Broadening the scope of resources in nature: an explorative study of nature-based tourism firms

Figures & data

Table 1. A classification of nature-based tourism firm types based on business segments.

Business segments	All	Guided activity firms	Hospitality facilitators	Activity package firms	F^a	Post hoc^b
Guided activities	4.09 (2.48)	5.37 ( 2.14)	1.79 (1.32)	5.16 (2.01)	182.2***	1,3 > 2
Self-guided activities	4.01 (2.40)	2.02 (1.53)	5.21 (2.04)	4.71 (2.09)	125.1***	2,3 > 1
Sale of outdoor equipment	1.70 (1.30)	1.51 (1.21)	1.42 (0.87)	2.08 (1.38)	13.0***	3 > 1,2
Organizing events in nature	2.88 (2.10)	2.66 (1.97)	1.69 (1.10)	4.27 (2.11)	77.0***	3 > 1>2
Accommodation	5.03 (2.36)	2.41 (1.83)	6.39 (1.30)	6.13 (1.38)	320.1***	3,2 > 1
Transportation	3.21 (2.24)	2.18 (1.70)	2.25 (1.68)	5.16 (1.88)	129.1***	3 > 2,1
Meal service/catering	3.64 (2.29)	3.09 (2.04)	2.57 (1.97)	5.55 (1.66)	95.2***	3 > 1>2
Tour packaging	3.26 (2.29)	2.83 (2.01)	1.86 (1.47)	5.12 (1.90)	120.3***	3 > 1>2
Information services	3.24 (2.16)	2.35 (1.90)	2.58 (1.77)	4.70 (1.90)	66.7***	3 > 2,1
Agriculture and forestry	2.50 (1.97)	1.63 (1.35)	2.74 (2.12)	2.98 (1.96)	22.8***	3,2 > 1
Commercial fishing	2.45 (2.03)	1.24 (0.78)	2.74 (2.14)	3.26 (2.07)	50.9***	3 > 2>1
N	440	152	160	128
%	100	35	36	29

Numbers shown as mean (standard deviation). Numbers in bold are high scores defining the clusters. ***p < 0.01. Question asked: ‘How significant are the following business segments for the firm’s total income? Not important (1) - Very important (7)’.

^aComparison of cluster average was done by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

^bCluster by cluster comparison using Bonferroni’s post hoc analysis. The symbol > denotes significant differences between clusters at 5% level.

Table 2. Nature-based tourism firm types’ characteristics.

Characteristics	N	All	Guided activity firms	Hospitality facilitators	Activity package firms	F^a	Post hoc^b
Corporate level
Revenue nature-based tourism (NBT) (k€)	460	242 (479)	258 (549)	120 (228)	390 (661)	8.6***	3 > 2
NBT revenue of total (%)	540	62 (32)	68 (34)	55 (33)	67 (27)	7.9***	1,3 > 2
NBT full-time positions	397	1.4 (2.6)	1.6 (3.4)	0.7 (1.2)	1.9 (2.9)	5.2***	3,1 > 2
Years operating within NBT	536	17.5 (19.4)	12.8 (13.4)	23.3 (23.1)	16.3 (18.7)	11.8***	2 > 3,1
Foreign customers (%)	473	47 (34)	39 (34)	54 (36)	46 (29)	6.3***	2 > 1
Use own property nature areas^c (%)	227	44	24	54	23	–	–
Manager/owner level
Income from firm (%)	510	50 (39)	56 (40)	39 (35)	54 (38)	8.3***	1,3 > 2
Part of full-time equivalents (%)	510	67 (34)	69 (34)	59 (36)	71 (33)	4.2**	3 > 2
Years in firm	558	11.8 (9.6)	10.0 (8.1)	13.7 (10.1)	10.2 (8.7)	8.1***	2 > 3,1
Age	519	51.6 (11.2)	47.6 (10.8)	55.0 (11.2)	50.4 (10.5)	17.4***	2 > 3,1
Education level^d	526	3.7 (1.3)	4.1 (1.2)	3.6 (1.3)	3.6 (1.2)	6.2***	1 > 2,3
Business goals^e
Maximize income	524	4.4 (1.7)	4.0	4.4	4.8	8.2***	3 > 1
Grow in full-time equivalents	514	3.8 (2.0)	3.8	3.1	4.4	15.2***	3 > 1>2
Independence	526	5.5 (1.4)	5.5	5.3	5.8	4.5**	3 > 2
Interesting job	533	6.0 (1.3)	6.1	5.6	6.3	12.9***	3,1 > 2
Utilize local resources in nature	531	5.9 (1.5)	5.6	5.7	6.3	7.9***	3 > 2,1
Social contact with customers	534	5.7 (1.4)	5.4	5.5	6.2	14.3***	3 > 2,1
Give guest valuable nature experiences	538	6.5 (0.9)	6.6	6.2	6.7	10.4***	3,1 > 2
Activity category^f
Consumptive^g (%)	162	40	9	76	30
Non-consumptive^h (%)	177	60	91	24	70
N	401		133	153	115
%	100		33	38	29

Numbers shown as mean (standard deviation).

***p < 0.01^.**p < 0.05.

^aComparison clusters was done by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

^bCluster by cluster comparison using Bonferroni’s post hoc analysis. The symbol > denotes significant differences between clusters at 5% level.

^cPearson Chi-Square X2 = 16.778, df = 2, p < 0.01.

^d1=Primary school, 2=Secondary school, 3=Vocational education (2 years), 4=University college/university (3 years), 5=University (3+ years). Pearson Chi-Square X2 = 27.924, df = 8, p < 0.01

^e‘How high or low does the firm prioritize the following objectives in its work on nature-based tourism? Very low priority (1) – Very high priority (7)’.

^fPearson Chi-Square X2 = 139,696, df = 2, p < 0.01.

^gE.g. fishing, hunting, berry picking.

^hE.g. hiking, cross country skiing, rowing, yoga, mountain biking, ski-touring, kiting, climbing.

Table 3. Resources important for delivery of nature-based tourism activities per firm type.

Resource components	N	All	Guided activity firms	Hospitality facilitators	Activity package firms	F^a	Post hoc^b	Factor loading	Cronbach alpha per component	Alpha if item deleted	Variance explained (%)
Comp. 1: Nature and landscapes	250	4.86 (1.72)	4.77 (1.75)	4.39 (1.78)	5.52 (1.44)	7.3***	3 > 1,2	–	0.80		37.2
Wilderness areas	237	4.26 (2.15)	4.33 (2.24)	3.74 (2.21)	4.95 (1.78)	4.9***	3,1 > 2	0.66		0.81
Unique/iconic landscapes/areas	241	5.00 (2.03)	4.93 (2.00)	4.52 (2.16)	5.75 (1.72)	6.0***	3 > 2	0.84		0.67
Special biotopes (forest, mountain, sea)	237	5.23 (1.87)	5.13 (2.01)	4.67 (1.93)	5.84 (1.49)	6.1***	3 > 2	0.80		0.69
Comp. 2: Movement and senses	254	4.93 (1.51)	5.01 (1.49)	4.67 (1.51)	5.28 (1.36)	2.8*	3,1 > 2	–	0.61		11.2
Trails, paths, traces	241	4.21 (2.17)	4.06 (2.19)	3.94 (2.25)	4.84 (2.02)	3.2		0.60		0.47
Silence, sights, other sensory qualities	245	5.72 (1.57)	5.80 (1.63)	5.68 (1.51)	5.93 (1.44)	0.4		0.77		0.57
Public access/freedom to roam	240	4.80 (2.23)	5.17 (2.32)	4.25 (2.09)	5.02 (2.12)	3.3**	1 > 2	0.66		0.47
Comp. 3: Cultural resources	250	3.80 (1.57)	3.68 (1.44)	3.10 (1.33)	4.57 (1.48)	17.0***	3 > 1,2	–	0.66		10.7
Cultural heritage, art, installations	239	3.27 (1.96)	3.06 (2.03)	2.77 (1.71)	4.14 (1.89)	8.8***	3 > 1,2	0.76		0.44
Local stories	244	4.66 (1.98)	4.88 (1.81)	3.67 (1.88)	5.42 (1.72)	15.3***	3,1 > 2	0.45		0.57
Proximity to urban areas	238	3.35 (1.91)	3.09 (1.95)	2.95 (1.69)	4.03 (2.02)	5.9***	3 > 1,2	0.81		0.68
Comp. 4: Phenomena and species	244	4.25 (1.82)	3.65 (1.79)	4.05 (1.77)	5.15 (1.62)	12.7***	3 > 2,1	–	0.46^c		7.5
Specific species	234	4.37 (2.10)	3.47 (2.13)	4.42 (2.06)	5.14 (1.73)	11.2***	3,2 > 1	0.72		0.30^c
Specific natural phenomena	235	4.09 (2.27)	3.89 (2.29)	3.56 (2.23)	5.11 (1.95)	8.3***	3 > 1,2	0.69		0.30^c

Numbers shown as mean (standard deviation).

*p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

‘How important are the following resources for the enterprise’s delivery of nature-based tourism activities in the area the firm operates in? Not important (1) – Very important (7)’.

^aComparison clusters was done by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

^bCluster by cluster comparison using Bonferroni’s post hoc analysis. The symbol > denotes significant differences between clusters at 5% level.

cCorrelation (since less than three variables in component). Principal component analysis. Varimax with Kaiser normalization. KMO measure of sampling adequacy: 0.806. Bartlett’s test of sphericity: 617.24, df = 55, p < 0.01. Total variance explained by components 66.6%.

Table

Consumptive activities	Non-consumptive activities
Salmon, sea trout fishing Inland fishing Sea fishing Small game hunting Big game hunting Hunting at sea (bird, seal)	Bird watching Boat sightseeing, cruise, sea rafting Canoe on fresh water Canyoning Caving Climbing / rope park Cooking in nature Cross country skiing Cycling on the road Diving, snorkelling Dog sledding Expedition tours Glacier hiking Hiking / trekking (not climbing) Horse riding Ice skating Kayak on fresh water Kiting on snow Kiting on water Mountain biking Nature photography Nature studies	Northern lights tours Parachute, paragliding, hang gliding Rafting River kayaking Rock / ice climbing, high mountain climbing Rowing boat on fresh water Rowing boat on saltwater Sea canoeing Sea kayaking Ski / snowboard touring Snowmobile tours Snowshoeing Storm watching Surfing (wave / wind) Tobogganing Tree top cabins, wilderness camp, igloos Via ferrata Watercraft Water safari Water skiing, wakeboarding Wildlife safari on land Yoga in nature

Nature-based tourism activity categories (Stensland et al., 2018).

Stensland, S., Fossgard, K., Hansen, B. B., Fredman, P., Morken, I.-B., Thyrrestrup, G., & Haukeland, J. V. (2018). Naturbaserte reiselivsbedrifter i Norge. Statusoversikt, resultater og metode fra en nasjonal spørreundersøkelse. https://static02.nmbu.no/mina/publikasjoner/mina_fagrapport/pdf/mif52.pdf

 Google Scholar