Content uploaded by Josef Navrátil
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Josef Navrátil on Nov 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH PAPER 57
The protected areas: are they still in the ‘pleasure periphery’ or
are they destinations for sustainable tourism activities?
Josef Navrátil
1
*, Jaroslav Knotek 2, Kamil Pícha 3 and Jitka Fialová 4
Received: 26/11/2014 Accepted: 31/05/2015
1
Faculty of Agriculture, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice, Studentská 1668, 370 05 České
Budějovice, Czech Republic, e-mail: josefnav@gmail.com, tel: +420 387 772 756
2 Faculty of Agronomy, Mendel University, Brno; e-mail: jarda.knotek@uake.cz
3 Faculty of Economics, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice; e-mail: kpicha@ef.jcu.cz
4 Faculty of Agronomy, Mendel University, Brno; e-mail: fialka.jitka@atlas.cz
* Corresponding author
Abstract
The protected natural areas play an important role in recreation. This paper discusses the issue of
recreational activities in these areas. The National Park and Protected Landscape Areas in the
southern part of the Czech Republic were selected for the purposes of illustration. It has been
revealed that relaxation is the most important activity among tourists in the large-area protected
natural territories, according to a recent survey of 1,500 participants. Entertainment is the second
most important activity. Recreational sport activities (such as swimming, tennis, etc.) are
respectively in the third and fourth places. We can talk about the large-area protected natural
reservations as destinations for “nature-based tourism”, whose prerequisite is the existence of a
pristine natural environment, which is primarily bound to protected natural areas in today’s world,
and it is not for sustainable tourism. According to the participation in recreation activities, four
segments of demand have been identified in visits to these large-area protected natural territories:
(1) passive visitors, (2) visitors focused on exploring but not participating in any physical activity, (3)
active visitors with a dominant interest in bicycle touring, and (4) active visitors with a dominant
interest in history.
© 2015 Varna University of Management. All rights reserved
Keywords: tourists, ecotourism, behaviour, national park, the Czech Republic
Citation: Navrátil J., J. Knotek, K. Pícha and J. Fialová (2015) The protected areas: are they still in
the ‘pleasure periphery’ or are they destinations for sustainable tourism activities? European
Journal of Tourism Research 11, pp. 57-72
Introduction
The pleasure periphery (in the sense of the
wilderness and national parks according to Hall
and Page, 2006) belongs to the most important
spaces for recreation and tourism (Newsome et
al., 2013). These two activities “have
increasingly become significant as one of the
main values attached to the wilderness and its
The protected areas: are they still in the ‘pleasure periphery’ or are they destinations for sustainable tourism activities?
58
conservation” (Hall and Page 2006: 278). The
possibility of developing recreational activities
is among the main motives for creating national
parks (Williams, 2000) and tourism remains an
important justification for park creation and its
development even today (Hall and Lew, 2009).
Similarly to the rural environment (Kayat, 2008;
Santana-Jiménez, Hernández, and Suárez-
Vega, 2013), these spaces particularly offer the
opportunity of regenerating those people living
in urban spaces, who have no possibility of
every day contact with the “environment of
nature” (Olwig and Olwig, 1979).
The management of the protected areas must
meet two contradictory requirements: to
contribute to minimising the human impact on
its environment and to make it accessible to
visitors (Marion and Reid, 2007). Tourism
activities themselves provide considerable
benefits to the protected areas but these same
activities can contribute to the deterioration of
landscapes, threaten biodiversity, and
contribute to degradation of the ecosystems,
too (Bushell and McCool, 2007). That is why
conflicts between conservational and touristic
uses of the protected areas usually occur
(Young et al., 2007). Thus, tourists (as the
main visitors to such environments) are the
keystones of the appropriate planning
management of the protected areas
(Ogonowska and Torre, 2013) and elsewhere
(Borges et al., 2014).
Environmentally-friendly activities done by
visitors are supported by the management of
the protected areas to prevent disagreements
and to enhance the responsible behaviour of
tourists (Leslie, 2012; Nicholls and Kang,
2012). Educating visitors (Munro et al., 2008;
Leung, 2012; Tomljenović and Kunst, 2014)
and increasing their environmental awareness
(Ballantyne et al., 2011) seem to be of crucial
importance. A whole range of activities, (such
as publications and websites, electronic
educational resources, visitor centres, self-
guided trails, and guided tours) are included
(Newsome et al., 2013). The protected areas
should become important destinations for
sustainable tourism activities.
This change was initiated many years ago in
Western countries (Newsome et al., 2013).
However, it has spread out even to developing
countries (Lourens, 2007), as well as into the
Central and Eastern European countries
(Cetkovsky et al., 2007; Foret and Klusacek,
2011; Svec et al., 2012; Frantal and
Urbankova, 2014; Kroupova et al., 2014;
Bernat, 2014). A large amount of money is
spent on work with tourists in the Czech
Republic, particularly when it comes to
environmental education. Those activities are
principally concentrated in the national parks
and the protected landscape areas, especially
in the areas involved in the UNESCO Man and
the Biosphere Programme. These protected
areas represent an important percentage of the
area of South Bohemia and there are two
important MAB areas in this region: The
Šumava area and the Třeboň Basin. South
Bohemia was chosen as a study area for this
reason.
The aim of this paper is to assess if protected
areas are destinations for sustainable tourism
activities or rather still in the “pleasure
periphery”. We have stated two objectives to
fulfil the aim:
1. To compare the extent of the visitors'
participation in individual activities
within the protected areas to those
activities that are performed in the
larger tourist region as a whole.
2. To identify the types of visitors to the
protected areas based on their main
behavioural activities that are practised
during the visit to the protected areas.
The research questions we would like to
address are:
What tourism activities are practiced
more often than others?
Which tourism activities are different
among these visitors of the protected
areas and visitors of the tourist region?
Which tourism activities are usually
practiced together?
Can the reasonable types of visitors to
the protected areas be defined based
on the degree of participation in the
recreational activities?
Tourism in the protected areas
The original idea of protecting ecosystems and
landscapes through the national park concept
Navrátil J., J. Knotek, K. Pícha and J. Fialová (2015) / European Journal of Tourism Research 11, pp. 57-72
59
was born in order to protect the possibility for
recreational activities outside of an urban
space, situating them in “public parks” (Frost
and Hall, 2009), followed by chateau gardens
(Mark, 2009). These places were of high
natural and cultural value in most cases (Hall
and Frost, 2009a). Even though tourism has
played an important role in protecting such
places from destructive economic pressures
(Hall and Frost, 2009b), conflicts concerning
protection and the acceptability of tourism
activities are among the severest to deal with
(Hall and Lew, 2009). These areas are unique
in their ecosystems, landscapes, and also in
the possibilities they present for spending free
time outside of the everyday urban
environment (Balmford et al., 2009). Here it is
important to note that the recreational function
of the national parks and the protected
landscape areas is one of the important
protection aims under the IUCN protected area
categories (IUCN, 2014). Combining
ecosystem and landscape protection (which
usually goes hand-in-hand with the protection
of species and habitats) with tourism activities
(and especially with its side-effects) presents a
complicated global problem nowadays (e.g.,
Fredman and Sandell, 2009).
The progressive degradation of the
environment and its urbanization further
increase the value of the “pleasure periphery”
in tourism (Bushell et al., 2007). Then those
kinds of environment are more and more
exposed to the pressure resulting from the
conflicts among different types of use (Jamal et
al., 2002; McClanahan et al., 2009). The real
risk of degradation in tourism increases with
the rising number of tourists (Geneletti and
Dawa, 2009; Marion and Leung 2001;
Vasiljević et al. 2011).
Thus, new concepts of tourism are gradually
being developed and they usually have one
thing in common which is the search for an
answer to the following question: “How can
tourism be developed in individual areas
without negatively affecting the areas and their
local communities?” (Holden, 2000; Hall and
Lew, 2009). It includes those concepts based
on the framework for the consumption of
“green” products (Nicholls and Kang, 2012).
Each concept is often defined by its author, and
each of them can be distinguished from the
other concepts, according to the importance
placed on minimizing the negative impacts
and/or on maximizing the positive impacts, the
influences on the environment and/or the
community, on preserving the resources, on
maintaining growth, etc. We often come across
the following terms: ecotourism, sustainable
tourism, green tourism, soft tourism, alternative
tourism, ethnic tourism, or cultural tourism
(Leslie, 2012). Although they encompass a lot
of “defined” aspects, they mainly concern an
approach to the behaviour in tourism
(Spenceley, 2008; Lee et al., 2013), on both
the supply and the demand side. Maybe the
best description has been stated by Leslie
(2012: 1):
“The use of the term ‚ ‘responsible’ in this
context implies being responsible for’, implying
that those involved in tourism are responsible
for the consequences of tourism as an activity.”
The activities of travellers that have caused the
degradation of the environment are of the most
importance (among other aspects) regarding
the demand side. First of all, the pleasure
periphery used to being the destination of
nature based tourism. Under the latter notion, it
is understood that tourism is determined by the
existence of the “natural” environment, i.e.
primarily the protected areas of landscape and
particularly the national parks. Then tourism is
induced by the motivation of people to have a
pleasant experience from a stay in an intact
environment (Weiler and Davis, 1993). It
concerns all types of tourism, where the
activities are related to the natural environment,
including the mass forms. Although the
conservational importance of nature-based
tourism is accentuated sometimes, as a matter
of fact, this tourism has no such effect (Kline,
2001). Environmental friendly tourism, such as
ecotourism, differs from the classic nature-
based tourism, particularly in the
conservationist aspect, when the participant of
the environmental-friendly tourism turns from
the passive visitor to the active contributor to
the sustainable use of the tourist attractions
(Sjøholt, 2000). Other important elements of
ecotourism are the condition to use tourist
sources in a way that is favorable to the local
inhabitants (Epler Wood, 2002) and the
The protected areas: are they still in the ‘pleasure periphery’ or are they destinations for sustainable tourism activities?
60
motivation of a tourist is to learn something
about the visited place (Dudek and Kowalczyk,
2003). In this case, the main objective of the
tourist is to understand the cultural and natural
history of the visited place (Epler Wood, 2002).
We can also subsume activities that could link
the environmental protection requirements with
satisfying the specific needs of people in
tourism, first of all in the experience from
viewing wildlife. This group of touristic forms
comprises wildlife viewing recreation (e.g.
Higham and Bejder, 2008; Le Boeuf and
Burney, 2013; Mustika et al., 2013),
birdwatching (e.g. Collins-Kreiner et al., 2013)
and whale-watching (e.g. Dimmock et al.,
2014). The visitors’ motives are the knowledge
of nature and their stay in an intact and
“original” landscape (Hvenegaard, 2002). Then
the development of responsible tourism is
based on education and the self-education of
the visitors (Munro et al., 2008; Leung, 2012).
Then the outcome is an increase in their
environmental awareness (Ballantyne et al.,
2011), which could be manifested in changes in
the behaviour of the tourists (Angelini et al.,
2011; Hughes, 2013).
Methodology
The study area
The study area comprises a large-area of the
protected territories in the Šumava Mountains
and in the South Bohemia tourist regions
(Figure 1) specified by the Czech Tourism
Agency (Vagner and Perlin, 2010). This area
covers the southern part of Bohemia near the
border with Austria (Lower Austria, Upper
Austria) and Germany (Bavaria).
The large-area and small-area protected
natural territories in the selected tourist regions
are above-average in their occupied area
compared to the Czech Republic as a whole.
Figure 1. The Study area and Its Location within the Czech Republic.
Note: The Data sources are from the Czech Statistical Office and the Nature Conservation
Agency of the Czech Republic
Navrátil J., J. Knotek, K. Pícha and J. Fialová (2015) / European Journal of Tourism Research 11, pp. 57-72
61
The national parks and protected landscape
areas cover more than one-fifth of this land.
