Conceptualizing nature-based science tourism: a case study of Seili Island, Finland

Figures & data

Figure 1. Intensification of the educational and scientific dimensions in different forms of nature-based tourism (Räikkönen et al., 2019, p. 75).

Figure 2. The framework of science tourism.

Table 1. Potential nature-based science tourism products designed for the empirical study.

Science tourism category^a	Potential nature-based science tourism products in each category
Tourism based on scientific knowledge Tourist: Novice Scientist: Providing scientific interpretation	Science Island Seili – over 50 years of research in the archipelago, 1.5 h A guided tour exploring the biodiversity and scientific research on the island
Tourism with scientific adventure or volunteering Tourist: Collector/Specialist Scientist: Engaging tourists in research	My day as an archeologist or Medical plants – from past to present, 4–6 h A workshop related to the cultural or natural environment that offers a possibility to experience scientific work with a researcher Bug/Bat labs or Grey seal safaris, 3 hA scientific excursion for the whole family that explores exciting animals in the field with a researcher
Scientific research tourism Tourist: Expert Scientist: Immersing tourists in scientific exploration	A journey of exploration: The state of the Archipelago Sea or The exciting life of a Baltic herring, 6–8 h A journey of exploration that offers a deep dive into the state of the Archipelago Sea by collecting and analyzing samples with the researchers Ixodes ricinus – Ticks in the archipelago or Bats – Mysterious nocturnal animals, 6–8 hA deep exploration of the biodiversity of the island gives the opportunity to truly engage in fieldwork with the researchers

^a Bourlon & Torres, 2016; Räikkönen & Suni, 2020;Trauer, 2006.

Table 2. Respondent profile.

		Frequency	%
Gender	Female	385	74.9
	Male	113	22.0
	Other	16	3.1
	Total	514	100
Age	Under 21 years	22	4.3
	21–30 years	111	21.6
	31–40 years	113	22.0
	41–50 years	110	21.4
	51–60 years	96	18.7
	61–70 years	48	9.3
	Over 71 years	14	2.7
	Total	514	100
Education	Primary education	16	3.1
	Vocational education	45	8.9
	College or upper secondary	98	19.3
	Academic education	349	68.7
	Total	508	100
Household monthly gross income	Under €1,200	95	19.6
	€1,200–1,599	31	6.4
	€1,600–3,199	100	20.6
	€3,200–5,599	139	28.7
	€5,600–7,999	61	12.6
	Over €8,000	59	12.2
	Total	485	100

Table 3. Principal component analysis ( n = 510) on push-motivational factors.

Components		Compo-nent loadings	Eigen-value	Variance explained (%)	Cronbach’s alpha
Excitement and adventure (Push 1)			6.721	25.820	0.834
	I want to experience excitement	.833
	I seek adventure	.807
	I get excited about new challenges	.747
	I want to experience new and different things	.649
	I want to challenge myself	.637
Active and passive enjoyment of nature (Push 2)			3.467	13.336	0.820
	I want to exercise in nature	.745
	I want to be close to nature	.738
	I want to experience peace and quiet in nature	.660
	I want to keep physically active	.624
	I enjoy observing flora and fauna	.597
	I want to enjoy the scenery, landscape, and moods of nature	.569
	I want to obtain a feeling of harmony with nature	.563
Learning and knowledge (Push 3)			2.416	9.293	0.844
	I want to learn more about nature and/or culture	.844
	I want to improve my knowledge of nature and/or culture	.810
	I want to understand nature and/or culture better	.791
	I want to study nature and/or culture	.737
	I want to develop my skills and abilities	.502
Escape and relaxation in nature (Push 4)			1.595	6.136	0.760
	I want to get away from daily routines	.805
	I seek rest and relaxation	.701
	I want to experience tranquility	.683
	I want to be refreshed	.643
Social recognition and interaction (Push 5)			1.317	5.066	0.726
	I want to make a good impression on others	.691
	I want to be with people with similar interests	.685
	I want to gain social recognition	.682
	I want to be with friends	.616
	I want to be with my family	.556			a

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = .863

Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 5747.461.0 p < .001.

^a : If item deleted, alpha 0.736.

Table 4. Principal component analysis ( n = 505) on pull-motivational factors.

