nature based adventure tourism

Natural Habitat Adventures

Conservation through exploration.

  • Canada Polar Bear Tours
  • Southern Africa Safaris
  • East Africa Safaris

U.S. National Parks Tours

Alaska Adventures

Canada & the North

  • Galapagos Cruises & Tours
  • Mexico & Central America Adventures

South America Adventures

Asia & Pacific Adventures

Europe Adventures

  • Antarctica & Arctic

Adventure Cruises

  • Easter Island
  • Falkland Islands
  • French Polynesia
  • High Arctic
  • New Zealand
  • South Africa
  • South Georgia Island
  • Svalbard/Spitsbergen
  • United States
  • African Safari Wildlife
  • Birds & Butterflies
  • Whales & Marine Wildlife
  • Active Expeditions

African Safaris

  • Climate Change Departures
  • Cultural Immersions
  • Easier Adventures
  • Fall Foliage

Family Adventures

  • Great Migrations
  • Hiking & Trekking Adventures
  • Kayaking Adventures

New Adventures

  • NHA's Most Popular Adventures

Photo Expeditions

  • Private Custom Adventures
  • Rain Forest Tours
  • Sailing Adventures
  • Snorkeling Adventures
  • Wildflower Season
  • Women-Only Departures

Nature News

Get your new catalog of the world's greatest nature journeys.

Women's Adventures

Make It Private

Daily dose of nature.

Trips by Region

Polar Bear Tours

Meet the King of the Arctic roaming its wild tundra home on the edge of Hudson Bay in Churchill, Canada

Intimate wildlife adventures featuring uncrowded private reserves and remote luxury bush camps

Galapagos Tours

Meet unique and amiable wildlife up close on expertly guided small-group explorations in the Enchanted Isles

Get close to brown bears, explore Denali and see abundant marine life by private boat in Kenai Fjords & Prince William Sound

Look for wolves in Yellowstone, gape at the Grand Canyon, hike Glacier's alpine heights, watch the sunrise in Acadia...and more!

Watch whales, heli-hike in the Canadian Rockies, see icebergs calve in Greenland, witness the northern lights

Explore the wild side of Europe as we leave big cities behind to explore less-discovered natural wonders

Mexico & Central America Tours

Ecotourism adventures with gray whales, monarch butterflies, sea turtles, scarlet macaws & more!

From the Amazon to the Andes, from the Pantanal to Patagonia, explore this continent's amazing biodiversity 

View endangered pandas, tigers, orangutans, pygmy elephants, rhinos, koalas & other wildlife

Antarctica & Arctic Journeys

Commune with penguins, puffins and polar bears in the most remote wilderness areas on the planet

Small-ship expedition voyages to the ends of the earth: explore polar regions, Amazon, Alaska & beyond

Photography Adventures

For avid photographers of all ability levels, with coaching from an expert naturalist–photographer guide

Led by Nat Hab's top women Expedition Leaders, these departures have a special focus on the contributions of women in our destinations

Discover, explore and have fun in nature as you build lifelong memories across generations!

Check out our newest trip offerings and first-run adventures all around the world!

Your Nature & Adventure Travel Experts

Our innovative partnership with wwf.

Get Weekly Updates

Our weekly eNewsletter highlights new adventures, exclusive offers, webinars, nature news, travel ideas, photography tips and more.

Outside

Request Your 2024/2025 Catalog

Discover the World's Best

Nature Travel Experiences

Nathab 2024 Catalog

Together, Natural Habitat Adventures and World Wildlife Fund have teamed up to arrange nearly a hundred nature travel experiences around the planet, while helping to protect the magnificent places we visit and their wild inhabitants.

Natural Habitat Adventures Logo

Send Me Travel Emails

nature based adventure tourism

Our weekly eNewsletter highlights new adventures, exclusive offers, webinars, nature news, travel ideas, photography tips and more. Sign up today!

Look for a special welcome message in your inbox, arriving shortly! Be sure to add [email protected] to your email contacts so you don’t miss out on future emails.

Send Us a Message

Have a question or comment? Use the form to the right to get in touch with us.

We’ll be in touch soon with a response.

Refer a Friend

Earn rewards for referring your friends! We'd like to thank our loyal travelers for spreading the word. Share your friend's address so we can send a catalog, and if your friend takes a trip as a first-time Nat Hab traveler, you'll receive a $250 Nat Hab credit you can use toward a future trip or the purchase of Nat Hab gear. To refer a friend, just complete the form below or call us at 800-543-8917. It's that easy! See rules and fine print here.

We've received your friend's information.

View Our 2023 Digital Catalog

View Our 2024/2025

Digital Catalog

Thanks for requesting access to our digital catalog. Click here to view it now. You’ll also receive it by email momentarily.

Polar Bear Tours

Questions? Call 800-543-8917

Have a question or comment? Click any of the buttons below to get in touch with us. Hours Mountain Time

  • 8 am to 5 pm, Monday - Friday
  • 8 am to 3 pm on Saturday
  • Closed on Sunday
  • Reference Manager
  • Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, sustainability comes to life. nature-based adventure tourism in norway.

nature based adventure tourism

  • Department of Teacher Education and Outdoor Studies, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway

This paper investigates how tourists and guides perform sustainability during adventure tourism trips in natural environments. The paper draws on empirical data from an ethnographic study of five different multi-day trips in Norway, each of which used skiing, hiking, or biking as the mode of travel. In our analysis, we focus on how the different actors understood, operationalized and practiced elements of sustainability in their everyday lives while on the trips. The paper applies a micro-sociological perspective to the nature-based adventure tourism scene where the interplay between tourists, guides, adventure activities and nature is understood as multiple dialectic performances co-produced by the different actors. Goffman's dramaturgical metaphors, and concepts of frames, appearance, and manner saturate recent research on tourism and nature guiding. This paper builds on the “performance turn” as a theoretical point of departure for understanding sustainability in nature-based adventure tourism experiences. In participant observations and post-trip interviews with Norwegian and international tourists and their guides, we found that sustainability performances were not a major aspect of the trips. We did find some performances of mainly “light” sustainability and, among them, elements of ambivalence and ambiguity. Our data indicate that some guides tread a fine line between enhancing and deepening tourists' experiences of nature and sustainability or negatively impacting the perceived enjoyment imperative of the trip. International tourists expressed deeper sustainability overall. We reflect on the relative explanatory strengths of Goffman's “frames” and interaction order, and Persson's “framing,” for understanding the interplay between guide and tourist sustainability performances and conclude with pointers for teasing out the complexities we identify.

Introduction

Tourism is one of the world's fastest growing industries and in recent years. Norway has experienced a marked increase in domestic and international tourism ( Ministry of Trade, 2017 ). Norway's international reputation for being “sustainable” and environmentally conscious ( Ministry of Trade, 2017 ) arguably creates certain expectations of the country as a destination. This paper investigates how tourists and guides perform sustainability during adventure tourism trips in natural environments. This is not a study of sustainable tourism, but of sustainability as expressed – or not – in tourism experience.

Tourism research is often characterized as multi- and inter-disciplinary as well as a fragmented in its scope ( Benckendorff and Zehrer, 2013 ). In this paper, we draw from the literatures of nature-based tourism and adventure tourism. Nature-based tourism is often believed to “influence tourists' environmentally friendly attitudes, knowledge, and ultimately their behavior” ( Ardoin et al., 2015 , p. 838), however, in their review of the research, these authors found that “few studies have empirically documented these outcomes, and those that do are inconsistent in the variables measured and the time frame analyzed” (p. 838). Previous research on nature-based adventure tourism has typically surveyed guides, tourists, or both ( Pereira and Mykletun, 2012 ; Ardoin et al., 2015 ), but few have gone into the field looking for how concepts of sustainability can ‘come to life in various ways’ during a guided nature-based adventure tour.

Guides function as narrators, social organizers and instructors, and are central to transforming an ordinary tourist experience into an extraordinary or spectacular and unique experience ( Hansen and Mossberg, 2017 ). The extent to which, and ways in which, guides influence tourist understandings, knowledge, and behaviors of sustainability has been the focus of some international research ( Powell and Ham, 2008 ; Randall and Rollins, 2009 ; Weiler and Kim, 2011 ; Pereira and Mykletun, 2012 ), without conclusive results, and to date the Norwegian context has not been studied.

Some of the international research has paid attention to tour guides as potential agents of change (see Zillinger et al., 2012 ; Jonasson et al., 2013 ; Rokenes et al., 2015 ; Vold, 2015 ; Weiler and Black, 2015 ; Jonasson and Smith, 2017 ) and there is evidence of a growing research focus on “the relationship between face-to-face interpretation/tour guiding and sustainability” ( Weiler and Black, 2015 , p. 76), at least in wildlife tourism (see Zeppel and Muloin, 2008 ; Ballantyne et al., 2009 ).

Tourists' expectations about what they will experience on a tour arise partly from the information provided by tour companies ( Collado et al., 2009 ; Skinner and Theodossopoulos, 2011 ). If tourist expectations are not met, the companies risk reputational damage and subsequent financial impacts ( Collado et al., 2009 ), so it is in each company's interests to prescribe to at least some extent the activities of their guides. Tour guides, then, “may thus feel relatively powerless to make a difference in contributing to the sustainability of a particular activity, tour, business, community, industry or environment” ( Weiler and Black, 2015 p. 73–74). Our study includes a focus on guides' understandings of sustainability on tour and how those understandings impact their performances of sustainability.

The contemporary Norwegian context provides further impetus for this study. According to the most recent government white paper on tourism, nature is “still the most important reason the tourists choose Norway as a tourist destination” ( Ministry of Trade, 2017 , p. 31). Experience tourism is the fastest growing tourism sector ( Fredman and Haukeland, 2017 ; Ministry of Trade, 2017 ) and tourism businesses that are based on nature-, food- or culture experiences represent the core of the Norwegian tourism product ( Fredman and Tyrväinen, 2010 ; Ministry of Trade, 2017 ). From the government's perspective, it is “authentic” and “meaningful” experiences that should be the basis for tourism value creation, as it is in such experiences that travel motivation and willingness to pay lie. How sustainability can or should be operationalized while tourists are experiencing authenticity and meaningfulness in nature, however, is not discussed ( Ministry of Trade, 2017 ).

A relatively united Norwegian travel industry supported the principles of the white paper with a “roadmap” titled “Toward a sustainable tourism industry.” In it, ‘high yield – low impact” nature-based tourism takes center-stage ( NHO, 2017 , p. 5) with physically active nature and cultural experiences based on the Norwegian tradition of outdoor life (friluftsliv). Friluftsliv – translated as “free-air-life” – is a Scandinavian practice of spending time in nature. Norwegian friluftsliv, in particular, emphasizes traditional modes of travel such as cross-country ski touring, hiking and biking, and “low” technologies, such as camping or staying in simple cabins and cooking on open fires ( Odden, 2008 ). Friluftsliv is considered to be an important part of the (imagined) Norwegian national identity ( Witoszek, 1998 ; Pedersen Gurholt, 2008 ; Gurholt, 2014 ).

The road map stresses that with a stronger global focus on intact nature, climate change and environmental quality, an increasing number of tourists seek destinations offering cleanliness, healthiness, and effective protection of culture and nature. By 2050, when eight out of 10 people worldwide will live in cities, an increasing number of tourists will avoid destinations characterized by hustle and bustle, noise and litter, and instead choose a journey that promotes the environment ( NHO, 2017 , p. 8).

Given the focus on sustainability, broadly interpreted, in both documents, we argue that it is relevant and timely to investigate what is going on in terms of sustainability at the micro-level of tourism experience in Norway. It could be argued that when guides choose to work in nature-based adventure tourism and when tourists choose to purchase a nature-based adventure tour, they are already performing sustainability, however that is not our focus in this paper. Our focus is entirely on what happens once the tour begins through to when it ends. We investigate the experiences of guides and tourists of an industry-leading Norwegian tour-operator for the purpose of discovering how they understand, operationalize and practice elements of sustainability in their everyday lives while on nature-based tours in Norway.

Sustainability

Much of the literature on nature-based adventure tourism, nature-based tourism and ecotourism refers to sustainability without providing an operational definition of it. We consider that contemporary conceptions of sustainability will enhance the reliability of our study and so we adopt Force et al. (2018) distinction between sustainable tourism and tourism sustainability. According to these authors, the former concerns the socioeconomics of tourism, especially at the local level. This is the main focus of the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals for sustainable tourism. Member nations are expected to foster tourism in ways that create jobs, support local culture and new product development as well as in ways that protect environment values such as biodiversity, ecosystem health and more (United Nations (n.d.)). Tourism sustainability, in contrast, concerns “the design of tourism activities in ways that contribute to sustainability transitions globally” (p. 431). Our focus is on tourism sustainability. Sustainability transitions are “personal change[s] in tourists' identities” that lead to such things as active “commitment to environmental and cultural protection … nature-relatedness … [and tourists'] awareness of their relationship to the global collective” (p. 433). Our understanding of the term sustainability is also informed by Salas-Zapata and Ortiz-Muñoz' (2019) clarification of its use by researchers. We adopt the meaning “[s]ustainability as a set of guiding criteria for human action” rather than “sustainability as a goal of humankind” (p. 155), “sustainability as an object,” or “[s]ustainability as an approach of study” (p. 157). Criteria for guiding human action include, but are not limited to, such things as utilizing renewable resources, enhancing human well-being, avoiding ecosystem degradation, and generating social and cultural benefits. In this article, then, sustainability means a set of guiding criteria for personal change in tourists and guides toward deeper nature-relatedness, more active environmental and cultural protection, and stronger positive relationships to the global collective.

