1955, p. 36), people are not
prisoners of unconscious drives. Instead, the
self ‘is an identifiable organisation within each
individual and accounts for the unity of personality, higher motives and continuity of personal memories’. According to Ryan (2002), it
is easy to see the relationship between holidays
and the discovery and development of self.
This ‘self’ finds its congruity among other likeminded individuals who may display similar
characteristics and behaviours.
After only two days in the field, it became
highly apparent that dedicated wildlife tourism
has a culture and identity of its own. There are
certain unwritten rules and codes to do with
dress, behaviour and equipment which have to
be acquired in order to be fully accepted into
the tour group, particularly on the birdwatching tour. According to Holden (2005, p.
137), ‘a common interpretation of culture is
something that a nation, class or group of people
might possess that differentiates them from
others’. Culture can also be viewed as being
about the whole ‘way of life’ of a particular
group which has distinctive signifying systems,
involving all forms of social activity, including

artistic and intellectual activities (Smith, 2003).
Indeed, serious wildlife tourists do reflect
this notion of a cultural system or ‘way of
being’ with the artistic (photography),
intellectual (identification and knowledge) and
social (wine and conversation over dinner)
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 17–33 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


22

S. Curtin

components suggested by Smith (2003). With
regard to ‘cultural signifiers’, the author
learned her first lesson during the opening
evening:
Binoculars are carried at all times even to
the evening dinner: I see now that they
are signifiers; they indicate what type of
tourists we are and the notion that we are
always on the look out for interesting
sightings. I can’t think of any other type
of holiday where binoculars are taken
to dinner! (Author’s travel diary,
Andalucia)
Although it is unwise to generalise from
only two field trips, the whale-watching trip to
Baja California had a rather less intensive feel

even though it was advertised in the brochure
as an ‘expedition’. Even so, participants again
carried binoculars and cameras at all times and
did not perceive themselves as ordinary ‘tourists’. Instead they came with a travel history
and travel career that was evidenced usually
by stories shared over dinner, not in a pretentious way, of where they had been and what
they had seen with other tour operators or
independently.
The Leisure Motivation Scale formulated by
Ragheb and Beard (1983) includes a ‘social
component’ which has two basic needs. That
is a need for friendship and a need for the
esteem of others. This implies that social interaction is a source of pleasure in its own right,
but that it is also important in deriving a sense
of self. Ryan (2002, p. 37) asserts that ‘we know
who we are not solely in terms of a sense of
personal integrity but in comparison with
others, and in the way in which others regard
us (or as we perceive and value that evaluation)’. Crompton (1979) notes the importance
of holidays as ego- and status-enhancing experiences. For tourists who seek a sense of ego
and status, the sense of ‘I’ becomes both social
and geographical. The social interaction occurs
within a place and the attributes of place subscribe connotation to the sense of self (Ryan,
2002). Therefore, within the culture of wildlife
tourism, participants are not only who they are
but also where they have been, thus the rendition of travel narratives and exchanges exhibited while on tour.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Out in the field, ‘serious’ wildlife tourists are
keen to set themselves apart from other tourists. This is exemplified by a participant who

explains her disappointment at seeing another
tourist bus very early in the morning when
the group were tracking Iberian Lynx in
Andalucia:
One minute I was communing with
nature . . . but when I saw another bus I
felt that it was a touristy place and a touristy thing and suddenly it didn’t have
the same feeling of being special . . . like
when you saw the people come out of
the bus and they didn’t quite look like
wildlife people. They weren’t dressed
like wildlife people and it sort of debased
it all somehow. (Rebecca)
The presentation of self is thus reflected in
the dress code, with wildlife tourists tending
to choose low-impact colours and comfortable
outdoor styles suitable for trekking and being
out of doors. In addition, they are adorned
with various pieces of equipment such as
binoculars, telescopes and cameras, with the
more dedicated of participants carrying the
most expensive or sought-after brands of
optics, usually Leica, Swarovski or Zeiss. These
clearly have a utilitarian function but also conspicuous consumption, i.e. the acquisition and
display of expensive items as a sign of wealth,
status and dedication to the cause (Veblen,
1912). Indeed, their countenance suggests welleducated, interested and serious individuals
whose behaviour as a group out in the field
tends to be quiet, with voices kept low or nonexistent in the vicinity of wildlife, or even in
the expectation of seeing it. This contrasts

widely with the noisy, colourful group of more
stereotypical tourists who emerged from the
tour bus that morning.
It must be highlighted that this presentation
of self and interest in wildlife is not just for
when participants are on tour, it is part of their
everyday world, of who and what they are and
therefore the boundary between ‘holiday-self
and actual-self’ becomes blurred. In this way,
wildlife watching on tour presents similar
characteristics to watching wildlife at home as
the following extracts allude:
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 17–33 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Wildlife Tourism and Self-identity
. . . one thing I’ve noticed is that watching
wildlife becomes a way of life. You know
you live it all the time. (Edward)
I look for birds on my way to work and
always have a pair of binoculars in my
car. Well I don’t think I go bird-watching
any more, I am bird-watching all the time.
(Ian, Andalucia)
Moreover, during the course of the research,
it became apparent that this focus, dedication
and study of wildlife often stemmed from the
participants’ professional selves, even if they
were retired. With time on their hands at home,

they have volunteered for managerial or technical roles at their local ‘bird club’ or Wildlife
Trust to continue their ‘professional line’ in
some way. Even on a wildlife holiday, they
would have guide books to study, would take
photographs of different species they had seen
for their databases, and would adopt a professional approach to spotting, identification and
photography.
We have more time now that we are
retired but also in a way we want to
become more professional at it. (Linda)
This is verified by a tour leader who
explained that: ‘it is quite common especially
for retired people who are quite technically
minded (it tends to be the man but not
always) who then gets very involved in computers and they really enjoy having databases
which they can add photographs to and so
on . . .’ (David, tour leader, Natural History
Tours).
Although this was particularly noticeable
among the male participants, it was not solely
a male attribute. Participants were not asked
directly about their occupation, or previous
occupation, however, most volunteered it in
the context of what it is that makes them want
to take an interest in wildlife and specifically
learn more about it:
Well my job was an industrial biologist
working with the environment. When I
look at wildlife, about 80% of my interest
is in the scientific, the rest is just mainly

trying to work out what they are doing,
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

23
why they are doing it and just basically
to see how things exist. (Joe, Baja)
Professionally I am a scientist and I have
got the sort of mind that wants to learn
about things. (Edward)
This marriage of personal interest and
presentation of professional or intellectual self
has resonance with the literature pertaining to
a need for achievement (Ross, 1991) and the
fourfold categories of motivation proposed by
Beard and Ragheb (1983, p. 225), particularly
the ‘intellectual’ component such as learning,
exploring and discovering, and the ‘competence-mastery’ component which involves the
extent to which individuals engage in leisure
activities in order to achieve, master, challenge
and compete. Ryan (2002) suggests that these
motivations can be regarded as continua
between a high- or low-level need. The
intellectual needs can be primary drives (a
high need) or triggered by a specific event or
environment (a low need). Clearly, this is an
assumption that varies from person to person
and market to market and is, in part, reflected
by the need to gain knowledge.
Importance of identification
The relationship between ‘having a nice

holiday’ and ‘gaining knowledge’ is an interesting facet of this general naturalist market
(i.e. who are interested in all sorts of fauna and
flora as well as culture). Unlike hard core birdwatching holidays where the focus and the
challenge for the tour leaders is to enable
clients to predominantly ‘tick-off’ as many different birds as possible, this market is motivated by the desire to learn about the birds and
animals they are seeing and to be able to identify them. The relationship between tourism,
self-development and learning is not at all new
with regard to the nature-based tourism market
(Hall and Weiler, 1992; Ballantine and Eagles,
1994; Beh and Bruyere, 2007; Sali et al., 2008)
However, there is a range of responses with
regard to the importance of identification
which varies according to the type of trip, for
example, whether the focus is mainly birds or
a combination of birds, animals and plants as
the following excerpt from the author’s travel
diary explains:
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 17–33 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


24

S. Curtin
There is a noticeable difference between
the two tour groups: In Andalucia, identification is extremely important, yet
strangely here (Baja California) it is less
so for the majority. The enjoyment is in
the whole experience of the marine environment. That said, they are interested to
know what type of whales, dolphins or

birds they are watching but these aren’t
‘tickers’ or ‘listers’. Whilst in Andalucia,
even though it wasn’t hard core birdwatching, people were keeping lists
and ticking species off: notebooks were
always at the ready. (Author’s travel
diary, Baja)

Overall, the importance of identification can
be divided into three categories.
(1) Those for whom identification is a must.
That’s the whole point on trips like that
is to know what it is that you are looking
at. (Linda)
We would read what we can about the
country we are coming to and what we
think we might see. It’s important that the
leaders are knowledgeable and that they
can share it with us so that we learn new
things so that if we saw them again we
could hopefully begin to identify them.
(Marie, Baja)
According to the tour leaders, these ‘tend to
be quite a disciplined’ market (David, Natural
History Tours), which is very apparent by the
methodical technique that participants used to
identify, recognise and remember new species.
While on tour, however, the activity can be so
intense in that it is literally one new thing to
see after another, particularly in certain habitats, for example on lakes where there can be
up to 20 different types of birds, many of which

may be first sightings. This leads to the next
category.

to put a name to something because I’m
not very good at remembering names. So
I don’t always remember it for the next
time. But I suppose it’s important to
me at the time to know what it is I am
looking at. (Carol)
I don’t think their knowledge lasts very
long, to be honest with you. It’s a fairly
temporary thing as first and foremost
they are on holiday. (David, tour leader,
Natural History Tours)
Whereas animals are relatively easy to
identify and remember, birds, moths, butterflies and plants can be more problematic
because of the large numbers of varieties and
species. Many can be difficult to distinguish or
tell apart: ‘when it comes to little brown jobs I
move on I’m afraid’ (Penny).
This is evidence of Fine’s (1992) interesting
discussion on the importance of identifying
species. He concludes that when identification
is difficult, species are often ‘ignored because
they threaten the collector’s competence’, or
otherwise are ‘derisively described as “Little
Brown Jobs” ’ (p. 163).
I’d like to know more but I just think, like
with birds, I get glossy-eyed; all these little
brown jobs. I was trying to get to grips

with the difference between a Caspian
Tern and a Royal Tern . . . I can do it with
pictures in a book but in reality I just can’t
do it. Like warblers and Darwin’s Finches
in the Galapagos — even the guide had to
admit that he couldn’t tell them apart and
I don’t think that it is important. I like all
the big sea birds and then the humming
bird type of thing but then there’s a large
group in the middle about which I don’t
really care: gnatcatchers and all those
things. (Tanya, Baja)

(2) Those who want to be able to identify and
learn but find it a challenge to remember.

(3) Finally, there is a substantial group who
are very motivated by seeing new things,
but less concerned about naming them.

I think identification is quite important
(hesitating). I know I take great pleasure
in spotting it and knowing that it is
around you. It’s not too important for me

I mean we all love to work out what
things are — we are used to categorising
and pigeon-holing things — but it’s
quite fun when you actually get out of


Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 17–33 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr