See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223704885

Evaluating natural attractions for tourism

Article  in  Annals of Tourism Research · April 2002

DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00068-8

CITATIONS READS

177 2,476

3 authors:

Jinyang Deng Brian E M King

West Virginia University The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
58 PUBLICATIONS   1,385 CITATIONS    212 PUBLICATIONS   2,447 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Thomas Bauer
University of the South Pacific
23 PUBLICATIONS   485 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

park, recreation and tourism View project

The Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Training based upon TQM Concept in hotels View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinyang Deng on 22 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 422–438, 2002
 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
0160-7383/02/$22.00
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
PII: S0160-7383(01)00068-8

EVALUATING NATURAL
ATTRACTIONS FOR TOURISM
Jinyang Deng
University of Alberta, Canada
Brian King
Victoria University, Australia
Thomas Bauer
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China

Abstract: As nature-based tourism grows, protected areas will witness increasing pressure
from tourists, with the quality of destination attributes exerting a considerable influence over
their experience. An evaluation and rating system may help tourists to select sites, enhance
their satisfaction, and encourage them to act responsibly. Managers may also gain a better
understanding of how to operate such sites. The paper proposes a hierarchical structure for
the assessment of protected areas by the assignment of priorities to the various elements of
the structure. By applying the Standard Deviation Method, the research categorized Victorian
parks in Australia into four levels, which were found to correlate closely with prevailing
visitation levels and with park popularity. Keywords: nature-based tourism, ecotourism,
national parks, evaluation and rating system.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Résumé: L’évaluation des sites naturels pour le tourisme. Au fur et à mesure que le tour-
isme basé sur la nature augmente, les zones protégées seront confrontées à une pression
croissante de la part des touristes, et la qualité des attributs des destinations aura une influ-
ence considérable sur l’expérience des touristes. Un système d’évaluation et d’indices pour-
rait aider les touristes à sélectionner des sites, augmenter leur satisfaction et les encourager
à agir de façon responsable. Les administrateurs comprendraient mieux comment faire valoir
de tels sites. L’article propose une structure hiérarchique pour l’évaluation des zones proté-
gées par l’attribution de priorités aux différents éléments de la structure. En applicant la
méthode de l’écart type, la recherche a classé les parcs victoriens en Australie dans quatre
niveaux qui correspondaient étroitement aux niveaux d’affluence et à la popularité des parcs.
Mots-clés: tourisme basé sur la nature, écotourisme, parcs nationaux, système d’indices et
d’évaluation.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Since 1945 tourism has grown rapidly to become one of the world’s
foremost economic phenomena. The World Tourism Organization
estimates that there were more than 657 million international tourists
in 1999 (WTO 2000). Ceballos-Lascuráin cites a WTO estimate that

Jinyang Deng’s current interest is the use made of national parks by minority groups
(Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
T6G 2H9. Email <Jinyang@ualberta.ca>). Brian King, Professor and Head of the School of
Hospitality, Tourism and Marketing, focuses on the marketing, cultural, and educational
dimensions of tourism. Thomas Bauer, Assistant Professor, Department of Hotel and Tour-
ism Management, is interested in tourism in the polar regions.

422
 DENG, KING AND BAUER 423

nature-based tourism generates seven percent of international tourism

expenditure (Lindberg, Furze, Staff and Black 1997). A study under-
taken for the World Resources Institute found that this type of tourism
is increasing at an annual rate of between 10% and 30% (Reingold
1993). Signaling that this and ecotourism have played, and will con-
tinue, an important role in international tourism, the United Nations
has declared the year 2002 as International Year of Ecotourism.
The term nature-based tourism is generally applied to tourism activi-
ties depending on the use of natural resources which remain in a rela-
tively undeveloped state, including scenery, topography, waterways,
vegetation, wildlife, and cultural heritage (Ceballos-Lascuráin
1996:19). Millions of people travel to see and experience natural
environments each year and the scale of such movements leads, inevi-
tably, to some disturbance or damage to visited sites. While such dam-
age is attributable directly or indirectly to tourists and their activities,
it is often unclear whether their actual behavior is responsible for the
major negative impacts on nature and related activities such as the
construction and development of infrastructure and facilities. What-
ever the true situation, it is tourists who are usually identified as caus-
ing destruction, particularly in developing countries. Lea (1988) and
Olindo (1991) have shown how their large volume, demanding access
to game and to relatively luxurious travel and accommodation facilities
has caused problems such as overcrowding, animal disturbance, veg-
etation degradation and soil compaction, and waste production within
Kenya’s game parks (cited in France 1997:13). This begs the question
as to whether this tourism type is compatible with the natural environ-
ment and whether it can assist in the resolution of problems associated
with the exploitation of such resources. More than 20 years ago,
Budowski (1976) proposed three types of relationship—conflict,
coexistence, and symbiosis—between conservation and nature-based
tourism. Symbiosis, or at least coexistence, is the goal pursued by poli-
ticians, managers, and planners in most countries. As an alternative to
mass tourism, ecotourism espouses the goal of symbiosis through the
integration of natural resources, environmental education, and sus-
tainable management (Commonwealth Department of Tourism 1994).
However, as it has grown in popularity and has assumed some of the
characteristics of traditional mass tourism, there has been considerable
debate over the meaning of the term (Campbell 1999:535). While
acknowledging the widespread preference for the term ecotourism by
many authors, in the present article the authors follow the practice of
McKercher, preferring the term nature-based tourism (1998).
Many researchers have explored concepts and definitions relating
to the general theme (Adventure Travel Society 1994; Blamey 1995;
Boo 1992; Ceballos-Lascuráin 1996; Epler Wood 1993; Fennel and
Eagles 1990; Merlino 1993; Scace, Grifone and Usher 1992). The
strong focus on tourists evident in the initial definitions has formed
the basis for many subsequent definitions of nature-based tourism,
though a change of emphasis has become increasingly evident towards
an environment-centered orientation (Valentine 1992; Commonwealth
Department of Tourism 1994; Wall 1994). Still, with no internationally
424 EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

agreed upon definition of ecotourism or nature-based tourism, it is

not surprising that a universally accepted standard for “ecotourism pro-
ducts” has remained elusive. In view of the rapid development of nat-
ure-based tourism activity, it is possible that the definition will evolve
from its currently restrictive approach (often focused exclusively on
undisturbed natural environments) to a more expansive approach
(embracing a wider diversity of environments which may be suitable
for tourism). The latter approach acknowledges that “ecotourism
activity may be carried out in or adjacent to towns” (Dowling and
Weiler 1997:51). Using the most liberal interpretation of the term as
a combination of “eco” (denoting economic as well as ecological
attributes) and “tourism”, the activity could be conceived as occurring
in many different types of environments used for tourism. This is sup-
ported by Miller and Kale’s (1993) argument that all forms may be
ecotourism, depending on the extent to which human responsibility
is exercised. For the purposes of the present study, all tourist activity
that takes place within the national and provincial parks under examin-
ation is classed as “nature-based”.
Irrespective of the definition of each term, sustainability is the final
goal for such forms of tourist activity. However, sustainability is not
the exclusive concern of new forms of tourism, but “the language and
terminology of the new forms of tourism have been used in the attempt
to subsume sustainability. Indeed, mass packaged tours may be just as
sustainable as some of the new forms of tourism” (Mowforth and Munt
1998:102). New forms do not necessarily lead to sustainability (Butler
1990). No type of tourism can be sustainable in the absence of appro-
priate planning, monitoring, evaluation, and management; and sus-
tainable nature-based tourism or ecotourism development can only be
achieved when the behavior of destination managers, stakeholders,
and tourists is ecologically, economically, and ethically responsible.
Such behavior should adhere to criteria which have sustainability as
their primary objective. Considerable attention has been given to the
roles that operators and tourists can play, notably in Australia where
a national ecotourism operator accreditation system was established in
1996. In comparison, the rating of nature-based destinations has
attracted relatively little attention, perhaps because of its complexity.
This paper attempts to evaluate and rate destinations, such as national
parks, with a view to improving the way in which they are managed,
thus enhancing the quality of the tourist experience.

EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

The term “evaluation” has been applied increasingly in recent years,
as the use of social scientific methods to assess the effectiveness of
human service programs and institutions has become more prevalent.
Evaluation became a “growth industry” during the 70s (Posavac and
Carey 1989:4). It draws upon a variety of fields and hence requires an
interdisciplinary approach. According to Theobald, the fact that this
ideal has rarely been achieved is evident from the many criticisms
made of the approaches commonly used in the recreation and leisure
 DENG, KING AND BAUER 425

services sector (1987). But still, evaluation should be an essential

element of the leisure service delivery system and particularly in the
pursuit of more effective administration. It aims to produce objective,
systematic, and comprehensive evidence about the degree to which a
particular program achieves its intended objectives and the extent to
which other unanticipated consequences arise (1979:57, 21). To achi-
eve this goal, all functions of the agency—administration, human
resources, land management, facilities, and programming—must be
carefully evaluated (Lundgren and Farrell 1985). Scriven divides the
approaches taken towards evaluation into two categories of formative
(also referred to as process evaluation) and summative (referred to as
outcome evaluation) (cited in Theobald 1979:58). The former is ongo-
ing, while the latter involves a more comprehensive analysis with
greater emphasis on feedback and revision. Evaluation research has
tended to focus on human resource and budget issues, rather than on
land management and facility concerns. In focusing on the evaluation
and rating of national parks and drawing upon the full range of desti-
nation attributes, the present study applies the techniques of evalu-
ation to a relatively unexplored field.
Despite the critical role played by the quality of the destination
experience in determining whether tourists are satisfied and whether
their expectations have been met, most nature-based studies focus on
tourist demand rather than on destinations. As this form of tourism
continues to grow, areas such as national parks will be placed under
increasing pressure. If their managers are to function effectively, it is
essential that protected areas are evaluated and rated with a view to
communicating the principles of sustainable development and to
ensuring an appropriate match between tourist expectations and
experiences. The European “blue flag” rating system, using this symbol
to endorse high quality assets, is an example of such an approach.
Beaches, for example, which constitute an asset central to destinations
and tourist experiences, according to Moore and Carter, are identified
by a particular symbol when they have been evaluated as safe and clean.
The authors have pointed out that “it is quite conceivable that resort
destinations and for that matter some countries will be rated in the
future in respect to environmental safety standards” (1991:141).
Environmental safety is, however, only one aspect of the management
of protected areas and a more comprehensive evaluation and rating
system will be needed if such destinations are to fulfill and retain
their potential.
The development of a formal evaluation and rating system for pro-
tected areas is worthwhile for several reasons. First, tourists will often
visit more than one destination during a trip. They will typically experi-
ence a range of natural and cultural environments. The World Tour-
ism Organization has noted that in practice only a small proportion
of tourists travel to exclusively experience nature or culture. It con-
cluded that, despite the upsurge in awareness and interest, “avid eco-
tourists will remain a small market segment”, which Wight has
described as “hard” ecotourism (Blamey 1995:18). Ornithologists, bot-
anists, or geologists are likely candidates for the “hard ecotourist” cate-
426 EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