These protected areas play a huge role in the
development of tourism in South Bohemia as
well as in the Czech Republic (Vagner and
Perlin, 2010). Certain interest groups in the
area are aware of this situation, as proven by
the fact that the conflict between the
development of “mass” tourism and the nature
protection has become a general political topic:
the most important of its kind in the Czech
Republic. As far as the touristic and protective
importance of the Šumava Mountains Tourist
Region goes, this organized nature protection
is constantly under pressure from the efforts to
disclose attractive natural sites (Novinky,
2010). It seems that these areas cannot
currently withstand this pressure, which is
supported by the development subtext of
tourism. It will be necessary to take into
account the growing masses of tourists and the
increasing pressure of not only tourists but also
of tourist infrastructure in the future (Novinky,
2011). Nevertheless, other areas are also in a
similar situation (Havrlant, 2001; Havrlant,
2010; Foret and Klusacek, 2011). It has been
shown that large-area protected territories
represent a major concentration of
accommodation facilities in the observed area
and environment of the protected areas are the
threatened ones, as intensively studied by
Navrátil et al. (2013, 2014).
The Šumava PLA was established in 1975, and
today it covers an area of 996 km2. The
Šumava National Park, which is also a
UNESCO Biosphere reserve, was not
established until 1991, with an area of 680 km2.
The mission of the area is to preserve and
improve the existing natural environment, in
particular to protect or restore the self-serving
functions of the natural system, to strictly
protect wild flora and fauna, and to preserve
the typical appearance of the landscape. The
area also serves to fulfil the scientific and
educational goals, and moreover it is used for
tourist and recreational activities that do not
deteriorate the natural environment.
The Třeboňsko PLA was established in 1979
with an area of 700 km2. Even before this date,
Třeboňsko had been declared as a Biosphere
reserve in the UNESCO Man and the
Biosphere Programme in 1997. The purpose of
this protected landscape area is to protect
those landscapes, create a balanced
environment, and to support the optimal
development of agricultural, forestry, fishing,
and mining activities in order to use those
natural resources economically. The typical
features of the local landscape include
particularly the surface shaping given by its flat
character, with numerous water features like
watercourses, canals, ponds, and wetlands.
The final appearance of the local landscape
reflects the long-term harmonious coexistence
of humans and nature.
The Blanský les PLA was established in 1979
with an area of 212 km2. Its purpose is to
protect and gradually restore landscape values,
its appearance, and its typical features. This
natural area is very well preserved and it
primarily serves to protect the surviving mixed
forest vegetation, areas rich in flora and located
on the serpentine and limestone subsoil, and to
protect the characteristic landscape
appearance. Forest communities are preserved
in relatively large areas and the species
composition and structure are close to the
presumed original state of that vegetation.
Data collection
The data was collected in the field by means of
structured interviews with tourists (as defined
by UNWTO), whose responses were filled into
the prepared forms. This survey took place
during the 2013 summer tourist season (from
June to September, inclusive) and it was
carried out by trained students in the above-
mentioned large-area protected natural
territories. The pilot research was carried out
on a sample of thirty respondents in May 2013.
Considering the fact that obtaining a totally
random selection is practically impossible, an
arbitrary selection of the respondents was
supported by specific rules set for the selection.
This research was carried out during both
workdays and weekends (Petrick et al., 2001).
Under the circumstances of a low daily volume
of visitors, every visitor was approached
(Farber and Hall, 2007), while in the case of a
medium visit volume, every fifth visitor was
approached, and in the case of a high visit
volume, every tenth visitor was approached.
The protected areas: are they still in the ‘pleasure periphery’ or are they destinations for sustainable tourism activities?
62
The aim was to obtain 500 completed
questionnaires from each protected area (Table
1).
The tool for measuring the degree of
participation in respective recreation activities
of these tourists involved: hiking; bicycle
tourism; recreational sport activities (swimming,
tennis, etc.); wellness activities and spa
procedures; nature observation; visits to
historical sights (castles, chateaux); visits to
museums, galleries, historical sights, etc.;
games with children; relaxation; entertainment;
and shopping. The degree of participation was
measured on a five-point scale from 1 (“I do not
participate in the activity”) to 5 (“I mostly
participate in this activity”). The questionnaire
was supplemented by questions on age and
gender (Table 1).
Data analysis
The information about the degree of
participation in recreational activities was
initially and separately processed for each
activity. The relative importance of these
individual activities was assessed by using a
one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's HSD
Post-hoc Test for the unequal number of n. The
test of mutually non-differing groups was
carried out at the level of p>0.01. Given that
there was a massive research into the area of
recreational activities of tourists using the same
query tool in previous years from 2009-2011
(Navratil et al., 2013), it was possible to test the
differences in the average values for the
degree of participation in the activities between
the visitors to the protected areas and the
visitors to the entire area. A two-sample t-test
was used for this purpose (Quinn and Keough,
2002).
The typology of the recreational activities of the
tourists was performed using the cluster
analysis. First the linkage between the
respective activities was assessed using the
complete Linkage Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
with the Squared Euclidean Distance. The
multivariate proximity of the participation in the
activities was assessed based on the
dendrogram.
The same procedure was applied in the
clustering of the individual cases (i.e., the
respondents) and the “optimal” number of
clusters was assessed for further analysis.
Then this number was set in identifying groups
of respondents using the K-means clustering.
The one-way analysis of variance and the
Tukey's HSD Post-hoc Test for the unequal
number of n were again used to identify the
content of each group. The test of mutually
non-differing groups was carried out at the level
of p>0.01.
Results and discussion
The degree of participation in recreational
activities among tourists in the protected areas
substantially differs (ANOVA: F(10; 16,500) =
284.38; p<0.001). “Relaxation” is listed as the
most prominent activity (Figure 2). The large-
area protected territories are thus perceived
primarily as destinations for relaxation (Eagles
and McCool, 2002). The reason is obvious:
such large areas are optimal places for
relaxation away from city life. The main
recreational strength for relaxation lies in the
pleasant “natural” environment (Navratil et al.,
2011). The large-area protected territories thus
represent something usually called “nature-
based tourism” (Lund, 2013; Pröbstl and
Haider, 2013). In other words, it represents
tourism that is conditioned by the existence of a
natural environment that is, in today’s world,
primarily bound to protected natural areas.
From the global point of view, it mainly
concerns places of “wilderness” (Hall and
Page, 2006), protected as national parks
(Whitelaw et al., 2014). However, it is the mass
of visitors to such places that causes the
greatest loss of natural values and leads to the
Table 1. Sample characteristics, n = 1500.
Gender
Female
51.4%
Male
48.6%
Age groups
18-25 years
17.5%
26-35 years
19.7%
36-45 years
18.3%
46-55 years
16.7%
56-65 years
13.1%
66-75 years
10.5%
over 75 years
4.1%
Navrátil J., J. Knotek, K. Pícha and J. Fialová (2015) / European Journal of Tourism Research 11, pp. 57-72
63
biggest conflicts between environmental
protection and tourism activities (Monz et al.,
2010; Pickering, 2010; Pickering et al., 2010;
Barros et al., 2013). The protected areas have
to take into account consistent high pressure
on their “natural” environment (Balmford et al.,
2009).
This pressure is confirmed by “entertainment”
in second place in the ranking of participation in
activities. We know that entertainment is one of
the main driving forces behind the development
of various types of destinations (Ritchie and
Crouch, 2003). It plays an important part in
attracting visitors to environmentally significant
areas (Ballantyne et al., 2011), and yet
entertainment features are among the main
causes of conflicts between tourism and
environmental protection (Cater, 1995; Neto,
2003). On the other hand, the use of
entertainment features has a high potential for
education for visitors who are learning
something from their visit to precious “natural”
sites (Cecioni, 2005; Ferreira, 1998).
The average values for “exploring nature”
correspond to the values of entertainment; the
average values for the degree of participation
also do not differ from the ones for other
recreational activities supported by a pleasant
“natural” environment in recreational sports
activities such as swimming, tennis, etc.
(Figure 2). The above average values were
reached by activities such as hiking and visits
to historical sights and attractions (castles,
chateaux). On the contrary, wellness activities,
bicycle touring
playing with children
shopping
visits to historical sights
visits to museums
relaxation
recreational sport activities
hiking
watching the nature
wellness
entertainment
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
degree of participation
aa
cc
b
eeg g
f
d
b
Figure 2. Degree of participation in the activity among the visitors to the large-area protected
territories
Note: The average values and 0.95 confidence intervals have been showed. Those averages marked with the same
letter do not significantly differ (the Tukey's HSD Post-hoc Test for unequal sample sizes, p > 0.01), n = 1,500.
The protected areas: are they still in the ‘pleasure periphery’ or are they destinations for sustainable tourism activities?
64
bicycle touring, and playing with children
reached the lowest average values.
In order to be able to assess the importance of
the protected areas in activities performed by
tourists to the larger investigated area as a
whole, it is necessary to compare the result
values to previous research in the area. The
results are summarized in Table 2. The overall
scheme of the tourists' participation in activities
in the investigated regions and the protected
areas is analogical. Nevertheless, there was a
statistically prominent difference in all activities
of each performed activity. There are more
activities performed for which a pleasant
natural environment is an important
prerequisite in the large-area protected
territories. The largest shift was observed in the
case of the wellness activities and the
entertainment, followed by relaxation activities
and sports (Table 2). This comparison confirms
the results of a separate analysis of the visitors'
activities in the protected areas. Generally it
concerns those visitors who are oriented
towards leisure and recreational activities for
which the protected areas are an optimal
environment and not a subject of interest and
knowledge per se (Karanth and DeFries, 2011).
The results of each activity suggest that a view
of the overall structure of the performed
activities should be interesting as well. Two
types of jointly performed activities were mainly
defined using the Complete Linkage
Hierarchical Cluster Analysis, (Figure 3). The
first one is tourism involving entertainment,
relaxation and recreational physical activities
(merged with a level of information loss of
about 45%). The second type is sightseeing
tourism. Individual activities are merged there
with a level of information loss of less than
40%. Then it splits into nature-based
sightseeing (with a level of information loss of
about 25%) and cultural/historical sightseeing
(with a level of information loss of about 20%).
Other activities were not significantly merged
Table 2. The comparison of the degree of visitors' participation in individual activities in large-area
protected territories and the total number of visitors in the investigated area.
Activity
Sample
Mean
Variance
t-test
Wellness
Tourism regions
1.848
1.454
-8.661
Protected areas
2.168
1.473
Historical sights
Tourism regions
3.322
1.592
8.388
Protected areas
3.035
1.121
Museums
Tourism regions
2.852
1.724
3.581
Protected areas
2.728
1.120
Shopping
Tourism regions
2.541
1.621
-4.732
Protected areas
2.720
1.507
Entertainment
Tourism regions
2.964
1.790
-13.805
Protected areas
3.471
1.313
Relaxation
Tourism regions
3.739
1.445
-4.871
Protected areas
3.901
1.077
Nature observation
Tourism regions
3.706
1.447
10.703
Protected areas
3.344
1.141
Bicycle tourism
Tourism regions
2.697
2.408
4.694
Protected areas
2.501
1.661
Sport activities
Tourism regions
3.053
1.888
-5.872
Protected areas
3.282
1.535
Hiking
Tourism regions
3.328
1.754
5.117
Protected areas
3.138
1.383
Note: The data for the whole area are taken from Navratil et al., 2013; two-tailed pair t-test was used, all values are
significant at p<0.001, n=1500.
Navrátil J., J. Knotek, K. Pícha and J. Fialová (2015) / European Journal of Tourism Research 11, pp. 57-72
65
together, and they have been assigned to other
types of activities by using statistical methods;
(However, it was done at a level of information
loss of 60% and more). The definition of these
two broad types is logical and fully corresponds
to the basic motivational elements influencing
the visits to such places (Cheung and Fok,
2014; Yoon and Uysal, 2005).
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
distance (%)
relaxation
recreational sport activities
entertainmnet
playing with children
bicycle touring
hiking
watching the nature
visits to museums
visits to historical sights
shopping
wellness
Figure 3. The dendrogram of a joint assessment of recreation activities.
Note: The figure shows the results of the Complete Linkage Hierarchical Cluster Analysis, n=1500.
