Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to learn more!

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Travel Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weaver, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Lawton, L. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Visitor Attitudes toward Tourism Development and Product Integration in an Australian Urban-Rural Fringe

David B. Weaver

Department of Health, Fitness & Recreation Resources at George Mason University

Laura J. Lawton

Department of Health, Fitness & Recreation Resources at George Mason University

A cluster analysis involving 1,244 visitors to six popular recreational sites in the hinterland of Australia’s Gold Coast revealed diverse attitudes toward tourism development and product integration in this urban-rural fringe, although biocentric tendencies and a desire to maintain the hinterland in its present condition were dominant in all clusters. Hinterland protectives (n = 206) are not supportive of integrating the hinterland with the Gold Coast tourism product, while hinterland sharers (n = 406) strongly support integration and increased visitation. Hinterland neutrals (n = 231) do not have strong opinions about this issue, and integration ambivalents (n = 345) are caught between the desire to preserve and integrate the hinterland. Significant differences between the clusters were identified by site, motivation, group size, repeat visitation, duration of visit, age, residence, and education. These results indicate distinct dynamics in the urban-rural fringe and will potentially assist the sustainable tourism and recreation development of such areas.

Key Words: urban-rural fringe • nature-based tourism • Gold Coast • visitor perceptions • cluster analysis

Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42, No. 3, 286-296 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0047287503258834
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal Of Vacation MarketingHome page
K. Andriotis, G. Agiomirgianakis, and A. Mihiotis
Measuring tourist satisfaction: A factor-cluster segmentation approach
Journal of Vacation Marketing, July 1, 2008; 14(3): 221 - 235.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Travel ResearchHome page
S. Wurzinger and M. Johansson
Environmental Concern and Knowledge of Ecotourism among Three Groups of Swedish Tourists
Journal of Travel Research, November 1, 2006; 45(2): 217 - 226.
[Abstract] [PDF]