Implications for theory and practice

The aim of this research was to explore segmentation of ecotourists participating in a hard ecotourism activity such as a multi-day walk. The research intended to use the Ecotourism Spectrum developed in 2001 by Weaver and Lawton as it appeared to be the most accepted tool available to explore the heterogeneous ecotourism market (Collins-Kreiner & Israeli, 2010). On closer inspection of the literature criticism of the Spectrum was revealed therefore the study decided to modify the Spectrum by adding values as implied by both Blamey and Braithwaite (1997), Zografos and Allcroft (2007) before testing the modified spectrum on the Overland Track, Tasmania. The findings of the research confirm that the market of ecotourists participating in a hard ecotourism activity such as multi-day walks is

125 heterogeneous. Five distinct segments of walkers were identified but each group contained a mix of hard and soft ecotourism characteristics as identified by Weaver and Lawton’s (2001) Spectrum. This research therefore suggests that the incorporation of social and environmental values into the original Spectrum of soft and hard ecotourists was effective at identifying a range of segments that reveal a more complex array of characteristics than the behaviour- based Spectrum could uncover. The inclusion of values derived from the experiences of walkers interviewed on the Overland Track (Phase One), allowed the Spectrum to be more meaningful and allowed a more nuanced interpretation of ecotourist segments.

In addition to discovering that the behaviour-based Spectrum can reveal more complex segments when it incorporates values, the study makes some practical suggestions that could be of benefit to managers of the Overland Track. The research contributes to providing recommendations to Parks and Wildlife Services and in this particular case to Parks and Wildlife, Tasmania. Firstly the current level of facilities available on the Overland Track is appreciated by most independent walkers. Many of the interviewees appreciated the need for facilities in order to protect the track. Support for the current level of provision and the detection of a segment who felt the quality of their experience had been reduced by the excessive level of facilities therefore suggests that additional major upgrades of facilities should be avoided. Secondly, the research uncovered a small group of walkers who disagreed with the idea of guided walkers enjoying more luxurious facilities on the Track. Although most groups understood the importance of opening the opportunity to experience the walk to a wider range of people, particularly people who are less physically capable, many respondents felt the walk should only offer the basic facilities open to public independent walkers. Thus the management authority should continue to regulate and minimise the development of facilities and services from private enterprises on the Track. Thirdly the price of the track fee was considered to be acceptable since most walkers understand the high cost of managing the track. However, the price may be reaching the threshold level for a group of people who were characterised as young walkers from overseas.

126

6.7Limitations

This study acknowledges that the focus of the study was narrowed to people who had

experienced hard ecotourism activities. Classifying people who had already chosen this style of ecotourism activity meant that the original Spectrum of soft and hard ecotourists was used as a guide that was adapted to explore characteristics among walkers. As discussed in Section 4.3, in the process of developing statements from the Phase One interviews, three levels of statements, soft, medium and hard were extracted based on the interpretation of the

experiences of Overland Trackers. In other words, what was regarded as a ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ statement in this study was drawn from the words of the participants interviewed in Phase One. Consequently groups in Phase Two interviews who displayed ‘soft’ dimensions may not be ‘soft’ as described by Weaver and Lawton (2001) and it should be treated as ‘softer’ rather than soft.

As outlined in Section 3.8, the study also acknowledges the absence of off-peak walkers who were considered to contain a large number of local walkers and guided walkers. While both groups were included in the Phase One interviews to capture a broad range of walker types, they were not approachable during the Phase Two interviews. This was due to nature of Q method which involves a long interview time, and to the restricted time scale and budget open to the project. Guided walkers for example operate on a tight time scale and spend little time waiting for transport where they could be interviewed. In addition the researcher had to restrict her movements to public huts and campsites and did not have access to the private sites. However, 95% of Overland Track walkers walk during the peak season. It is during this time that the broadest range of local, interstate and international walkers participate, and the bulk of track fees are collected. Therefore this study concentrated on targeting this time period and the findings of this study only apply to the independent Overland Track walkers in the peak season. If this study had included non-peak periods different segments of walkers may have emerged. It is recommended that future research in the area could be conducted at peak and non-peak times to explore whether different segments are revealed.

As described in Section 4.4.2, value dimensions added in this study were limited to only three due to the limitation of Q method which makes it difficult to analyse a large data set. Given a 36 statement based Q sorting is manageable (Barry & Proops, 1999), the number of statements were limited in this study. In addition, these value dimensions were developed purely based on the Phase One interviews. Use of established measurements such as Social

127 Value Inventory (Braithwaite & Law, 1985) and New Environmental Paradigm (Dunlap et al., 2000) could have improved the validity of the study. However, these measurements consist of 17 and 15 statements respectively, and it was difficult to use with the ten dimensions of the Spectrum in Q method. Quantitative studies using these measurements could be conducted to understand the potential to improve the Spectrum by adding value dimensions.