020 40 60 80 100
distance (%)
Figure 4. Classification of the respondents
Note: The classification is based on a joint assessment of the recreational activities and the classification of the
respondents. This shows the results of the Complete Linkage Hierarchical Cluster Analysis, n = 1500.
The protected areas: are they still in the ‘pleasure periphery’ or are they destinations for sustainable tourism activities?
66
Subsequently, the degree of participation in
recreational activities on a holiday was used for
the purpose of a basic segmentation of the
visitors according to their prevailing behaviour.
The number of groups determined by the
dendrogram was four (Figure 4). It can be seen
that there are two main groups, which are
further split into multiple smaller groups. These
groups are quite close to the group of
stakeholders that were identified by Brown et
al. (2015) as well as the motivational factors
identified by Kibicho (2006).
As for the level of creating a group is
concerned, the level of information loss was set
to 65%, which is a greater information loss than
usual (Real, Arce and Sabucedo, 2000). The
respondents were assigned to groups
according to K-means Clustering. The resulting
groups are meaningful and characterize the
structure of the respondents well (see below).
Based on the different average values of
participation in each activity (Table 3), four
groups were identified: (1) the passive visitors,
(2) the visitors focused on exploring but not
participating in any physical activity, (3) the
active visitors with a dominant interest in
bicycle touring, and (4) the active visitors with a
dominant interest in history. The first group,
comprising more than a fifth of all visitors
(21.79%), involves the passive visitors whose
only significant activity (with the average above
3) is relaxation. Four of the activities do not
even reach the average of two. Overall, with
the exception of relaxation, all the other
activities reach the minimum average values
for participation in the activities. In the overall
number of visits, this segment corresponds
(Navratil et al., 2013) to the passive and non-
engaged tourism segment (Lanfranchi at al.,
2014), except for the fact that the average
values of interest in the activities are generally
lower in the case of protected areas. The
second of the identified segments also has its
influence on the overall visits to the region: this
type is known as hotel-based tourism (Weaver,
2006; Ahmad, 2014), which is characteristic in
its low values for physical activities and high
values for mainly history but also for
entertainment and especially shopping
(maximum of the defined segments). It involves
the smallest number of the respondents
(13.79%).
The other two segments differ from the
aforementioned ones mostly due to their high
values for physical activities such as hiking,
bicycle touring, and recreational sport activities.
The absolute number of activities has above
average values for the participation of both
groups. Though they differ significantly only in
Table 3. Degree of participation in recreational activities for the segments of demand
Passive
Exploring without any
physical activity
Active with a
dominant interest in
bicycle touring
Active with a
dominant interest
in history
average
SEM
average
SEM
average
SEM
average
SEM
Wellness
1.92
a
0.07
2.19
ab
0.08
2.16
ab
0.07
2.28
b
0.05
Visits to historical sights
2.30
b
0.05
3.05
a
0.06
2.79
d
0.05
3.50
c
0.04
Visits to museums
1.88
b
0.04
2.79
a
0.07
2.52
d
0.05
3.21
c
0.04
Shopping
2.43
b
0.06
3.21
a
0.08
2.55
bc
0.06
2.78
c
0.05
Entertainment
2.95
a
0.07
3.10
a
0.08
3.79
b
0.05
3.70
b
0.04
Relaxation
3.49
a
0.07
3.47
a
0.07
4.10
b
0.05
4.14
b
0.04
Nature observation
2.57
b
0.06
3.17
a
0.06
3.61
c
0.06
3.66
c
0.04
Bicycle tourism
1.66
b
0.05
1.99
a
0.07
3.56
d
0.05
2.60
c
0.05
Recreational sport activities
2.39
a
0.07
2.55
a
0.07
3.86
b
0.05
3.68
b
0.04
Hiking
2.14
b
0.06
2.67
a
0.07
3.58
c
0.06
3.57
c
0.04
Games with children
1.89
b
0.06
2.41
a
0.09
2.84
c
0.08
2.66
ac
0.05
Note: The average values and mean error (SEM) are shown. Those averages marked with the same letter do not
significantly differ (Tukey's HSD Post hoc Test for unequal sample sizes, p > 0.01), n = 1,500.
Navrátil J., J. Knotek, K. Pícha and J. Fialová (2015) / European Journal of Tourism Research 11, pp. 57-72
67
a small number of activities, this difference is
substantial. While the first one shows an
incomparably higher interest in bicycle touring
in comparison with the other segments, the
second group shows a greater interest in
history. Thus the first group corresponds to the
segment which is marked in the analysis as
“modern outdoor tourism”, and the second
group corresponds to “traditional outdoor
tourism” (Weber and Anderson, 2010). The
active visitors with a dominant interest in
bicycle touring represent a fifth of the visits
(19.59%), while active visitors with a dominant
interest in history represent nearly a half of all
of the visits (44.84%). Bicycle tourism in
particular seems to be an important
differentiating factor in the overall visits
because people interested in this activity have
different beliefs than “other” tourists (Ramthun
and Armistead, 2000).
Conclusion
The most prominent activity among tourists in
large-area protected natural territories is
relaxation. Thus, large-area protected
territories are perceived primarily as
destinations for relaxation. Entertainment is the
second most important activity. As to the third
and the fourth places are concerned (that are
occupied by recreational sport activities like
swimming, tennis, etc.), we can speak of large-
area protected natural territories as being
destinations for “nature-based tourism”, which
is conditioned by the existence of the natural
environment, which is primarily bound to the
protected natural areas, and not for ecotourism.
According to the levels of participation in
recreational activities, there were four
segments of demand that were identified in the
visits to the large-area protected natural
territories: (1) passive visitors, (2) visitors
focused on exploring but not participating in
any physical activity, (3) active visitors with a
dominant interest in bicycle touring, and (4)
active visitors with a dominant interest in
history.
The protected areas keep representing an
“escape location” for an important group of
tourists, i.e., a pleasure periphery that is near
enough to get to and far enough away so that it
could be sufficiently special to relax in. The
surveyed tourists were not found to be primarily
oriented towards eco-tourism; they are not eco-
conscious, but they are looking for an
environment full of nature. The managers of
these protected areas, (in collaboration with
other groups of stakeholders) should consider
the potential of the particular parts of the
protected areas in order to undertake tourist
activities sustainably so that there is an offer for
those particular identified segments as
mentioned above.