Nature-relatedness is defined as a degree of “connectedness to the natural world” and “comprises the cognitive, affective, and physical connection we have with nature” ( Nisbet, 2021 ). Nisbet et al's (2009) nature-relatedness scale considers deep nature-relatedness to be expressed as a lot of time spent in natural spaces, preference for isolation in wilderness, self-identification as part of nature, awareness of environmental issues, and lifestyle changes in response to knowledge of, or feelings toward, nature. A light nature-relatedness is the opposite of these factors. Thus, sustainability might be expressed by nature-based adventure tour guides and tourists in one or more of the ways described on a continuum.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) defines environmental protection in terms of maintaining or restoring the quality of an environment ( OECD, 2003 ). Environmental protection actions could include cleaning plastic pollution from rivers and lakes, protecting populations of threatened species, or donating money to environmental causes, among many other things. Cultural protection refers to protecting the material resources of cultural groups ( Durie, 2008 ) such as artifacts, structures, monuments, language, intellectual knowledge and “places associated with historical events, beliefs, and traditions” ( Cultural Heritage Act, 1978 , § 2). Deep sustainability performances during nature-based adventure tourism trips might include much active interest in, or active participation in, these types of environmental and cultural protection. Light sustainability might include a few, or incidental, expressions of interest in these things.

Finally, a positive relationship to the global collective refers to attitudes of support for worldwide action on shared international problems such as climate change, large-scale pollution, disease, international aid, terrorism, and biodiversity loss ( Sandler, 2010 ). Guides and tourists on nature-based adventure tourism trips might express strong positive relationships as part of their performances of sustainability. Others might express weak positive, or even negative, relationships as part of their light sustainability performances.

We used the concepts of nature-relatedness, action toward environmental and cultural protection, and positive relationships toward the global collective as guides for understanding the types of sustainability found in our data. In the Methods section, we describe how being “guided” by the concepts differs from being “driven” by them. Next, we define our study in relation to the existing literature on sustainability in nature-based tourism.

Nature-Based Adventure Tourism

Nature-based tourism, as a socio-cultural phenomenon ( Sandell, 2003 ), has been defined in many, sometimes overlapping ways ( Fredman et al., 2009 , 2014 ; Fredman and Tyrväinen, 2010 ), such as adventure tourism, environmental tourism, ecotourism, and ecological tourism. At its most basic, nature-based tourism is related to places and objects that are not human-made, and visits and activities that occur beyond a person's familiar environments ( Fredman et al., 2009 ). Hence, we adopt the widely accepted Scandinavian definition of nature-based tourism: “human activities occurring when visiting in nature areas outside the person's ordinary neighborhood” ( Fredman et al., 2009 , p. 24–25).

Our focus is on nature-based adventure tourism ( Buckley, 2006 , 2010 ; Mihalic, 2006 ; Rokenes et al., 2015 ; Beams et al., 2019 ) to foreground the sustainability aspects of commercialized nature tourist experiences that “often involve[e] perceived risk or controlled danger associated with personal challenges” ( Mihalic, 2006 , p. 114). Adventure tourism and nature-based tourism are closely related with some overlap in practice. However, “whilst nature-based tourism products focus on seeing … adventure tourism products focus on doing” ( Buckley, 2010 , p. 4). Thus, nature-based adventure tourism can be considered tourism products in nature that focus on both seeing and doing. In the Norwegian context, adventure tourism experiences commonly center on hiking and biking journeys in nature, skiing through forest or mountain environments, sea-kayaking, and mountaineering. What counts as “perceived risk,” “controlled danger,” and “personal challenges” is highly individualistic, however, “[f]rom the perspective of the individual tourist, anything which they personally consider adventurous can be counted as adventure tourism” ( Buckley, 2010 , p. 7). For our purposes, we accept the types of physical activities mentioned above, when conducted in guided tours in natural environments, to constitute nature-based adventure tourism.

“What Are We Doing”

Experiences of sustainability in tourism are, arguably, important for several reasons of which the most pertinent to this study is that tourism experiences can have educational effects which can contribute to wider public understandings and motivations toward sustainability ( Ballantyne et al., 2010 ; Force et al., 2018 ; Winter et al., 2020 ). Understanding “what is it that's going on” ( Goffman, 1974 , p. 8) regarding sustainability in nature-based adventure tourism allows researchers, policymakers, tourism operators, guides and tourists to respond in ways that further their respective ambitions of sustainability at national, industry, professional, and personal levels, respectively. We take a Goffmanian approach to investigating if and how different actors – the tourists and the guides – understand, operationalize, practice and embody nature-relatedness, active environmentally friendly behavior, and positive relationships to the global collective. As we next explain, taking an ethnographic approach allowed us to focus directly on “performances” of sustainability, a novel approach to the topic in nature-based adventure tourism.

Theoretical Framework

The “performance turn” ( Edensor, 1998 , 2000 , 2001 ; Haldrup and Larsen, 2010 ; Larsen, 2010 ; Urry and Larsen, 2011 ; Larsen and Meged, 2013 ) in tourism research, however, and despite some criticism ( Saldaña, 2006 ), has re-imagined the guided tour as “created by a relational praxis that builds on and involves bodily and verbal negotiations, fluid power relations and interactions between tourists and guides and between tourists” ( Larsen and Meged, 2013 , p. 100). It can be traced back to new ways of investigating, analyzing and understanding tourism, starting in the late 1990s ( Edensor, 1998 , 2001 ; Larsen, 2010 ; Urry and Larsen, 2011 ; Cohen and Cohen, 2012 ; Jonasson and Scherle, 2012 ; Larsen and Meged, 2013 ). Although performances can be considered to be, in part, pre formed, they are not absolutely fixed. The performance turn emphasizes “creativity, detours and productive practices” ( Larsen and Meged, 2013 , p. 89), and “relates to the theatrical perspective and invokes enactment by performers or actors of a role or scripts, as well as display for an audience. Performances involve pretense” ( Harwood and El-Manstrly, 2012 , p. 15, bold in original). More recent research on guided tours has shown how tourists contribute to the co-creation of guided tours both alongside the guide, as well as in opposing and contradictory ways. Larsen (2010) and Urry and Larsen (2011) claim that the performance turn has “challenged representational and textual readings of tourism … by making “ethnographies” of what humans and institutions do – enact and stage – in order to make tourism and performances happen” ( Larsen, 2010 , p. 323). Consequently, the performance turn represents a move to ethnographic research in tourism. The aim of ethnographic approaches is to “go beyond the abstract models and frameworks of attitude-behavior connection …[and] to explore in greater detail how practices are performed and negotiated in situ ” ( Hargreaves, 2016 , p. 57).

According to Vold (2015) , nature guides choose which aspects of nature to focus on and by doing so they greatly influence how tourists understand and experience nature and tourism. However, nature-based tourism guides might also be constrained in their choices of focus because they are employed by tour companies that have certain obligations to their clientele ( Prakash et al., 2011 ).

In this paper, we investigate tourists' and guides' understandings and experiences of sustainability in nature-based adventure tourism through their performances. This work contributes to a new perspective to understanding sustainability in tourism, and especially in face-to-face relations in “real (tourism) life.” Recent tourism research has drawn on Goffmanian concepts ( Edensor, 1998 , 2000 , 2001 ; Larsen, 2010 ; Urry and Larsen, 2011 ; Jonasson and Scherle, 2012 ; Larsen and Meged, 2013 ; Williams, 2013 ) to understand the face-to-face interactions between tourists and between tourists and guides. The idea that tourists and guides manage the impressions they make on others in social situations emanates from Goffman's (1959) theory of social interaction, in particular the ideas of “frontstage” and “backstage” performances, frames, lines, face, and the interaction order. In all social situations, Goffman (1959) argues, people want to present themselves so that the “audience” perceives them to be as they wish to be perceived. Performances are designed to make a particular impression on the other people present through “patterns of verbal and non-verbal acts” that Goffman (1967 , p. 5) called “lines.” The “frontstage” concerns how people present themselves within the immediate social surroundings and how they are perceived by others in the same immediate environment.

Self-presentation, or “face” may be defined as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” ( Goffman, 1967 , p. 5). The “face” adopted by any one person depends on who the “audience” is and what the situational norms are ( Goffman, 1959 ; Jacobsen and Kristiansen, 2015 ). In the “backstage,” people relax and take off their “face-masks” of social performance ( Goffman, 1959 ; Jacobsen and Kristiansen, 2015 ). From this perspective, guided tours can be viewed as dialectical, as shaped by the interplay of performances by the guides and the guided ( Urry and Larsen, 2011 ).

The interplay of “lines” and performances operates through individual “frames” ( Goffman, 1974 ). Frames are operable within social situations, or “social frameworks” in Goffman's (1974) typology. As Persson (2019 , p. 49) explains, Goffman saw social life as social situations shared by individuals, none of whom have “fully reliable knowledge” about one another and so each individual must interact with others at the same time as seeking information about how best to interact. Individuals therefore need to quickly define the situation they are in and this definition is what Goffman called a “frame.” A frame is an “organization of experience” ( Goffman, 1974 , p. 11) and “a different scheme of interpretation for the meaning of an act” ( Goffman, 1974 , p. 231). This concept of frames “emphasized its simultaneously cognitive, social interactive, and situational aspects” ( Persson, 2019 , p. 49). By asking Goffman's question – “what is it that's going on here?” – it becomes apparent that the answer needs to be “seen in the light of its context” ( Persson, 2019 , p. 49) and so also asks the question of “what [social rule or norm] applies here?” Persson (2019 , p. 65).

Goffman's (1959 , 1967 , 1974 , 1983) research centers on what he termed the “interaction order” and the “expressive order” both of which are essential for understanding social interaction. Our collective understanding of these terms is that they are closely related but distinguished by scale. At a larger scale of social interaction, the interaction order aligns roughly with social norms but with a focus on interpersonal interaction rather than social structures or power. It is the shared understandings individuals have of acceptable behavior in particular settings, allowing them to respond to the questions “what is it OK to do here?” and “what possibilities for behavior does this setting open for me?.” Examples of behaviors in the interaction order include maintaining culturally appropriate personal space, keeping right (or left) on footpaths, sitting and quietly watching a movie in a movie theater, dancing and singing aloud in the arena of a rock concert. In these examples, individuals are in face-to-face contact but not necessarily directly interacting with one another. Our collective understanding of the expressive order, on the other hand, aligns more with manners, or the smaller scale, more detailed level of social interactions. These include the shared understandings of acceptable verbal and non-verbal communication between persons in direct face-to-face situations. The “expressive order” is “an order that regulates the flow of events, large or small, so that anything that appears to be expressed by [a person] will be consistent with his face (sic)” ( Goffman, 1967 , p. 9). As we understand it, the expressive order allows individuals to respond to the questions “how is it OK to respond to the other person/s here?” and “what possibilities for response are open to me here?.” An example of the expressive order related to our research topic would be tourists paying attention when guide is explaining the how to prepare for the day ahead (e.g., by facing the guide, making eye contact if culturally appropriate, acknowledging them by uttering “mm” or nodding one's head).

Finally, and importantly, Goffman theorized that if someone challenges or breaches the interaction order or the expressive order, intentionally or not, a corrective process begins to either re-establish the original order or negotiate a new order from the “cognitive presuppositions” shared with the others in the setting ( Goffman, 1983 , p. 5). The corrective will be one or more “face-saving” practices ( Goffman, 1967 ).

In this paper, we interpret nature-based adventure tourism as a social framework within which guides and tourists understand and respond to the interaction order and the expressive order during their encounters with one another. We approached the empirical study from a theoretical viewpoint that an individual's “cognitive presuppositions” shape their “frame” and inform their performances of sustainability while on nature-based adventure tourism trips. We continue by describing our applied methodology and our research and analytical methods, before reporting our findings.

Methodology

For this study an ethnographic approach was deemed appropriate because it “allows one to gain information on tourist action and the embodied, tacit dimensions of nature-based tourism” ( Rantala, 2011 , p. 151) and “simultaneously allow[s] the observation of social and situated practices and participation in them” ( Rantala, 2011 , p. 153). An ethnographic approach is appropriate when the aim is to capture the micro-sociology, the information “given” and “given off” ( Goffman, 1959 ; Rantala, 2011 ; Persson, 2019 ), the embodied as well as tacit practices, and the multitude of different performances that are enacted in and through social situations in nature-based adventure tourism. Our ethnographic fieldwork paid attention to how people talked, words and phrases they used, how they interacted with each other and with the environments they traveled through, where they gazed, how they embodied the landscape, what the guides emphasized or not. Rather than look for specific pre-determined verbal or non-verbal expressions, our aim was to remain open to whatever practices occurred in the field and then consider them in light of the concepts of sustainability discussed above and in the light of the national and industry sustainability focus.

In order to find out “what is it that's going on here,” we focused on tourist participants, tour guides, and the interactions between them. To do this we drew data from multiple, diverse trips offered by a nation-wide, industry-leading tourism operator. In the absence of an agreed definition of what constitutes “industry leading,” we selected one of the oldest nature-based adventure tour operators in Norway that has one of the most extensive tour catalogs. The selected operator offers trips throughout and beyond Norway and has been involved in sustainability discussions at a national level and in sustainability projects internationally. However, their website and brochures (checked during research design phase fall 2017 and immediately pre-fieldwork summer 2018) show that they do not actively market their trips as having a sustainable focus or credentials. Further, this operator could provide the best opportunities for participant observation, including as an apprentice-guide-researcher.

In this embedded single-case design ( Yin, 2014 , p. 50), guides and tourists make up the different embedded units of analysis and “the circumstances and conditions of an everyday situation” (p. 52) are those that occur on the guided nature-based adventure tours. Our decision to select a single tour company was informed by Flyvbjerg's (2001 , p. 77) conception of “critical cases” for enhancing validity. Critical cases are those that are “either “most likely” or “least likely” … to confirm or irrefutably to falsify propositions and hypotheses” ( Flyvbjerg, 2001 , p. 78). An “extreme” critical case, such as the industry-leading tour operator in this study, enabled us to “achieve the greatest possible amount of information” ( Flyvbjerg, 2001 , p. 77) on our topic, which a representative case or random selection cannot do with as much certainty.

Five different tours make up the ethnographic material. All the tours took place in Norway between summer of 2017 and spring of 2018, and in different geographical locations: one in a mountainous part of central Norway (A); one along the coast of northern Norway (B); and three in the arctic high-mountain plateau of the northernmost part of Norway (C–E). Tour A took place late summer with only international tourists. Tour B took place early autumn, also with international tourists. Tours C, D, and E took place in the winter months with mainly Norwegian and some other Scandinavian tourists (from Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland). The tours varied in duration. Tour A, C, D, and E were 4 days each, while tour B spanned 8 days. In total 24 days were spent in the field. A total of 62 tourists and six guides were part of the study.

The study was approved by and conducted according to, the ethical guidelines of the Norwegian Center for Research Data (NSD) and The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH). All participation in the study was voluntary, on the basis of anonymity, with the option of withdrawing at any time up to acceptance for publication. Participants were informed prior to, and written consent to observe all aspects of the trips, including social chats, and for post-trip interviews was obtained on the 1st day of each trip. Data was gathered through participant observation and interviews, as detailed below.

A general rule of participatory observation is that the researcher participates in the social interactions of the research context while at the same time striving not to influence those interactions significantly ( Fangen, 2010 , p. 80; Zahle, 2012 , p. 54). However, participant observers cannot totally decide their field roles in advance. Roles and the degree of participation are usually in continuous (re)negotiation throughout the fieldwork ( Spradley, 1980 ; Fangen, 2010 ; Wadel, 2014 ). Importantly, Wadel (2014) points out that roles open and close for different possibilities and associated data, and thus recommends that participant observers take on different roles so that they can study the field from a variety of perspectives.

Throughout the five tours in this study, the first author utilized various degrees of participation, involvement and observation to gather data, primarily participant observer and partially participant observer ( Bryman, 2016 , pp. 433–436; see also Spradley, 1980 ; Fangen, 2010 ; Wadel, 2014 ). In addition, on trips C and D, he was an apprentice-guide. This role gave him affordable access to the trip and the benefit of closeness to the guides' perspectives. It also provided “backstage” access to tourists' “backstage” spaces that would have been inappropriate otherwise. One of the guides' responsibilities on these trips was to check on each participant each evening to find out how well they were coping with the physical and other demands of the trip. Often, guides would be invited in to the tourists' accommodation (or invite themselves) and engage in social chat or be questioned about aspects of the trips. In this way, the field researcher gained additional access to tourists' “frames.” While working as an apprentice-guide, the first author aligned his professional frame with the lead-guide's apparent frame and reflected on this alignment in the reflective journal. The first author's opportunity to take on this dual role as both apprentice-guide and researcher gave him valuable first-hand experiences and helped deepen his understanding of the field.

The first author can be considered an insider in the field of nature-based adventure tourism through both his educational and work background. To obtain and maintain analytical distance ( Spradley, 1980 ; Fangen, 2010 ) in the various roles adopted in the field, the researcher kept a reflective journal ( Spradley, 1980 ; Saldaña, 2016 ) and used a field diary and voice recorder for field observations. He wrote the reflective journal throughout the fieldwork phase in order to become aware of any preconceptions and to increase introspectiveness ( Spradley, 1980 ). Detailed observations were recorded throughout each day and were assisted by pre-prepared descriptive questions, such as “how do tourists talk about themselves, nature, and their experiences?” “what do the guides focus on/give emphasis?,” “how do tourists behave while on tour?,” “how do guides behave while on tour?.” These questions were also condensed into laminated, pocket-sized field cards that helped the researcher stay on-task throughout the fieldwork.

Twenty-nine participants and five guides were interviewed by the field researcher between 3 and 12-months post-trip (mid 2018 to mid 2019), using a semi-structured interview guide. The average duration of interviews was 1 h and 15 min, and the interview questions began very broadly (e.g., “tell me about the trip”) and became more focused as the interview progressed. If the interviewees had not mentioned sustainability themselves, the topic was brought up by the interviewer late in the interview. Twelve of the post-trip interviews were done face-to-face, while the majority, for logistical reasons, were conducted by digital videoconference or phone. The limitations of physical distance to qualitative interviewing ( Bryman, 2016 ) were arguably offset by the fact that rapport had already been established between the interviewee and the interviewed, as they had spent many days living closely together while on tour.

Analytical Approach

Interviews were transcribed verbatim using the Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data-Analysis Software (CAQDAS) MAXQDA. We used AI-transcription software with manual checking to transcribe eight interviews. All fieldnotes were transcribed and imported to MAXQDA. MAXQDA was used to code interview transcripts and fieldnotes. The use of CAQDAS has been criticized by some for influencing and enforcing a specific method to the analytical process ( Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2019 ). However, we used CAQDAS as a “method-neutral toolbox” ( Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2019 , p. 9) that aided data organization for analysis ( Ribbs, 2014 ).

The first author performed all interviews, transcribed all interviews and fieldnotes, and coded the transcribed material. All interviews were conducted in English or Norwegian, as the interviewee preferred. All authors are fluent in English; the first and third author are native speakers of Norwegian and the second author has a working knowledge of the language. The first author coded the data in both Norwegian and English and manually translated the excerpts quoted in this paper. To avoid known pitfalls of solo-coding ( Saldaña, 2016 ; Braun and Clarke, 2019 ) and to strengthen coding validity, any coding uncertainties were discussed with the second and third author. The second and third author also read some of the interviews. The coding process started during the process of transcription with “preliminary jottings” ( Saldaña, 2016 , p. 21) and continued with an initially inductive, data driven, coding approach, through which themes were generated. Braun and Clarke (2019 , p. 592) define themes as “stories about particular patterns of shared meaning across the dataset” and “underpinned by a central organizing concept” (p. 589). For this study the “central organizing concept” was that of “sustainability performances.” Once themes were generated, the data corpus ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ) was read iteratively with definitions of sustainability. In this way, Force et al. (2018) distinction between sustainable tourism and tourism sustainability, and Salas-Zapata and Ortiz-Muñoz (2019 ) clarification of sustainability as “a set of guiding criteria for human action” (p. 155) guided rather than drove the analysis, in that they became an analytical framework for organizing the different performances of sustainability identified in the data analysis. In this sense the analytical process could be considered that of a combination of “inductive” and “theoretical thematic analysis” ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 , p. 83–84).

Results – “What is it That's Going on Here?”

In our data, we identified 11 types of sustainability performances. These are: noticing nature, desiring isolation in nature, responding to global issues, reducing pollution, supporting others' sustainability performances, minimizing environmental degradation, reflection on human/nature, connecting with nature, modeling sustainability performance, choosing tour operator, and learning about nature and culture. We also found performances not related to sustainability. While at first these results seem clear cut, they point to ambivalence and ambiguity in guides' and tourists' performances of sustainability in nature-based adventure tourism. We identify as ambivalence the low level of deliberate focus on sustainability during the trips generally and apparent randomness with which it occurs when it does. The ambiguities are one challenge and one conflict. The challenge is between sustainability performance and enjoyment, and the conflict is between sustainability performance and logistics. These are all detailed below and subsequently discussed in relation to the claims and criticisms of performativity and frames (see also Table 1 ).

www.frontiersin.org

Table 1 . Sustainability themes/performances.

Noticing Nature

Throughout each trip the tourists noticed and regularly commented on the scenery, the wildlife, the vistas, the local culture, the “lack of other people,” the quietness, the fresh air, the experience of journeying through a landscape. Nature took center stage regardless of the travel mode in the different tours. Photography was another dimension of noticing nature. The tourists photographed the landscapes they traveled through, elements of those landscapes, and nature, and themselves or others in nature. Both international and Norwegian tourists stated in their interviews that the act of taking photos, and sometimes even thinking about taking photos, made them notice nature more.

Desiring Isolation in Nature

Many of the Norwegian participants enjoyed being given time and place to just be “alone” together outside, to think about everything and nothing, to listen to their own breathing, find their own rhythm, feel and listen to the wind. Our summary of the tourist's perspective is that they want to get what they paid for: the experiences (hard earned), vistas and the solitude in nature as promised by the images in the company's brochure. On field trip A, for example, as the group traveled from the high-mountain and down to the coast, they encountered more and more people along the way until they reached a small coastal town. For one of the participants this town “was overly crowded with tourists” which they later stated was quite a shock and a negative experience for them. One of the main reasons this international tourist had come to Norway and do this particular trip was because they expected few other people there and they were disappointed to have come from the solitude of the high mountains and suddenly find themselves in a crowded tourist trap.

Reducing Pollution

When guides addressed concepts of sustainability it was related to “leave no trace” ( https://lnt.org ). How this topic was addressed varied from guide to guide. Some gave an introductory talk the first day, emphasizing that if a person needed to use a toilet while out hiking, biking, or skiing, they should do so but dispose of the toilet paper in the doggy-bags made available by the guides. All but one of the guides highlighted the importance of not leaving any trash behind, using the doggy-bags for one's own garbage as well as that of others' found along the way. They talked about what would happen if the group did not do so, typically referring to how the landscape would turn into a garbage pile if everyone visiting left even only one or two things behind.

The observation of guides addressing concepts of sustainability mainly through their focus on “leave no trace” and “take only pictures, leave nothing but footprints” is corroborated by their reflections in the post-trip interviews. Although the degree to which they themselves claim to focus on leave no trace varies between the guides, it comes across as their main way of addressing concepts of sustainability in their guiding practices. For some of the guides, the first briefing is the only time that they mention “leave no trace” and they do not enforce it rigorously during the trip.

When tourists were asked if and how they felt that their guides highlighted concepts of sustainability or environmental issues, those who could be specific mentioned the way guides emphasized “leave no trace” throughout the trip, as well as the introduction and use of “doggie-bags.” For both international and Norwegian tourists, concepts of sustainability became a matter of “leave no trace,” an experience in nature that is run in a way so that future generations can have the same experience in the same environment, and recycling.

Modeling Sustainability Performance

Some of the guides emphasized that they deliberately try to “model environmental behaviour”; that is, during briefings they would stress the need to make sure not to leave any trash behind, but they would not mention the possibility of tourists picking up trash found along the way. Instead, they would do that themselves and through that, model a behavior that made picking up trash and cleaning up nature “second nature,” something one just did. A few of the tourists mentioned how they felt that the guides “modeled behavior” through staying on the path, not littering, and picking up other people's litter along the path.

All of the guides believed they could, to some extent, influence tourists' environmental attitudes and behaviors. They acknowledged that their influence might not be lasting nor necessarily very profound, but nevertheless positive. Four of the guides believed their influence stems from modeling behavior and also from “modelling appreciation” for nature, such as by enthusiastically emphasizing the beauty of the surroundings, the taste of blueberries picked, the smell of the mountain moss. One guide, however, believed that taking part in nature-based adventure tourism trips itself is sufficient for strengthening tourists' sustainability and environmentally-friendly behaviors and attitudes. This guide favored “seeing and being” in nature as the primary influence, not what guides do or don't do. In this guide's view, “seeing and being” gives tourists a deeper appreciation of the natural world which, in turn, could lead them practice sustainability more in their everyday lives.

Thinking About Sustainability

When asked whether they felt sustainability and related themes were topics for discussion during the trip, most of the tourists gave ambiguous responses. While most did not discuss sustainability, many of them (particularly internationals) felt that sustainability was omnipresent on the trip, mainly in the form of “leave no trace.” At the same time, most of the tourists claimed to be environmentally conscious and that issues related to sustainability and environmental topics both concerned and, in many cases, affected them in their daily life. When asked to exemplify, most of them mentioned a general concern about issues such as over-use of landscape and that they “do their part – I/we recycle.”

The international tourists were more specific about how their understanding of sustainability influenced their everyday life (e.g., they engaged in the public discourse on sustainability in their local communities) and how it influenced them as tourists (e.g., by paying a carbon tax for air travel).

Supporting Others' Sustainability Performances

Not leaving any trash behind had some consequences for the guides. More than once on the skiing trips one or more of the tourists lost paper-wrappings in the wind. Each time, someone in the group would yell and make everyone aware of what was happening, and a guide would sprint off to catch the trash. When successful they were greeted with applause and loud compliments by some tourists. Other tourists' gestures – shrugged shoulders and facial experiences – and muttering indicated that they thought those applauding was making a big deal out of something unimportant.

Minimizing Environmental Degradation

During late summer and fall hiking trips, the guides emphasized the need to stay ‘on-trail’. They explained that if everyone walked outside the path they would contribute to erosion and possibly to establishing new, unnecessary paths that contribute to environmental degradation.

Reflection on Human/Nature

At one point during a trip, while on a scenic saddle overlooking a large, deserted beach with cliff-faces towering several hundred metres into the air, one of the guides instructed the tourists to sit down in solitude and take in the vista, the landscape, the smells, and the sounds. He encouraged them to do so for ~5 min without engaging with the others. All of the tourists except one complied with guide's instructions; one person walked around taking photos instead. The guide later said that he believed facilitating “sit-downs” and solitude reflections potentially could enhance the nature-experience for the participants and that taking in the beauty of the scenery could have a positive impact in terms of valuing the preciousness of the landscape and consequently its need to be preserved. He linked this “sit-down” with a talk he had planned later that same day addressing the issue of plastic pollution in the ocean and in general. This was the only time during the five different fieldtrips that the field researcher observed any of the guides deliberately facilitating such activities. After the “sit-down,” the guide invited the tourists to find their own path down to the beach below and to meet up by the shore at a given time for lunch. This gave the tourists opportunities to connect with nature on their own terms.

Choosing Tour Operator

Most of the tourists acknowledged that sustainability is not of major importance when they choose a tour operator and destination. It was important for a few of the international tourists. For these people, sustainability was understood broadly, encompassing environmental, social and economic aspects.

