Universität Bayreuth

Rechts- und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät

Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere

ISSN 1611-3837

Adresse: Prof. Dr. Herbert Woratschek Universität Bayreuth Lehrstuhl für Dienstleistungsmanagement 95440 Bayreuth Telefon: 0921/553497 Fax: 0921/553496 e-Mail: dlm@uni-bayreuth.de

Herbert Woratschek, Frank M. Hannich, Brent Ritchie

Diskussionspapier 02-07

Februar 2007

Motivations of Sports Tourists - An Empirical Analysis in

Several European Rock Climbing Regions

Abstract

Motivations of Sports Tourists - An Empirical Analysis in Several

European Rock Climbing Regions

This paper analyses how complex sets of motivations influence destination choice of sports tourists. This is done by using the example of rock climbing tourism. The paper demonstrates that rock climbing tourists can be segmented into four distinct customer groups according to their different motivations. The standard three-step procedure of factor analysis, cluster analysis and segment description is used on the data, but special attention is given to determining an optimal cluster analysis solution. To achieve this, solutions with different numbers of clusters derived from Ward analysis as well as Quick-Cluster analysis are statistically compared. It is shown how the four standard criteria for acceptable market segments can be used in this context. Cluster analysis based on motivation dimensions finally led to four distinct segments. Based on their motivations the clusters were termed Scene Climbers, Adventure Climbers, Novelty Seeking Tourists and Sport- and Leisure Tourists. Revealing the preferences of climbing tourists, the results enable destinations to adjust their strategy accordingly. Each segment has specific requirements that have to be met. This motivation-based analysis provides clear implications on how to make a destination more attractive to climbing tourists.

Keywords: Segmentation, motivations and destination choice, sports tourism

1

When Crompton researched tourist motivation in the late seventies he found, that

tourists where largely homogenous in their motives. A great number of destinations

could be the medium to satisfy the motives of relaxation, exploration of self and

regression that were driving most of his subjects.(Crompton 1979) Since then, tourists

have become much more demanding and their motives and motivations have become

much more diverse.(Poon 2002; Krippendorf 1987) Today, many tourists organize

their vacation around one specific interest. This phenomenon is researched under the

heading of special interest tourism.(Hall 1989; Weiler and Hall 1992) Sports tourism

is one important segment of special interest tourism, where the desire to pursue sports

activities at a tourism destination is the main motive to travel.(Weed and Bull 2004;

Hinch and Higham 2004) In this case destination choice of tourists can be expected to

be influenced by a complex set of motivations, both general tourism motivations as

well as specific sports-related motivations.(Gammon and Robinson 1997; Robinson

and Gammon 2004) Empirical, activity-specific research suggests, that these

motivations differ, however, depending on the activity. (Fluker and Turner 2000) At

the same time it has been shown that the motivations of sports tourists are also not

homogenous depending on the importance sport has within their vacation. (Weed and

Bull 2004; Jackson and Weed 2003) Consequently, the study presented here

researches the motivations of one specific segment of sports tourism i.e. rock

climbing tourism. The goal is to analyze the interplay of sports- and tourism-related

motivations in rock climbing tourism. Special attention is also paid to the question

whether motivations differ, depending on the importance of climbing within the

vacation of the individual traveler. Additionally, the consequences for destination

management and the relevance of the results for other sports tourism segments will be

discussed.

Tourist Motivations

The motivations of tourists have been a prominent topic in tourism research for

several decades. They are seen as a major influence on destination choice. (Goosens

2000; Gnoth 1997; Cha, McCleary, and Uysal 1995) It is critical for destination

2

choice that the image of a destination or a destination brand is congruent to the

motivations of the targeted tourist segments.(Moutinho 1987) Additionally,

motivations are used to define tourism segments, especially in the context of special

interest tourism, where sub-segments are named according to the main motivation

pursued by the trip.(Cooper et al. 1998) In the case of climbing tourism discussed

here, the defining motivation of tourists for traveling is to go climbing at a destination

away from home.

Tourist motivation has been analyzed from many different theoretical angles.(Dann

1981; Iso-Ahola 1982) The view, that in explaining tourist motivation push and pull

factors should be distinguished, is today the most widespread explanation model of

tourist motivation in literature.(Dann 1981; Ateljevic 2000; Cha, McCleary, and Uysal

1995; Yuan and McDonald 1990) Push factors represent socio-psychological motives

that drive people to travel. When the general decision to travel is made, pull factors

motivate tourists to choose a specific destination. Therefore, the terms motivations

and motives should not be used synonymously. Motives are the basic drivers of travel

behavior and independent of the specific situation. Therefore motives, as lasting

dispositions, can lead to different actions under different circumstances. Motivations

on the other hand are more cognitive and are directed at a specific situation or object

such as a destination.(Gnoth 1997; Heckhausen 1989) Accordingly, as this research

wants to reveal the factors that influence the choice of a specific destination, we will

focus on motivations. This approach is justified by the changes in tourists’

motivations. As stated earlier tourists have become more demanding and thus

destination attributes as well as situational aspects in general have become more

important to tourists.(Poon 2002; Bieger and Laesser 2002; Lohmann and Aderhold

2000)

There is rarely just one reason to travel, even though, one motive may play a

dominant role for travelling or one motivation may be decisive for destination choice.

If there is no dominant motivation tourists try to choose a destination that promises to

satisfy all motivations.(Swarbrooke and Horner 1999) In the case of sports tourism

sports-related motivations supplement the generic tourism ones. Some motives to

pursue a sport can be found in tourist motivation typologies as well, but there are also

motives specific to the sport domain.(Weed and Bull 2004) Therefore, with the

3

destination choice of sports tourists a complex mix of generic tourism motivations and

sports-related motivations has to be expected.(Robinson and Gammon 2004)

Additionally, each sport that tourists want to exercise during their trip results in

specific requirements, that are relevant in destination choice.(Fluker and Turner 2000)

Therefore a more in-depth look at a sports tourism segment is needed. We use rock

climbing tourism as example here

Rock Climbing Tourism

Development of rock climbing tourism

Rock climbing is among the activities that drive the trend in global tourism towards

outdoor and adventure tourism.(Beedie 2003) Especially sports climbing on natural

rocks has seen a tremendous increase in participants since the 1980’s and is popular in

all western countries.(Neirotti 2003; Hanemann 2000; Outdoor_Industry_Association

2004; Tomlinson et al. 2005; Philipsenburg 2001) Rock climbing is closely connected

with tourism as climbers show a very high mobility in practicing their sport.(Stettler

2000) If participants want to climb natural rocks rather than indoor artificial climbing

walls, they have to travel to areas that offer attractive climbing possibilities with the

suitable difficulty rating for the individual climber.(Weed and Bull 2004; Valentine

1992) The best climbing areas are typically situated in low mountain range areas and

not in the vicinity of urban centers. While many climable rocks exist, only few

destinations can offer climbing sites that are attractive, big, and diverse enough to

make climbing vacations there worthwhile.(Bourdeau, Corneloup, and Mao 2004)

This is one main reason climbers travel a lot and practice their sport as a weekend and

vacation activity.

Despite of this promising outlook climbing tourism is often not considered a very

profitable tourism segment both in literature (Bourdeau, Corneloup, and Mao 2004)

and among many destination managers, as in-depth interviews for this research

project have shown. Indeed previous research has found out that of four climbing

tourism destinations surveyed, only one achieved similar financial results for climbing

tourism as did other tourism segments.(Woratschek and Hannich 2006) The question

is: How did they achieve this? Two ways often cited are: customer orientation and

4

concentration on attractive customer segments. This again leads to the necessity of

having detailed knowledge of the motivations of ones customers.

Motivations of rock climbing tourists

In sport tourism travel motivations have to expected to be multidimensional,

involving a mixture of both sport- and travel-related motivations. (Robinson and

Gammon 2004) While research has been done on the motivations of climbers in

general (Beier 2001), only preliminary studies on the motivations of rock climbing

tourists exist (Grotheer et al. 2003).

Several studies on the motivation of mountaineering adventure tourists have been

done, however.(Pomfret 2006; Loewenstein 1999; Ewert and Hollenhorst 1989, 1994)

Other studies have focussed on the personalities of mountaineers, especially

sensation-seeking.(Rossi and Cereatti 1993; Breivik 1996; Gomà i Freixanet 1991;

Jack and Ronan 1998). Apart from rock climbing mountaineering includes a number

of activities such as hiking, skiing, mountain climbing, and others. (Mitchell 1983;

Pomfret 2006) These activities depend on a wide range of different facilities and

natural conditions. This is just one reason why it is not surprising that comparative

studies have found significant differences in the motivation of rock climbers and

mountain climbers (Brandauer 1994) and between hard and soft activity mountaineers

(Pomfret 2006; Beier 2001), therefore results from general mountaineering studies can

form a basis for this research, but some differences in motivations of rock climbing

tourists have to be expected. Hard and soft adventure activities are mainly

distinguished by the level of risk involved. While soft adventure activities typically

involve low risk, require limited skills and are usually tutored by professional guides,

hard adventure activities require skills, commitment and the acceptance of personal

risk.(Hill 1995; Beedie and Hudson 2003; Muller and Cleaver 2000) Push factors

reported in mountaineering studies are “challenge and risk”, “catharsis” which

encompasses relaxation and peace of mind, “recognition” as a mountaineer,

“creativity” in solving – self-imposed – problems, “locus of control” in terms of

decision making, developing ones abilities and thereby gaining control and the

“physical setting” of the mountain environment. (Pomfret 2006; Ewert and

Hollenhorst 1989; Loewenstein 1999; Cheron and Ritchie 1982). Generic tourism

motives are added. These are escapism and the elements of the Travel Career Ladder

5

including biological needs, safety and security needs, relationship development and

extension needs, self development needs, and self-fulfilment needs. Pull factors that

draw tourists to specific destinations, which are cited in general mountaineering

studies, include the natural mountain environment, existence of professional

mountaineering service providers and suitable weather conditions for the specific

activity.(Pomfret 2006)

How sports-related motivations influence travel decisions is analyzed in the Sports

Tourism Continuum presented by Weed and Bull (2004). It highlights the increasing

importance sports-related motivations have in destination choice as sports tourists

become more proficient and engaged in their sport. At the lower end of the continuum

participation in sports activities during the vacation is purely incidental and does not

influence travel decisions while at the upper end of the continuum sports are often the

sole reason to travel and sports-related motivations are decisive for destination choice.

The additional dimension of subjective importance of sports for the vacation is added

as the model is extended to the Sports Tourism Participation Model. This an important

extension to the model as excellent possibilities to engage in sports activities at a

destination might be an important point of attraction to a destination even though the

tourist might never get round to actually participate. Equally sports participation

during a vacation may be of high subjective importance to a tourist even though he is

not very proficient at it. As a result in the study presented here it is expected that the

importance of sports-related motivations for destination choice increases as tourists

become more proficient in climbing.

Methods

In tourism, market segmentation has been carried out using demographics,

psychographics, behavior and benefits.(Sarigöllü and Huang 2005) Motivations have

been used in the psychographic segmentation of tourism markets.(Bieger and Laesser

2002) Some researchers even see motivations as the most effective way to create

meaningful customer groups for tourism marketing.(Schewe 1990; Bieger and Laesser

2002) In the context of segmentation tourist motivations are frequently defined as

tourists needs and benefits expected from a vacation at a destination.(Sarigöllü and

Huang 2005; Loker and Perdue 1992; Cha, McCleary, and Uysal 1995)

6

The limited existing knowledge about motivations of rock climbing tourists led to a

partly explorative research design. Data was collected in three steps: First of all

qualitative personal interviews with destination managers and climbing experts were

conducted (Study 1; N=13). The purpose of this step was to gain insight into the

evaluation of climbing tourism by experts and into the marketing strategies of

participating destinations for this segment. Secondly, a qualitative pilot study was

done in the German climbing tourism destination Frankenjura (Study 2; N=83), which

explored the motivations for destination choice of climbing tourists. Structured

qualitative personal interviews were used. Content analysis (Kolbe and Burnett 1991;

Keaveney 1995; Gremler 2004) revealed 20 distinctive motivations relevant in the

destination choice of rock climbing tourists. These were used for the development of a

questionnaire with 7-point Lickert-scales. Respondents were asked to rate the extent

they agreed with statements concerning the motivations on a 7-point Lickert-scale

(1=strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree). The resulting questionnaire was used in

the third step: a quantitative study among climbing tourists in Germany (German

Alps, Elbe Sandstone Mountains and Frankenjura) and in Italy (Arco) (Study 3;

N=260). Participants of the study included only visitors at the destinations that spent

at least one night there and considered themselves to be on climbing vacations.

Data was analyzed using SPSS by a three step approach of factor analysis, cluster

analysis and further analysis of the resulting clusters by various univariate and

multivariate statistical procedures. This approach was used in numerous segmentation

studies in tourism.(Sarigöllü and Huang 2005; Cha, McCleary, and Uysal 1995) In the

first step, factor analysis was used to examine the motivations, with a view to

revealing their underlying dimensions using the generally accepted Eigenvalue-

Criterion. Applicability of factor analysis on the dataset was checked using the KMO-

criterion, which was acceptable at .699. Eight factors resulted from factor analysis,

which explained 61% of the variance.

For cluster analysis a large variety of clustering procedures exist, non of which is

proven to lead to the best clustering results. Therefore, the results of different

clustering procedures were compared in this study. Procedures used were the Ward-

Analysis, a popular hierarchical clustering procedure (Backhaus et al. 2003; Bieger

and Laesser 2002) and the Quick Cluster procedure of SPSS, that has proven to

7

deliver good results in tourism studies.(Cha, McCleary, and Uysal 1995) First

however, the Single Linkage clustering procedure was used, to identify and eliminate

outlying cases. These would otherwise distort the results of the following cluster

analyses. After eliminating one outlying case the rest of the dataset was used for a

Ward analysis. As the Quick Cluster procedure allows to provide starting values, the

results for two to eight clusters were taken as starting values for the Quick Cluster

procedure to optimize results. Results of the Ward and Quick Cluster procedures were

then compared to find the optimal procedure and number of clusters.

The optimum number of clusters was chosen based on the following criteria for

efficient market segments (Sarigöllü and Huang 2005; Perreault and McCarthy 2000;

Weinstein 1987):

1. Homogeneity of clusters;

2. Distinctness from one another;

3. Sufficient size of each cluster for profitable marketing;

4. Usability for segment-specific strategy development.

Homogeneity of clusters can be evaluated looking at their F-values. These are

calculated dividing the variance of a factor within a specific cluster by the variance of

that factor in the whole sample.(Backhaus et al. 2003) As the goal of cluster analysis

is to improve homogeneity compared to the unsegmented sample, it is necessary to

strive for low F-values. F-values of 1 and above actually represent a deterioration of

homogeneity compared to the unsegmented sample. Distinctness of one cluster from

another was tested by ANOVA procedures and additional Bonferroni Post-hoc tests.

The third criterion mentioned above calls for preferation of solutions with few clusters

to secure sufficient size for profitable marketing. T-values of the resulting clusters

were used to determine the usability of clustering solutions for segment-specific

strategy development. These are calculated by dividing the difference of mean factor

score for a motivation dimension in a cluster by the mean factor score in the whole

sample by the standard deviation of the mean factor score in the sample. As these t-

values show standardized distances from the total average of the sample, they contain

additional information compared to simple factor score averages.

8

For the data presented here Quick Cluster solutions were generally superior to Ward

solutions in terms of lower average F-values and less F-values above 1. Application of

the criteria described above led to the choice of the four cluster solution based on the

tests of homogeneity and discrimination as well as interpretability and applicability.

With an average F-value of .679 this solution leads to customer segments that are

clearly more homogenous in their motivations than the sample as a whole. This

solution is decisively more homogenous than the two or three cluster solutions while

solutions with more clusters would have resulted in only limited additional

improvements in homogeneity.

ANOVA-testing confirmed highly significant differences in average factor scores

between the four clusters for 7 of 8 factors between the clusters (p< .004) and Post-

hoc tests additionally showed numerous significant pair wise differences as

documented in table 2.

Findings

The pilot study identified 20 motivations of destination choice. Four motivations were

added out of theoretical considerations. In the quantitative study (study 3), convenient

weather conditions received the highest degree of confirmation (5.74 on average on

the 7-point scale), followed by a large variety of routes (5,61), beautiful landscape

(5.51), possibilities to socialize with other climbers (5.51), opportunities to try

regional cooking (5.46) and route safety (5.40).

Factor analysis reduced the 24 motivations to 8 motivation dimensions. The resulting

factors were labeled according to the variables they best represented as Table 1

shows.

9

Table 1

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF CLIMBING TOURISTS MOTIVATIONS

Factors Loadings Eigenvalue Percent of Variance Explained

Destination Novelty Seeking

New Place

Famous routes and areas

New cultures

New landscapes

Regional cooking

.708 .700 .682 .645 .401

2.705

11.272

Climbing Tourism Infrastructure

Inexpensive accommodation

Supplies

Route safety

Rocks accessible

Area easy to reach

Information

Comfortable accommodation

.665 .583 .578 .577 .495 .460 .393

2.474

10.310

Non-climbing Sport and Leisure Activities

New sport- and leisure activities

Activities besides climbing

.853 .831

1.998

8.326

Climbing Scene Venue

Climbing scene venue

Familiar area

.722 .601

1.716

7.152

Climbing Novelty Seeking

New climbing experiences

New rocks and routes

.802 .719

1.657

6.903

Climbing Conditions (weather, choice of routes)

Ideal weather

Choice of routes

.766 .671

1.513

6.306

Quietness and Recreation

Quietness and recreation

.787

1.346 5.608

Reclusiveness

Not too touristy

New people

Not overcrowded

.649 -.485 .483

1.275 5.313

The first factor was labeled Destination Novelty Seeking as it included five

motivations that related to the search of novelty in central attributes of a destination.

10

With an eigenvalue of 2.705 after a Varimax rotation it explained 11.272% of the

variance. The second factor Climbing Tourism Infrastructure included seven

motivations that aimed at a good general tourism infrastructure like the availability of

suitable accommodation as well as specific climbing tourism infrastructure such as

route safety and easily accessible rocks. It had an eigenvalue of 2.474 and explained

10.310% of the variation. Labeled Non-Climbing Sport and Leisure Activities the

third factor encompassed two motivations that targeted the search for activities

besides rock climbing at the destination and explained 8.326% of the variance with an

eigenvalue of 1.998. The fourth factor Climbing Scene Venue included the motivation

to visit destinations that are places where the climbing subculture meets and that are

already familiar to the individual climbing tourist. It had an eigenvalue of 1.716 and

explained 7.152% of the variation. Climbing Novelty Seeking, the fifth factor pooled

the motivations new climbing experiences and new rocks and routes. It explained

6.903% of variance and had an eigenvalue of 1.657. The sixth factor Climbing

Conditions (weather and choice of routes) included two motivations to search for

convenient climbing conditions. It had an eigenvalue of 1.513 and explained 6.306%

of the variance. Quietness and Recreation, the seventh factor consisted of only one

motivation that is typically found in motivational studies in general tourism, but only

relevant for some climbing tourists. It explained 5.608% of the variance and had an

eigenvalue of 1.346. The last factor Reclusiveness encompassed three motivations

that aimed at being undisturbed when being on climbing vacations.

Four distinct segments resulted from the cluster analysis. Based on the motivations

that were relatively important to the clusters compared to the others, the clusters were

termed Scene Climbers (N=53), Adventure Climbers (N=61), Novelty Seeking

Tourists (N=59) and Sport and Leisure Tourists (N=71). Table 2 shows the t-values of

each cluster for all eight motivation dimensions that resulted from factor analysis.

11

Table 2

CLIMBING TOURIST SEGMENTS: MEAN FACTOR SCORES

Motivation Dimension

Segment 1

Loyal Scene Climbers (n=53; 21%)

Segment 2

Adventure Climbers (n=61; 25%)

Segment 3

Novelty Seeking Tourists (n=59; 24%)

Segment 4

Sport and Leisure Tourists (n=71; 29%)

F Post Hoc

significant at .05

Destination Novelty Seeking

-0.354 -0.030 0.790 -0.367 20.530a

All but 1-2, 1-4 and 2-4

Climbing Tourism Infrastructure

0.633 -0.415 0.607 -0.621 21.028a

All but 1-3 and 2-4

Non-Climbing Sport and Leisure Activities

-0.771 -0.794 0.725 0.655 69.797a

All but 1-2 and 3-4

Climbing Scene Venue

0.592 -0.636 -0.108 0.194 11.092a

All but 1-4 and 3-4

Climbing Novelty Seeking

-0.458 0.678 0.193 -0.401 25.650a

All but 1-4

Climbing Conditions (weather, choice of routes)

-0.372 0.023 -0.287 0.496 26.757a

All but 1-2, 1-3 and 2-3

Quietness and Recreation

0.103 -0.292 -0.141 0.292 4.521b Only 2-4

Reclusiveness

0.194 0.084 -0.275 0.012 2.335 None

a: F value is significant at .000; b: F value is significant at .01

The cluster of the Loyal Scene Climbers is focused on climbing motivations rather

than on vacation motivations. They have the strongest demand for the destination to

be a climbing scene venue and search most for good climbing tourism infrastructure

when choosing a destination. Reclusiveness is more important to them than

convenient climbing conditions compared to the other segments. On average this

segment of climbing tourists visited 3.31 different destinations for their last five

climbing vacations, which is still the lowest switching rate of all clusters. The

switching rate between destinations and other descriptive statistics about the four

clusters are included in table 3.

12

Table 3

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE FOUR CLUSTERS OF ROCK CLIMBING TOURISTS

Demographic Profile

Segment 1

Loyal Scene Climbers (n=53; 21%)

Segment 2

Adventure Climbers (n=61; 25%)

Segment 3

Novelty Seeking Tourists (n=59; 24%)

Segment 4

Sport- and Leisure Tourists (n=71; 29%)

F Sig.

Expenses (in € per person per day) 33.26 27.61 32.40 43.13 2.297 .078

Duration of stay (no. of nights) 4.43 3.10 3.61 3.00 1.410 .240

Climbing vacation frequency (no. per year)

9.19 10.40 7.66 6.02 2.963 .033

No. of different destinations for last five climbing vacations

3.31 3.44 3.48 3.81 1.606 .189

No. of different activities besides climbing

2.84 2.71 3.54 3.64 5.140 .002

Age 35.75 31.95 34.22 34.32 1.835 .141

Climbing experience (years) 10.42 9.82 9.88 10.25 .076 .973

Average route difficulty rating 6.887 7.385 6.424 6.599 5.782 .001

Also focused on motivations related to the sport of rock climbing is the second cluster

labeled as Adventure Climbers. They have by far the highest values for the Climbing

Novelty Seeking motivation dimension, which encompasses the search for new and

extraordinary climbing experiences. At the same time this group has lower than

average motivation factor scores for most of the other dimensions.. Especially they

care less than the other clusters about sport and leisure activities besides climbing,

quietness and recreation and the social interaction with other climbers described in the

Climbing Scene Venue motivation dimension.

A cluster that is interested in vacation experiences apart from climbing are the

Novelty Seeking Tourists. They search most for new and extraordinary vacation

experiences with the highest values on the Destination Novelty Seeking dimension.

This customer group is also most motivated by non-climbing sport and leisure

activities. Not surprising this cluster is least interested in the motivation dimension

Reclusiveness.

13

The last resulting cluster, labeled Sport and Leisure Tourists is the largest customer

group and attaches high importance to general tourism-related motivations as well.

The demand for sport and leisure offerings besides climbing is highest. Additionally,

relaxed and convenient climbing vacations in the form quietness and recreation and

convenient climbing conditions are relative important for this group. These

motivational statements are supported by the highest average of different sport and

leisure activities pursued besides climbing and the highest spending per day of all

clusters. The Sport and Leisure Tourists attach least value to the motivation dimension

Destination Novelty Seeking and do least demand excellent climbing tourism

infrastructure.

The findings support the Sports Tourism Demand Continuum by Weed and Bull

(2004) as the two customer segments that climb the most difficult routes - Adventure

Climbers and Loyal Scene Climbers - are not only clearly more focused on climbing-

related motivations but also go on climbing vacations more often and participate less

in activities apart from climbing while no significant differences exist in terms of age

or years of climbing experience as table 3 illustrates.

Application of Results

The research presented has revealed the motivational criteria rock climbing tourists

apply when choosing a destination. On this basis destinations can make an analysis of

their own strengths and weaknesses. Concerning the ability to address these

motivations, revealing the preferences of climbing tourists, the results then enable

destinations to adjust their strategy accordingly.

Each of the four segments that were found by cluster analyses shows specific patterns

of behavior during climbing vacations. Each segment also has specific requirements

that have to be met to attract these customers to the destination. As a result destination

management can decide which customer group is most attractive to them. This

decision must also be based on the strengths and resources of the respective

destination, which determine which segment can be served best with the natural

resources and service offerings of the destination.

The results also provide information for destination positioning and promotion

strategies. A destination like Arco in Italy, one of the destinations included in the

14

survey, could target the segment of the Sport and Leisure Tourists. In this case it

should emphasize its variety of sports and leisure possibilities because of its well

developed tourism infrastructure and its proximity to the Garda Lake. Arco can also

offer the high recreational value and great variety of climbing routes that motivate this

customer segment. The extended periods of warm weather in spring and autumn

compared to Northern European destinations can also be used to attract rock climbing

tourists that belong to the motivational cluster of the Sport- and Leisure Tourists. In

this way the results offer an opportunity to determine which aspects of the destination

product should be highlighted in promotion materials and which should be improved

to better suit the targeted customer group

Destinations that have a less developed tourism sector could focus on the Loyal Scene

Climbers. This group can be attracted without the need of massive investments

because they value the calm and reclusiveness, do not have a high demand for

additional sport and leisure activities besides climbing and do not require a

sophisticated general tourism infrastructure. To achieve the good climbing

infrastructure this group desires destinations should cooperate with climbing

organizations like the Alpine Clubs and as climbing areas are typically part of nature

preservation areas the respective authorities as well. Additionally, to successfully

attract the Loyal Scene Climbers the destination has to be or become a meeting point

of the climbing scene. This could be encouraged by specialized meeting points and

accommodation for climbers, public relation measures targeting the climbing media,

internet offerings, and special events.

Conclusion

The present research identified the relevant motivations regarding destination choice

of climbers. ‘The 24 relevant motivations formed eight motivation dimensions

Destination Novelty Seeking, Climbing Tourism Infrastructure, Non-Climbing Sport

and Leisure Activities, Climbing Scene Venue, Climbing Novelty Seeking, Climbing

Conditions, Quietness and Recreation, and Reclusiveness. Climbing tourists however

are not homogenous in their motivations. Four distinctive customer segments were

identified Loyal Scene Climbers, Adventure Climbers, Novelty Seeking Tourists and

Sport and Leisure Tourists each differing in the emphasis they put on the eight

motivation dimensions when selecting a destination for climbing vacations.

15

Destinations need different marketing strategies and service offerings to satisfy each

of these market segments. This motivation-based analysis provides clear implications

on how to make a destination more attractive to climbing tourists. Consequently it is

difficult to successfully serve all groups of climbing tourists at the same time.

Destinations should rather look for customer groups with similar motivations,

behaviors and interests in other sports tourism segments to create synergies. As an

example it is more sensible for destinations to focus on hard adventure sport tourists

of other sports with similar motivations as the Adventure Climbers described here

then to try to satisfy all segments of rock climbing tourists at the same time.

16

Bibliography

Ateljevic, Irena. 2000. Tourist Motivation, Values and Perceptions. In Consumer Psychology

of Tourism Hospitality and Leisure, edited by A. G. Woodside, G. I. Crouch, J. A.

Mazanec and M. Y. Sakai. Wallingford: CABI.

Backhaus, Klaus, Bernd Erichson, Wulff Plinke, and Rolf Weiber. 2003. Multivariate

Analysemethoden. 10 ed. Berlin: Springer.

Beedie, Paul. 2003. Adventure Tourism. In Sport and Adventure Tourism, edited by S.

Hudson. New York: Haworth Press.

Beedie, Paul, and Simon Hudson. 2003. Emergence of Mountain-Based Adventure Tourism.

Annals of Tourism Research 30 (3):625-643.

Beier, Klaus. 2001. Anreizstrukturen im Outdoorsport. Schorndorf: Verlag Hofmann.

Bieger, Thomas, and Christian Laesser. 2002. Market Segmentation by Motivation: The case

of Switzerland. Journal of Travel Research 41 (August):68-76.

Bourdeau, Philippe, Jean Corneloup, and Pascal Mao. 2004. Adventure Sports and Tourism in

the French Mountains: Dynamics of Change and Challenges for Sustainable

Development. In Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues, edited by J.

R. B. Ritchie and D. Adair. Clevedon: Channel Publications.

Brandauer, Thomas. 1994. Sportklettern und Persönlichkeit. Hamburg: Czwalina.

Breivik, G. 1996. Personality, Sensation Seeking and Risk Taking among Everest Climbers.

International Journal of Sport Psychology 27:308-320.

Cha, Sukbin, Ken W. McCleary, and Muzaffer Uysal. 1995. Travel Motivations of Japanese

Oversees Travelers: A Factor-Cluster Segmentation Approach. Journal of Travel

Research 31 (4):33-39.

Cheron, Emmanuel J., and J.R. Brent Ritchie. 1982. Leisure Activities and Perceived Risk.

Journal of Leisure Research 14 (2):139-154.

Cooper, Chris, John Fletcher, David Gilbert, Rebecca Shepherd, and Stephen Wanhill. 1998.

Tourism - Principles and Practice. 2 ed. Harlow, Great Britain: Longman.

17

Crompton, John L. 1979. Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research

Special Issue Sociology of Tourism:408-424.

Dann, Graham M.S. 1981. Tourist Motivation: an Appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 8

(2):187-219.

Ewert, Alan, and Steve Hollenhorst. 1989. Testing the Adventure Model: Empirical Support

for Model of Risk Recreation Participation. Journal of Leisure Research 21 (2):124-

139.

———. 1994. Individual and Setting Attributes of the Adventure Recreation Experience.

Leisure Sciences 16:177-191.

Fluker, Martin R., and Lindsay W. Turner. 2000. Needs, Motivations, and Expectations of a

Commercial Whitewater Rafting Experience. Journal of Travel Research 38

(May):380-389.

Gammon, Sean, and Tom Robinson. 1997. Sport Tourism: A Conceptual Framework. Journal

of Sport Tourism 4 (3).

Gnoth, Juergen. 1997. Tourism Motivation and Expection Formation. Annals of Tourism

Research 24:283-300.

Gomà i Freixanet, Montserrat. 1991. Personality Profile of Subjects Engaged in High Physical

Risk Sports. Personality & Individual Differences 12 (10):1087-1093.

Goosens, Cees. 2000. Tourism Information and Pleasure Motivation. Annals of Tourism

Research 27 (2):301-321.

Gremler, Dwayne D. 2004. The Critical Incident Technique in Service Research. Journal of

Service Research 7 (August):65-89.

Grotheer, Swantje, Rita Märzhäuser, Christoph Stölzle, and Nadine Wagner. 2003. Das

Reiseverhalten der Deutschen unter Berücksichtigung neuer Tourismustrends -

Dargestellt am Beispiel des Klettertourismus. In "Wenn einer eine Reise macht..." -

Neue Tourismustrends in Deutschland am Beispiel der Fremdenverkehrssegmente

Kletter- und Städtetourismus, edited by G. Troeger-Weiß. Kaiserslautern: Technische

Universität Kaiserslautern.

18

Hall, C. Michael. 1989. Special Interest Travel: A Prime Force in the Expansion of Tourism?

Paper read at Geography in Action Fifteenth New Zealand Geography Conference, at

Dunedin.

Hanemann, Brigitte. 2000. Klettertourismus zwischen Aktivurlaub und Naturschutz.

Geographische Rundschau 52 (2):21-27.

Heckhausen, Heinz. 1989. Motivation und Handeln. 2 ed. Berlin: Springer.

Hill, B.J. 1995. A Guide to Adventure Travel. Parks and Recreation (September):56-65.

Hinch, Thomas, and James Higham. 2004. Sport Tourism Development. Clevedon: Channel

View Publications.

Iso-Ahola, Seppo E. 1982. Toward a Social Psychological Theory of Tourism Motivation: A

Rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research 9 (1):256-262.

Jack, S.J., and K.R. Ronan. 1998. Sensation Seeking among high- and low-risk Sports

Participants. Personality & Individual Differences 25:1063-1083.

Jackson, G.A.M., and M.E. Weed. 2003. The Sport-Tourism Interrelationship. In Sport and

Society, edited by B. Houlihan. London: Sage.

Keaveney, Susan M. 1995. Customer Switching Behavior in Service Industries: An

exploratory Study. Journal of Marketing 59 (2):71-82.

Kolbe, Richard H., and Melissa S. Burnett. 1991. Content-Analysis Research: An

Examination of Applications with Directives for Improving Research Reliability and

Objectivity. Journal of Consumer Research 18 (September):243-250.

Krippendorf, Jost. 1987. Ecological Approach to Tourism Marketing. Tourism Management

(June):137-139.

Loewenstein, George. 1999. Because it is there: The Challenge of Mountaineering...for Utility

Theory. KYKLOS 52 (3):315-344.

Lohmann, Martin, and Peter Aderhold. 2000. Die Reiseanalyse-Trendstudie 2000-2010.

Hamburg: Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen.

19

Loker, Laurie E., and Richard R. Perdue. 1992. A Benefit-Based Segmentation of a

Nonresident Summer Travel Market. Journal of Travel Research 31 (Summer):30-35.

Mitchell, Richard G. 1983. Mountain Experience - The Psychology and Sociology of

Adventure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Moutinho, Luiz. 1987. Consumer Behaviour in Tourism. European Journal of Marketing 21

(10):1-44.

Muller, T.E., and M. Cleaver. 2000. Targeting the CANZUS Baby Boomer Explorer and

Adventurer Segments. Journal of Vacation Marketing 6 (2):154-169.

Neirotti, Lisa Delphy. 2003. An Introduction to Sport and Adventure Tourism. In Sport and

Adventure Tourism, edited by S. Hudson. New York: Haworth Press.

Outdoor_Industry_Association. 2004. Outdoor Recreation Participation Study Seventh

Edition, for Year 2004 Trend Analysis for the United States. Boulder, CO: Outdoor

Industry Association.

Perreault, William D., and E. McCarthy. 2000. Essentials of Marketing - a Global-

Managerial Approach. 8 ed. Chicago: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Philipsenburg, Jens. 2001. Klettertourismus im Deutschen Destinationsmanagement -

Profilierungsstrategien durch die Besetzung von Marktnischen. In Fun- und

Trensportarten als Tourismusmagneten, edited by K. Faby, M. L. Fontanari and M.