gory when they pursue their passion, whereas sightseers or photogra-

phers would more commonly fall under the category of “soft
ecotourists”. These two typologies are similar to what Fernie has catego-
rized as ecospecialists and ecogeneralists (Boyd, Chard and Butler
1996). The latter may be defined as those who undertake an ecotourist
activity on at least one day during their trip away from home (Blamey
1995:18). Resort tourists who opt to spend a day visiting and learning
about a reef or rainforest habitat would typically fall into the “soft”
category. Taking this view to its logical conclusion, all mass tourists
are potential nature-based ones and may be categorized as such when
spending a period as short as a day or even a few hours in an ecotour-
ism area. For such groups who may not consider themselves as such,
the evaluation and rating of national parks provides an opportunity to
become informed about the importance of sustainable development
through the enhancement of their awareness and understanding of
the destination.
A second reason is that nature-based tourism is dependent upon the
quality of the environment, more than is the case with other forms
(Boyd, Chard and Butler 1996). Scenically appealing environments
often incorporate aspects such as local community, roads and tracks,
visitor facilities, and attractions, both major and peripheral. Where des-
tinations are well managed and tourists are knowledgeable and aware,
these elements complement the natural attributes and contribute to
satisfaction. If they were provided with an evaluation and rating for
each of the elements encountered in such areas, they might be better
equipped to assess protected areas just as they are able to anticipate
what may be expected from hotels by virtue of their category or star rat-
ing.
The third reason is that the importance of pricing as a park’s man-
agement issue is growing. As Buckley has pointed out, “management
costs for national parks will increase because of increasing tourism visi-
tation rates. Park entrance fees and commercial operator permit fees
will increase as park managers endeavor to recover their costs”
(1998:270). There is a strong argument in favor of relating price levels
more closely with the level of experience encountered in protected
areas. Tourists accept this connection in the case of five-star hotels
which charge more than three-star hotels. The application of the com-
mercial rationale is certainly more controversial in the case of natural
resources. But as the volume of visitation increases, the parallel with
other tourism facilities will become increasingly evident.
As to the program evaluation process, it may comprise four steps:
determining goals, specifying objectives, operationalizing the program,
and measuring program effectiveness (Theobald 1979:20). Lundgren
and Farrell (1985) propose that such evaluation is a process of
determining value by comparing results with objectives and of judging
how well they have been met in both a qualitative and quantitative
sense. Evaluation involves input, process, output, and feedback.
The goal of the present study is to evaluate and rate national parks
in the context of nature-based tourism, through the application of an
appropriate technique. A hierarchical structure is proposed based on
 DENG, KING AND BAUER 427

the authors’ experience of national parks generally and forest parks

in particular. The value of each element of the structure is determined
quantitatively to assist in the formation of a set of standards aimed at
identifying and measuring a value for each element. As the subject of
the empirical testing, national parks and provincial parks in Australia’s
State of Victoria were examined. The various management plans pre-
pared by government agencies as a guide for the development of each
of the parks provided a foundation for the objective analysis of the
environmental values attached to the various areas. In this case, process
evaluation has been adopted in preference to outcome evaluation. As
a consequence of adopting this approach, monitoring and feedback
are outside the scope of the study (though it would be a useful addition
for the purposes of subsequent research).

The Analytic Hierarchy Process

Theobald (1987) has undertaken a systematic analysis of evaluation
methods and has proposed six categories: discrepancy evaluation, pro-
fessional judgment evaluation, socioeconomic evaluation, evaluation
by standards, cost/benefit evaluation, and importance-performance
evaluation. These methods have been widely applied in the evaluation
of human resources, administration, budgets, and agency perform-
ance. Although they vary somewhat, one approach is common to all:
comparing some aspect of an entity (for example, number of staff,
facilities, equipment, participants, or space) with a predetermined set
of norms or standards. These are usually established through arriving
at a consensus of practitioners or experts (Theobald 1987).
Of the methods noted above, none is ideally suited to protected
areas. The third and fifth methods (socioeconomic and cost–benefit)
are mainly concerned with the evaluation of economic performance.
The first and sixth methods (discrepancy and importance-
performance) are best suited to evaluating the administration and
management rather than the resources as undertaken in the present
study. The other methods (professional judgment and evaluation by
standards) do offer some useful perspectives. The establishment of an
evaluation structure and the point-element-match approach are help-
ful though they more commonly rely on qualitative as opposed to
quantitative methods. They cannot, for example, generate weightings
for the various components of an evaluation structure. This is a prob-
lem since the determination of weightings for the essential compo-
nents is a key objective of the present study. The Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) approach was judged to be the most appropriate tech-
nique from this point of view.
National parks constitute complex systems and many different
aspects of the destination may influence the tourist experience and
whether satisfaction is achieved. One should not assume that each
dimension will be of equal importance in contributing to a satisfying
trip to a protected area—the various components fulfill expectations to
different degrees, but only in combination can they lead to a satisfying
experience. The application of a systematic approach to evaluating the
428 EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