Learning About Nature and Culture

Compared to the Norwegian tourists, the international tourists were keen to learn as much as they could about the country and landscape. These tourists depend on the guides' local knowledge in order to get the experience they expect. The guides notice this difference between types of tourists. One informant, an apprentice guide fresh from training, observed that most international tourists are about “seeing it,” while some are also into “being there” which he thought was a deeper and better way of experiencing a landscape or destination. By contrast, this guide felt that Norwegian tourists on the same trips are more about “being” on the trip, or in a Norwegian sensibility, “doing” friluftsliv: doing, seeing and experiencing things together with friends.

The more experienced guides echoed this view and added that as guides they have to deal with the two groups differently. Some of the guides were explicit that it was much “easier” to work with international tourists because they are generally more enthusiastic about the planned trip and related activities, including learning about new culture, nature, landscape, and traditions. The guides felt international tourists generally asked more questions. However, the guides offered relatively few opportunities for tourists to learn about the local environment and culture. There was occasional storytelling by the guides, but storying the landscape in terms of history, geography, geology, biology, or culture was not a central part of the guides performances. Rather, their focus was on gazing upon the landscape and traveling through it for enjoyment.

What became evident in interviews with the tourists was that their acceptance of the guides' focus varied greatly among them. Some would not mind more emphasis on history, culture and landscape and some were quite happy with the status quo. A third group wanted as little input from the guides as possible, because they preferred to see the landscape for themselves and experience the trip as described by the tour company.

Responding to Global Issues

As stated above, when sustainability was brought up in discussion, it was mostly by one or other of the international tourists. Often, it would be as a specific question of the guide or researcher, such as “how is Norway affected by climate change?,” or “do Norwegians think about their carbon-footprint?”

Global issues relating to climate change concerned several of the international tourists who acknowledged the dilemma of wanting to travel to pristine destinations while knowing that doing so would leave a significant carbon footprint. Some of these people stated that they had recently put planned travel on hold because they did not feel comfortable about the carbon-footprint required to get to the desired destination. In a similar way, some of the international tourists expressed concern about travel that they thought would contribute to (over)populating the chosen destinations; this concern had led, in a few cases, to decisions to drop their plans all together due to the number of other tourists expected to be at the same destination.

The Norwegian tourists, too, were conscious of the carbon-footprint of flying to destinations, but as a group they were less clear about how they understood sustainability and most of them acknowledged that it was not a major factor in their decisions and practices.

Not Sustainability

While we did find performances of sustainability in our data, sustainability was not a major focus for the tourists. What does appear to be in the foreground for both the international and the Norwegian tourists are the experiences they are taking part in at the moment, the experiences that are to come in the near future (later that day, or the next day), and how these experiences are felt. After a long day out hiking, biking or skiing, the tourists' focus was on re-living the day's experiences and sharing feelings and thoughts about them. In these discussions, only sometimes initiated and led by the guides, the vantagepoint of experience was “the self.”

We found the same low attention to sustainability among the guides. In the main, they do not emphasize it as a topic of interest or concern in their briefings, nor during the more leisurely talks and discussions with their tourists. Overall, the guides' main focus seemed to be on practical information regarding the immediate needs for the day's journey. In particular, when briefing and talking with international tourists, the guides focused on providing detailed information about technicalities of the forthcoming activities, such as the quality of the path (gravel, loose rock etc.), altitude gain/loss, distance to be covered, safety concerns and how to deal with them, expected pace, when and where to eat the bagged lunch, how to dress, what to have in the backpack in terms of spare clothing and other accessories, what they could expect to see during the day, and why this experience would be worthwhile. When engaging with Nordic tourists, the guides provided the same type of information but with less detail, as if they expected the Nordic tourists to be more familiar with the weather, equipment and environment.

Although the five different trips took place in different landscapes, at different times of the year, using different adventure activities, the way the tour days were organized was very similar. Each day began with a shared breakfast usually followed by a short and practically-oriented briefing about what was ahead, then some time to pack personal gear, and meet at a designated location at about 9 a.m. The activity of the day usually lasted around 8–10 hours and ended with supper at around 7 p.m. Each day's journey had a similar pattern: hiking, biking, or skiing for 50 minutes, usually in single file, before a 10-minutes break. This routine would continue throughout the day, until the group reached the planned destination, and it created a conflict for the guides. Addressing the group as a whole while hiking, biking, or skiing was a demanding and difficult exercise for the guides because they were left with 10 in every 50 minutes as their “window of operation.” In this time, they had to monitor the group and individual well-being, attend to issues such as broken equipment, adjusting backpacks or skis, taping up blisters, and make sure that they engaged in at least one conversation with each participant each day. Several of the guides emphasized in their interview that they were reluctant to overtly interrupt the breaks with information about landscape, culture, history, or sustainability, because they wanted to allow individual participants to make use of the break as each saw fit.

Further, the guides felt challenged to tread a fine line between enhancing the tourist experience while at the same time not appearing to “have an agenda” or creating a “situation” that the tourists had not signed up and paid for. Many of the respondents also said that an outspoken sustainability and environmental focus from the guides could easily be interpreted as moralizing, which they were neither interested in nor positive toward. Several of the guides stated in various ways, both during the trip and in post-trip interviews, that their primary task was to make sure the tourists had a good time on their vacation. In fact, the guides stressed the view that the tourists were on vacation, implying that being on vacation imposed some guidelines in terms of a guide's behavior.

We set out to investigate if and how tourists and guides understand, operationalize, practice, and embody deeper nature-relatedness, active environmental and cultural protection, and relationship to the global collective. We found that performances of sustainability are not a major component of guides' and tourists' performances while on tour. Of the sustainability performances that we did find, the guides and tourists practiced and embodied nature-relatedness at both shallow (everyone noticing nature) and deeper (some tourists seeking isolation and reflecting on human/nature) levels. They expressed a limited range of environmental protection actions (reducing pollution by picking up garbage, minimizing environmental degradation by staying on tracks) and international tourists expressed interest in local culture which is one aspect of motivation for cultural protection ( Calver and Page, 2013 ; Richards, 2018 ). Further, we found that international tourists and, to a lesser extent Norwegian tourist, expressed interest in global issues (mainly carbon footprint), which is arguably a signal of positive relationship to the global collective. In addition to these types of sustainability, a few tourists chose the tour operator with sustainability in mind, however our data does not indicate which aspects of sustainability informed those choices. Finally, tourists and guides expressed an over-arching thoughtfulness on sustainability: they all thought about it, some guides modeled it, and tourists supported the guides' modeling. However, these mainly cognitive actions did not apparently lead to additional expressions of sustainability by the tourists.

We understand the variability in expressions of sustainability through a Goffmanian lens of four distinct clusters of frames: one cluster is made up from the Norwegian tourists; another from the international tourists; a third from most of the guides; and the fourth from one particular guide. Goffman's ideas of “going about” normal life and “being alert” to threats and changes are useful for describing these frames. In the Norwegian tourist frame, going about nature-based adventure tourism means performing friluftsliv while being guided, connecting with nature individually, and not being disturbed (threatened) by issues beyond the immediate enjoyment of activity and environment. By contrast, the international tourist frame seeks out the challenge of difference (e.g., curiosity about Norwegian culture and history) and environmental threat (e.g., climate change) while also enjoying the immediate activity and environment. Most of the guides shared a frame that fits/matches that of the Norwegian tourists: a “normal” guide allows tourists to go about their tourism without being alarmed by the intrusion of overt sustainability performances by the guides. The fourth evident frame was that of a single guide who considered nature-based adventure tourism to normally involve challenging tourists' perceptions of sustainability. Clearly, these four frames are not all, always, compatible, which suggests that the guides and tourists reached a common expressive order for the trips. This consensus revolved around enjoyment, as we now discuss.

Sustainability Performances vs. Enjoyment

Through both interviews and comments made during the different tours, it is evident that a primary aspect of the guides' frame is prioritizing tourist enjoyment within the scope of the planned trip. Enjoyment is central to the interaction order of these situations. The guides express a high degree of awareness of the fact that the tourists have paid to get a certain product. The product is defined in terms of sites to see, places to visit, adventure activities to do, and more generally when, what and how the different aspects of the trip are supposed to take place. These details are stated in the written “contract” - detailed information about the content of the given tour - on the tour operator's website that tourists access before the trip. This “contract,” then, is the tour company's frame for the particular trip: it provides the “social information” ( Goffman, 1967 ) that helps tourists and guides to understand “what sort of situation [this is]” and, consequently, what sort of performances are expected of them. The “contract” tells tourists what they can expect to happen and to experience. It tells guides what they have to deliver. Through both interviews and field conversations it is clear that the guides see their work as contractual and that they feel obliged to deliver a “product” as close to the “contract” as possible. In Goffman's (1959) terms, they conform to the “interaction order” and in doing so they prioritize enjoyment over sustainability. Their emphasis is on facilitating a relaxed, friendly and positive social atmosphere within the group and making sure that the tourists have a good time and enjoy themselves. It is only if and when tourists express enjoyment of deeper sustainability that the guides respond. Thus, it is the tourists who must first challenge the interaction order; the guides follow tourists in opening up for deeper sustainability. Larsen and Meged (2013 , p. 101) argue that it is tourist's “participatory and attentive tactics” that turn guided tours into co-created performances. Larsen and Meged (2013 , p. 101) also found that “guides rely on the energy from interactions and participants which is why the guiding is equally affected when the tourists log off.” A possible explanation to why the “interaction order” seems to stay fairly fixed on enjoyment in the tours we observed, could be that the guides are sensitive to tourist “logging off” if addressing or emphasizing deeper sustainability performances when not initiated by the tourists themselves.

As noted in the results, we did identify one performance by one guide that might have challenged the tourist's perceptions of sustainability and thus also the “interaction order.” This was the invitation to sit and reflect, then to find one's own way to the beach and take some time there. As this episode took place on a trip with international tourists, it is pertinent to ask whether guides use different frames depending on what type of tourist groups they guide, whether international tourists tend to challenge the interaction order more, and if so, how these challenges are resolved. These questions will be the focus of a future article.

A primary focus on enjoyment, however, does not preclude other foci, less central to the frame. For some guides, a focus on sustainability was possible as long as it didn't interfere with enjoyment. In the next section we discuss susceptibilities that produce potential for more, or deeper, sustainability.

Susceptibility to Sustainability

Some of the guides expressed that their understanding (or frame) of the trip and, therefore, their potential scope of action, differed based on the type and length of the trip they were guiding. One guide mentioned that trips longer than 2 weeks provided more opportunities to address a broader range of topics because there is more time to interact with individual tourists. While no such trips were the subject of this study, the guide's comments throw light on a way that guides can manage social interaction for particular effects. This guide explained that:

“. in the end you deliver a product that someone has paid for. so you need to know your group … Some are very susceptible for discussions and new ways of thinking, others find it annoying … So I don't push [sustainability issues/practices] so much, but do more sort of systematic brainwashing [laughs out loud]. because you spend quite a lot of time with the tourists, and then you can lead them, in the direction that you would like to see them end up … And that is not something you do the first day. It takes time.”

Following Goffman (1974) , one explanation for this guide's comments is that guides can have multiple backstage topics that they intend to emphasize throughout the trip and which, through planned performances, can gradually become front-staged, possibly without the tourists noticing the shift. In other words, sustainability could be an aspect of the guide's frame for the trip from the outset, but he or she keeps it “backstage” ( Goffman, 1959 ) until they feel that the tourists are ready (“susceptible”) for it. By back-staging sustainability, this guide managed the impression of himself so that his “front-stage” ( Goffman, 1959 ) performance matched his perception of tourist interest in sustainability, and this saved the tourists' “face” rather than creating an uncomfortable or embarrassing situation. However, this explanation fails to address how tourists become more interested in the guide's prepared topics. If this static view of frames is adopted, the question of how tourist frames can be made more susceptible to sustainability remains open. It also calls into question how the guides ascertain tourist susceptibility.

Taking into consideration the guides' educational backgrounds, it could be that this guide did actually have a deliberate educational program in mind in his “backstaging-to-frontstaging” of sustainability. In fact, five out of the six guides in this study have attended nature guide-related educational programs at university level in Norway. Andersen and Rolland (2018) argue that nature guides educated in friluftsliv (as is the norm in nature-based higher education courses in Norway) can “add value by enhancing participant's experiences and adding more learning to the experience. The learning relates to skills and techniques … and connecting the participants more closely with nature” (p. 1). However, Weiler and Kim (2011) argue that because tour guides, in general, have limited exposure to or experience with “theory, tools, and techniques for optimizing the visitor experience and visitor-environment interaction within a sustainability framework” they might not be “fully realizing their potential to communicate and role-model sustainability in their tour content and practice” (p. 113). In our view, there is merit in asking if the guide education programs in Norway do provide the necessary “theory, tools, and techniques” required for framing sustainability in their professional roles.

Goffman (1967) highlights the importance of the communication process in “the nature of the ritual order” (p. 42). It is the communication process that takes place between the guides and the tourists that is important for explaining “what it is that's going on” and according to Goffman this is largely due to feelings. Feelings are “vulnerable not to facts and things but to communications” and “[c]ommunications … can be by-passed, withdrawn from, disbelieved, conveniently misunderstood, and tactfully conveyed” ( Goffman, 1967 , p. 43). The trust that the guides build through their individual way of communicating with the tourists creates the potential scope for action to discuss sustainability. If the communication between the parties involved is not open and trusting, the possibility of maintaining an expressive order is made more difficult. The longer a trip lasts, the better everyone gets to know each other, which then gives room to expand the repertoire of what it is acceptable to talk about.

In our study, most tourists framed the trips in non-sustainability ways, as did most guides. However, occasionally guides were prompted by tourists to focus on a deeper sustainability at least with regard to learning about environment and culture, or when they received positive feedback from the tourists such as when they were applauded for retrieving trash. At those times, the guides at least attempted to respond in a deeper sustainability way themselves. Conversely, when the tourists were invited to deepen their relationship with nature by taking a “sit-down and reflect,” their framing of the trip might have shifted or widened to encompass a (slightly) deeper focus on sustainability. None of them reported that it did, however. One possible reason could be that, as all the tourists on this particular trip were non-Nordic and well-experienced in nature-based adventure tourism, they might have already reached a deep-enough level of sustainability practice that such reflection is normal and not note-worthy. If so, this particular trip could be considered similar to many eco-tourism trips which have been challenged for “preaching to the converted” rather than increasing the public's exposure to deeper sustainability experiences ( Beaumont, 1991 ).

Several of the guides found Norwegian tourists in Norway to be less interested in learning from the tour and more critical toward the guide. This difference apparently has an effect on both how the guides perform their guiding, and the guides scope of action. With Norwegian tourists, the guides often felt the need to prove their competence while at the same time sensing that many of the Norwegian tourists felt they did not actually need a guide. Also, working with the less enthusiastic (Norwegian) tourists affected how the guides behaved and their guiding style. It seems that working with a group with the same cultural background poses some challenges for the guides in terms of what to focus on in their guiding practice. This possibility is worth further investigation for its impact on the sustainability potential of domestic nature-based adventure tourism.

The Complication of Tour-Logistics

We turn now to consider guides' framing and its relationship to the tour company. Weiler and Black's (2015) observation that tour companies can leave guides little power to perform sustainability on any given tour is pertinent to this discussion. In our study, the way the tours were organized left little time for performing sustainability that was not already framed by company.

The tour logistics emphasized: (1) the adventure activity itself (hiking, biking, skiing), (2) gazing ( Urry, 1990 ) upon the landscape, and (3) journeying through the landscape. The tour logistics, in our interpretation, are framed as getting the tourists from point A to point B. Performing nature-based adventure tourism seems to mean giving the tourists what they had paid for. The different sustainability performances we did observe mostly took place during the adventure activities, not as planned nor pre formed performances linked to the company's programme, but rather as spontaneous performances that took place in situ . Only on a few occasions did we observe the guides choosing to facilitate sustainability. In our study, then, sustainability was inspired mainly by the responses of tourists and guides to their immediate experiences of the adventure activities, within particular settings. Sustainability actions and practices were not emphasized strongly in the orchestration of tour logistics.

The tour company involved in this study did not “frame” sustainability as part of the experience of the trips. That we found sustainability performances in our data suggests that tourists are “ready” for “light” sustainability at least. Arguably, this company and others would not damage their reputations by promoting the level of sustainability that tourists will happily accept. By framing sustainability into the experiences, tour companies would also be opening up possibilities for guides to frame their work for deeper sustainability.

Conclusions

This study has shown that sustainability, as we understand it, did occur at the micro-level of the nature-based adventure tourism experiences we studied in Norway, albeit as a minor theme in guides' and tourists' framing of trips. The sustainability performances we found mainly sprang from spontaneous responses by tourists and guides to experiences of adventure activities in particular natural settings. We have shown that sustainability performances can be ambiguous, complex and contingent upon the interplay of guides' and tourists' frames.

Nature-based adventure tourism companies appear to be key agents in the framing of trips by both guides and tourists. There appears to be potential for deeper sustainability to be expressed on guided trips if companies allow it. The implications for promotional messaging and expectation-setting through pre-trip interactions with tourists are worthy of further investigation. Similarly, there are implications for guide training and for the knowledge and skills demanded by nature-based adventure tourism companies of their guides.

Deeper sustainability might be found more readily in situations of “foreignness” or difference, such as among international tourists. This possibility needs further exploration. If susceptibility to sustainability is greater in “foreign” contexts, how can the tourism industry respond? This question seems especially pertinent in the current relatively closed global context and in the prospect of international travel in the foreseeable future being limited by cost and pandemic controls.

While not generalizable to other settings, our findings demonstrate that sustainability in tourism can be empirically studied by taking a performative ethnographic approach in field work. Further studies in a wider variety of settings, and especially longer trips, could potentially tease out some of the ambiguities and complexities we have noted. Study designs that access tour operators', guides' and tourists' perceptions of one another's frames would shed additional light on the ways in which these actors influence one another's sustainability understandings and actions. Finally, studies that access guides' and tourists' longer-term reflections on trips might also bring to light important aspects of trip dynamics on sustainability in their everyday lives.

This paper presents a study of how sustainability is operationalized in a nature-based adventure tourism setting. The study is novel in its method, empirical data, and Norwegian setting. The results are relevant to the national as well as the international tourism industry.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author Contributions

ARo, PL, and ARa contributed to the research idea and design of the study. ARo conducted the fieldwork and data analysis under supervision of the other authors. ARo wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Andersen, S., and Rolland, C. G. (2018). Educated in friluftsliv – working in tourism: A study exploring principles of friluftsliv in nature guiding. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 18, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2018.1522727

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ardoin, N. M., Wheaton, M., Bowers, A. W., Hunt, C. A., and Durham, W. H. (2015). Nature-based tourism's impact on environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: a review and analysis of the literature and potential future research. J. Sustain. Tour. 23, 838–858. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1024258

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., and Falk, J. (2010). Visitors' learning for environmental sustainability: testing short- and long-term impacts of wildlife tourism experiences using structural equation modelling. Tour. Manage . 32, 1243–1252. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2010.11.003

Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., and Hughes, K. (2009). Tourists' support for conservation messages and sustainable management practices in wildlife tourism experiences. Tour. Manage . 30, 658–664. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.11.003

Beams, S., Mackie, C., and Atencio, M. (2019). Adventure and Society . Cham: Palgrave Macmillian. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-96062-3

Beaumont, N. (1991). Ecotourism and the conservation ethic: recruiting the uninitiated or preaching to the converted? J. Sustain. Tour . 9, 317–341. doi: 10.1080/09669580108667405

Benckendorff, P., and Zehrer, A. (2013). A network analysis of tourism research. Ann. Tour. Res . 43, 121–149. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2013.04.005

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol . 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual. Res. Sport Exer. Health 11, 589–597. doi: 10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods, 5th Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Buckley, R. (2006). Adventure Tourism . Wallingford: Cabi. doi: 10.1079/9781845931223.0000

Buckley, R. (2010). Adventure Tourism Management . Oxford: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781856178358

Calver, S. J., and Page, S. J. (2013). Enlightened hedonism: exploring the relationship of service value, visitor knowledge and interest, to visitor enjoyment at heritage attractions. Tour. Manage . 39, 23–36. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.03.008

Cohen, E., and Cohen, S. A. (2012). Current sociological theories and issues in tourism. Ann. Tour. Res . 39, 2177–2202. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2012.07.009

Collado, J., Rodríguez del Bosque, I., San Martín, H., and del Mar García de los Salmones, M. (2009). A framework for tourist expectations. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res . 3, 139–147. doi: 10.1108/17506180910962140

Cultural Heritage Act (1978). Act concerning the cultural heritage (LOV-2005-06-17-84) . Available online at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NLE/lov/1978-06-09-50 (accessed February 24, 2021).

Durie, M. (2008). “Cultural preservation and protection,” in Encyclopedia of Public Health , ed W. Kirch (Dordrecht: Springer). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5614-7_634

Edensor, T. (1998). Tourists at the Taj: Performance and Meaning at a Symbolic Site . London: Routledge.

Edensor, T. (2000). Staging tourism: tourists as performers. Ann. Tour. Res . 27, 322–344. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00082-1

Edensor, T. (2001). Performing tourism, staging tourism. (Re)producing tourist space and practice. Tour. Stud . 1, 59–81. doi: 10.1177/146879760100100104

Fangen, K. (2010). Deltagende Observasjon, 2 Edn . Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511810503

Force, A., Manuel-Navarrete, D., and Benessaiah, K. (2018). Tourism and transitions toward sustainability: developing tourists' pro-sustainability agency. Sustain. Sci . 13, 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s11625-017-0448-y

Fredman, P., and Haukeland, J. V. (2017). Forskning for morgendagens reiseliv. Praktisk økonomi finans 33, 233–236. doi: 10.18261/issn.1504-2871-2017-02-07

Fredman, P., Stenseke, M., and Sandell, K. (2014). Friluftsliv i förandring. Studier från svenska upplevelselandskap . Stockholm: Carlsson Bokförlag.

Fredman, P., and Tyrväinen, L. (2010). Frontiers in nature-based tourism. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 10, 177–189. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2010.502365

Fredman, P., Wall Reinius, S., and Lundberg, C. (2009). Turism i natur. Definitioner, omfattning, statistik. Turismforskningsinstitutet ETOUR, Mittuniversitetet, Rapport R2009:23, Østersund.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life . London: Penguin Books.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior . New York, NY: Phanteon Books.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience . New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. Am. Sociol. Rev . 48, 1–17. doi: 10.2307/2095141

Gurholt, K. P. (2014). Joy of nature, education and self: combining narrative and cultural–ecological approaches to environmental sustainability. J. Adven. Educ. Outdoor Learn . 14, 233–246. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2014.948802

Haldrup, M., and Larsen, J. (2010). Tourism, Performance and the Everyday: Consuming the Orient . Oxon: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203873939

Hansen, A. H., and Mossberg, L. (2017). Tour guides' performance and tourists' immersion: facilitating consumer immersion by performing a guide plus role. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 17, 259–278. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2016.1162347

Hargreaves, T. (2016). Interacting for the environment: engaging goffman in pro-environmental action. Soc. Nat. Resour . 29, 53–67. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1054978

Harwood, S., and El-Manstrly, D. (2012). The Performativity Turn in Tourism. University of Edinburgh Business School Working Paper Series, Vol. 12/05, University of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh, UK.

Jacobsen, M. H., and Kristiansen, S. (2015). The Social Thought of Erving Goffman . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781483381725

CrossRef Full Text

Jonasson, M., Hallin, A., and Smith, P. (2013). Editorial. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 13, 85–87. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2013.796198

Jonasson, M., and Scherle, N. (2012). Performing co-produced guided tours. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 12, 55–73. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2012.655078

Jonasson, M., and Smith, P. (2017). Editorial. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 17, 331–332. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2017.1330843

Kuckartz, U., and Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA. Text, Audio, and Video . Cham: Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8

Larsen, J. (2010). “Goffman and the tourist gaze: a performative perspective on tourism mobilities,” in The Contemporary Goffman , ed M. H. Jacobsen (New York, NY: Routledge), 313–332.

Larsen, J., and Meged, J. W. (2013). Tourists co-producing guided tours. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 13, 88–102. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2013.796227

Mihalic, T. (2006). “Nature-based products, ecotourism and adventure tourism,” in Tourism Business Frontiers , eds D. Buhalis and C. Costa (Oxford: Elsevier), 111–117. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-7506-6377-9.50020-1

Ministry of Trade I. A. F. (2017). Experiencing Norway – a unique adventure [White paper] . Available online at: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/95efed8d5f0442288fd430f54ba244be/no/pdfs/stm201620170019000dddpdfs.pdf (accessed January 22, 2021).

NHO (2017). Mot et bærekraftig reiseliv. Veikart fra reiselivsnæringen . Available online at: https://www.nhoreiseliv.no/contentassets/b8ac6752ac3f463ebcc8ebb357121b07/veikart-barekraft.pdf (accessed February 15, 2021).

Nisbet, E. K. (2021). Nature Relatedness Research . Available online at: https://www.naturerelatedness.ca/what-is-nature-relatedness (accessed March 05, 2021).

Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., and Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ. Behav. 41, 715–740. doi: 10.1177/0013916508318748

Odden, A. (2008). Hva skjer med norsk friluftsliv?: En studie av utviklingstrekk i norsk friluftsliv 1970-2004. Doctoral dissertation. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.

OECD. (2003). Environmental Protection . Available online at: https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=836 (accessed March 09, 2021).

Pedersen Gurholt, K. (2008). Norwegian friluftsliv and ideals of becoming an ‘educated man’. J. Advent. Educ. Outdoor Learn. 8, 55–70. doi: 10.1080/14729670802097619

Pereira, E. M., and Mykletun, R. J. (2012). Guides as contributors to sustainable tourism? a case study from the Amazon. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 12, 74–94. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2012.663558

Persson, A. (2019). Framing Social Interaction. Continuities and Cracks in Goffman's Frame Analysis . New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315582931

Powell, R. B., and Ham, S. H. (2008). Can ecotourism interpretation really lead to pro-conservation knowledge, attitudes and behaviour? evidence from the Galapagos Islands. J. Sustain. Tour . 16, 467–489. doi: 10.1080/09669580802154223

Prakash, M., Chowdhary, N., and Sunayana. (2011). Tour guiding: interpreting the challenges. Tourismos 6, 65–81. Available online at: http://www.chios.aegean.gr/tourism/VOLUME_6_No2_art04.pdf

Randall, C., and Rollins, R. B. (2009). Visitor perceptions of the role of tour guides in natural areas. J. Sustain. Tour . 17, 357–374. doi: 10.1080/09669580802159727

Rantala, O. (2011). An ethnographic approach to nature-based tourism. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 11, 150–165. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2011.576829

Ribbs, G. (2014). “Using software in qualitative analysis,” in Qualitative Data Analysis , ed U. Flick (New York, NY: SAGE Publications), 277–294.

Richards, G. (2018). Cultural tourism: a review of recent research and trends. J. Hosp. Tour. Manage . 36, 12–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.03.005

Rokenes, A., Schumann, S., and Rose, J. (2015). The art of guiding in nature-based adventure tourism – how guides can create client value and positive experiences on mountain bike and backcountry ski tours. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 15, 62–82. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2015.1061733

Salas-Zapata, W. A., and Ortiz-Muñoz, S. M. (2019). Analysis of meanings of the concept of sustainability. Sustain. Dev . 27, 153–161. doi: 10.1002/sd.1885

Saldaña, J. (2006). This is not a performance text. Qual. Inq .12, 1091–1098. doi: 10.1177/1077800406293239

Saldaña, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 3rd Edn . New York, NY: SAGE Publications.

Sandell, K. (2003). Begreppet friluftsliv - som en trebent pall. Argaladei: Friluftsliv - en livsstil 1, 10–11. Available online at: http://www.argaladei.nu/gamla/index.html%3Fsida=tidskrift_arkiv_2003-1a.html (accessed February 26, 2021).

Sandler, T. (2010). Global Collective Action . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skinner, J., and Theodossopoulos, D. (2011). “Introduction: the play of expectations in tourism,” in Great Expectations. Imagination and Anticipation in Tourism , eds J. Skinner and D. Theodossopoulos (Brooklyn NY: Berghahn Books), 1–26.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation . Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

United Nations (n.d.). Sustainable Tourism . Available online at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabletourism (accessed May 24, 2021).

Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze . California: Sage Publications.

Urry, J., and Larsen, J. (2011). The tourist gaze 3.0 . New York, NY: Sage Publications Limited. doi: 10.4135/9781446251904

Vold, T. (2015). ≪ Venner på tur≫. Naturguiding som relasjonell kunnskap . Doctoral dissertation. The Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo.

Wadel, C. (2014). Feltarbeid i egen kultur . Oslo: Cappelen Damm.

Weiler, B., and Black, R. (2015). Tour Guiding Research. Insights, Issues and Implications. Bristol: Channel View Publications. doi: 10.21832/9781845414696

Weiler, B., and Kim, A. K. (2011). Tour guides as agents of sustainability: rhetoric, reality and implications for research. Tour. Recreat. Res . 36, 113–125. doi: 10.1080/02508281.2011.11081313

Williams, P. (2013). Performing interpretation. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 13, 115–126. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2013.796228

Winter, P. L., Selin, S., Cerveny, L., and Bricker, K. (2020). Outdoor recreation, nature-based tourism, and sustainability. Sustainability 12:81. doi: 10.3390/su12010081

Witoszek, N. (1998). Norske naturmytologier. Fra Edda til økofilosofi. Pax Forlag A/S.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research. Design and Methods, 5th Edn . New York, NY: SAGE Publications.

Zahle, J. (2012). Practical knowledge and participant observation. Inquiry 55, 50–65. doi: 10.1080/0020174X.2012.643626

Zeppel, H., and Muloin, S. (2008). Conservation benefits of interpretation on marine wildlife tours. Human Dimens. Wildlife 13, 280–294. doi: 10.1080/10871200802187105

Zillinger, M., Jonasson, M., and Adolfsson, P. (2012). Guided tours and tourism. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour . 12, 1–7. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2012.660314

Keywords: sustainability, adventure tourism, nature, environment, ethnography, dramaturgy, performance

Citation: Rosenberg A, Lynch PM and Radmann A (2021) Sustainability Comes to Life. Nature-Based Adventure Tourism in Norway. Front. Sports Act. Living 3:686459. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2021.686459

Received: 26 March 2021; Accepted: 07 May 2021; Published: 11 June 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Rosenberg, Lynch and Radmann. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Axel Rosenberg, axelr@nih.no

This article is part of the Research Topic

Environmental Sustainability in Sports, Physical Activity and Education, and Outdoor Life

Tourism Teacher

What is nature tourism and why is it so popular?

Disclaimer: Some posts on Tourism Teacher may contain affiliate links. If you appreciate this content, you can show your support by making a purchase through these links or by buying me a coffee . Thank you for your support!

Nature tourism is a fantastic type of tourism and it is on the rise! But what is it and why is it so popular? Read on to learn more…

What is nature tourism?

Why is nature tourism important, what is the difference between nature tourism and ecotourism, types of nature tourism, bird watching, scuba diving, scenic driving, bush walking, visiting parks, fishing , cycling , nature tours, nature tourism- further reading.

nature based adventure tourism

Nature tourism is all about visiting natural areas and is closed aligned with the concept of rural tourism . Places that nature tourists might visit include might include beaches, forests or national parks. Activities focus on the natural environment rather than visiting man-mad features; think stargazing and hiking, for example. There are locations right across the globe which are perfect for nature tourism.

The CBI (Centre for the Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries) in the Netherlands define nature tourism as follows:

Nature tourism, also called nature-based tourism, is tourism based on the natural attractions of an area. It consists of responsible travel to experience natural areas and their landscape, flora and fauna, protecting the environment and improving the quality of life of locals.

Nature tourism is important as it allows people to see and appreciate the beauty of our natural environment. Through this kind of tourism, we are able to escape the pollution and pressures of city life – it is good for our physical and mental wellbeing to be out in nature, breathing in fresh air and seeing lush greenery or sparkly blue seas. Nature tourism also encourages visitors to take an interest in the natural environment, which may then translate to them making a more conscious effort where environmental issues are concerned. With climate change being an ever-present and ongoing issue, this is definitely a good thing.

Following on from this, nature tourism gives land owners, local communities and local governments more reason to preserve and take care of natural areas. If they know people will come to visit, it is in their best interest to look after these places and is a great incentive for developing their sustainable tourism provision. Visiting tourists can do wonders for local community pride this way.

As with all tourism, nature tourism brings in money . This economic boost trickles down through a whole community; people need places to stay, and food to eat, and they want to buy souvenirs. Hikers may need to buy replacement walking boots, and weary explorers will always need somewhere to rest their heads at night. Jobs are created and economies are boosted through natural tourism, in the surrounding areas of the specific locations too.

Is nature tourism different from ecotourism? Put simply, yes. They are very similar, but ecotourism is perhaps a more specialised branch of nature tourism if we were looking to clearly define the difference in some way. Nature tourism is about visiting an area – responsibly, yes – rather than actively aiming to learn about the environment and participating in its protection. A nature tourist might visit a beach and admire its beauty, while an ecotourist might join in with a beach clean-up. The lines are blurred, of course, as they so often are when we try to differentiate between types of tourism .

nature based adventure tourism

There are different types of nature tourism. This is where we will see similarities with another kind of tourism: adventure tourism. You can read all about adventure tourism here if you’re interested! However, the similarity is that both can be split into two ‘types’: hard and soft.

Soft nature tourism might involve bird watching, visiting a beach to sunbathe, gentle walks through country parks and so on. Hard nature tourism is a bit more tough going: mountain climbing, bush walking and scuba diving, for example. Below I’ll go into some of these specific examples, so you can see how diverse nature tourism is!

Nature tourism examples

There are many examples of nature tourism to be found. Keep reading to see what they are, and whether they fall into the hard or soft category.

Bird watching is an example of soft nature tourism. People of all ages and abilities can do this, with or without a guide. You just need some background knowledge of bird species (or a book explaining them) and perhaps some binoculars. the Gambia is a hotspot for bird watching!

This is more of an example of hard nature tourism. It’s much more adventurous, and requires specialist equipment and a guide or a lot of training/experience. Head under the water to see what kind of nature is on display down there: coral, fish, shells and so much more. It’s subjective, but Barracuda Point in Malaysia is apparently the most beautiful place in the world to scuba dive… and I am a big fan of diving in Dahab , Egypt too!

This is another ‘soft’ activity in that it is low-risk and doesn’t require physical exertion. The North Coast 500 in Scotland is an example of a famous scenic drive – this is a great way to experience nature. From rolling hills to winding rivers, there is so much to see out of the window from the comfort of your car. Another fantastic example is the Kings Highway in Jordan , where you will see endless desert, canyons and incredible rock formations.

Camping is, again, an example of soft nature tourism. While it’s a little more ‘involved’ than scenic driving, for example, it is still relatively low risk and most of us are able to participate. Mount Cook National Park in New Zealand is said to be one of the most beautiful places in the world to camp, with its green landscapes and snowy mountain scenery. Climbing Mount Kilimanjaro gives you some fantastic camping opportunities too- just make sure you buy the best wild camping tent !

nature based adventure tourism

While controversial, hunting tourism is an example of nature tourism as it takes place in natural spaces. It is definitely one for the hard category, as you need special equipment to do so and it can obviously be quite dangerous if you don’t know what you’re doing. It is also often a discussion point for ethical tourism .

For the most part, this is a very safe activity and therefore falls into the soft category again. Guided tours are available in all of the very best stargazing locations, such as El Teide National Park in Tenerife, and it has even spawned its own branch of tourism. This is known as dark sky tourism, and there are many examples of activities that fall within this. They include stargazing, of course, alongside seeing the Northern Lights, watching an eclipse, astronomy tours and staying in accommodations that offer a clear view of the night sky such as glass domes.

nature based adventure tourism

This can be dangerous in that it is all about going off the beaten track, and walking through bushes/on rough ground. Therefore we can categorise this as hard nature tourism; it is something you would do when hiking, and gives you a bit of an adrenaline kick!

One of the easiest and most common forms of nature tourism is simply visiting a park. Whether this is a UK national park or your local green space at home, visiting a park is a definite example of this type of tourism. You’ll see birds, insects, flowers, trees, grass and more. Have a leisurely stroll, cycle through or sit and eat a picnic surrounded by nature.

Fishing falls in the middle of the soft and hard categories. You do need specialist equipment, but with most types of fishing there is little to no risk to life involved. But you need to be in nature – by or even on a lake or river – to do it, so it definitely counts as a form of nature tourism. People have obviously been fishing for years as a source of food gathering, but it is also a recreational hobby enjoyed by many.

This is another middle of the road activity. Kayaking can be dangerous, although it usually isn’t – you’ll often have a guide with you, and of course specialist equipment (the kayak) is required. It’s a really fun activity that many people enjoy!

You can visit a beach and simply do… nothing! This is still an example of nature tourism, as beaches are natural environments. Bali has some of the most beautiful beaches in the world, and tourists flock there to relax and soak up the sunshine. Beaches are also usually near to bars and restaurants, and you might find people doing beach yoga or watching the sunrise/sunset. Thailand even has all-night moonlight beach parties. They are versatile and beautiful locations!

Wellness tourism in Hawaii

Again, another activity that could be considered hard or soft. It depends where you go, really. A gentle bike ride along a specific cycle lane through a park is nothing like mountain biking in harsh terrains. It’s all about the level of ability you have and what risks you’re willing to take. But cycling is definitely a great way to get out and about in nature. It is also a low-cost and eco-friendly activity, which makes it a winner from many angles.

These tend to be a longer duration than many activities mentioned above, which you may do regularly but for a few hours at a time. Nature tours are days or even weeks-long trips, out into the wilderness with nature and wildlife experts. You might travel by air or train, or go on a cruise, and your guide will be on hand to point out every aspect of nature there is to see. These nature tours will take visitors to some of the most beautiful destinations on earth, such as trekking in Chiang Mai , Croatia, seeing the glaciers in Iceland and Alaska, and gazing at the best waterfalls in Finger Lakes . They’ll set you back a fair bit, but the memories you’ll make seeing bears and waterfalls and glorious sunsets will more than make up for it!

If you enjoyed this article, I am sure that you will love these too!

  • Homestay tourism: What is a homestay?
  • Cultural tourism explained: What, why and where
  • Volunteer tourism: The reasons why people volunteer
  • What is adventure tourism and why is it so big?
  • Rural tourism explained: What, where and why

Liked this article? Click to share!

  • Newsletters

Site search

  • Israel-Hamas war
  • 2024 election
  • TikTok’s fate
  • Supreme Court
  • Winter warming
  • All explainers
  • Future Perfect

Filed under:

  • Even Better

What is ecotourism? A guide on how to travel sustainably.

Immerse yourself in nature — with respect for the environment and the culture that supports it.

Share this story

  • Share this on Facebook
  • Share this on Twitter
  • Share this on Reddit
  • Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: What is ecotourism? A guide on how to travel sustainably.

An illustration of a traveler’s torso in a jungle-print shirt with a camera hanging around their neck

If you love nature, you may have tried to plan a vacation where you get to be immersed in it. Maybe you’ve explored a coral reef or visited an elephant sanctuary, or you dream of doing so one day. These activities can fall under the umbrella of ecotourism — a kind of nature-based travel that aims to protect and empower the environment, animals, and local communities — when planning vacations.

Tourism is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world, accounting for 22 million new jobs last year , with a large part of that growth stemming from a post-lockdown itch for travel . As people return to packing as much stuff as humanly possible into a carry-on, ecotourism, too, will likely skyrocket to a market value of $299 billion by 2026 . In the last 10 years, travelers have become more environmentally conscious and socially responsible , looking for travel experiences that reflect their morals.

Still, the question for many well-meaning tourists remains: Is ethical ecotourism even possible?

There are a few things that complicate ecotourism’s narrative, like the carbon emissions produced by flights , or the challenges of ensuring that a significant degree of profits actually do go to local communities, protecting wildlife, and cultural heritage. Nature-based travel, too, can risk losing the plot, from sanctuaries that operate like petting zoos to the development of tropical coasts into even the most nature-forward resorts.

“It really boils down to an attitude, and an ethic about how we approach the natural world,” says David Fennell , a geography and tourism studies professor at Brock University in Ontario, Canada, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Ecotourism . “Just by virtue of going to a national park doesn’t mean you’re an ecotourist, you have to have that attitude. And you have to tap into that ethic about what is important [to] not just yourself as a tourist, but about conservation and animal welfare.”

As a tourist, choosing where to go is an important decision, one that can help or hurt the environment and communities where you are visiting. There are some situations that are too good to be truly as effective as they claim, and accreditations, though helpful, may not tell the whole story. Understandably, trying to figure out what’s best for the environment, for communities, and for yourself can be overwhelming. It may be that ecotourism is a state of mind rather than a destination. Here are some ways to think about your next adventure to ensure your ethics align.

What actually is ecotourism?

An alternative to mass tourism — or when thousands of people visit a destination day in and day out ( think the resort-ification of Ibiza , in which people partied so hard that legislation was passed in 2022 to change the destination’s wasteful image) — ecotourism is meant to get you off the beaten trail and into a mindset of reciprocity with the site you are visiting.

As with many sustainability-oriented services, ecotourism got its start in the ’70s. It officially became a dictionary entry in 1982 , where it is defined as supporting conservation efforts, especially in often threatened natural environments. Since then though, the definition and intent have evolved to include bolstering local communities.

In the literature on ecotourism, travel can be distinguished into “hard paths” and “soft paths,” based on how many aspects of your trip follow the ethical north star of ecotourism and how demanding the trip will be of you. For example, if your trip features a strong environmental commitment and will be physically active, you’re likely on the hard path of ecotourism. If your trip is aimed at physical comfort with only a moderate nod to environmental commitment, you may be on a soft path. But taking it as an ethos means you can be an ecotourist anywhere, especially locally.

You might be wondering if a hike on a busy trail or swimming with manatees is ecotourism. Although both of those examples are nature-based tourism as they interface with the natural world, they’re not necessarily ecotourism, since both of these activities can put these destinations at risk if done in excess. Hiking a spot to death or droves of tourists putting Florida’s manatees at risk put pressure on the ecology of those places. In the 1980s, mass tourism began to wreck some of the world’s most sensitive ecosystems, such as the Riviera Maya in Mexico, where near-constant development has led to local forests being cleared .

Wildlife tourism runs the gamut from cruel breeding and hunting of lions to we-really-shouldn’t-have-cetaceans-in-captivity dolphin shows to cool , ethical birdwatching. Ecotourism including wildlife can be ethical as long as the animals you are engaging with are not manipulated or not free to disengage in interaction with tourists. “Anytime you have an animal that’s held in a captive environment, that you’re manipulating, the animal is not free to disengage that interaction, based on its own will,” says Fennell.

If you’re interested in going on adventures that are a little more sport-oriented, such as kayaking or diving, then this might be also considered nature-based tourism, since activities like climbing, sailing, camping, and snorkeling are less directly connected to ecological benefits. An example of nature tourism would be surfing lessons off Australia’s Coffs coast : You’re in nature having fun, but vibes are about all you’re contributing to the scene.

Ecotourism also has an educational component: You’re meant to learn about nature, culture, and threats to the area you’re in. Paul Rosolie — founder and Wildlife Director of Junglekeepers , a program that uses donations and tourist money to buy tracts of the Amazon along the Las Piedras River, in the Madre de Dios region of Peru — highlighted how ecotourism has brought people to the front lines of conservation.

“This is the edge of human presence on this planet,” Rosolie said via voice memo deep in the Amazon. “The battle is playing out between the progress of roads and development and the last places where there are untouched ecosystems, Indigenous communities, communities of species yet to be discovered. You get to see incredibly pristine, pure wilderness where a few people have managed to make a living.”

Ecotourism should encourage ethical considerations, like respect for the environment and host communities. For example, ecotourism aims to be biocentric , meaning that the interest of the living beings you are hoping to protect is prioritized over your own drive for pleasure. There is also the risk of too much tourism causing gentrification and raising prices for locals — see what’s currently happening in Mexico City , or consider the (fictional, but still germane) plot of HBO’s The White Lotus . Ecotourism aims to reverse the exploitative relationships between tourists and locals.

Lastly, ecotourism should strive for sustainability. In the case of Junglekeepers , which offers base station visits and ranger-accompanied hikes to tourists, this means extending employment to former loggers in their ranger program. The Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, where there are six ecolodges for tourists to book, has anti-poaching teams who work with the Kenya Wildlife Service to stop illegal poaching for ivory, bushmeat, and logging.

The tricky questions around ecotourism

Just because ecotourism might have a broader application these days, it doesn’t necessarily mean all travel qualifies, especially since there are slews of companies and organizations attempting to make a quick buck off a catchy buzzword. Unfortunately, it’s hard to sift the wheat from the chaff. As ecotourism as a concept grows more and more popular, some experiences and excursions may not necessarily meet the intentions lined up above.

Tourism can be rife with greenwashing : vague and unsupported claims, and exaggerations about how much good a given entity is doing, like hotels highlighting their donations to ecological causes, but underpaying their staff . Some excursions put Indigenous peoples in precarious situations , and some force animals to perform or be ridden or petted in a forced and unnatural manner .

Milo Putnam — founder of Laro Ethical Wildlife Travels , a service that helps people plan eco-travel — warns, “Don’t be tricked by misused greenwashing buzzwords like ‘rescue,’ ‘sanctuary,’ or ‘eco-park.’ Companies know that tourists like these terms, which to these companies can mean more profits, even if it isn’t true. These terms are meaningless if not backed by actual ethical practices. Instead, look further to see if they are certified or accredited by a trusted organization.” (More on this below.)

Additionally, Fennell believes the most ethical ecotourists — the traveler and any organizations involved — should keep animals off the menu. Ecotourism’s biocentric approach should lead us to widen our moral consideration of animals and to care not only for charismatic megafauna like lions and elephants, but also for all creatures that make ecosystems function. “The global food system — mainly animal agriculture — is the primary driver of biodiversity loss ,” Putnam added. “Choosing a more plant-based diet has a positive impact on wildlife around the world.”

How to choose where to go

Certifications may give a clue to how well a given destination is achieving ecotourism goals, but they may not always exist.

Putnam has compiled a tip list for planning animal-based adventures and points to the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries as a resource. The federation checks in to ensure that no captive breeding is taking place, that tourists do not have direct contact with wildlife, and that animals have appropriate housing and veterinary care.

There is no universal ecotourism certification, but the Global Sustainable Tourism Council has compiled a list of certifications around the world that emphasize the four “C’s”: conservation, community, culture, and commerce. These certifications are a good place to start and they cover Asia, Europe, Africa, North and South America, and Australia.

The land down under is at the top when it comes to vetting their tourism options. Australia’s ecotourism industry has some of the most sophisticated certifications including nature tourism, ecotourism, and advanced ecotourism . In this certification system, outback safari glamping in Karijini National Park counts as ecotourism, because it supports Indigenous peoples as it is owned and operated by the Gumala Aboriginal Corporation , which represents the interests of the Banjima, Yinhawangka, and Nyiyaparli peoples in Western Australia.

Everyone I spoke to underscored the importance of selecting an ethical destination for travel because the money you spend as a tourist can have a positive impact rather than an ambiguous impact or even detrimental effect on the places you’re visiting. As Rosolie puts it, “Finding the right place to go as a traveler is a very powerful decision to people who are devoting their whole lives to protecting a place.”

How to travel now

  • Respectful Tourism
  • Solo Travel
  • Flight Advice
  • The “Perfect” Vacation

Will you help keep Vox free for all?

At Vox, we believe that clarity is power, and that power shouldn’t only be available to those who can afford to pay. That’s why we keep our work free. Millions rely on Vox’s clear, high-quality journalism to understand the forces shaping today’s world. Support our mission and help keep Vox free for all by making a financial contribution to Vox today.

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

nature based adventure tourism

  • Tips for being a responsible, respectful traveler
  • How (and why) to travel alone
  • What flight attendants wish all travelers knew
  • How to visit Disney World without losing your mind
  • You’re going on vacation. What should you do with your pet?
  • Passport wait times are up. Here’s what you need to get one.
  • Your flight was canceled. Now what?
  • One secret to cheap travel? Pet sitting.
  • American trains aren’t great — but you should still take them anyway
  • Stop trying to have the perfect vacation. You’re ruining everyone else’s.
  • Traveling with a baby? Here’s what you need.
  • The weirdly common, very expensive travel scam you should avoid
  • How RVs get their swoops
  • How museum gift shops decide what to sell
  • Why the US has two different highway fonts
  • What I learned from taking a train across the US
  • Why Americans love big cars
  • How cruise ships got so big
  • How airplane legroom got so tight

Sign up for the newsletter Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

Book cover

Adventure Tourism pp 1–9 Cite as

What Is Adventure Tourism?

  • David Huddart 3 &
  • Tim Stott 3  
  • First Online: 26 October 2019

2039 Accesses

This chapter considers a definition of adventure tourism that includes physical activity, the natural environment and cultural immersion. Both hard and soft adventure can be important. The trends and numbers involved in this tourism area are discussed, including the growth in demand. Other types of often related niche tourism types are considered and defined, such as ecotourism, wildlife tourism, sustainable and responsible tourism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

ADTI. (2016). Adventure tourism development index: An adventure travel scorecard . The 2016 report, 6th Ed. https://www.adventureindex.travel/docs/ATDI16-web.pdf .

Buckley, R. (Ed.). (2004). Environmental impacts of ecotourism (389pp). Wallingford/Oxfordshire/Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Buckley, R. (2006). Adventure tourism (528pp). Wallingford/Oxfordshire/Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.

Buckley, R. (2010). Adventure tourism management (268pp). Abingdon: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.

Buckley, R. (2012). Rush as a key motivation in skilled adventure tourism: Resolving the risk recreation paradox. Tourism Management, 33 , 961–970.

Article   Google Scholar  

Buckley, R., Pickering, C., & Weaver, D. B. (Eds.). (2003). Nature-based tourism, environment and land management (Ecotourism series) (Vol. 1, 213pp). Wallingford/Oxfordshire/Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas . Switzerland/Cambridge: IUCN/Gland.

Book   Google Scholar  

Cheng, M., Edwards, D., Darcy, S., & Redfern, K. (2018). A tri-method approach to a review of adventure tourism literature: Bibliometric analysis, content analysis, and a quantitative systematic literature review. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 42 , 997–1020.

Christ, C., Hillel, O., Matus, S., & Sweeting, J. (2003). Tourism and biodiversity – Mapping tourism’s global footprint (54pp). Washington, DC: Conservation International. Available at http://www.unep.org/PDF/Tourism_and_biodiversity_report.pdf

Hammitt, W. E., Cole, D. N., & Monz, C. A. (2015). Wildland recreation, ecology and management (3rd ed., 313pp). Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

Higginbottom, K. (Ed.). (2004). Wildlife tourism: Impact, management and planning . Altona: Common Ground Publishing.

Huddart, D., & Stott, T. (2019). Outdoor recreation: Environmental impacts and management . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kuenzin, C., & McNeeley, J. (2008). Nature-based tourism. In O. Renn & K. Walker (Eds.), Global risk governance: Concept and practice using the IRGC framework (pp. 155–178). Dordrecht: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lane, I. (2013). Ecotourism blog . Retrieved from Greenloons. http://greenloons.com/ecotourism-blog/introduction-to-ecotourism/a-new-beginningfifty-shades-of-green-travel.html

Morgan, D. (2016). Adventure tourism. In J. Jafari & H. Xiao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of tourism . Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01384-8 .

Rantala, O., Rokenes, A., & Valkonen, J. (2018). Is adventure tourism a coherent concept? A review of research approaches on adventure tourism. Annals of Leisure, 21 , 539–552.

Samuelsen, R. (2017). Adventure tourism . https://projeckter.aau.dk/projeckter/files/261862661/Adventure-tourism-31.07.17.pdf

Simmons, D. G., & Becken, S. (2004). The cost of getting there: Impacts of travel to ecotourism destinations. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Environmental impacts of ecotourism (pp. 15–23). Wallingford/Oxfordshire/Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing, chapter 2.

Swarbrooke, J., Beard, C., Leckie, S., & Pomfret, G. (2003). Adventure tourism. The new frontier (354pp). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Wicker, J. (2017). What is adventure tourism? https://headrushtech.com/blogs/what-is-adventure-tourism

World Tourism Organization. (2014). AM reports volume nine-global report on adventure tourism (88pp). Madrid: UNWTO.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

David Huddart & Tim Stott

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Huddart .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Huddart, D., Stott, T. (2020). What Is Adventure Tourism?. In: Adventure Tourism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18623-4_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18623-4_1

Published : 26 October 2019

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-18622-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-18623-4

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research
  • Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

5 Getaways That Reinvent Eco-Tourism

From the Columbia River Gorge to the Chesapeake Bay, these retreats provide educational and volunteer experiences for travelers not only wanting to reconnect with nature, but to give back.

In a large green field next to a calm river bed, a man with shovel and another with a pick-axe plant a tree.

By Lauren Matison

Hotels and glamping sites touting sustainability practices and nature-based activities have proliferated throughout the United States in the last decade, finding financial success by offering guests a let-nature-nurture-you wellness experience.

But many of these destinations have targeted only luxury travelers, and focused on an ethos of self-improvement. Now a growing number of hospitality entrepreneurs are working with or employing naturalists and scientists to reinvent eco-tourism by championing an outward, altruistic kind of outdoor therapy — regenerative tourism initiatives such as trail building and oyster reef restoration opportunities — as well as climate-change education.

“Having sustainability or ‘eco’ experiences perceived as ‘cool’ may help shift cultural perspectives in the long run,” said Leah Thomas , a climate justice activist and the author of “ The Intersectional Environmentalist .” Ms. Thomas says engaging travelers just one time in habitat restoration work or an environmental class can teach them to care about the planet.

Here are five affordable retreats that aim to inspire community activism and a more sustainable lifestyle.

Thatcher, Idaho

Maple Grove Hot Springs & Retreat Center

At the Maple Grove Hot Springs & Retreat Center, in southeast Idaho, guests can enjoy a soak in one of six thermal pools, but many also sign up for invasive plant removal, trail development or tree planting.

“We want guests from all walks of life to strike that perfect balance of rest, work, learning, thinking, sharing, laughing and exploring. The marriage of those creates a very transformative experience,” said Jordan Menzel, the founder of Maple Grove.

Powered by solar and hydro sources, the off-grid, 45-acre Maple Grove is currently working to become the world’s first B Corporation-certified hot springs, Mr. Menzel said. (The designation requires a certification of social and environmental performance). The retreat, opened in 2019, has stone shelters, yurts and cabins (nightly rates from $170), as well as walk-in tents and camper-van sites ($45). The center provides kayaks and river tubes at the beach, and concerts and outdoor movies by the pool, as well as foraging hikes, workshops on composting and managing a home garden, and cold plunges in the river.