This article has studied the structure of tourists
in the particular protected areas in more detail.
This fact limits the possibility to generalize the
revealed facts for other protected areas to
some degree. Further research could give
attention to the impact of every kind of
particular tourist activities in the natural
environment of the protected area, when it
comes to define an acceptable degree of
undertaking those activities in the sense of
sustainability.
Acknowledgement
The field survey and the preparation of this
paper were supported by the Czech Science
Foundation – GACR P404/12/0334 ‘Factors of
visitors’ in relation to the ambience of
attractions in vulnerable areas.’
References
Ahmad, R. (2014). Habitus, capital, and
patterns of taste in tourism
consumption: A study of western
tourism consumers in India. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Research,
38(4), 487-505
Angelini, R., Ferreira, J. S., do Carmo Araujo,
C. S., & Carvalho, A. R. (2011). Effect
of outdoor and laboratorial environment
science activities on middle school
students understanding on
conservation. Natureza &
Conservacao, 9(1), 93-97
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Falk, J. (2011).
Visitors' learning for environmental
sustainability: Testing short- and long-
term impacts of wildlife tourism
experiences using structural equation
modelling. Tourism Management,
32(6), 1243-1252.
Balmford, A., Beresford, J., Green, J., Naidoo,
R., Walpole, M., & Manica, A. (2009). A
The protected areas: are they still in the ‘pleasure periphery’ or are they destinations for sustainable tourism activities?
68
global perspective on trends in nature-
based tourism. Plos Biology, 7(6),
e1000144.
Barros, A., Gonnet, J., Pickering, C. (2013)
Impacts of informal trails on vegetation
and soils in the highest protected area
in the Southern Hemisphere. Journal of
Environmental Management, 127, 50-
60.
Bernat, S. (2014) Soundscapes and tourism -
Towards sustainable tourism. Problemy
Ekorozwoju, 9(1), 107-117.
Borges, M., C. Eusébio, Carvalho N. (2014)
Governance for sustainable tourism: A
review and directions for future
research. European Journal of Tourism
Research, 7, 45-56.
Brown, G., de Bie, K., & & Weber, D. (2015).
Identifying public land stakeholder
perspectives for implementing place-
based land management. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 139, 1-15.
Bushell, R., & McCool, S. F. (2007). Tourism as
a tool for conservation and support of
protected areas: Setting the agenda. In
R. Bushell, P. F. J. Eagles (Eds.)
(2007) Tourism and protected areas:
Benefits beyond boundaries, The Vth
IUCN World Parks Congress.
Wallingford: CABI, 12-26.
Bushell, R., Staiff, R., & Eagles, P. F. J. (2007)
Tourism and protected areas: Benefits
beyond boundaries. In R. Bushell, P. F.
J. Eagles (Eds.) (2007) Tourism and
protected areas: Benefits beyond
boundaries, The Vth IUCN World Parks
Congress. Wallingford: CABI, 1–11.
Cater, E. (1995). Environmental contradictions
in sustainable tourism. Geographical
Journal, 161(1), 21-28.
Cecioni, E. (2005). Environmental education
and geography of complexity.
International Research in Geographical
and Environmental Education, 14(4),
277-294 .
Cetkovsky, S., Klusacek, P., Martinat, S., &
Zapletalova, J. (2007). Some aspects
of cross-border cooperation in
Euroregions of the Czech Republic: An
example of the Šumava Region.
Moravian Geographical Reports, 15(1),
43-55.
Cheung, L. T. O., & Fok, L. (2014). The
motivations and environmental
attitudes of nature-based visitors to
protected areas in Hong Kong.
International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology,
21(1), 28-38.
Collins-Kreiner, N., Malkinson, D., Labinger, Z.,
& Shtainvarz, R. (2013). Are birders
good for birds? Bird conservation
through tourism management in the
Hula Valley, Israel. Tourism
Management, 38, 31-42.
Dimmock, K., Hawkins, E. R., & Tiyce, M.
(2014). Stakeholders, industry
knowledge and adaptive management
in the Australian whale-watching
industry. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 22(7), 1108-1121.
Dudek, A., & Kowalczyk, A. (2003). Turystyka
na obszarach chronionych: Szanse i
zagrożenia. Prace i Studia
Geograficzne 32, 117-140.
Eagles, P. F., & McCool, S. F. (2002). Tourism
in national parks and protected areas:
Planning and management. CABI.
Epler Wood, M. (2002). Ecotourism: Principles,
practices and policies for sustainability.
Nairobi: UNEP.
Farber, M. E., & Hall, T. E. (2007). Emotion and
environment: Visitors' extraordinary
experiences along the Dalton Highway
in Alaska. Journal of Leisure Research,
39(2), 248-270
Ferreira, G. (1998). Environmental education
through hiking: A qualitative
investigation. Environmental Education
Research, 4(2), 177-183.
Foret, M., & Klusacek, P. (2011). The
importance of the partnership and
cooperation in the regional
development exampled on Znojmo
region. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae
et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis,
59(4), 79-86
Frantal, B., & Urbankova, R. (2014). Energy
tourism: An emerging field of study.
Current Issues in Tourism. doi:
10.1080/13683500.2014.987734
Fredman, P., & Sandell, K. (2009) 'Protect,
preserve, present' The role of tourism
in Swedish national parks. In W. Frost,
C. M. Hall (Eds.) (2009) Tourism and
Navrátil J., J. Knotek, K. Pícha and J. Fialová (2015) / European Journal of Tourism Research 11, pp. 57-72
69
national parks. International
perspectives on development, histories
and change. London: Routledge, 197-
207.
Frost, W., Hall, C. M. (2009). Reinterpreting the
creation myth. In W. Frost, C. M. Hall
(Eds.) (2009) Tourism and national
parks: International perspectives on
development, histories and change.
London: Routledge, 16-29.
Geneletti, D., & Dawa, D. (2009) Environmental
impact assessment of mountain
tourism in developing regions: A study
in Ladakh, Indian Himalaya.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 29(4), 229-242.
Hall, C. M., & Frost, W. (2009a). Introduction:
The making of the national parks
concept. In W. Frost, C. M. Hall (Eds.)
(2009) Tourism and national parks:
International perspectives on
development, histories and change.
London: Routledge, 3-15.
Hall, C. M., & Frost, W. (2009b). National parks
ant the 'worthless lands hypothesis'
revisited. In W. Frost, C. M. Hall (Eds.)
(2009) Tourism and national parks:
International perspectives on
development, histories and change.
London: Routledge, 46-62.
Hall, C. M., & Lew, A. A. (2009). Understanding
and managing tourism impacts: An
integrated approach. London:
Routledge.
Hall, C. M., & Page, S. (2006). The geography
of tourism and recreation: Environment,
place and space. London: Routledge.
Havrlant, J. (2001). The Beskydy Mountains –
specific features and problems of the
tourist area. Geografski Obzornik,
48(4), 23-26.
Havrlant, J. (2010). The recreational potential
of the Jeseníky Region (Czech
Republic and the influence of soft
factors on its devellopment). Moravian
Geographical Reports 18(1), 23-37.
Higham, J. E. S., & Bejder, L. (2008).
Managing wildlife-based tourism:
Edging slowly towards sustainability?
Current Issues in Tourism, 11(1), 75-
83.
Holden, A. (2000). Environment and tourism.
London; New York: Routledge.
Hughes, K. (2013). Measuring the impact of
viewing wildlife: Do positive intentions
equate to long-term changes in
conservation behaviour? Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 21(1), 42-59.
Hvenegaard, G. T. (2002). Using tourist
typologies for ecotourism research.
Journal of Ecotourism 1(1), 7-18.
IUCN (2014). IUCN Protected areas categories
system. URL:
http://www.iucn.org/about/work/progra
mmes/gpap_home/gpap_quality/gpap_
pacategories/ (Accessed on
14.5.2014).
Jamal, T. B., Stein, S. M., & Harper, T. L.
(2002). Beyond labels - Pragmatic
planning in multistakeholder tourism-
environmental conflicts. Journal of
Planning Education and Research,
22(2), 165-177.
Karanth, K. K., DeFries, R. (2011). Nature-
based tourism in Indian protected
areas: New challenges for park
management. Conservation Letters,
4(2), 137-149.
Kayat, K. (2008). Stakeholders' perspectives
toward a community-based rural
tourism development. European
Journal of Tourism Research, 1(2), 94-
111.
Kibicho, W. (2006). Tourists to Amboseli
National Park: A factor-cluster
segmentation analysis. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 12(3), 218-231.
Kline, J. D. (2001). Tourism and natural
resource management: a general
overview of research and issues. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-506, Portland.
Kroupova, S., Navratil, J., Picha, K., &
Hasman, M. (2014). Differentiation of
the demand for the hunting tourism in
the Czech Republic. Czech Journal of
Tourism 3(1), 27-42.
Lanfranchi, M., Giannetto, C., & De Pascale, A.
(2014). Nature based tourism: Natural
balance, impacts and management.
Quality - Access to Success, 15
(SUPPL.1), 224-229.
Le Boeuf, B. J., & Campagna, C. (2013).
Wildlife viewing spectacles: Best
practices from Elephant seal (Mirounga
sp.) colonies. Aquatic Mammals 39(2),
132-146.
The protected areas: are they still in the ‘pleasure periphery’ or are they destinations for sustainable tourism activities?
70
Lee, T. H., Jan, F. H., & Yang, C. C. (2013).
Conceptualizing and measuring
environmentally responsible behaviors
from the perspective of community-
based tourists. Tourism Management,
36, 454-468.
Leslie, D. (2012). Introduction. In D. Leslie
(Ed.) (2012). Responsible tourism:
Concepts, theory and practice.
Wallingford: CABI, 1-16
Leung, Y.-F. (2012). Recreation ecology
research in East Asia's protected
areas: Redefining impacts? Journal for
Nature Conservation, 20(6), 349-356.
Lourens, M. (2007). Route tourism: a roadmap
for successful destinations and local
economic development. Development
Southern Africa, 24(3), 475-489.
Lund, K. A. (2013). Experiencing nature in
nature-based tourism. Tourist Studies,
13(2), 156-171.
Marion, J. L., & Leung, Y. (2001). Trail
resource impact and an examination of
alternative assessment techniques.
Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 19(3), 17-37.
Marion, J. L., & Reid, S. E. (2007). Minimising
visitor impacts to protected areas: The
efficacy of low impact education
programmes. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 15(1), 5-27.
Mark, S. R. (2009). Framing the view: How
American national parks become to be.
In W. Frost, C. M. Hall (Eds.) (2009)
Tourism and national parks:
International perspectives on
development, histories and change.
London: Routledge, 81-87.
McClanahan, T. R, Cinner, J., Kamukuru, A. T.,
Abunge, C., & Ndagala, J. (2008).
Management preferences, perceived
benefits and conflicts among resource
users and managers in the Mafia Island
Marine Park, Tanzania. Enviromental
Conservation, 35(4), 340-350.
Monz, C. A., Marion, J. L., Goonan, K. A.,
Manning, R. E., Wimpey, J., & Carr, C.
(2010) Assessment and monitoring of
recreation impacts and resource
conditions on mountain summits:
Examples from the Northern Forest,
USA. Mountain Research and
Development, 30(4), 332-343.
Munro, J. K., Morrison-Saunders, A., &
Hughes, M. (2008). Environmental
interpretation evaluation in natural
areas. Journal of Ecotourism, 7(1), 1-
14.
Mustika, P. L. K., Birtles, A., Everingham, Y., &
Marsh, H. (2013). The human
dimensions of wildlife tourism in a
developing country: watching spinner
dolphins at Lovina, Bali, Indonesia.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(2),
229-251.
Navrátil, J., Lesjak, M., Pícha, K., Martinát, S.,
Navrátilová, J., White Baravalle Gilliam,
V. L., & Rajchard, J. (2014). The
importance of vulnerable areas with
potential tourism development: A case
study of the Bohemian Forest and
South Bohemia tourism regions. Acta
Geographica Slovenica, 54(1), 115-
130.
Navratil, J., Picha, K., Martinat, S., Knotek, J.,
Kucera, T., Balounova, Z., & Rajchard,
J. (2013). A model for the identification
of areas favourable for the
development of tourism: A case study
of the Sumava Mts. and South
Bohemia Tourist regions (Czech
Republic). Moravian Geographical
Reports, 21(1), 25-40.
Navratil, J., Picha, K., Rajchard, J., &
Navratilova, J. (2011). Impact of visit on
visitors' perceptions of the
environments of nature-based tourism
sites. Tourism 59(1), 7-23.
Neto, F. (2003). A new approach to sustainable
tourism development: Moving beyond
environmental protection. Natural
Resources Forum 27(3), 212-222.
Neasome, D., Moore, S. A., & Dowling, R. K.
(2013). Natural area tourism. Ecology,
impacts and management. Bristol:
Channel View Publications.
Nicholls, S., & Kang, S. (2012). Going green:
the adoption of environmental initiatives
in Michigan's lodging sector. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 20(7), 953-974.
Novinky (2010). Šumava se má opět otevřít
turistům, rozhodl soud. URL:
http://www.novinky.cz/domaci/219798-
sumava-se-ma-opet-otevrit-turistum-
rozhodl-soud.html (Accessed on
5.12.2011)
Navrátil J., J. Knotek, K. Pícha and J. Fialová (2015) / European Journal of Tourism Research 11, pp. 57-72
71
Novinky (2011). První zónu parku Šumava
protne lanovka, schválili jihočeští radní.
URL:
http://www.novinky.cz/domaci/243339-
prvni-zonu-parku-sumava-protne-
lanovka-schvalili-jihocesti-radni.html
(Accessed on 5.12.2011)
Ogonowska, M., & D. Torre (2013). Sustainable
tourism and the emergence of new
environmental norms. European
Journal of Tourism Research 6(2), 141-
153.
Olwig, K., & Olwig, K. (1979). Underdevelop-
ment and the development of „natural“
parks ideology. Antipode 11(2), 16-25.
Petrick, J. F., Morais, D. D., & Norman, W. C.
(2001). An examination of the
determinants of entertainment
vacationers' intentions to revisit.
Journal of Travel Research 40(1), 41-
48.
Pickering, C. M. (2010). Ten factors that affect
the severity of environmental impacts
of visitors in protected areas. Ambio
39(1), 70-77.
Pickering, C. M., Hill, W., Newsome, D., &
Leung, Y. F. (2010). Comparing hiking,
mountain biking and horse riding
impacts on vegetation and soils in
Australia and the United States of
America. Journal of Environmental
Management, 91(3), 551-562.
Pröbstl, U., & Haider, W. (2013). Challenges for
outdoor recreation and nature based
tourism. Journal of Outdoor Recreation
and Tourism, 1-2, iii-iv
Quinn, G. P., & Keough, M. J. (2002).
Experimental design and data analysis
for biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ramthun, R., & Armistead, J. D. (2000). A
measurement of the experience
preferences of Central Appalachian
mountain bicyclists. Proceedings of the
2000 Northeastern Recreation
Research Symposium 276, 104-106
Real, E., Arce, C., & Sabucedo, J. M. (2000).
Classification of landscapes using
quantitative and categorical data, and
prediction of their scenic beauty in
north-western Spain. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 20(4), 355-
373.
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003) The
competitive destination: a sustainable
tourism perspective. Wallingford: CABI
Publishing.
Santana-Jiménez, Y., Hernández, J. M., &
Suárez-Vega, R. (2013). Estimating the
environmental attractions of rural
tourism lodging units in La Gomera
island, Spain. European Journal of
Tourism Research, 6(2), 132-140.
Sjøholt, P. (2000). Eco-tourism and local
development. Conceptual and
theoretical framework and problems in
implementation. Empirical evidence
from Costa Rica and Ecuador. Fennia,
178(2), 227-241.
Spenceley, A. (2008). Introduction:
Responsible tourism in Southern Africa.
In A. Spenceley (Ed.) (2008)
Responsible tourism: Critical issues for
conservation and development.
London: Earthscan, 1-26.
Svec, R., Navratil, J., Picha, K., & White
Baravalle Gilliam, V. L. (2012). The
perception of the quality of
accommodation establishments'
product. DETUROPE: Central
European Journal of Regional
Development and Tourism 4(2), 4-21.
Tomljenović, R., & I. Kunst (2014). From sun
and sea tourism to cultural tourism –
the case of Split-Dalmatia county.
European Journal of Tourism Research
8, 83-98.
Vagner, J., & Perlin, R. (2010). Turistické
regiony České republiky.
CzechTourism a ministerstvo pro
místní rozvoj České republiky.
Informace České geografické
společnosti 30(1), 38-41.
Vasiljević, D. A., Marković, S. B., Hose, T. A.,
Smalley, I., O’Hara-Dhand, K., Basarin,
B., Lukić, T., & Vujičić, M. D. (2011).
Loess towards (geo) tourism –
proposed application on loess in
Vojvodina region (north Serbia). Acta
Geographica Slovenica, 51(2), 390-
406.
Weaver, D. (2006). Sustainable tourism:
Theory and practice. London, New
York: Routledge.
Weiler, B., & Davis, D. (1993). An exploratory
investigation into the roles of the
The protected areas: are they still in the ‘pleasure periphery’ or are they destinations for sustainable tourism activities?
72
nature-based tour leader. Tourism
Management, 14(1), 91-98.
Whitelaw, P. A., King, B. E. M., & Tolkach, D.
(2014). Protected areas, conservation
and tourism - financing the sustainable
dream. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
22(4), 584-603.
Williams, S. (2000). Tourism geography.
London: Routledge.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination
of the effects of motivation and
satisfaction on destination loyalty: a
structural model. Tourism Management
26(1), 45-56.
Young, J., Richards, C., Fischer, A., Halada, L.,
Kull, T., Kuzniar, A., & Watt, A. (2007).
Conflicts between biodiversity
conservation and human activities in
the central and Eastern European
countries. Ambio, 36(7), 545-550.
.