various elements provides an appropriate recognition of such realities

of tourist behavior. A quantitative approach is required to determine
appropriate weightings for each element, and this can be done by
employing various methods (Tsaur, Tzeng and Wang 1997). The selec-
tion of an appropriate method depends on the nature of the problem.
Since national parks encompass a wide array of attributes, any evalu-
ation method will need to be inclusive and flexible. In the present
study, the AHP method was selected for determinating weightings,
because it provides a means of systematizing complex problems, is easy
to operate, and may incorporate the opinions of various parties.
Since it was first proposed in the early 70s (Saaty 1987), AHP has
been used widely in fields such as business, energy, health, resource
management, and transportation. Already over 1600 dissertations and
published papers have applied this method (Expert Choice 2000). Of
these, only two relate specifically to tourism. Despite the absence of
AHP applications to tourism in the English language literature as
exemplified by the Expert Choice list, a number of useful studies have
been published in Chinese (Bao and Chu 1999; Wu, Li and Deng 1992;
Yang 1994). In the present study pair-wise comparisons were under-
taken of the various subsidiary elements of each of the parks. The study
does not initially focus on the parks generally but on the subelements,
viewed from the perspective of nature-based tourism. Changing the
weightings obtained through the application of AHP into points is an
important step in the process. The re-calibration and the application
of the approach for the purposes of the present study were endorsed
by the creator of the AHP technique (Saaty, personal communication
2000). A standard of 100 points was used, since this was the number
recommended by the United States Department of Agriculture for the
purposes of land use evaluation (Banai-Kashani 1989:685).
The approach adopted here involves several steps: establishing a
hierarchical structure; performing a pairwise comparison; obtaining
weights for all elements in the structure; transforming weights into a
system based on 100 points; creating criteria and indicators relative to
elements (these criteria and indicators are related to the correspond-
ing points); selecting a sample of parks; calculating points for an
element by reference to the criteria and indicators and their corre-
sponding points before adding them up to arrive at a total number of
points for a park; and classifying these parks into different levels based
on their points.

Establishing a Hierarchy Evaluation Structure. Though these are cer-

tainly not the only valid criteria, tourist expectations have a greater
prospect of being met where a site is diverse, rare, and/or unique. Of
the many factors that influence this experience, destination attributes
are the most important. Some researchers have proposed the concept
of “place attachment”, “place independence” and “place identity” to
illustrate the importance of recreational sites. Garrod and Fyall (2000)
for example, identified eight key elements for the evaluation of heri-
tage attractions: conservation, accessibility, education, relevance, rec-
reation, financial, local community, and quality. Wu, Li and Deng
 DENG, KING AND BAUER 429

(1992) selected seven elements: mountains, water, the forest environ-

ment, wildlife, plants, cultural heritage, and landscape. Yang (1994)
introduced a model for the evaluation of tourism resources using the
AHP method, which contains three major elements: resource value,
scenic attributes, and tourism conditions. Adopting a similar approach,
Chu proposed three major factors of tourism resources, regional con-
ditions, and peripheral conditions for the evaluation of tourism sites
in China (reported in Bao and Chu 1999:101).
Ethos Consulting (1991) carried out a tourism resource evaluation
in British Columbia and identified three main geographic character-
istics of tourism: the biophysical environment and human and natural
resource factors. The biophysical factors were further differentiated
into three sets of attributes: landforms, climate, and vegetation.
Human factors were divided into two elements: land status and access;
and natural resource factors were divided into seven elements: forestry,
mining, fish, wildlife, visual resources, local recreational use, and cul-
tural heritage (1991). Drawing upon these studies and based on the
authors’ expertise of tourism and national parks, a hierarchy structure
was established as outlined in Figure 1. It is acknowledged that alterna-
tive constructs may also be valid, but that what is proposed is based
soundly on the relevant literature.
In Figure 1, five major components are identified as contributing to
the overall attractiveness of national parks: tourism resources, tourist
facilities, accessibility, local communities, and peripheral attractions.
The five components have subsequently been subdivided. The tourism
resources category, for example, includes natural and cultural
resources, with the latter typically playing a subsidiary role in the con-
text of nature-based tourism. The natural resources category subdivides
into two parts: physical factors (tangible) including flora, fauna, moun-
tain, water, and climatic phenomena, and environmental factors

Figure 1. A Hierarchical Structure for Natural Attractions

430 EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

(mostly intangible) such as security, comfort, and sanitation. In the

local community, another of the five major components, the social,
cultural, and economic dimensions impact upon the management of
the resource and the quality of the recreational experience. The
importance of local communities in tourism development and manage-
ment has been underestimated until recently but is increasingly
accepted in the literature on sustainable tourism (Garrod and Fyall
2000). Tourism facilities may be subdivided into three components:
infrastructure, recreational, and educational facilities. Accessibility
refers to the external and internal accessibility of parks. The extent of
exterior accessibility may be assessed at three levels: alternative, con-
venience, and distance. These are related to both time and space
(Gunn 1988:115). Internal accessibility involves a further connectivity
factor which refers to the relevant road and track network within a
park.

Determining Weightings and Points. At a destination, not all attrac-

tions are of equal importance to tourists (Gunn 1988:115). In adher-
ence to this principle, five major elements and their subelements
influencing the quality of the destination are proposed and judged to
be of differing levels of importance.
To create Table 1, the AHP weightings were determined through
the application of pairwise comparisons among the various elements.
The comparisons are based on a scaling ratio, which is used to reveal

Table 1. The Application of Paired Comparisons using the AHP Scalea

Intensity of Importance Determination and Explanation

1b Of equal importance. Two attributes contribute

equally to the objectives.
3 Of some importance. One attribute is emphasized
slightly more than the other.
5 Of strong importance. One attribute is emphasized
strongly over the other.
7 Of very strong importance. One attribute is very
strongly emphasized and its predominance is clearly
evident in practice.
9 Of extreme importance. The evidence validating the
emphasis on one attribute over the other, is of the
highest order.
2, 4, 6, 8 These are intermediate values between two adjacent
judgements when compromise is needed.
Reciprocal of above numbers If an attribute has one of the above numbers
assigned to it when compared with a second
attribute, then the second attribute has the
reciprocal value when compared to the first

a
Adapted from Saaty (1987).
b
The scale 1.1, 1.2, …, 1.9, or an even more precise instrument, can be used to compare
elements that are close together, or are near equal in importance.
 DENG, KING AND BAUER 431

the relative priority assigned to compare any two elements. Saaty, Luis
and Vargas (1982) used the principal eigenvector of the pairwise com-
parison matrix to determine the comparative weight for the various
elements. Since the comparative importance derived from the pairwise
comparisons may result in a certain degree of inconsistency within a
particular domain, it is important to consider the use of special indices,
such as those developed by Saaty, Luis and Vargas. One of these is the
consistency ratio. Saaty, Luis and Vargas suggested that a consistency
ratio value of less than 10% indicates good consistency of judgment.
Based on this structure and on the pairwise comparison of elements,
relative priorities may be applied. Weightings are then transformed
into points through multiplication by 100. The allocation of weightings
to the five major elements based on the pairwise comparison is .06844
(local community), .09559 (facilities), .6706 (resources), .1849
(accessibility), and .04349 (peripheral attractions). Their correspond-
ing points are 6.84, 9.56, 67.06, 18.49, and 4.35, respectively. Consist-
ency ratio value in this case is .032, less than 10%, indicating that the
assessment is reasonable. The values for the other comparisons are all
less than 10%. (The actual calculation and details are not included in
the paper because of length considerations.)
Based on the weightings determined for each of the five major
elements in the first layer of the hierarchy, the weighting and points
for each of the subelements in lower layers in the structure can be
calculated. These are arrived at by multiplying each of the weightings
(points) of a subelement by its corresponding overall weighting for
that category. Using this approach, the weightings and points assigned
to all elements lower down the hierarchy can be derived from their
equivalents higher up. The researchers assigned a value to each of the
elements in accordance with their relative importance in the context
of national parks and protected areas.
The points for all elements in the structure are the maximums and
add up to 100 points in total. In the context of a national park, the
assignation to an element of a maximum point value implies the high-
est level of quality. It is highly improbable that all elements within a
particular protected area would achieve such a standard, given that
some resources are likely to be excellent, others good, and others again
fair or poor. How can one make these values correspond to a particular
level of quality? Based on the scaling ratio listed in Table 1, an “impor-
tance index” can be applied to represent three alternative ratings: fair,
good, and excellent. This approach is similar to the Likert scales widely
used in the social sciences (Aiken 1996). For the purposes of the
present study, we assign and relate meaningful points to different levels
of attribute quality. Taking the maximum value of each bottom
element in all layers of the structure and dividing into three would
result in the value “fair”, doubling the value would lead to “good”, and
tripling would lead to “excellent”, for a given element. The assignment
of a zero value indicates the absence of some element. Values of less
than zero approximate to fairly poor, very poor, and extremely
poor, respectively.
432 EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

Rating Standards and Points. Evaluation usually involves creating

standards and relating them to specific classes or factors. A wide range
of techniques is used for management in national parks and protected
areas (Nilsen and Tayler 1998). These include the Recreation Opport-
unity Spectrum, Limits of Acceptable Changes, a process for Visitor
Impact Management, and the Process for the Management of Visitor
Activities. Determining criteria to apply to the corresponding points
is an approach commonly used in the case of both hotel evaluations
(undertaken by organizations such as Michelin and national motoring
associations) and in landscape evaluation (Paine and Taylor 1995).
In evaluating landscape aesthetics, the US Bureau of Land Manage-
ment established a set of criteria and corresponding points to evaluate
three landscape components: land/water, vegetation, and structures
based on four qualities (form, line, color, and texture). A landscape
assigned a score in excess of 19 points is regarded as “class A”, between
12 and 18 points is “class B”, and equal or less than 11 points “class
C” (Itami 1989:215). In evaluating a tourism site, Ethos Consulting
(1991) assigned the respective numbers 2, 1, and 0 to represent high,
moderate, and low quality, respectively. Tourism capability was classi-
fied into four classes: very high (6–7 points), high (4–5 points), moder-
ate (2–3 points), and low (1 point). A similar approach is used in the
present study. In view of the length of the description of standards
and explanation of their corresponding points, the full text of this part
of the research is not included in the paper. The detailed calculations
are, however, available from the authors on request. The following is
an example of how points have been applied to take the attribute “rar-
ity” into account in the case of flora.
2.11: where at least 1 plant is of international importance
1.41: where at least 1 plant is of national importance
0.70: where at least 1 plant is of state/regional importance

A Case Study
In order to trial the model, the authors selected the key protected
areas within the state of Victoria, the most densely populated and most
intensively farmed state in Australia. Despite this, nearly a third of its
natural bushland remains intact. A large section of the state is moun-
tainous and no other mainland region in Australia is so dominated by
high country (Readers’ Digest 1992:198).
The peculiar geography and topography of Victoria, ranging from
grasslands and forests to deserts and ocean, offers a wide range of
environmental settings for recreation, relaxation, and enjoyment.
There are now over 100 National, Wilderness, and State parks as well
as other parks and reserves set aside in Victoria which are operated
under the jurisdiction of the National Parks Act. At the time of this
writing, the network consists of 33 National Parks, 3 Wilderness Parks,
34 State Parks, 6 Marine and Coastal Parks or Reserves, and over 40
other parks and reserves. The combined area of 3,047,351 hectares
represents 13.4% of the State’s total area and 34.6% of Victoria’s public
 DENG, KING AND BAUER 433

land (National Parks Service 1996:1). A large number of people are

attracted to the network annually, with visits estimated at 12.96 million
in 1995–1996 (National Parks Service 1996:8). The present study exam-
ined 36 parks of which 21 were National Parks and 15 were State Parks.
The following criteria were applied in making the selection of parks
to be considered. The 49 parks (such as marine parks) which form
part of the Victoria network, but are classed as neither State nor
National Parks, were eliminated. This left 77 parks of which 36 were
selected. It was determined that wide geographic and landscape types
should be included, with reference to the five key criteria used in the
study. Further, parks were chosen where the available information
appeared to be comprehensive. This was intended to ensure consist-
ency for comparison purposes.
Drawing upon the management plans of the various parks, infor-
mation was gathered under the headings of resources, accessibility,
facilities, local community, and peripheral attractions. This infor-
mation provided a useful reference point for the standards that were
being proposed and their corresponding points. Of the various factors
under consideration, the only elements typically absent in the manage-
ment plans concerned the measurement of air and water quality. These
were assumed to be excellent in all cases since no reports of pollution
were recorded in the management plans for the 36 parks. The total
point of a specific park is calculated by adding up the individual points
assigned to each element. The average point for the 36 evaluated parks
is 69.95 out of 100, ranging from the lowest 51.88 for Moondarra State
Park to the highest 90.21 for Grampians National Park.
The AHP process often involves the convening of a panel of experts.
To improve the objectivity of the present research, the authors con-
sulted with senior mangers from Parks Victoria, the State Government
body responsible for management to evaluate the parks assessment in
the light of overall policy. It should be acknowledged that the consul-
tations did not amount to the convening of a formal “panel of experts”.
Neither should any judgments about the relative standards be inter-
preted as a formal endorsement by Parks Victoria for the gradings pro-
posed in this paper. Nevertheless the consultations did provide a form
of validation for the weightings that were selected.
The most commonly used method for dividing data into different
groups is cluster analysis. Some authors have, however, found that the
standard deviation method may be preferable in cases involving data
measurable using a single variable (Wu 1992). In preparing this paper,
an attempt was made to use cluster analysis to group the 36 parks into
different levels, but the present authors found the standard deviation
method to be more applicable. The average value arrived at for these
parks is 69.95 and the standard deviation is 10.27. Based on average
values and on the relevant standard deviations, a four-grade system
is proposed:

Grade 1: xⱖ80
Grade 2: 70ⱕx<79.9
Grade 3: 60ⱕx<69.9
434 EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

Grade 4 x<60
By reference to this rating system, the 36 parks can be classified into
four levels as indicated in Table 2.

CONCLUSION
In developing a scientific framework for the evaluation and rating
of national and provincial parks, the present research offers the pros-
pect of improved information provision to tourists consistent with the
principles of sustainable development. Tourism attributes have been
used as a starting point for the classification of national and provincial
parks consistent with the view that the importance of tourist prefer-
ences and perceptions has often been underestimated within the
broader policy and management framework. The approach seeks to
achieve an improved equilibrium between potential tourist interest
and destination attributes viewed from an ecological perspective.
Using evaluation criteria arrived at by the authors in consultation
with a range of experts, the study has ranked the 36 selected state and
national parks in Victoria into four levels, ranging from Grade 1 to
Grade 4. One might have expected the national parks to rate higher
than their state park equivalents given that the former are generally
held in higher esteem than the latter from a scientific and ecosystems
perspective. Interestingly, the scores arrived at for state and national
parks were found to be broadly equivalent. Given that the existing
classification system has emerged as a result of administrative con-

Table 2. An Evaluation and Rating of Parks in the State of Victoria

Grade Parks Value Ranges Average

Grade 1 Alpine NP, Brisbane Ranges NP, 81.06 (Brisbane 86.05

Croajingolong NP, Grampians NP, Ranges NP to 90.21
Mount Buffalo NP, Otway NP, (Grampians NP)
Wilsons Promotory NP
Grade 2 Coopracambra NP, Dandenong 69.95 (Errinundra 73.49
Ranges NP, Errinundra NP, Hattah- NP) to 78.81 (Snowy
Kulkyne NP, Holey Plains SP, Little River NP)
Desert NP, Lower Glenelg NP,
Morwell NP, Mitchell River NP,
Snowy River NP
Grade 3 Baw Baw NP, Black Range SP, 60.40 (Melba Gully 65.28
Churchill NP, Kinglake NP, Lind NP, SP) to 69.32
Langi Ghiran SP, Melba Gully SP, (Churchill NP)
Mount Eccles NP, Mount Worth SP,
Werribee Gorge SP, Warby Range SP,
Tarra Bulga SP, Terrick Terrick SP
Grade 4 Alfred NP, Cape Nelson SP, Chiltern 51.88 (Moondarra 54.40
SP, Dergholm SP, Moondarra SP, Mt SP) to 58.07 (Mt
Arapiles Tooan SP Arapiles-Tooan SP)
 DENG, KING AND BAUER 435

venience as much as for scientific, historic and cultural values, the fin-
dings suggest that from a tourism perspective, some re-classification
may be worthy of consideration. Administrative convenience is after
all of little relevance to the provision of a quality tourist experience.
The present study has been one of relatively few attempts to develop
an evaluation and rating system for national and provincial parks. The
AHP method has been shown as a useful and rational way of determining
weightings for the various destination attributes through prioritization
using pairwise comparisons. With a view to assisting interpretation and
facilitating point-element-match evaluation, the relative weights have
been transformed into absolute points through multiplication by 100.
The results show that in order of importance, the five dominant elements
are resources (60.76 points), accessibility (18.49), facilities (9.56), local
community (6.84), and peripheral attractions (4.35).
To date tourism applications of AHP have been largely confined to
the Chinese literature. The present study has both applied the prin-
ciples in a Western environment (namely Australia) and disseminated
the findings through the English-speaking academic medium. The
application of the Standard Deviation Method has overcome the prob-
lem encountered in much of the landscape evaluation literature where
the various destination attributes are assessed as being of identical
importance (Wherrett 1996). For example, the US Bureau of Land
Management assigned the values 5, 3, and 1 to attributes in an equal
and apparently arbitrary manner under the factors landform, veg-
etation, water, color, and influence of adjacent scenery. It also assigned
the threshold values by which landscape is classified into three grades
in an arbitrary way (Itami 1989). Despite addressing such problems, it
is not suggested that the present study is entirely objective. Value judg-
ments are inherent in arriving at some of the prioritizations. As the
methodology is further refined, additional safeguards may need to be
built in to both enhance objectivity and to demonstrate the practicality
of the application to park managers and policymakers.
Though the results of this study apply only to the prevailing situation
in Victoria, it is argued that the same principles may be applicable
elsewhere. There are a number of ways in which future research could
strengthen the validity of the findings. First, the expert input to the
present study was limited and the involvement of a fully constituted
expert panel into the further application of the model to particular
settings would be worthwhile. Second, from a scientific perspective,
onsite measurement of certain elements such as air and water quality
might also enhance the accuracy of such studies. Third, in view of the
importance of consumer perceptions, it would be useful to incorporate
the participation of tourists in future studies, although this approach
does add an extra layer of complexity, particularly where extensive
park networks are involved. Finally, the present study has given con-
sideration to the tourist perspective on nature-based destinations, but
has not considered the marketing implications. If a system were to be
adopted by state park agencies and then vigorously promoted, the
higher graded parks might attract significant increases in visitation.
This might not be appropriate if the relevant authorities were commit-
436 EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

ted to the dispersal of visitation to less frequented locales. Subsequent

research could investigate the link between marketing and the public
policy context. The present study should provide a useful starting point
for comparing the attributes of protected areas in a meaningful, sys-
tematic, and tourism-focused way.왎
Acknowledgements—The first author acknowledges the support of the China Scholarship
Council. Parks Victoria provided useful baseline data for the research. Thanks also to
Kee Pookong, to Wenbin Guo, and to Paul Whitelaw for their help and encouragement.

REFERENCES
Adventure Travel Society
1994 Adventure Travel Society Newsletter (Winter):1994.
Aiken, L. R.
1996 Rating Scales and Checklists: Evaluating Behavior, Personality, and Atti-
tudes. New York: Wiley.
Banai-Kashani, R.
1989 A New Method for Site Suitability Analysis: The Analytic Hierarchy Pro-
cess. Environmental Management 13:685–693.
Bao, J., and Y. Chu
1999 Tourism Geography. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Blamey, R. K.
1995 The Nature of Ecotourism. Occasional Paper No. 21. Canberra: Bureau
of Tourism Research
Boo, E.
1992 The Ecotourism Boom: Planning for Development and Management—
Wildlands and Human Needs. Technical Paper No. 2. Washington DC: World
Wildlife Fund.
Boyd, S. W., R. Chard, and W. Butler
1996 Managing Ecotourism: An Opportunity Spectrum Approach. Tourism
Management 17:557–566.
Buckley, R.
1998 Ecotourism Megatrends. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research
Proceedings of the Eighth Australian Tourism and Hospitality Research Con-
ference. Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research
Budowski, G.
1976 Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict, Coexistence, or
Symbiosis? Environmental Conservation 3:27–32.
Butler, R. W.
1990 Alternative Tourism: Pious Hope or Trojan Horse? Journal of Travel
Research 28:40–45.
Campbell, L. M.
1999 Ecotourism in Rural Developing Communities. Annals of Tourism
Research 26:534–553.
Ceballos-Lascuráin, H.
1996 Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas. Cambridge: IUCN—The
World Conservation Union.
Commonwealth Department of Tourism
1994 National Ecotourism Strategy. Canberra: Australian Government Pub-
lishing Service.
Dowling, R., and B. Weiler
1997 Ecotourism in Southeast Asia. Tourism Management 18(1):51–53.
Epler Wood, M.
1993 Foreword. In Ecotourism: An Annotated Bibliography for Planners and
Managers, P. F. J. Eagles, S. D. Buse and G. T. Hvenegaard, eds. North
Bennington VT: The Ecotourism Society.
Ethos Consulting
1991 Natural Resource Based Tourism in Northwestern British Columbia. Van-
couver: Ministry of Development, Trade and Tourism.
 DENG, KING AND BAUER 437

Expert Choice
2000 References and Dissertations on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (1976–
96). <http://www.expertchoice.com/hierarchon/references/preamble.htm>.
Fennel, D., and P. F. J. Eagles
1990 Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Parks
and Recreation Administration 8:23–34.
France, L.
1997 The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism. London: Earthscan.
Garrod, B., and A. Fyall
2000 Managing Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 27:682–696.
Gunn, C. A.
1988 Tourism Planning. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Itami, R. M.
1989 Scenic Perception: Research and Application in U.S. Visual Manage-
ment Systems. In Landscape Evaluation: Approaches and Applications, P.
Dearden and B. Sadler, eds., pp. 211–233. Victoria BC: University of Vic-
toria.
Lindberg, K., B. Furze, M. Staff, and R. Black
1997 Ecotourism in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues and Outlook. Bennington
VT: The Ecotourism Society.
Lundgren, H. M., and P. Farrell
1985 Evaluation for Leisure Service Managers: A Dynamic Approach. New
York: CBS College.
McKercher, B.
1998 The Business of Nature-Based Tourism. Melbourne: Hospitality Press.
Merlino D.
1993 Ecotourism: Past, Present and Future. Tour and Travel News Supplement
(October 25):4–5.
Miller, M. L., and B. C. Kale
1993 Coastal and Marine Ecotourism: A Formula for Sustainable Develop-
ment? Trends 30:35–41.
Moore, S., and B. Carter
1991 Ecotourism in the 21st Century. In Ecotourism Incorporating the Global
Classroom, International Conference Papers, B. Weiler, ed., pp. 140–145. Can-
berra: Bureau of Tourism Research.
Mowforth, M., and I. Munt
1998 Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World. London:
Routledge.
National Parks Service
1996 Annual Report. Melbourne: Victoria Parks.
Nilsen, P., and G. Tayler
1998 A Comparative Analysis of Human Use Planning and Management
Frameworks. In Linking Protected Areas with Working Landscapes Conserving
Biodiversity, N. W. P. Munro and J. H. M. Willison, eds., pp. 861–874. Wolf-
ville: SAMPA.
Paine, C., and J. Taylor
1995 Cultural Landscape Assessment: A Comparison of Rural Cultural Land-
scape Assessment Methods and their Potential for Application within the Nia-
gara Escarpment (Research Report). Guelph: Landscape Research Group,
University of Guelph.
Posavac, E. J., and R. G. Carey
1989 Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies (3rd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Readers’ Digest
1992 Wild Australia (3rd ed.). Sydney: Readers’ Digest.
Reingold, L.
1993 Identifying the Elusive Ecotourist. Going Green: Supplement to Tour and
Travel News 25(October):36–37.
Saaty, R. W.
1987 The Analytic Hierarchy Process: What it is and How it is Used. Mathemat-
ical Modeling 9:161–176.
 438 EVALUATING NATURAL ATTRACTIONS

Saaty, T. L., G. Luis, and L. G. Vargas

1982 The Logic of Priorities: Applications in Business, Energy, Health, and
Transportation. Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Scace, R. C., E. Grifone, and R. Usher
1992 Ecotourism in Canada: Report to the Canadian Environmental Advisory
Council. Hull QC: Environment Canada.
Tsaur, S. H., G. H. Tzeng, and K. C. Wang
1997 Evaluating Tourist Risks From Fuzzy Perspectives. Annals of Tourism
Research 24:796–812.
Theobald, W. F.
1979 Evaluation of Recreation and Park Programs. New York: Wiley.
1987 Historical Antecedents of Evaluation in Leisure Programs and Services.
Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration 5:1–9.
Valentine, P. S.
1992 Ecotourism and Nature Conservation: A Definition with Some Recent
Developments in Micronesia. In Ecotourism Incorporating the Global Class-
room: 1991 International Conference Papers, B. Weiler, ed. Canberra: Bureau
of Tourism Research.
Wall, G.
1994 Ecotourism: Old Wine in New Bottles? Trends 31:4–9.
Wherrett, J. R.
1996 Visualization Techniques for Landscape Evaluation: Literature Review.
<http://bamboo.mluri.sari.ac.uk/~jo/litrev/chapters.html>.
WTO
2000 Tourism Highlights. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
Wu, C.
1992 Research on the Classification of Seed Standard. Changsha: Hunan
Science and Technology Commission.
Wu, C., S. Li, and J. Deng
1992 Landscape Evaluation of ZhangJiaJie National Forest Park. In Studies on
ZhangJiaJie National Forest Park, C. Wu and Z. Wu, eds., pp. 1–12. Beijing:
Chinese Forestry Press.
Yang, G.
1994 Tourism Resources. Kunming: Yunnan University Press.

Submitted 25 August 1999. Resubmitted 22 May 2000. Accepted 28 January 2001. Final
version 9 May 2001. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Bob McKercher

View publication stats