The spectrum of five segments of Overland Track walkers

This study aimed to answer the following research question;

To what extent does the inclusion of values into Weaver and Lawton’s Ecotourist Spectrum affect its ability to segment ecotourists in the context of a multi-day walk?

The findings show that the inclusion of social and environmental values into the Spectrum assisted the segmentation of Overland Track walkers into five groups. The spectrum of the five segments of Overland Track walkers found in this study in relation to ten dimensions of the Spectrum and three value related dimensions is summarised in the Table 13.

Table 13: The spectrum of the five segments of Overland Track walkers

Two groups were characterised for their unique social and environmental values respectively. A new social dimension, ‘access to facilities’ enabled the identification of a unique cluster of

The Spectrum of the five segments of Overland Track walkers

1. Strong environmental

commitment

--- Weak environmental commitment

2. Long stay --- Short stay

3. Multiple purposes --- Sole purpose

4. Small size --- Medium size

5. Physically passive --- Physically active

6. Physical comfort --- Physical challenge

7. Expectation of no facilities --- Expectation of few facilities

8. Deep interaction with nature --- Visual interaction only

9. Emphasis on self- interpretation

10. Primary person to plan the

trip

--- Second person to plan the trip

11. Facilities diminish the

experience

--- Facilities improve the experience

12. Common experience for

walkers

--- Differential experience for walkers

123 people named ‘Experiential Purists’ who believe that allowing guided walkers to experience luxurious facilities is unfair or cheating, and therefore everyone should use the same basic facilities. This sentiment is represented in Dimension 12 of Table 13 as ‘common experience for walkers’. This was unique since most other groups shared the view that luxury facilities can be found on the track as an option for elderly or unfit people who otherwise cannot experience the walk (represented by ‘differential experience for walkers’ in Table 13). In addition, a new environmental dimension, ‘the impact of facilities on the experience’ as well as the existing dimension; ‘willingness to pay the track fee’ (environmental commitment) and ‘their expectation of facilities on the track’, enabled the identification of ‘Serious Wilderness Seekers’ who hold distinctive environmental values. They wished no facilities to be provided on the track (Dimension 7) since wilderness should be unaltered by humans. They held a lack of willingness to pay the track fee (Dimension 1), and judged the current level of facilities to be overdevelopment (Dimension 11). This idea was viewed as an ‘ideal’ form of wilderness by other groups in this study who accepted the need for basic facilities to minimise environmental impacts caused by walkers.

Another social dimension added to the Spectrum was ‘freedom and safety’, although this did not provide a clear distinction between the groups. All the groups agreed that they do not seek guides for instruction or as a source of confidence. However, it provided a clue to understand the characteristics of ‘Social Followers’ who did not necessarily appreciate walking independently (Dimension 13). This group also expressed a unique view due to their preference to walk in medium sized groups (Dimension 4) due to their lack of confidence and experience as well as their preference for building social relationships with family and/or friends. ‘Social Followers’ also tend to be the person who supports the primary organiser (Dimension 10). On the other hand, most walkers travelled in a small group for flexibility and freedom and they were the primary person to arrange the trip.

The study also found inverse relationships between two dimensions of the original Spectrum. The study found that walkers who stayed longer in Tasmania had multiple reasons for their trip, while those who stayed for a shorter period such as ‘Busy Challenge Seekers’ had a sole purpose, which was to walk the Overland Track (Dimensions 2 & 3). According to Weaver and Lawton (2001), hard ecotourists were those who stayed longer and had a solo purpose, whereas soft ecotourists stayed for a shorter time and had multiple purposes. While it is

124 considered that hard ecotourists are physically active, seek physical challenge and have a deep interaction with nature, the study found that groups who seek physical challenge prioritise physical activity over a deep interaction with nature. It was found that those who preferred physical comfort had a deeper interaction with nature (Dimensions 6 & 8). Similarly physically active groups appeared to miss or not seek opportunities for deep interactions with nature (Dimensions 5 & 8). The preference for self-interpretation (rather than interpretation provided by guides) was consistent among all the groups as they all valued their independence. Hence Dimension 9 is positioned in the middle of Table 13.

Although the modified spectrum allowed the detection of these unique five groups of walkers, this research could not rank the five groups in the soft and hard spectrum. This is why Table 13 does not identify which end of the spectrum is ‘soft’ or ‘hard’. Overall, this study was unable to demonstrate ‘hard ecotourists’ or ‘soft ecotourists’ who satisfied all hard or soft dimensions suggested by Weaver and Lawton (2001). All the groups contained at least one element defined by Weaver and Lawton (2001) as structured ecotourists, who contained a mix of soft and hard ecotourist characteristics. This complication raises a question of the weight of each dimension. Should each dimension be treated equally or should particular dimensions be weighted with more importance than others? Interestingly this study fails to answer this question, since the original Spectrum of soft and hard ecotourism did not rank the dimensions. What this study found was that the segments it uncovered using the modified Spectrum display a far more complex array of soft and hard ecotourist perspectives. This study has shown that in order to rank Overland Track walkers from soft to hard, the modified spectrum should also rank dimensions to distinguish softer or harder characteristics.