Components		Compo-nent loadings		Eigen-value		Variance explained (%)		Cronbach’s alpha
Learning opportunities (Pull 1)				3.163		28.76		0.845
	Opportunity to learn about plants		.876
	Opportunity to learn about animals/insects		.870
	Opportunity to learn about the surrounding environment		.838
	Opportunity to learn about history and culture		.697						a
Destination attractions and services (Pull 2)				2.355		21.41		0.732
	Famous attractions		.785
	Fashionable/trendy destination		.764
	Availability of accommodation and other tourism services		.709
	Opportunity for excursions and guided tours		.661
Accessibility (Push 3)				1.591		14.47		0.740
	Good connections to the destination		.871
	Ease of access		.823
	Reasonable travel expenses		.711						b

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = .723

Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 2058.632 p < .000.

^a If item deleted, alpha 0.860.

^b If item deleted, alpha 0.835.

Table 5. Correlation between push- and pull-motivations and interest in nature-based science tourism products.

	Push 1: Excitement and adventure	Push 2: Active and passive enjoyment of nature	Push 3: Learning and knowledge	Push 4: Escape and relaxation in nature	Push 5: Social recognition and interaction	Pull 1: Learning opportunities	Pull 2: Destination attractions and services	Pull 3: Accessibility	Guided tour	Workshop	Scientific excursion	Journey of exploration	Deep exploration
Push 1: Excitement and adventure	1.00	.37***	.38***	.18***	.49***	.18***	.22***	-.04	.05	.15**	.143**	.15***	.14**
Push 2: Active and passive enjoyment of nature		1.00	.49***	.47***	.15***	.44***	-.04	.03	.24***	.23***	.27***	.27***	.35***
Push 3: Learning and knowledge			1.00	.20***	.18***	.61***	.09*	-.01	.38***	.41***	.38***	.38***	.38***
Push 4: Escape and relaxation in nature				1.00	.13**	.14**	.05	.18***	.11*	.14**	.06	.04	.09*
Push 5: Social recognition and interaction					1.00	.07	.41**	.05	-.02	.07	.00	.05	.03
Pull 1: Learning opportunities						1.00	.13**	.03	.47***	.37***	.41***	.44***	.50***
Pull 2: Destination attractions and services							1.00	.26***	.11*	.06	.03	.04	.00
Pull 3: Accessibility								1.00	.03	-.01	.03	.00	.00
Guided tour									1.00	.33***	.36***	.47***	.41***
Workshop										1.00	.43***	.43***	.45***
Scientific excursion											1.00	.43***	.57***
Journey of exploration												1.00	.67***
Deep exploration													1.00

Method: Spearman’s Rank-Order Correlation; Note:.

*** p < 0.001,.

** p < 0.01,.

* p < 0.05.

Table 6. Ordered logit regression coefficients, omnibus test for model and Nagelkerke Pseudo R².

	Guided tour	Workshop	Scientific excursion	Journey of exploration	Deep exploration
Push 1: Excitement and adventure	-.22	-.08	.01	-.06	-.22
Push 2: Active and passive enjoyment of nature	.05	.09	.64**	.42*	.84***
Push 3: Learning and knowledge	.74***	.78***	.43*	.54**	.21
Push 4: Escape and relaxation in nature	.04	.09	-.41*	-.47**	-.45*
Push 5: Social recognition and interaction	-.10	-.02	-.24	.03	.02
Pull 1: Learning opportunities	.84***	.52***	.76**	.77***	1.04***
Pull 2: Destination attractions and services	.18	-.01	.07	-.06	-.01
Pull 3: Accessibility	.06	.06	.13	.06	.07
Age	.13	-.13	-.25***	-.06	-.21**
Education	.26*	.08	.02	.03	.09
Income	-.05	-.08	.09	-.07	-.08
Threshold (dependent = 1)	3.26**	2.29*	1.24	1.66	2.22*
Threshold (dependent = 2)	5.07***	3.67***	3.01**	3.47***	3.93***
Threshold (dependent = 3)	6.67***	5.02***	4.42***	4.78***	5.37***
Threshold (dependent = 4)	8.94***	6.68***	5.89***	6.48***	7.04***
Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square	145.98***	105.00***	123.33***	126.42***	171.21***
Nagelkerke Pseudo R^2	.282	.208	.247	.244	.316

Note:.

*** p < 0.001,.

** p < 0.01,.

* p < 0.05.

Räikkönen, J., Rouhiainen, H., Grénman, M., & Sääksjärvi, I. E. (2019). Advancing environmental sustainability through nature-based science tourism: The potential of universities. Finnish Journal of Tourism Research, 15(1), 67–87.

 Google Scholar

Bourlon, F., & Torres, R. (2016). Scientific tourism, a tool for tourism development in Patagonia. https://labexitem.hypotheses.org/177

 Google Scholar

Trauer, B. (2006). Conceptualizing special interest tourism—frameworks for analysis. Tourism Management, 27(2), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.10.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar