ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200

www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Conceptualizing special interest tourism—frameworks for analysis

Birgit Trauer
School of Tourism and Leisure Management, University of Queensland, Ipswich Campus, 11 Salisbury Road, Ipswich, Qld 4305, Australia
Received 8 July 2003; accepted 21 October 2004

Abstract

To advance understanding of Special Interest Tourism (SIT), this paper will explore the complexities of this phenomenon in the
early 21st century. First, a look at what is ‘‘out there’’, both from a supply and demand perspective, will serve to paint a broad
picture at macro-level. The paper will present a discussion of the SIT phenomenon at the macro-level within a triangular relationship
of supply, demand and media. Then, a more specific look at SIT attempts to clarify the ambiguity of the term. Finally, a look at
micro-level from the consumer’s perspective will introduce the concepts of enduring and situational involvement, and the nature of
the product. Proposed frameworks are presented to provide structure and possible directions for future research and as a means of
progressing conceptual development.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Special interest tourism; Adventure tourism; Tourist experiences; Involvement; Market segmentation; Typologies

1. Introduction p. 316) point out: ‘‘successfully providing the creative

Tourism consumption patterns and the growth of
‘‘special interest tourism’’ (SIT) are thought to reflect
the continuously increasing diversity of leisure interests
of the late-modern leisure society (Douglas, Douglas, &
Derret, 2001). According to Opaschowski (2001, p. 1),
who refers to vacations in the 21st century as ‘‘Das
gekaufte Paradies’’ (the bought paradise), the tourism
industry is increasingly subsuming the identity of an
‘‘experience industry’’, with tourists willing to pay
tourism organizers to help find optimal experiences
within the limited time available. Furthermore,
Opaschowski (2001) suggests that tourists are looking
for emotional stimuli, they want to buy feelings and not
products. They want to personally experience the
immaterial qualities, seeking ambiance, aesthetics and
atmosphere, looking for an experience full of varying
intimacies, intensities and complexities. The nature of
the tourism experience exists within a dynamic local to
global context and thus, as Varley and Crowther (1998,
Tel.: +61 7 3381 1010; fax: +61 7 3381 1012.
E-mail address: b.trauer@uq.edu.au (B. Trauer).
space for the consumer’s aesthetic personal projects to
unfold is surely the challenge facing the late-modern
entrepreneur’’.
According to Read (cited in Hall & Weiler, 1992,
p. 5), the phenomenon coined ‘‘SIT’’ emerged as a
major force in the 1980s. However, as Hlavin–Schulze
(1998a, b) points out quite succinctly, ‘‘alles schon
mal dagewesen’’ (everything has existed before). The
Grand Tour, The Olympics and overland expeditions
spring to mind immediately with regard to their
historical context. Douglas et al. (2001, p. 2) state that
a multiplicity of terms have emerged, including ‘‘alter-
native’’, ‘‘sustainable’’, ‘‘appropriate’’, ‘‘new’’, ‘‘respon-
sible’’ and ‘‘ego tourism’’ to capture the underpinning
notions of ‘‘serious leisure and tourism’’. They point out
that there is an underlying ambiguity in all terms,
including the new term of ‘‘SIT’’, in that tourism
denotes mass participation while ‘‘special interest’’
suggests non-commercialized individual travel.
To advance the understanding of this phenomenon of
SIT in the 21st century, this paper will explore the
complexities of SIT. First, a look at what is ‘‘out there’’,
both from a supply and demand perspective, will serve

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2004.10.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
184 B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
to paint a broad picture at the macro-level. The paper
will present a discussion of the SIT phenomenon at the
macro-level within a triangular relationship of supply,
demand and media. Then, a more specific look attempts
to clarify the ambiguity of the term. Finally, a look at
the micro-level from the consumer’s perspective will
introduce the concepts enduring and situational involve-
ment. Proposed frameworks are presented to provide
structure and possible directions for future research.
2. The tourism product—supply
SIT was seen as a ‘‘prime force in the expansion of
tourism’’ by Read in 1980 (cited in Hall & Weiler, 1992,
p. 5) with the product range having expanded from that
of a boutique product to a mainstream offering.
‘‘Special interests’’ can be found on web pages either
by checking the list of special interests/activities (e.g.
sport, wine, culture, painting, adventure, opera, battle-
fields), or by geographical area (e.g. Asia, Europe) of
interest and/or affinity groups (e.g. Seniors, women,
gay), with tour operators catering for every special
interest around the world.
Weber (2001) makes the point, along with Walle
(1997), that practitioners appear to have caught on to
the notion of differentiation or specialization by
originally catering for a relatively small part of the
market (niche market) with very special needs, even
before scholars started to consider the concepts in
debate. Initially SIT organizations were perceived to
have focused on rather homogeneously considered
groups of customers such as in adventure tourism,
eco-tourism, sport tourism and cultural tourism for
tourists seeking the ‘‘hard or specialized’’ end of the
market, being ‘‘serious leisure participants’’ (Weiler &
Hall, 1992; Stebbins, 1982). However, it is now apparent
that operators have diversified their offerings to attract
the large market segment of the ‘‘soft’’ or ‘‘novice’’ end
of the spectrum, and intervening stages, either based on
their own expertise within the field of special interest or
their awareness of the growing latent and salient
consumer demand (Douglas et al., 2001; Morgan and
Pritchard, 1999).
A constant reciprocal exchange between supply and
demand influences the evolvement, growth and access to
new leisure and tourism experiences (Strasdas, 1994).
Technology, time squeeze, space contraction, affluence
and increased availability of leisure equipment and
travel products have impacted on leisure and travel
trends and diversified activities and destinations from
the ‘‘old’’ to the ‘‘new’’ (Beedie, 2003; Strasdas, 1994).
Consequently, it becomes possible to ‘‘re-package’’ in
ways within which, according to Ewert (1989a, 2000), an
environment may contain the appropriate mix of new or
old activities done in a new way to be optimally
arousing, with the individual believing that (a) she/he
has enough ability to succeed at the task and (b)
possessing a positive role in sustaining the quality of
one’s life and promote personal growth. In short, to
repeat, experiences are sold on the premise of being life
enhancing.
3. Special interest tourism demand
Various authors, therefore, point towards people’s
desire for quality of life and escape from the ‘‘pluralisa-
tion of lifeworlds’’, and ‘‘rationalization of contempor-
ary urban life’’ as major push factors and motivators for
travel (Giddens, 1999; Habermas, 1987; Horne, 1994;
Rojek & Urry, 1997). According to the World Tourism
Organization (1985, cited in Hall & Weiler, 1992, p. 1),
tourism consumption patterns reflect the increasing
diversity of interests of the late-modern leisure society
with ‘‘SIT’’ having emerged, reflecting the new values
which include ‘‘increased importance of outdoor activ-
ities, awareness of ecological problems, educational
advances, aesthetic judgement and improvement of self
and society’’. However, this ‘‘self-improvement’’ and
‘‘concern for society’’ is questioned. While tourists, for
instance, may aspire to adventure and sport images that
are related to Heros, to Olympians, to environmental or
cultural specialists of high achievement, they also may
visit destinations and participate in activities as a status
symbol (Beedie, 2003; McKercher & du Cros, 2002).
Indeed, Morgan and Pritchard (1999) argue that
tourism prefixed with specific descriptors, such as
ecotourism, adventure tourism, cultural tourism and
‘‘SIT’’, serve to indicate qualitative difference from
those of mass tourism, thereby ‘‘promoting socially just
forms of tourism’’ that meet tourists’’ needs to engage in
modes of behaviour that, at best, again, enhance sense
of self, and at worst, may be ‘‘justified’’ as being socially
responsible (Morgan & Pritchard, 1999, p. 53). Simi-
larly, Hlavin-Schulze (1998a, b) suggests that individuals
increasingly adjust their needs and desires based on
images of societal behaviour that ‘‘promises’’ societal
acceptance. Opaschowski (2001) goes as far as to
propose that holidays no longer just facilitate the
‘‘traditional’’ escape of tourists from ‘‘dem Alltag’’
(daily living), but rather the search for personal life
fulfillment, happiness, ‘‘paradise’’ and has become a
highlight of leisure, part of quality of life. However, as
he points out ‘‘just as paradise does not have a specific
place, so does happiness not have a specific time’’ (p. 7).
According to Wearing (2002, p. 243), the tourist in the
21st century is ‘‘searching for new and exciting forms of
travel in defiance of a mass-produced product’’ yet
without ‘‘actually having to involve themselves in
any way’’, a reflection of increasing commodification
and depersonalization within modern and post-modern
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
society (Beck, 1999; Giddens, 1999; MacCannell, 1976).
Commodification has changed tourism experiences in
the 21st century from that of the traditional search for
the totally unknown, the utmost challenging and
dangerous to that of safety and comfort, to that of
‘‘gaze’’ but also embodiement beyond individual’s on-
site experience (Cater, 2000; Opaschowski, 2001; Urry,
1990). As Smail (1993, p. 63) notes, ‘‘A person is partly
body, certainly, but is also partly environment’’ and
thus the tourist interacts with and is influenced by places
visited and the people met at those places. However, the
tourist also brings with him/her images and myths
associations as portrayed in the multiplicity of media
and other sources which transform and individualize the
tourist experience (Rojek & Urry, 1997). Adventure
tourism for instance is regarded by Cater (2000) as
commodification of ‘‘embodied human experiences’’
that are marketed and managed to cater for a spectrum
of consumers within a framework of myth and dramatic
story line.
4. Special interest tourism—part of an interdisciplinary
system
Commercial product supply is differentiated upon
patterns of perceived demand segments that in turn are
located within social and environmental characteristics,
both embracing and attracting the participant (Weber,
2001). When attempting to come to terms with what SIT
represents, two major interpretation frameworks stand
out: the psycho-sociological, which comes from the
perspective of the tourist, and the economic which is
based on the pragmatic operational approach (Collier,
1997; Dreyer, 1995; Pigeassou, 1997). SIT, it is
suggested, should be viewed as part of a system, an
Provides ‘signs’ of
‘Special Interest
technology
ecology
Inter- Media
personal
Intra-
personal
social-
economy
Tourism Demand
System
Special Interest
Tourism
Fig. 1. SIT interactive system.
185
interdisciplinary system, which comprises the overall
environment (local to global), the tourist demand
system, the tourism industry supply system with the
media being conceptualized as a major influencer on
tourism in the 21st century, (see Fig. 1). It is the merging
of all these components that make up SIT.
The overall system is representative of political,
economical, ecological, technological, and socio-eco-
nomical and socio-cultural concerns, at local to global
level. The tourism industry supply system is made up of
tourism places/destinations, the travel and tourism
organizers/operators, travel agents, accommodation
businesses, transport, and SIT facilities and infrastruc-
ture. The tourist demand system consists of the
individual’s financial situation, possession or access to
necessary tourism activity equipment, the cognitive
determinants (perception, awareness and learning),
activating determinants (emotions, needs, motives,
attitudes, images), and personal characteristics (involve-
ment, perceived risk, values) (Dreyer, 1995). The
demand side is sub-divided into intra- and inter-personal
components that recognize the internal and external
motivational determinants for demand, including the
desire to gain insight, and to use the resultant ‘‘self-
image’’ for peer approval (Celsi, Rose, & Leigh, 1993;
Dreyer, 1995; Wearing, 2002).
Narrative reflections recreate myths for and of the
individual, they create meaning and ‘‘help us to
remember that we are heroes in a big human adventure’’
(Bammel & Bammel, 1992, p. 364). It is not the activity
and/or destination itself and the unfolding of the
experience which determine the meaning for the
individual of, for instance, adventure, but rather the
individual’s perception and interpretation, the telling of
‘‘tall stories’’ (McIntyre & Roggenbuck, 1998). This
narrative extends into adventure, sport or a specific
Overall
Environment
=
politics local
national
regional
economy global
culture
Tourism Supply
System
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
186 B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
activity or destination as seen in the purchase of
equipment, wearing of certain clothes and brands of
participants’’ chosen peer reference groups. Their
purchases are an inducement into a cult of ‘‘like-
minded’’ activists, a symbol by which they recognize
each other and the degree of commitment to that
activity, be that commitment real or only contrived
(Celsi et al., 1993). This includes guides and tourism
operators, as the very media that help shape the demand
for a product also help shape the design, presentation
and representation of the product by those who supply
it. They too are part of a closed system that fuses
representation of places and action with the production
and reproduction of tourism experiences.
5. Image creation/media
Bartram (2001) argues that increased exposure of
high-risk leisure in the media may indeed stimulate
involvement in an activity such as mountaineering,
which can evolve into a leisure or tourism career.
Tourism brochures, magazines, books, film and televi-
sion, all are media for the creation of images that
fashion desires, wants and needs, creating anticipation
and a way for tourists to envisage themselves in place
and action. (Ateljevic & Doorne, 2002; Coulter, 2001;
Hlavin-Schulze, 1998a; Kim & Richardson, 2003;
Markwick, 2001; Nielsen, 2001; Wickens, 2002). Media
pervades every intimate human space and thus can
influence value creation, beliefs and attitudes (Trauer,
2002). It generates a possible cognitive and affective
response—knowledge of, and familiarity with the
activity and places within which it occurs, and an
emotive response to those activities. The tourist comes
to the tourism location with pre-conceived images
within which they have allocated a role to him or herself
(Ryan, 2003). The tourist tries to understand and relive
these images by mirroring the representations during
their holidays. Thus, tourism provides for a ritual or
sacred journey to be performed at places with meanings
imbued by the tourism industry and the wider media
(Morgan, 1999; Rojek & Urry, 1997).
Place images are founded on core images within
established truths and myths as per historical literature
and only change slowly in yet constantly shifting societal
contexts. On the other hand, these images are also
exposed to radical image-changes as new ones are being
invented, disseminated and accepted through stereotyp-
ing, differentiation, commercialization and accessibility.
Representation of places are collages of images, of
experiences and metaphors, depicting a range of similes
not only born of authenticity but enriched by ‘‘irrele-
vant’’ stimuli through entertainment and spectacle, with
the spectacle becoming more spectacular, thrills more
thrilling and the magic of nature more magical (Cloke &
Perkins, 1998; Rojek & Urry, 1997; Urry, 2000;
Opaschowski, 2001). Tourism places no longer only
present continuity in time and space with historical and
biographical meaning but are instilled with physical and
emotional sensations of a consumption-oriented society
(Hlavin-Schulze, 1998b; Morgan, 1996, 1999; Urry,
2000). Images are interpreted and re-interpreted and
generate perceived authenticity of place and action. Yet,
the modern day tourist is not ignorant of the staging and
liminality of holiday experiences. It is the creation and
interpretation of images that are purchased, anticipated
and consumed by the ‘‘experience hungry’’ tourists of
the 21st century (Schulze, 1993).
Now that a broader context for SIT has been
established, the question arises: Apart from the products
available and a society demanding special experiences,
what is SIT and how can it be defined?
6. Special interest tourism definitions
It is acknowledged that it is difficult, if not even
impossible, to define tourism, or SIT in this case, in a
manner acceptable to researchers across the spectrum of
tourism disciplines and research approaches (Butler,
1999). However, in their original work on SIT, Hall
and Weiler (1992, p. 5) proposed SIT to occur when the
‘‘traveler’s motivation and decision-making are primarily
determined by a particular special interest with a focus
either on activity/ies and/or destinations and settings’’.
Swarbrook and Horner (1999, p. 38) expanded this
definition by pointing out two perspectives of SIT. They
suggest that the special interest tourist is motivated by a
desire to ‘‘either indulge in an existing interest or develop
a new interest in a novel or familiar location’’. They also
stated that SIT is different to that of activity tourism by
proposing that it involves ‘‘little or no physical exertion’’
(p. 38). Yet, it is argued, tourism with physical exertion
such as in sport or adventure should be considered a
special interest from the tourist’s perspective (Hall, 1992;
Morpeth, 2001; Trauer, 1999a, b; Trauer, Ryan, &
Lockyer, 2003). Another argument has also been that
SIT is the opposite of mass’’ tourism with the focus on
new forms of tourism that have the potential to meet the
needs of tourists and hosts, including rural tourism,
adventure and nature-based tourism, cultural and heri-
tage tourism, and festival and event tourism. Douglas et
al. (2001, p. 2) accordingly suggest that ‘‘SIT, or
alternative tourism’’y.. has ‘‘emerged from concerns
for the delivery of sustainable tourism’’. At the same time
they present a definition of SIT by Derrett (2001, p. xvii)
as ‘‘the provision of customized leisure and recreational
experiences driven by the specific expressed interest of
individuals and groups’’ (p. 4). It has been recognized
that the term ‘‘SIT’’ comprises two major indicators: first,
‘‘special interest’’, which suggests a need to consider the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
leisure context; second, ‘‘tourism’’, pointing to the
commercialization of leisure (Trauer, 1999a, b), which
Poon (1997), (cited Douglas et al., 2001, p. 3) relates to as
‘‘new tourism’’y.. being ‘‘large-scale packaging of non-
standardized leisure services’’. This notion appears in the
ATC’s publication ‘‘Special Interest Australia’’, describ-
ing Australia as ‘‘a land of adventure’’, providing the
perfect context for the tourists ‘‘to pursue favourite
pastimes and learn new skills’’, being ‘‘excellent value for
money’’, and for the operator ‘‘to capitalize on a
worldwide trend towards so-called experiential travel’’
(ATC, 1993, p. 2). The publication also entices the
tourism operators to join their marketing program to set
themselves apart from other operators.
7. The ‘‘Tourism Interest Cycle’’
Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997) in their attempt to
conceptualize and define SIT, reviewed literature within
leisure and tourism, comparing existing typologies and
frameworks, including those by de Grazia (1964), Kelly
(1983) and Iso-Ahola (1983) in the leisure context, and
Plog (1974—psychocentrics/allocentrics), Cohen (1972—
explorer/drifter), Gray (1979—sunlust/wanderlust) and
Dann (1977—push and pull factors) in the tourism
context. With reference to Murphy (1985) and Mannell
and Iso-Ahola (1987), they point out that while the
leisure approach highlights the home-based lifestyle
activities, the tourism typologies focus on destination
choice. Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997) concluded
that neither appeared applicable to the concept of SIT,
but pointed out that these were influential in their
development of a theoretical framework.
To set SIT in a broader overall tourism context,
Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997) suggest a ‘‘Tourism
Interest Continuum’’. Based on Culligan’s framework,
they propose that through increasing travel experience,
confidence and affluence, a maturation or tourist life
cycle transition from ‘‘safe to more adventurous
kinds of travel and holidays’’ occurs, with the tourist
‘‘trading up’’ and purchasing social prestige and
ego-enhancement.
They put forward the notion that the questions a
tourist would ask in the decision-making process are

General Interest Tourism GIT—where would I like to
go?

Mixed Interest Tourism MIT—where do I want to go
and what activities can I pursue there?

SIT—what interest/activity do I want to pursue, and
where can I do it?
According to Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997), the
‘‘Dabbler’’ is looking for a change from GIT and MIT
and, depending on her/his attitude to risk, will be
187
seeking ‘‘fashionable’’ or ‘‘popular’’ products as a
means of self-expression. On the other hand, for the
‘‘Expert’’ the activity is central in her/his overall life and
leisure. Hence, the ‘‘Expert’’ in SIT is likely to choose
their special interest holiday in accordance with their
leisure interests and activities at home.
Similar to the GIT, MIT and SIT premise by
Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997), Hall (2003, p.
276) applies the concept of ‘‘primary’’, ‘‘secondary’’ and
‘‘subsidiary to other interests’’ motives within the
context of health and spa tourism. This motivational
approach is also apparent in the various typologies that
have emanated from studies in various SIT segments,
such as cultural tourism (Richards, 1996; Craik, 1997),
educational tourism (informal to formal) (Arsenault,
1998, 2001; Arsenault & Anderson, 1998), bicycle
tourism (Morpeth, 2001), and wine tourism (Charters
& Ali-Knight, 2002). Typologies range from culturally
attracted to culturally motivated tourists (based on a
matrix of level of interest and depth of experience)
(McKercher & du Cros, 2002), shallow to deep eco-
tourists (Acott, La Trobe, & Howard, 1998), and
‘‘hard’’ definition related to passive or active participa-
tion at an event at competitive level in sport tourism to
‘‘soft’’ definition referring to active participation at
recreational level (Gammon & Robinson, 2003). Based
on the above discussion, the following framework is
suggested.
The framework not only depicts the ‘‘tourism interest
continuum’’ as suggested by Brotherton and Himme-
toglu (1997), but also highlights the need to acknowl-
edge the overlap between MIT and SIT. It also
distinguishes between the segment of geographical/
location nature, the accommodation/transport/theme
segment, the affinity group segments, and SIT segments
with a focus on activity, such as sport, and/or setting
such as nature or architecture that could be a tourist’s
hobby or recreational activity. It is argued that the
potential exists for various special interests from within
the SIT segment (e.g. sport, architecture, culture, opera,
education) to be participated in within the other three
categories. For instance, although event and cruise
tourism can be the special focus of activity, events and
cruises are further specialized by themes and interests
such as sports events (e.g. World Masters, Americas
Cup), classical music events (e.g. Salzburger Festspiele),
and health and wellness cruises (Dimmock & Tryce,
2001; Douglas et al., 2001). Senior tourism also is a
recognized segment of SIT, yet once again, despite the
underpinning stereotypical affinity, a variety and
different intensities of interests and activities amongst
seniors exists (Ruyss & Wei, 2001).
It is being acknowledged that multi-motivational
decision-making processes underpin holiday choices
(Ryan, 2003). Therefore, not all the time would a
progression have to occur for participants, or a special
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
188 B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200

General Interest Tourism (GIT)

Or Mass Tourism = Conventional large-scale tourism
Focus: Where can I go on holidays?

Mixed Interest Tourism (MIT)

Focus: Where, how and/or with whom can I go on holidays
and what activities can I pursue there?

Geographical Location Accommodation, Affinity Group

Segments: Transport & Event Segments:
E.g. Regional tourism, Urban Segments: E.g. Senior tourism
tourism, Rural tourism E.g. Resort, Cruise and Women’s tourism
Exhibition tourism Gay tourism

Special Interest (Activity/Setting) Segments:

E.g. Environmental tourism - Cultural tourism -
Hobby tourism - Health and spa tourism - Sport
tourism - Adventure tourism - Wine and food tourism
- Sex tourism

Special Interest Tourism

What interest/activity do I want to pursue, and where
can I do it? E.g: Adventure Tourism

E.g. Adventure
E.g. Environmental E.g. Sport
Sub-segments
Sub-segments e.g. backpacking
e.g. ecotourism, (bushwalking),
Sub-segments
nature-based tourism, mountaineering, e.g. golf, tennis, sailing,
wildlife tourism whitewater rafting, soccer, cycling,
kayaking, scuba diving
bicycle-touring,
sailing, scuba diving,
wildlife safari

Fig. 2. SIT Cycle. Based on Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997), Prosser (2001), Ruyss and Wei (2001), Schofield (2001).