Treinen. Trier: Europäisches Tourismusinstitut.

Pomfret, Gill. 2006. Mountaineering Adventure Tourists: A Conceptual Framework for

Research. Tourism Management 27 (1):113-123.

Poon, Auliana. 2002. Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. Wallingford, UK:

CABI.

Robinson, Tom, and Sean Gammon. 2004. A question of primary and secondary motives:

revisiting and applying the sport tourism framework. Journal of Sport Tourism 9

(3):221-233.

20

Rossi, B., and L. Cereatti. 1993. The Sensation Seeking Scale in Mountain Athletes as

Assessed by Zuckerman's Sensation Seeking Scale. International Journal of Sport

Psychology 24:417-431.

Sarigöllü, Emine, and Rong Huang. 2005. Benefits Segmentation of Visitors to Latin

America. Journal of Travel Research 43 (February):277-293.

Schewe, Ch. 1990. Get in Position for the older Market. American Demographics 12 (6):38-

44.

Stettler, Jürg. 2000. Trend- und Natursportarten und Mobilität. In Trend- und Natursportarten

in den Wissenschaften: Forschungsstand - Methoden - Perspektiven, edited by A.

Escher. Hamburg: Czwalina Verlag.

Swarbrooke, John, and Susan Horner. 1999. Consumer Behaviour in Tourism. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Tomlinson, Alan, Neil Ravenscroft, Belinda Wheaton, and Paul Gilchrist. 2005. Lifestyle

Sports and National Sport Policy: An Agenda for Research: Sport England.

Valentine, Peter S. 1992. Nature-based Tourism. In Special Interest Tourism, edited by B.

Weiler and C. M. Hall. London: Belhaven Press.

Weed, Mike, and Chris Bull. 2004. Sports Tourism -Participants, Policy and Providers.

Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Weiler, Betty, and C. Michael Hall. 1992. Special Interest Tourism: In Search of an

Alternative. In Special Interest Tourism, edited by C. M. Hall and B. Weiler. London:

Belhaven Press.

Weinstein, A. 1987. Market Segmentation: Using Demographics, Psychographics and other

Segmentation Techniques to Uncover and Exploit New Markets. Chicago: Probes.

Woratschek, Herbert, and Frank M. Hannich. 2006. Climbing Tourism – A Chance to

Revitalize Low Mountain Range Destinations? Working Paper of the Faculty of Law,

Business Administration and Economics at the University of Bayreuth.

Yuan, Sue, and Cary McDonald. 1990. Motivational Determinants of International Pleasure

Time. Journal of Travel Research 29 (Summer):42-44.

21

Universität Bayreuth Rechts- und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät

Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere

Zuletzt erschienene Papiere:

01-07 Herz, Bernhard Wagner, Marco

Do the World Trade Organization and the Generalized System of Preferences foster bilateral Trade?

07-06 Herz, Bernhard Vogel, Lukas Roeger, Werner

Optimal Simple Rules for Fiscal Policy in Monetary Union

06-06 Reiß, Christoph Rechtswettbewerb und Rechtsarbitrage: Wettbewerb von "Rechtsordnungen" aus der Perspektive einer prozessual-evolutorischen Wettbewerbskonzeption

05-06 Schneider, Udo Schneider, Brit

The effects of education and working hours on health: A multivariate probit approach

04-06 Schröder, Guido Preise auf Grenzkosten-Niveau - Optimal, aber unmöglich? 03-06 Minuk, Olga

Rossaro, Fabiana Walther, Ursula

A Critical Comment on the Planned Deposit Insurance Reform in Belarus

02-06 Woratschek, Herbert Horbel, Chris

Are Recommendations of Venturers Valuable? - A Study of Word-of-mouth Communication Behavior of Variety-seeking Tourists and Opinion Leaders

01-06 Görgens, Egon Ruckriegel, Karlheinz Seitz, Franz

Geldpolitik, Zinsen und die Rolle des Geldes: Konzeptionelles, Theoretisches, Praktisches

17-05 Görgens, Egon Ruckriegel, Karlheinz

Zur Notwendigkeit unabhängiger Zentralbanken und ihrer institutionellen Abstützung

16-05 Rudolf, Thomas Etemad, Mohammed Ali Ghorbani

Kulturelle Prägungen wirtschaftlichen Handelns im Nahen Osten - eine institutionenökonomische Analyse des Einflusses des Islam auf die Finanzwirtschaft

15-05 Oberender, Peter Rudolf, Thomas

Monetäre Anreize für die postmortale Körperorganspende - Eine ökonomische Analyse

14-05 Belke, Ansgar Herz, Bernhard Vogel, Lukas

Structural Reforms and the Exchange Rate Regime: A Panel Analysis for the World versus OECD Countries

13-05 Oberender, Peter Zerth, Jürgen

Zur Zukunft der flächendeckenden Versorgung im deutschen Gesundheitswesen. Gesundheitspolitische Implikationen