interest always be pursued during holidays. But rather, a

Leisure (home based)
proviso is maintained within the suggested framework
for individuals to be able to choose other types of
interest tourism holidays (GIT, MIT) according to their
General Interest Tourism (GIT)
needs and wants at various times.
Also, although SIT segments are separated and
discussed along specific descriptors, it is important to
note that within the realm of tourism overall and SIT in Mixed Interest Tourism (MIT)
particular, the segments at all levels are not necessarily
mutually exclusive and often overlap (Hall, 1992, 2003).
An example would be adventure tourism at SIT level, Special Interest Tourism (SIT)
which includes adventurous sports activities such as
sailing, mountain biking, and hang gliding (sport being Fig. 3. ‘‘Leisure–Tourism Interest Cycle’’. Based on Brotherton and
denoted by ‘‘competition’’ compared to ‘‘risk’’ in Himmetoglu (1997), and Carr (2002).
adventure (Krüger, 1995)), and environmental tourism
such as volunteer research expeditions with Earthwatch
(which are not free but have to be paid for by the
participants) to a remote location (see Fig. 2). The latter 8. The ‘‘Leisure-Tourism Interest Cycle’’
could also be classified as volunteer tourism (Wearing,
2002) or also senior tourism or educational tourism if It is apparent by the definitions presented that SIT
this was marketed and facilitated accordingly and is a form of recreation. Kelly (1996, p. 281) argued
perceived as such by the participant/tourist Fig. 3. that recreational tourism ‘‘is leisure on the move’’.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
(Carr, 2002) restates that tourism for pleasure and leisure
are interconnected, similar to other authors including
Butler (1999), and McKercher and Davidson (1996). Carr
(2002, p. 976) describes these areas of academic study as
‘‘fuzzy sets with no sharp or accepted boundaries between
them’’. He presents a continuum that includes tourist and
residual culture, the latter being that of the home
environment. This leads to an extension of the ‘‘Tourism
Interest Cycle’’ as presented above into that of a
‘‘Leisure–Tourism Interest Cycle’’ with a potential cyclic
feed back loop between leisure and tourism. Once again,
it is highlighted that a progression would not have to
occur for participants every time, but rather a flexible
framework is suggested that facilitates a progression, not
necessarily one of a hierarchical nature but rather in a
flexible cyclical fashion.
9. Serious leisure, recreation specialization and enduring
involvement
As demonstrated and depicted in Fig. 1, there are two
perspectives from which to analyse and define SIT,
either from the consumer or the provider perspective.
The approach taken in this paper at micro-level is that
from the tourist perspective, because just as ‘‘beauty lies
in the eyes of the beholder’’, ‘‘special’’ lies in the
experience of tourists. The discussion above emphasizes
that, in order to add to the understanding of SIT and
special interest tourists’’ experiences, an initial apprecia-
tion of leisure and recreation participation is deemed of
value.
According to studies of leisure/tourism motivations,
people choose to participate in recreational activities to
satisfy multiple needs (Ryan, 2003). In the case of SIT,
these can relate to those influencing participation in
their special interest or hobby and/or those of travel and
tourism in general. With reference to Stebbins (1982,
1999), Bartram (2001, p. 5) states ‘‘Serious leisure is the
systematic pursuit of an amateur, hobbyist, or volunteer
activity, that is sufficiently rewarding despite the costs,
such that participants find a career in the acquisition
and expression of its special skills and knowledge.’’
Serious leisure requires ‘‘high investment’’ with sus-
tained commitment to the development of knowledge
and skills as well as ‘‘communicative interaction with the
people most important to usy..It is a context for the
development of relationships of trust, sharing, and
intimacy’’ (Kelly & Godbey, 1992, p. 350). Apart from
participatory, experiential and novelty oriented compo-
nents of SIT experiences/products, the shared social or
cultural worlds of the travelers can influence the positive
or negative perception of an experience (Arnould, Price,
& Tierney, 1998).
The development of a special interest was originally
examined in the context of recreation specialization in
189
the mid 1970s by Little (1976) and (Bryan, 1977, 1979,
2000), and was defined as
selective channeling of interests and abilities into a
specific area. Typically the participant would be
spending a lot of time engaged in activities within the
area of specialization or be infrequently but intensely
involved. The participant typically would have
advanced levels of knowledge, skill and experience
within the special interest area and be gaining
pleasure from and displaying interest in all areas of
the specialization focus, be it activities, objects and
events (Little, 1976, p. 12). (italics by author).
For example, sport tourists’ level of specialization and
involvement influence spectators attention to factors
extraneous to the actual sport activity, such as sport
advertising during games and events (Funk & James,
2002; Krüger, 1995; Laverie & Arnett, 2000). A holiday
can also be viewed as an event, a personal project that
requires time, thought and financial commitment
by individuals living in industrialized post-modern
societies that are time-poor and ‘‘experience hungry’’
(Opaschowski, 2001). Today as in the past, ‘‘travel to
leisure and travel as leisure is recognized as something
planned, hoped for and experienced by those who can
afford it’’ (Kelly, 1996, p. 281).
Tourism is part of the overall leisure industry, where
the investment and desired outcomes in leisure services
frequently are of an experiential and emotional nature
(Schmidt, 1997). Stern (1997) pointed out that emotion-
ally driven consumption with high levels of intangibility,
which is characteristic of intense and extended service
encounters as can be found in tourism generally and SIT
specifically, should be viewed beyond behavioural
indicators (e.g. visits to cultural sites) and differently
from rational decision-making processes as applied in
the choice of consumer products or services of
functional nature. This assumption of ‘‘the goal-directed
rational actor’’ has also been questioned by Giddens
(1999), who suggests that ‘‘the reflexive project of the
self’’ is not to be found in behaviour, nor—important as
this is—in the reactions of others, but in the capacity to
keep a particular narrative going’’ (p. 54, cited in
Kuentzel, 2000, p. 89)yy.which ‘‘must be sustained in
the reflexive activities of the individual as he produces
and reproduces the routine activities and order of
everyday life’’ (Kuentzel, 2000, p. 89).
The ‘‘Recreation Specialization Loop’’ (see Fig. 4)
depicts a comprehensive perspective on recreation
specialization (McIntyre, 1990). It emphasizes the
affective as well as the behavioural and cognitive (such
as previous experience and skill) and the level of
involvement an individual has for their special interest.
The three sub-components of the personal system of
recreation specialization, the ‘‘behavioural, cognitive
and affective, or enduring involvement’’, are potentially
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
190 B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
Selling
Skills
Atribuites
COGNITIVE SYSTEM
Mutually
reinforcing recreation
specialization
PERSONAL SYSTEM
BEHAVIORAL SYSTEM
Prior Familianity
Experience
Fig. 4. The ‘‘Recreation Specialization’’ loop. (McIntyre, 1989, 1990, p. 42). Coloured additions and highlights to emphasize major discussion points
in present paper.
mutually reinforcing and applicable to any individual
(McIntyre, 1989, 1990; McIntyre & Pigram, 1992).
However, there are variances depending on activity
and/or setting focus (Havitz & Howard, 1995; Trauer,
1999a; Trauer et al., 2003) as can be demonstrated in the
case of wine tourists. Some wine tourists indeed may be
behaviourally involved (drinking wine), cognitively in-
volved (learning about it), and affectively involved
(enduring involvement—e.g. central to a wine connois-
seur who pursues his hobby and interest in wine both at
home and while on holidays). Yet, another tourist, by
choice or for health reasons, might not drink wine at all,
but having grown up in a wine region that tourist might
harbour a strong emotional attachment (affective/endur-
ing involvement) with place and product (wine) through
childhood memories, and might be particularly interested
in the history and production of wine (cognitive
involvement). Behavioural measurements such as past
experience, frequency of use, and cognitive indicators
such as knowledge and skill, have been incorporated into
recreation research (e.g. McIntyre, 1989, 1990; Scott &
Godbey, 1994; Scott & Scoot Shafer, 2001) and involve-
ment in leisure and tourism-related contexts (see Havitz
& Dimanche, 1997, 1999). As the recreation specializa-
tion loop demonstrates, behaviour, cognition and affec-
tive involvement are interlinked. However, as Laurent
and Kapferer (1985) pointed out ‘‘involvement does not
systematically lead to the expected difference in beha-
viouryy.because, in part, each involvement facet (see
below) influences specific behaviours differently’’ (cited in
Iwasaki & Havitz, 1998, p. 262).
The involvement facets of importance and enjoy-
ment (attraction), self-expression (identity and social
The Personal System’s Model
Knowledge emphasises the ‘embodiement’
of experiences (‘body, mind and
soul’)
by including the affective as well as
behavioural and cognitive systems
Enduring Involvement (Laurent and Kapferer,
1985 -consumer behaviour)
(multi-dimensional measure = 3 components)
Centrality
(fourth dimension
added by McIntyre,
Affective System
1989, 1990- recreation)
(Little, 1976)
Enduring
Involvement
Importance Enjoyment Self-expression Centrality
of product derived through to lifestyle
category from it product
category
cohesion) and centrality (lifestyle, work) constitute the
concept of ‘‘enduring involvement’’ (McIntyre, 1989,
1990) or the affective component of specialization
(Little, 1976). Hall and Weiler (1992, p. 9) discussed
the issue of centrality, with its strong social content in
the context of serious leisure and tourism, referring to it
as the ‘‘unique ethos which is represented by a specific
social world ‘‘composed of special beliefs, values, moral
principles, norms, and performance standards’’ (Gah-
wiler, 1995; Gahwiler & Havitz, 1998). McKercher and
du Cros (2002) also acknowledged the issue of centrality
of interest in culture as a main differentiating variable in
their study of ‘‘cultural’’ tourists to Hong Kong,
acknowledging that behavioural indicators as in visits
to cultural attractions was not sufficient for market
segmentation.
10. Casual leisure and situational involvement
Having discussed the ‘‘serious’’ side of leisure and
recreation specialization, it is important to look at the
other end of the spectrum, that of ‘‘casual leisure’’. It
has been defined as ‘‘an immediate and intrinsically
rewarding, relatively short-lived pleasurable activity
requiring little or no special training to enjoy it’’
(Stebbins, 1982, cited in Bartram, 2001, p. 5). This is
akin to situational involvement and points to the
realization that within commercialized leisure and
tourism, particularly within sub-segments such as
adventure tourism, little or no training is necessary for
the participants to partake in the experience. The guides
and/or management of the operations take on the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
responsibility to maximize enjoyment and satisfaction
for customers from across the spectrum of novices to
experts (Cater, 2000; Fluker & Turner, 1998, 2000;
Trauer, 1998, 1999a).
Stebbins (1997) points out that those participants
pursuing serious leisure are in fact in the minority
compared to those involved in casual leisure. This
notion was supported by various authors in the area of
SIT such as cultural tourism (Craik, 1997) and eco-
tourism (Eagles, 1996). This suggests that within SIT a
majority of participants in fact are not unlike casual
leisure participants who unknowingly ‘‘Often dabble in
or play around at an activity pursued as serious leisure
by others’’ (Stebbins, 1997, p. 19).
11. Involvement—enduring and situational
Involvement is a multi-dimensional construct and has
been interpreted as a process of psychological identifica-
tion resulting in varying degrees of behavioural,
cognitive and affective investment in an activity,
product or situation (Richins & Bloch, 1986; Richins,
Bloch, & McQuarrie, 1992; Havitz & Dimanche, 1999;
McIntyre, 1989, 1990). Involvement was defined initially
by Rothschild (1984) as an unobservable state of
motivation, arousal or interest towards a recreational
activity, or associated product. It is evoked by a
particular stimulus or situation and has drive properties.
Within consumer theory involvement reflects the
extent to which a person associates him or herself with
an activity or product, and this has been adopted by
researchers in leisure and tourism embracing the five
dimensions of the multi-dimensional construct of
involvement; these being

the affective component as in the importance and
enjoyment attributed to a product or activity,

the sign or self-expression value as the statements
perceived to be made to others or self about self-
identity through purchase and/or participation,

the added component of centrality (McIntyre, 1989,
1990), that refers to how important to an individual
the activity, product or experience is,

risk probability, perceived potential of making a
wrong/poor choice,

risk consequence, perceived importance of negative
consequences in the case of wrong/poor choice
(Havitz & Dimanche, 1999).
The first three facets form the underpinnings of
enduring involvement in ‘‘recreation specialization’’ (see
Fig. 4) and imply a continuum of varying degrees of
intensity from low level of involvement at one end to
high levels at the other. Iwasaki and Havitz (1998) note
that, although risk has received a lot of attention in
191
research with regard to physical risk, particularly in the
context of adventure recreation and to some extent in
adventure tourism (e.g. Ewert, 1989b; McIntyre &
Roggenbuck, 1998; Priest, 1992, 1999; Robinson,
1992), other sources of risk exist in tourism such as
social psychological, financial and temporal (Dimanche,
Havitz, & Howard, 1993). The following list is suggested
(Sönmez & Graefe, 1998), which highlights the multi-
plicity and complexity of risk in tourism within the 21st
century overall, not just in the context of ‘‘adventure
tourism’’:

physical risk (physical danger or injury/accident),

health risk (becoming sick, e.g. SARS),

technical risk (e.g. something going wrong with
transport, accommodation),

political instability risk (involvement in political
turmoil),

terrorism risk (terrorist attack),

psychological risk (experience not real self, self-
image),

social risk (travel choice affects others’’ opinion of
self),

satisfaction risk (no personal satisfaction/dissatisfac-
tion),

financial risk (not value for money),

time risk (waste of time).
With the above in mind, Iwasaki and Havitz (1998, p.
260) argue that there are antecedents to involvement of
‘‘individual mediating, individual moderating’’ nature
and those of ‘‘social-situational moderating’’ character-
istics as follow:

Individual mediating facets:
J Values or belief, attitudes, motivation, needs or
goals, initial formation of preference, initial
behavioural experiences, competence/skills.

Individual moderating facets:
J Intrapersonal constraints (e.g.funds, access,
health), anticipation of personal benefits, and/or
initial gain of personal benefits such as satisfaction
and health (e.g. Driver, Brown, & Peterson, 1991).

Social-situational moderating factors (both at global
or macro and specific or micro-level):
J Social support from significant others, situational
incentives, social and cultural norms, interpersonal
and structural constraints, anticipation of social
benefits and/or initial gain of social benefits such as
friendship and family solidarity (e.g. Driver et al.,
1991; Unruh, 1979, 1980).
Although theses antecedents have been identified,
Iwasaki and Havitz (1998, p. 260/1) point out that an
inherent difficulty exists in assessing these antecedent
effects on involvement ‘‘as they rarely increase or
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
192 B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
decrease congruently with each other in terms of
direction or intensity’’. Yet, if one accepts these
antecedents as overall underpinnings, it is not surprising
that involvement theory has received a lot of attention in
leisure research. Pearce (1993) stresses the importance of
recognizing the multiplicity of motives existent in
individuals in any social context, not just tourism, and
therefore recommends a dynamic approach to any
theoretical framework. Indeed, individual’s behaviour,
according to Cohen’s (1972) emic perspective, should be
considered in the context of place, social and time
specificity as these would be influential. Similarly,
Sharpley (1999) argues that for any theoretical frame-
work or typology to be pertinent, a sociological
perspective that analyses tourists both within a micro-
context as well as at the structural macro-level, serves to
contextualize tourist behaviour and experiences in a
broader overall life context.
The involvement construct provides a profile for
market segmentation, demonstrated originally by Laur-
ent and Kapferer’s (1985) study, which reported ten
distinct clusters, of which four clusters were also
reasonably confirmed in the context of tourist motiva-
tion in the study by Havitz and Howard (1995). These
were ‘‘intrinsic sophisticates, casual pleasure seekers,
ambivalent consumers and appearance involvement’’ (p.
98). Havitz and Howard (1995) emphasize, however,
that market segmentation clusters will vary depending
on sample characteristics, products, activities and
clustering procedures. Thus, their study revealed two
further unique clusters of ‘‘moderately engaged con-
sumers and conformist consumers’’.
When testing the enduring and situational involve-
ment properties, Havitz and Howard (1995) data
confirmed the stability over time of the importance-
pleasure (attraction) facet, as also presented by McIn-
tyre (1989). This is not surprising as leisure and
accordingly holidays are chosen on the premise that
they will be enjoyable (Kelly, 1983). Yet, the sign and
risk consequence scores varied depending on activity
context. Research conducted by Dimanche et al. (1993)
in the context of tourism resulted in high scores in the
importance/pleasure (attraction) and sign dimensions,
which tended to show correlation with repeat behaviour.
Risk probability scores on the other hand decreased as
participants acquired increased behavioural and cogni-
tive reference points. This suggests that increased
familiarity with chosen activities and settings, including
those of tourist destinations, facilitate a change in ability
to evaluate more rationally, a change in perception of
risk, a change in destination choice and/or activity
complexity, as has been demonstrated within outdoor
and adventure recreation research (Ewert, McIntyre,
1990; McIntyre & Pigram, 1992). Frequency of partici-
pation with a touristic activity, it should be noted here,
has been proposed to be the behavioural result of
involvement, and yet, the correlation between these still
requires further exploration (Havitz & Dimanche, 1997,
1999). This is important to recognize in the context of
tourism, and adventure tourism in particular, as the risk
probability has shown positive correlation to the
attraction and sign facets of involvement profiles. Thus,
a focus in research on the involvement dimension of sign
and risk has been suggested (Dimanche, Havitz, &
Howard, 1991; Havitz, 2002; Havitz & Mannell, 2005).
12. The special interest tourism trip cycle
From the above discussion, the following ‘‘SIT Trip
Cycle’’ (see Fig. 5) is suggested.
Tourism and leisure experiences are multi-phasic and
evolving across time (Craig-Smith & French, 1994;
Leiper, 1990; Stewart, 1998), with the tourist being a
participant and contributing factor in the development
and delivery of the experience. The tourism experience,
consisting of the anticipation, consumption and memory
phases, is situated within the consumer’s overall life
context with the emergence of an enjoyable and
satisfying experience being built across the total
temporal frame and being interpreted ‘‘within the
broader, narrative context of the consumer’s life’’
(Arnould & Price, 1993). Cohen (1972) recognized this
by pointing out that all tourists, to varying degrees,
carry with them their values and behaviours established
in their home environment and culture, which influence
their perceptions and reactions to new experiences of
other places, activities, people and foreign culture. At
both levels of the ‘‘discursive’’ and ‘‘practical conscious-
ness’’, tourists are immersed in their individual action
and the social structures of their surrounds, that of the
tourist and the home culture (Kuentzel, 2000).
Dimanche and Samdahl (1994, p. 125) suggest that
the need for identity affirmation at a personal level
(needs for self-expression and self-affirmation), and
affirmation of social identity (needs for conspicuous
consumption and display—sign value), respectively,
influence the choice of leisure activities. The term self-
expression is anchored in the context of recreation
experiences within the leisure literature, while the term
sign value finds its roots within consumer behaviour
literature with reference to conspicuous consumption of
products (Laverie & Arnett, 2000). The above inter-
pretation by Dimanche and Samdahl (1994) is similar to
that by Pearce (1993) and Csikszentmihalyi (1975), who
argue that intrinsic motivation fosters individual atten-
tion to issues of personal autonomy and travel choice,
while extrinsic motivation encourages focus on ‘‘sig-
nificant others’’, power structures and social recognition
with delayed, or post hoc satisfaction being a driving
motivator. Studies, taking an environmental psycholo-
gical perspective for the analysis of leisure experiences
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
Fig. 5. The ‘‘SIT Trip Cycle’’. EI ¼ enduring involvement, SI ¼ situational involvement. Based on Clawson and Knetsch (1966), Hamilton-Smith
(1987), Leiper (1990), Dimanche and Samdahl (1994).
applied experiential sampling methodology (ESM)
during the on-site experience and presented results with
variance in focus and mood (McIntyre & Roggenbuck,
1998), which, considering the antecedents of involve-
ment (see discussion above), could be associated with
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as on-site
influences.
Iso-Ahola (1983) pointed to the issue of motivations
being re-constructed by participants within post hoc
research, participants possibly attempting to create a
culturally acceptable image. This communication to self
and/or others through narratives (stories), expressing
satisfaction and also dissatisfaction feed back into
personal and social identity, and ultimately self within
the home environment, and future leisure and travel
choices and behaviour, respectively. The concepts of
‘‘post hoc satisfaction’’ (PHS) and ‘‘real-time satisfac-
tion’’ (RTS) was considered and operationalized in a
study conducted by Stewart and Hull (1992) with regard
to quality park management. PHS appraises the
recreation experience evaluated after the on-site activity
has occurred, while RTS is an evaluation of a
recreationist’s current state during the recreation/tour-
ism experience. The results suggested the need for two
distinct constructs of satisfaction due to the differential
reliance on introspection, differential emphasis on
recall of past experiences, and differential ability to
193
control the effects of context. However, as the ‘‘SIT Trip
Cycle’’ emphasizes, constant evaluation takes place
during all phases of travel, including the anticipation
and planning phase and once back in the home
environment, or travel originating region. The cyclic
accumulative nature of situational involvement and
enduring involvement therefore suggest a fusion be-
tween RTS and PHS that will influence future leisure/
travel choice and behaviour.
The discussion of self asks for clarification of
ontology and whether strict symbolic interactionism is
seen to be the underpinning theory, or whether it is
structuration theory of ‘‘dualisam’’ as per Giddens
(1999), where the ‘‘saturated self’’ (Gergen, 1991) of
post-modernity is involved in individual action and
social structure that are ‘‘mutually constitutive of
each other’’ywhere interaction of the ‘‘reflexive self’’
is ‘‘a subset of a broader spectrum of routinized
activities’’:yy..‘‘to keep a particular narrative going’’
(cited in Kuentzel, 2000, pp. 89–91). Holidays indeed
are another time and place for ‘‘right of passage’’,
another time and place for ‘‘selfhood’’, for the ‘‘reflexive
project of self’’yy. not in the ‘‘quest for self-
improvement or development against the constraining
forces of an external worldy.but to maintain the
narrative in those moments of ambiguity or ‘‘ontological
anxiety, or to anchor the self across the contingencies of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
194 B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
time and space’’ (Kiewa, 2001; Kuentzel, 2000, p. 90).
Structuation theory recognizes the ‘‘duality’’ of life in
post-modernity (Kuentzel, 2000) and this stance has
been taken for the conceptualization presented in this
paper.
13. Frameworks for analysis of special interest tourism
experiences at micro-level
The prior discussion of SIT as being part of an overall
environmental system at macro-level (see Fig. 1) has
attributed importance to media in terms of image
generation and has argued that image affects concepts
of place, of self, and the promotion of desires for certain
holiday products and experiences. Level (multi-dimen-
sional construct, involvement profile), and kind (EI/SI)
of involvement it is argued, are the contributing factors
at micro-level for the individual in the decision-making
process, the experience of SIT products, and satisfaction
at recollection stage (see Fig. 5).
Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997) theorize a con-
tinuum of ‘‘dabbler’’, ‘‘enthusiast’’, ‘‘expert’’ and
‘‘fanatics’’, and their study, consisting of a questionnaire
distributed to UK Outbound SIT participants and
operators investigating market segmentation and pro-
duct grouping, provided tentative evidence. Their
classifications are not unlike those suggested in the
following proposed theoretical framework (see Figs. 6
and 7). However, the major contribution of this
extended framework of SIT is its fundamental con-
ceptualization of SIT based on the multi-dimensional
and cyclic concept of involvement by considering the
Fig. 6. The ‘‘SIT Experience’’.
influence of possible enduring involvement in the leisure
(home) context and situational involvement within
tourism with a potential for a ‘‘career’’ path in SIT.
Additionally, the product complexity dimension is
related to a specific SIT segment/category, for example
adventure, which is further refined in Fig. 7 ‘‘The
Adventure Tourism Experience’’. In their conclusion,
Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997) sought to refine SIT
theorization from the global to the local, or from the
macro to the micro, thus providing for more focused
research.
As can be seen in Fig. 6, the main cells are formed by
a horizontal axis that traces the level of involvement; a
continuum that ranges from low levels of involvement
(multi-dimensional) as in ‘‘attraction’’ in a special
interest focus (e.g. activity, environmental setting, social
context), to high levels of involvement as in centrality
and commitment. The vertical axis presents a second
continuum, that of ‘‘Frequency of SIT product pur-
chase/participation’’. Enduring involvement implies a
transition from the ‘‘one-off’’ experience into a process
of experience repetition during which additional ‘‘skills’’
(behavioural, cognitive and social/psychological) are
collected and the nature of the challenge being sought
might become more ‘‘risky’’ with regard to risk
probability and risk consequence. In terms of this model
the participant may therefore move along two dimen-
sions—these being a transition from lesser to greater
involvement considering the various facets of involve-
ment (attraction, self-expression and centrality, risk
potential, risk consequence) with a specific activity or
setting (leisure interest), and two, by increasing exposure
to travel involvement in SIT.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
Fig. 7. The ‘‘Adventure Tourism Experience’’.
Thus, the ‘‘SIT Expert’’ has high involvement in both
the leisure interest and experience in travel and chooses
SIT experiences with matching challenges. The ‘‘Novice’’
in SIT, according to Brotherton and Himmetoglu (1997)
is looking for a change from GIT and MIT and,
depending on her/his attitude to risk, will be seeking
‘‘fashionable or popular’’ products as a means of self-
expression. They called these tourists the ‘‘dabblers’’,
not unlike the dabbler as suggested by Stebbins (1997) in
the debate of casual and serious leisure. The ‘‘Novice’’ is
trying out a special leisure/recreation interest of high
importance and centrality to the ‘‘Expert/Specialist
Interest Tourist’’ as well as the ‘‘Travelling Recreation
Expert/Specialist’’, while being a novice at travel. Thus,
the ‘‘Novice’’ is also exploring travel as a new or
evolving interest and hence is dabbling in the SIT’’
Collector’s’’ expertise of travel.
On the other hand, a ‘‘Collector’’ of SIT experiences
participates in a variety of SIT experiences/products
such as cultural tourism, adventure tourism, sport
tourism, etc. The ‘‘Collector’’, unfamiliar with and
inexperienced in e.g. adventure tourism, choosing a
highly complex/specialized/’’‘‘hard’’ tourism product
may find him/herself in a risk zone encountering
challenges beyond their competence in the SIT focus.
The ‘‘Travelling Special Interest Expert’’ is the person
who is highly involved (specialist) in the leisure focus but
a novice at travelling, possibly taking a ‘‘once in a
lifetime’’ vacation. These tourists would find themselves
in a ‘‘comfort zone’’ of their specialisation.
195
14. Adventure tourism experiences
Within the context of adventure recreation, Ewert and
Hollenhorst (1989) presented a framework where the
adventure recreationist moves along a continuum from
introduction through development to commitment as
he/she gains more experience with the activity. This
recreation specialization meant a change in activity and
setting preferences, something addressed by Clarke and
Stankey’s (1979) recreation opportunity spectrum
(ROS) for park management purposes. Through the
provision of a range of recreational settings, the ROS
facilitates satisfaction for a spectrum of users/partici-
pants catering for their varying needs, tastes and
preferences. It is the ‘‘fit’’ between individual character-
istics and setting (product) attributes that facilitates
‘‘peak experience’’ or ‘‘flow’’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975,
1990).
Considering individual involvement and specializa-
tion attributes and product complexity/nature of the
product in SIT, the following dimensions are suggested
to serve as a framework for research, design, manage-
ment and marketing of engineered experiences within
the commercial context of tourism.
14.1. Product attributes (ROS/TOS)

Product specific e.g.,
J Risk (perceived to real/soft to hard in adventure
tourism)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
196 B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
– competition (play/social to pure sport/serious
orientation in sport tourism),
– formality (informal to formal in educational
tourism and eco-tourism),
– depth of interest (shallow to deep in eco-tourism
and cultural tourism).

social orientation (programs/courses/family/friends to
peers/teams/solo),

environmental/physical orientation (natural/unstruc-
tured to developed/structured),

local to global (familiarity and proximity to novel and
exotic),

access (cost, time, equity, low to high).
14.2. Individual attributes—involvement

Behavioural
J Frequency of participation (measures prior experi-
ence with activity, familiarity of setting).

Cognitive
J Skills, knowledge, setting attributes—low to high,
J locus of control/autonomy (perceived to real
competence).

Affective (EI)
J Importance/enjoyment (attraction),
J self expression/sign,
J centrality.

Risk probability
J Choosing one activity/product over other options.

Risk consequences
J Making poor choices.
The framework brings together two key elements of
the setting and activity features (tourism product) and
the tourist’s attributes. It demonstrates a multi-dimen-
sional and changing relationship along a spectrum from
attraction to centrality with, as an example, an
‘‘adventure tourist career’’ path as shown in Fig. 7.
Within adventure tourism there is a ‘‘hard adventure’’
product requiring careful preparation (physical, equip-
ment, skill requirements and planning) and high levels of
commitment and experience, as in an expedition to
Mount Everest. However, the tourist can purchase this
‘‘expertise’’ in the commercial context of tourism.
Companies further extend their offer for the compara-
tively inexperienced under the umbrella of ‘‘soft’’
adventure, experiences designed for the novice and the
collector. Market segmentation based on benefits
analysis implies a need to present multiple products to
clientele that purchase ‘‘packages’’ of image and text to
fit their needs and desires. The benefit is premised on a
promise whereby participation yields satisfaction. This
requires high levels of skill in technical expertise and
establishing empathy by the provider/operator with
clients, while complying with regulations relating to
safety. The framework implies that satisfaction is
derived from competently dealing with perceived risk,
and thereby permits product development where ‘‘real’’
risk may be as minimal as possible. Yet so long as it
offers an ‘‘adrenalin high’’ from surmounting a chal-
lenge, client satisfaction can result.
The understanding and application of the under-
pinning aspects at macro- and micro-level proposed in
this paper assist in establishing and maintaining
professionalism and risk management policies for
creating satisfying and memorable tourism experiences
within an environment of growing concern for safety,
liability and the outcome of a satisfying experience of
‘‘extra-ordinaire’’ dimensions.
Fig. 7 presents a refined framework of a specific SIT
segment, that of adventure tourism.
Four cells, similar to Fig. 6 ‘‘The SIT Experience’’,
can therefore be identified, these being
Collector: A tourist who regularly chooses an
adventure tourism products/experiences for his/her
vacation, but does not focus on one particular SIT
sub-segment, e.g. as in adventure tourism: windsurfing,
canoeing, caving, skiing expedition, mountaineering,
collecting various experiences like in ‘‘wine’’ tasting.
Expert/specialist tourist: On the other hand, for the
‘‘Expert/Specialist Tourist’’ the special interest activity
is central in her/his overall life and leisure. Hence, the
‘‘Adventure Tourist’’ is likely to choose their special
interest holidays in accordance with their overall leisure
interests and activities.
Travelling expert/specialist recreationist: The ‘‘Travel-
ling Expert/Specialist Adventure Recreationist’’ is a
tourist who is highly involved in adventure during their
leisure time. He/she pursues this mainly in their home
environment as a hobby and follows his/her recreational
passion during holidays as either a once in a lifetime
experience or only on rare occasions, with little travel
experience overall.
Novice/dabbler: The ‘‘Novice’’ Adventure Tourist is
‘‘trailing’’ an adventure tourism experience, being
inexperienced and unfamiliar with adventure experi-
ences, having possibly participated in an eco-tourism
experience or a cultural tourism holiday prior to this
vacation. However, the travel exposure is limited and
therefore, the ‘‘Novice’’ is ‘‘dabbling’’ in both the leisure
and travel expertise of the ‘‘travelling adventure recrea-
tion specialist’’ and the ‘‘collector’’, respectively, and the
‘‘Adventure Tourism Expert/Specialist’’ overall.
15. SIT and adventure career path
The frameworks imply a form of recreation-SIT
career path whereby the participant may choose to
move along the 451 line from the exploration as a
‘‘novice or dabbler’’ to the ‘‘specialist/expert tourist/
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
traveler’’ cell. That such movement is not automatic is,
however, an important proviso. But the possible
explanation for such movement is explained by the
degree of involvement that the participant begins to
demonstrate, a degree in part explained by the evalua-
tion of the experiences derived from the consumption of
the SIT product (product complexity continuum). Thus,
the framework indicates an integration of the variables
identified as being important in this conceptualisation of
SIT. However, it is important to realize, that within the
context of tourism, the tourist can ‘‘buy’’ the equipment,
the time for organizing, the expert knowledge and skill
within a package with no other investment such as prior
experience or involvement in the activity. Nonetheless,
in the zone of exploration the acquisition of skill by the
less involved encourages senses of achievement whereby
both degrees of involvement and abilities to cope with
more challenging environments occurs, and thus a SIT
career might be said to lie along this path.
16. Conclusion
Like any form of modeling, the frameworks present
potential relationships that are abstractions from reality;
yet nonetheless pose questions that elicit more mean-
ingful responses. It raises issues relating to identification
of ‘‘inhibitors’’ and ‘‘facilitators’’. In the example of
adventure tourism it includes adventure skill acquisition
in a transition from ‘‘soft’’ to ‘‘hard’’ adventure. While at
one level this may be complementary to research about
participation levels in the leisure literature, the model also
poses questions about the role of media and the
importance of ‘‘signage’’. It attributes a role to the media
whereby it creates ‘‘images of the familiar’’ so that the
tourist perceives themselves not simply experiencing the
unfamiliar, but rather as someone taking on a role to act
that which is familiar through image consumption.
It is suggested that the two micro-frameworks
incorporate two theoretical concepts within the litera-
ture not previously linked—these being the continua of
the nature of the product/product complexity, e.g. hard
and soft adventure, and the role of involvement. This
micro-framework is in turn contextualized within a
macro-framework of the commercial adventure tourism
industry of supply and demand with a specific role being
attributed to media and image creation. Sharpley (1999)
argues for analysis of tourist experience at both the
micro- and macro-level, thus providing a broader social
context. Indeed, the signage of the activity is so
important that it can be said to provide a linkage
between the macro- and the micro-frameworks. The
identification of sign values associated with SIT images
helps create more enduring relationships with the small
social worlds of SIT participants. In the example given,
adventure participants thereby moving a person along
197
the involvement continuum from low to higher and
more enduring levels (attraction to centrality) based on
multi-dimensional measurements. Linking tourist cate-
gories and typologies to tourism experiences as a multi-
dimensional concept rather than tourists’ behaviour
acknowledges that tourists are not homogenous and do
not function in isolation from broader sociological
influencers.
It can be claimed that image determines both demand
and supply. The above argument has concentrated
primarily upon the nature of the demand, but many of
those that supply the product do so in the wish to
sustain a certain life-style centred on the activity in
question and the social world (Unruh, 1979, 1980) that
sustains that activity. With reference to the work of
Cloke and Perkins (1998, 2002), the model structures
their observations by establishing potential relationship
between experience and commodification in a way not
inherent in their work. The frameworks postulate that
questioning along the dimensions of signage and
involvement as well as the affective associated with
given experiences are needed to better understand the
nature of the SIT product, or in this case the adventure
‘‘product’’. Understanding of involvement profiles and
SIT opportunities (ROS) facilitates not only appropriate
management to maximize consumer satisfaction, but
also would focus program development, target market-
ing and relevant service mix, distribution, pricing and
promotional strategies. Research could apply the
involvement concepts with regard to activities and
destinations not only to SIT segments such as adven-
ture, sport or culture, but more specifically at sub-
segment level such as rock-climbing, sky-diving or
mountaineering within adventure tourism. The progres-
sion from an eclectic mix of SIT experiences to the
pursuit of a specific interest such as mountaineering
already suggests a specialization and career away from
the general SIT segments (Beedie, 2003). Further
research directions incorporating the involvement con-
cept are suggested to also investigate gender, cultural
differences and age differences for international market-
ing and equity issues.
References
Acott, T. G., La Trobe, H. L., & Howard, S. H. (1998). An evolution
of deep ecotourism and shallow ecotourism. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 6(3), 238–252.
Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: extraordinary
experience and the extended service encounter. Journal of
Consumer Research.
Arnould, E. J., Price, L. L., & Tierney, P. (1998). Communicative
staging of the wilderness experience. The Service Industry, 18(3),
90–115.
Arsenault, N. (1998). A study of educational travel and older adult
learners, participant types and program choices. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Quebec.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
198 B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
Arsenault, N. (2001). ‘‘Canadian ed-ventures’’, learning vacations in
Canada: an overview. Ottawa: Canadian Tourism Commission.
Arsenault, N., & Anderson, G. (1998). New learning horizons for older
adults (lifelong learning) (part two) (leisure and lifelong learning)
(cover story). The Journal of Physical Edcuation, Recreation and
Dance, 69(3), 27.
Ateljevic, A., & Doorne, S. (2002). Presenting New Zealand;
tourism imagery and ideoloy. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3),
648–667.
Australian Tourist Commission (ATC). (1993). Special interest
Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Bammel, G., & Bammel, L. L. (1992). Leisure and human behavior.
Dubuque, IA: WmC, Brown Publishers.
Bartram, S. A. (2001). Serious leisure careers among whitewater
kayakers: a feminist perspective. World-Leisure-Journal, 43(2),
4–11.
Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beedie, P. (2003). Adventure tourism. In S. Hudson (Ed.), Sport and
Adventure Tourism (pp. 203–239). London: Haworth Hospitality
Press.
Brotherton, B., & Himmetoglu, B. (1997). Beyond destinations—
special interest tourism. Anatolia: an International Journal of
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(3), 11–30.
Bryan, H. (1977). Leisure value systems and recreational specializa-
tion: the case of trout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research, 12,
229–241.
Bryan, H. (1979). Conflict in the great outdoors. Alabama: University
of Alabama, Bureau of Public Administration.
Butler, R. W. (1999). Understanding tourism. In E. L. Jackson, &
T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies, prospects for the twenty-
first century (pp. 97–116). State College, Pennsylvania: Venture
Publishing, Inc.
Carr, N. (2002). The tourism-leisure behavioural continuum. Annals of
Tourism Research, 29(4), 972–986.
Cater, C. (2000). Can I play too? Inclusion and exclusion in adventure
tourism. The North West Geographer, 3, 50–60.
Celsi, L. R., Rose, R. L., & Leigh, T. W. (1993). An exploration of
high-risk leisure consumption through skydiving. Journal of
Consumer Research, 30, 2–23.
Charters, S., & Ali-Knight, J. (2002). Who is the wine tourist? Tourism
Management, 23(2), 311–319.
Clarke, R. N., & Stankey, G. H. (1979). The recreation opportunity
spectrum: a framework for planning, management and research
(General Technical Report PNW-98). USDA Forest Service.
Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of outdoor recreation.
Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
Cloke, P., & Perkins, H. C. (1998). Cracking the canyon with the
awsome foursome: representations of adventure tourism in New
Zealand. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 16,
185–218.
Cloke, P., & Perkins, H. C. (2002). Commodification and adventure in
New Zealand tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 5(6), 521–549.
Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social
Research, 39, 164–182.
Collier, A. (1997). Principles of tourism, a New Zealand perspective.
New York: Longman.
Coulter, R. A. (2001). Interpreting consumer perceptions of advertis-
ing: an application of the zaltman mataphor elicitation technique.
Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 1–21.
Craig-Smith, S., & French, C. (1994). Learning to live with tourism.
Melbourne, Australia: Longman.
Craik, J. (1997). The culture of tourism. In C. Rojek, & J. Urry (Eds.),
Tourism cultures transormation of travel and theory (pp. 113–136).
London: Routledge.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San-
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow—the psychology of optimal experi-
ence. New York: Harper & Row.
Dann, G. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 14, 184–194.
de Grazia, S. (1964). Of time, work, and leisure. New York: Anchor
Books.
Derrett, R. (2001). Special interest tourism: starting with the
individual. In N. Douglas, N. Douglas, & R. Derret (Eds.), Special
interest tourism (pp. 1–28). Brisbane: Wiley.
Dimanche, F., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1991). Testing the
involvement profile (IP) scale in the context of selected recreational
and tourist activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(1), 51–66.
Dimanche, F., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1993). Consumer
involvement profiles as a tourism segmentation tool. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 1(4), 33–51.
Dimanche, F., & Samdahl, D. (1994). Leisure as symbolic consumpi-
tion: a conceptualization and prospectus for future research.
Leisure Sciences, 16, 119–129.
Dimmock, K., & Tryce, M. (2001). Fesitvals and events: celebrating
special interest tourism. In N. Douglas, N. Douglas, & R. Derret
(Eds.), Special interest tourism (pp. 355–379). Brisbane: Wiley & Sons.
Douglas, N., Douglas, N., & Derret, R. (Eds.). (2001). Special interest
tourism. Melbourne, Australia: Wiley.
Dreyer, A. (1995). Grundlagen des marktgeschehens im sporttour-
ismus. In A. Dreyer, & A. Krüger (Eds.), Sporttourismus, manage-
ment und marketing-handbuch. Muenchen: R. Oldenbourg Verlag.
Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (1991). Benefits of leisure.
State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Eagles, P. F. (1996). Issues in tourism management in parks: the
experience in Australia. Australian Leisure, 29–36.
Ewert (1989a). Models and theories in outdoor adventure pursuits. In
A. Ewert (Ed.), Outdoor adventure pursuits. Scottsdale, Arizona:
Publishing Horizons Inc.
Ewert, A. (1989b). Why people climb: the relationship of participant
motives and experience level to mountaineering. Journal of Leisure
Research, 17, 241–250.
Ewert, A. (2000). Outdoor adventure recreation and public land
management: current status and emerging trends. Paper presented
at the tenth annual world congress on adventure travel and
ecotourism, anchorage.
Ewert, A., & Hollenhorst, S. (1989). Testing the aventure model:
empirical support for a model of risk recreation participation.
Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 124–139.
Fluker, M., & Turner, L. (2000). Needs, motivations, and expectations
of a whitewater rafting experience. Journal of Travel Research,
38(4), 380–389.
Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2002). The psychological continuum model: a
conceptual framework for understanding an individual’s psycholgi-
cal connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, 119–150.
Gahwiler, P. (1995). Consumer loyalty in a membership-reliant leisure
organisazation, a social world perspective, Unpublished Masters of
Arts, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.
Gahwiler, P., & Havitz, M. E. (1998). Toward a relational under-
standing of leisure social worlds, involvement, psychological
commitment and behavioural loyalty. Leisure Sciences, 20, 1–23.
Gammon, S., & Robinson, T. (2003). Sport and tourism: a conceptual
framework. Journal of Sport Tourism, 8(1), 21–26.
Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self. Dilemmas of identity in
contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.
Giddens, A. (1999). Modernity and self-identity, self and society in the
late modern age (2nd ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gray, H. P. (1979). International travel: international trade. Lexington,
MA: Heath Lexington Books.
Hall, M. (1992). Review: adventure, sport and health tourism. In
B. Weiler, & C. M. Hall (Eds.), Special interest tourism
(pp. 141–158). London: Belhaven Press.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
Hall, M. (2003). Spa and health tourism. In S. Hudson (Ed.), Sport and
adventure tourism (pp. 273–292). London: Hayworth Hospitality
Press.
Hall, M., & Weiler, B. (1992). Introduction. What’s special about
special interest tourims? In B. Weiler, & C.M. Hall (Eds.), Special
interest tourism. Bellhaven Press.
Hamilton-Smith, E. (1987). Four kinds of tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 14, 322–344.
Havitz, M. E. (2002). In B. Trauer (Ed.), Pers. comm., Waterloo
University, Ontario, Canada.
Havitz, M. E., & Dimanche, F. (1997). Leisure involvement revisited:
conceptual conumdrums and measurement advances. Journal of
Leisure Research, 3, 1–18.
Havitz, M. E., & Dimanche, F. (1999). Leisure involvement revisited:
drive properties and paradoxes. Journal of Leisure Research, 31,
122–149.
Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1995). How enduring is enduring
involvement in the context of tourist motation? Journal of Travel
and Tourism Marketing, 4(3), 95–100.
Havitz, M. E., Mannell, R.C. (2005). Likelihood of flow experiential
outcomes as a result of enduring and situational involvement
in leisure and non-leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research,
in press.
Hlavin-Schulze, K. (1998a). Alles schon mal dagewesen? Reisen in der
postmoderne. Tourismus Journal, 2, 273–282.
Hlavin-Schulze, K. (1998b). Man reist ja nicht um anzukommen. Reisen
als kulturelle praxis (One does not travel to get there. Travel as
cultural practice). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Horne, D. (1994, April, 17–18, 1993). The un-accidental tourist—how
to be a more intelligent and useful traveller and save the world. The
Australian Magazine (pp. 10–16).
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1983). Towards a social psychology of recreational
travel. Leisure Studies, 2, 45–56.
Iwasaki, Y., & Havitz, M. E. (1998). A path analytic model of the
realtionships between involvement, psychological commitment and
loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(2), 256–280.
Kelly, J. R. (1983). Leisure identities and interactions. London: Allen
and Unwin.
Kelly, J. R. (1996). Leisure. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kelly, J. R., & Godbey, G. (1992). Today’s leisure as a market
commodity. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Kiewa, J. (2001). Control over self and space in rockclimbing. Journal
of Leisure Research, 33(4), 363–382.
Kim, H., & Richardson, S. L. (2003). Motion picture impacts
on destination images. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1),
216–237.
Krüger, A. (1995). Einfuehrender ueberblick in die thematik des
sporttourismus. In A. Dreyer, & A. Krüger (Eds.), Sporttourismus:
management-und marketing-handbuch. Muenchen: R. Oldenbourg.
Kuentzel, W. F. (2000). Self-identity, modernity, and the rational
actor in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(1),
87–92.
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. (1985). Consumer involvement profiles: a
new practical approach to consumer involvement. Journal of
Advertising Research, 25(6), 48–56.
Laverie, D. A., & Arnett, D. B. (2000). Factors affecting fan
attendaqnce: the influence of identity salience and satisfaction.
Journal of Leisure Research, 32(2).
Leiper, N. (1990). Tourism systems. An interdisciplinary perspective.
Palmerston North: Massey University.
Little, B. R. (1976). Specialization and the varieties of environmental
experience: emperical studies within the personality paradigm. In S.
Wapner, S. Cohen, & B. Kaplan (Eds.), Experiencing the
environment (pp. 81–116). New York: Plenum Press.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: a new theory of the leisure class.
London: Macmillan.
199
Mannell, R. C., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1987). Psychological nature of
leisure and tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3),
314–331.
Markwick, M. (2001). Postcards from malta; image, consumption,
context. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 417–438.
McIntyre, N. (1989). The personal meaning of participation: enduring
involvement. Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 167–179.
McIntyre, N. (1990). Recreation involvement, the personal meaning of
participation. Unpublished Ph.D., University of New England,
Armidale.
McIntyre, N., & Pigram, J. J. (1992). Recreation specialization
reexamined: the case of vehicle-based campers. Leisure Sciences,
14, 3–15.
McIntyre, N., & Roggenbuck, J. (1998). Nature/person transactions
during an outdoor adventure experience: a multiphasic analysis.
Annals of Leisure Research.
McKercher, B., & Davidson, P. (1996). Differences between tourism
and recreation in parks. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3),
563–575.
McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism: the partnership
between tourism and cultural heritage management. New York: The
Hawthorne Hospitality Press.
Morgan (1996). The leisure product. Marketing for leisure and tourism.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Morpeth, N. (2001). The renaissance of cycle tourism. In N. Douglas,
N. Douglas, & R. Derret (Eds.), Special interest tourism
(pp. 212–229). Melbourne, Australia: Wiley.
Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: a community approach. London:
Methuen.
Nielsen, C. (2001). Tourism and the media, tourist decision making,
information, and communication. Melbourne: Hospitality Press.
Opaschowski, H. W. (2001). Tourismus im 21. Jahrhundert, das
gekaufte paradies. Hamburg: B.A.T. Freizeit-Forschungsinstitut
GmbH.
Pearce, D. (1993). Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In Tourism
research, critiques and challenges (pp. 113–133).
Pigeassou, C. (1997). Sport and tourism: the emergence of sport into
the offer of tourism. Between passion and reason. An overview of
the French situation and perspectives. Journal of Sport Tourism,
4(2), 16–29.
Plog, S. (1974). Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity.
Cornell Hotel Restaurant and Administration Quaterly, 55–58.
Poon, A. (1997). Global transformation: new tourism defined. In
L. France (Ed.), The earthscan reader in sustainable tourism.
London: Earthscan Publications.
Priest, J. C. (1992). Factor exploration and confirmation for the
dimensons of an adventure experience. Journal of Leisure Research,
24, 127–139.
Priest, J. C. (1999). The adventure experience paradigm. In J. C. Miles,
& S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 159–162). State
College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Prosser, G. (2001). Regional tourism. In N. Douglas, N. Douglas, &
R. Derrett (Eds.), Special interest tourism (pp. 86–112). Brisbane:
Wiley.
Richards, G. (1996). The scope and significance of cultural tourism. In
G. Richards (Ed.), Cultural tourism in Europe (pp. 19–46). Oxon,
UK: CAB International.
Richins, M. L., & Bloch, P. H. (1986). After the new wears off: the
temporal context of product involvement. Journal of Consumer
Research I, 12.
Richins, M. L., Bloch, P. H., & McQuarrie, E. (1992). How enduring
and situational involvement combine to create involvement
responses. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 143–153.
Robinson, D. W. (1992). A descriptive model of enduring risk
recreation involvment. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(1), 52–63.
Rojek, C., & Urry, J. (1997). Touring cultures. London: Routledge.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
200 B. Trauer / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 183–200
Rothschild, M. (1984). Perspectives on involvement: current
problems and future directions. Advances in Consumer Research,
11, 216–217.
Ruyss, H., & Wei, S. (2001). Senior tourism. In N. Douglas, N.
Douglas, & R. Derrett (Eds.), Special interest tourism
(pp. 407–431). Brisbane: Wiley.
Ryan, C. (2003). Recreational tourism: demand and impacts (2nd ed.).
Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Schmidt, C. (1997). Service quality measurement in the leisure
industry: have we gone far enough? Paper presented at the
ANZALS.
Schofield, P. (2001). Urban tourism and small business. In N. Douglas,
N. Douglas, & R. Derret (Eds.), Special interest tourism
(pp. 432–450). Brisbane: Wiley.
Schulze, G. (1993). Die erlebnisgesellschaft, Kultursoziologie der
Gegenwart. Frankfurt.
Scott, A., & Godbey, G. (1994). Recreation specialization in the social
world of contract bridge. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(3),
275–295.
Scott, & Scott Shafer, S. (2001). Recreational specialization: a critical
look at the construct. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(2), 319–344.
Sharpley, R. (1999). Tourism, tourists and society. Cambridge: ELM
Publications.
Smail, D. (1993). The origins of unhappiness—a new understanding of
personal distress. Harper Collins.
Stebbins, R. A. (1982). Serious leisure: a conceptual statement. Pacific
Sociology Review, 25, 251–272.
Stebbins, R. A. (1997). Casual leisure: a conceptual statement. Leisure
Studies, 16, 17–25.
Stebbins, R. A. (1999). Serious leisure. In E. L. J. A. T. L. Burton
(Ed.), Leisure studies, prospect for the twenty-first century. State
College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.
Stern, B. B. (1997). Advertising intimacy: relationship marketing and
the services consumer. Journal of Advertising, Winter.
Stewart, W. P. (1998). Leisure as multiphase experience: challenging
traditions. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(4), 391–400.
Stewart, W. P., & Hull, R. B. I. (1992). Satisfaction of what? Post
hoc versus real-time construct validity. Leisure Sciences, 14,
195–209.
Strasdas, W. (1994). Auswirkungen neuer freizeittrends auf die umwelt.
Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Verlag.
Swarbrook, J., & Horner, S. (1999). Consumer behaviour in tourism.
Oxford: Butterworth and Heinemann.
Trauer, B. (1998). The sport tourism phenomenon in contemporary
society. Unpublished paper, University of Waikato, Hamilton.
Trauer, B. (1999a). Conceptualising adventure tourism and travel, placed
in the Australian context. Unpublished research project, University
of Waikato, Hamilton.
Trauer, B. (1999b). What’s special about special interest tourism? The
special interest tourist. Unpublished research project, University of
Waikato, Hamilton.
Trauer, B. (2002). Leisure education and the mindful and caring
tourist. Paper presented at the leisure education conference: past
lessons: future prospects, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Trauer, B. B., Ryan, C., & Lockyer, T. (2003). The south pacific
masters’ games—competitor involvement and games development.
The Journal of Sports Tourism, 8(4), 270–283.
Unruh, D. R. (1979). Characteristics and types of participation in
social worlds. Symbolic Interaction, 2, 115–129.
Unruh, D. R. (1980). The nature of social worlds. Pacific Sociological
Review, 23(3), 271–296.
Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze. London: Sage.
Urry, J. (2000). Sociology beyond societies. London: Routledge.
Varley, P., & Crowther, G. (1998). Performance and the service
encounter: an exploration of narrative expectations and relation-
ship management in the outdoor leisure market. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 16(5), 311–317.
Walle, A. H. (1997). Pursuing risk or insight: marketing adventures.
Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 265–282.
Wearing, S. (2002). Re-centring the self in volunteer tourism. In
G. M. S. Dann (Ed.), The tourist as a metaphor of the social world
(pp. 237–262). Wallingford, Oxon: CABI Publishing.
Weber, K. (2001). Outdoor adventure tourism. A review of research
approaches. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 360–377.
Weiler, B., & Hall, C. M. (1992). Special interest tourism. Bellhaven
Press.
Wickens, E. (2002). The sacred and the profane. A tourist typology.
Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 834–851.