To honor the Northwestern Band of Shoshone people who made their winter home on the Bear River, Maple Grove hosts a quarterly storytelling event led by a Shoshone tribal elder. Mr. Menzel also recently launched a conservation organization, Oneidanarrows.org , to stop a proposed dam on a nearby waterway.

Multiple locations

In 2017, after feeling ostracized at several national parks, Evelynn Escobar, a Black and Indigenous second-generation Guatemalan American, created Hike Clerb, an intersectional women’s hiking club and nonprofit committed to equitable access in the outdoors. (Clerb, she said, is slang referring to any type of club.) Ms. Escobar designs day and overnight experiences that balance healing in nature with land restoration projects and activities that encompass cultural heritage and decolonization education.

Ms. Escobar has hosted 77 free and low-cost meet-ups so far where participants have gathered not only to hike — and clean up trash along the trail — but to bike, surf, fish, farm and more. In California, the Hike Clerb community planted 100 oak trees in the Santa Monica Mountains Recreational Area and worked with Heal the Bay nonprofit to clean up the historically Black beach, Bruce’s Beach, now known as Manhattan Beach.

“The concept of these trips is bringing Black and brown facilitators and participants together to restore a place,” Ms. Escobar said. “As we are taking care of the land, it’s taking care of us.”

In fall 2022, Ms. Escobar created a two-night overnight retreat called Night Clerb at Ace Hotel Palm Springs ($300). This year and next, Night Clerb events will take place in Puerto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii and Yosemite National Park.

“People are craving opportunities to visit places as stewards versus tourists,” Ms. Escobar said. “When you feel connected to a place and have respect for it, you respect yourselves in that place, too. In that way, it’s a luxury experience.”

Irvington, Va.

The Tides Inn

The Tides Inn sits on the Carter’s Creek tributary of Chesapeake Bay, which produces around 500 million pounds of seafood annually. Since before the hotel opened in 1947, pollution and over-harvesting have been decimating the population of oysters, a keystone species for all marine life. In summer 2021, Tides Inn completed a $3.6 million shoreline restoration project that has since allowed oyster reefs to make a comeback, with help from a steady stream of guests.

The inn’s resident ecologist, Will Smiley, has been leading volunteer experiences for the last three years, including a popular one that repopulates baby oysters.

“As of January 2024, we have grown and planted over one million oysters,” said Mr. Smiley, noting that sea horses are returning to the area, a great bio-indicator. By planting oysters, which feed on the creek’s overabundance of algae (partly because of pesticide runoff), the inn is also helping revive sea grass beds that are known to remove excess nutrients and maintain a healthy ecosystem.

The 70-room resort (nightly rates from $249) offers activities on and off the water, from kayaking and paddle-board yoga to pickleball and a pool and spa. But the heart of the inn is its boardwalk, which curves around 13,000 feet of shoreline and was designed as an outdoor museum with signs about the restoration project, local species and native plants. Family-friendly programming includes birding walks, beekeeping, blue crab ecology tours and pollinator garden lessons with the inn’s horticulturist, Matt Little. An off-site volunteer excursion ($200 per person), benefiting the river nonprofit Friends of Rappahannock , pairs a picnic with planting trees and wetland grasses.

“Just make your world the world,” said Mr. Smiley as he walked along a new 6.2-mile nature trail on the inn’s rewilded golf course. “If you make small daily changes like curbing waste and ditching plastic, you’ll feel good.”

Deep River, Ontario

Anupaya Cabin Co.

“I think the climate crisis can cause people to feel such paralysis, like it’s almost too little, too late,” said Shannon MacLaggan, who created Anupaya Cabin Co., with her husband, Pete, as a wilderness retreat and incubator for climate action in 2021. “There are massive esoteric concepts about how to tackle global warming, but this is something tangible and applicable.”

The 12-acre property (nightly rates from $232), along the upper Ottawa River, has a lodge, private beach and eight renovated cabins, each with a kitchen, grill, fire pit and porch views of the Laurentian Mountains. Anupaya invites every guest — inner-city youth groups receive a 50 percent room discount — to join the environmental movement in whatever way they can.

That might mean participating in cleanups through the hotel’s One Pound Promise initiative (60,000 pounds of waste have been collected so far), foraging workshops, planting fruit trees and berry bushes, or learning to grow and harvest food in the garden, where guests are often found pulling invasive plants and picking salad ingredients. Visitors can also work on trail management projects with the local Friends of Rivière du Moine nonprofit, or do trail maintenance at nearby Four Seasons Conservancy . “The whole reason we started Anupaya is to remind people how a part of nature we all are,” Ms. MacLaggan said. “If you love something, you feel a sense of responsibility toward it.”

Anupaya is introducing more formal volunteer opportunities in 2024. The Sustainable Saturdays initiative, to run from May to November, will offer free two-hour educational sessions on composting, starting a medicinal garden, raising chickens and more.

Mosier, Ore.

Fir Haven Retreats

This August, the restoration ecologist Kieron Wilde plans to welcome the first guests to Fir Haven, a 20-acre, plastic-free property an hour outside Portland, on the eastern end of the Columbia River Gorge. Fir Haven will have A-frame cabins with kitchenettes (nightly rates from $115), platform tent sites ($50), E.V. chargers and an informal educational lab for environmental stewardship.

Mr. Wilde aims to create experiences “for people to be immersed in conservation,” he said, like planting Gerry Oak trees, both as a fire suppression tool and to support a rich native habitat.

Fir Haven will offer a menu of volunteer projects and field trips for guests, working with nonprofit partners like Trail Keepers of Oregon .

“It was time to double-down on the non-extractive, regenerative travel movement, and inspire people to leave a positive impact together,” said Mr. Wilde, who previously worked for the Bureau of Land Management and started First Nature Tours, an eco-tour operator. Mr. Wilde said there will be plenty of traditional wellness activities, including yoga and forest bathing, as well as biking the Columbia River Gorge Scenic Highway or hiking at nearby Rowana Crest Viewpoint .

Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram and sign up for our weekly Travel Dispatch newsletter to get expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places to Go in 2024 .

Open Up Your World

Considering a trip, or just some armchair traveling here are some ideas..

Italy :  Spend 36 hours in Florence , seeking out its lesser-known pockets.

Southern California :  Skip the freeways to explore the back roads between Los Angeles and Los Olivos , a 100-mile route that meanders through mountains, canyons and star-studded enclaves.

Mongolia : Some young people, searching for less curated travel experiences, are flocking to the open spaces of this East Asian nation .

Romania :  Timisoara  may be the most noteworthy city you’ve probably never heard of , offering just enough for visitors to fill two or three days.

India: A writer fulfilled a lifelong dream of visiting Darjeeling, in the Himalayan foothills , taking in the tea gardens and riding a train through the hills.

52 Places:  Why do we travel? For food, culture, adventure, natural beauty? Our 2024 list has all those elements, and more .

Adventure Tourism

Adventure tourism is defined as the movement of the people from one to another place outside their comfort zone for exploration or travel to remote areas, exotic and possibly hostile areas. Adventure tourism is a type of tourism in which tourist do some adventures activities like as skydiving, hill climbing, scuba diving.

Adventure tourism is very popular among young age tourists. Adventure tourism gains much of its excitement by allowing the tourists to step outside their comfort zone. This may be from experiencing cultural shock or through the performance of acts, that required some degree of risk (real or perceived) and physical danger.

Adventure travel is a leisure activity that takes place in an unusual, exotic, remote or wilderness destination . It tends to be associated with high levels of activity by the participant, most of it outdoors.  Adventure travelers expect to experience various level of risk, excitement, and tranquility and be personally tested. In particular, they are explorers of unspoiled, exotic parts of the planet and also seek personal challenges.

The main factor distinguishing adventure tourism from all other forms of tourism is the planning and preparation involved.

Definitions  of Adventure Tourism

Adventure tourism is a new concept in the tourism industry. Tourism industry adopted adventure tourism, but there is not any specific definition of adventure tourism . Most commentators concur that adventure tourism is a niche sector of the tourism industry, but there are many other niche sectors in tourism which have same characteristics that overlap with adventure tourism such as ecotourism, activity tourism or adventure travel.

One of them can confuse. Adventure tourism is a complicated and ambiguous topic. Some important definitions of adventure tourism are following as:

According to the Adventure Travel Trade Association , “adventure tourism is a tourist activity that includes physical activity, cultural exchange, or activities in nature.

According to Muller and Cleaver , “Adventure tourism is characterized by its ability to provide the tourist with relatively high levels of sensory stimulation, usually achieved by including physically challenging experiential components with the tourist experience.”

Canadian Tourism Commission in 1995 defines adventure tourism as , “an outdoor leisure activity that takes place in an unusual, exotic, remote or wilderness destination, involves some form of unconventional means of transportation, and tends to be associated with low or high levels of activity.”

According to Sung et al ,  “adventure tourism is the sum of the phenomena and relationships arising from the interactions of adventure touristic activities with the natural environment away from the participant’s usual place of residence area and containing elements of risk in which the outcome is influenced by the participation, setting, and the organizer of the tourist’s experience.”

According to UNWTO , ” adventure tourism can be domestic or international, and like all travel, it must include an overnight stay, but not last longer than one year.”

History of Adventure Tourism

Humans are traveling from ancient time for the searching for foods, and for many survival reasons. Humans have been engaging in adventurous travel for hundreds of year via exploration . People traveled in ancient time for exploration of sea roots, new destination, or even a new country.

However, commercial adventure travel is a new phenomenon, in which travelers hire a professional guide to provide a range of technical support and equipment, as well as cultural and nature interpretation.

In the mid-1800s, adventurers began to push the limits of mountain climbing and river rafting, with the first ascent of the Matterhorn in 1865 and decent of the Colorado River in 1869 . Shortly thereafter, two key institutions were formed. The National Geographic Society and Explorers Club . These institutions are supporting adventures tourism continuously.

In the mid- 1950s, many first ascents and descents attracted global attention and inspired many people to attempt their own expeditions. Maurice Herzog’s ascent of Annapurna in 1950 , Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzig Norgay’s ascent of Mount Everest , and other successes were hailed in the media around the world. This was the takeoff of modern adventure tourism.

Today, adventure tourism is a vibrant, dynamic, and fast-changing sector with new variants routinely added into the possible experience.

Types of Adventure Tourism

Adventure tourism has grown exponentially all over the world in recent years with tourist visiting destinations previously undiscovered. This allows for a new destination to market themselves as truly unique, appealing to those traveler looking for rare, incomparable experience.

Adventure tourism includes various activities like caving, hiking, sailing, trekking etc.  Adventure tourism categorized into two categories . These are following as:

Hard Adventure

Soft adventure.

Hard adventure refers to activities with high levels of risk, requiring intense commitment and advanced skills. Hard tourism includes the activities like climbing mountains/rock/ice, trekking, caving etc.

Hard adventure activities are highly risked in nature. Professional guide, advance level skills are required to perform these activities. Many tourists died during climbing mountains, caving every day. There is an interesting fact that is for K2, world 2nd highest mountain, for every two people who submit one dies .

Soft adventure refers to activities with a perceived risk but low levels of risk, requiring minimal commitment and beginning skills ; most of these activities are led by experienced guides. Soft tourism includes the activities like backpacking, camping, hiking, kayaking etc.

Soft adventure activities are low risk in nature. These activities are led by professional guides. Soft adventure is a popular category in adventure tourism. On average, 25% trips taken from North America and Europe are soft adventure trips.

Adventure Tourism Activities

Adventure travelers are early adopters by nature, meaning they are generally more willing to try new destinations, activities, and travel products. Popular activities change rapidly, and it seems there is a new twist on an existing sport evert years.

Some activities have low risk and some have high. Adventure tourism activities are classified into two types :

Hard Adventure Activities

Soft adventure activities.

Hard adventure activities are highly risky and dangerous in nature. These activities are following as:

  • Mountain Climbing
  • Rock Climbing
  • Ice Climbing

These activities are less dangerous and risk as compared to hard adventure activities. These activities are always lead by professional guides. These activities are following as:

  • Backpacking
  • Birdwatching
  • Eco-tourism
  • Horseback riding
  • Kayaking/sea/whitewater
  • Orienteering
  • Scuba Diving
  • Snowboarding

Adventure tourism activities sit well with the environment because the natural world provides us with the resources for many of the activities that provide risk, challenge, sensory stimulus, novelty, discovery and so on.

Characteristics and Features of Adventure Tourism

The threefold combination of activity, nature, and culture marks adventure travel as an all-round challenge. Some unique characteristics and features of adventure tourism are following as:

  • Physical activity, i.e. activities involving physical exertion or psychomotor skills.
  • Contact with nature, i.e. activities bringing contact with the natural world in general, or with specific wildlife.
  • Contact with different cultures, i.e. people, faith, lifestyles
  • Journeys, i.e. vehicle-, animal-, or human-power.
  • Uncertain outcomes
  • Danger and risk
  • Anticipated rewards
  • Stimulation and excitement
  • Exploration and discovery
  • Contrasting emotions

Adventure Tourism Supplier

A tourism supply chain is the system of people, products, activities, and materials that get a product or service from its raw state through production and distribution to the consumer .

As with any sector, volume discounts drive the mass price point, so major retailers primarily market select trips that sell in high volume. The supply chain for these mass tourism products is often very simple, comprising only transportation and accommodation elements.

The adventure tourism supply chain is more complex. Niche products often require specializes in knowledge and operations. Adventure tourism’s supply chain linkages go very deep, and this is one of the key reasons that adventure tourism delivers greater benefits at the local level.

Supply chains vary from destination to destination. The makeup of the most involved adventure supply chain is typical as follows:

Without a proper supply chain, the tourism sector can not survive. Tourism suppliers are the backbone of the tourism industry . Adventure tourism suppliers work at a different, different level like as domestic as well international level.

Adventure Tourism Importance and Benefits

Adventure tourism is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the tourism sector, attracting high-value customers, supporting local economies, and encouraging sustainable practices.

The continued growth of this sector creates net positive impacts not only for tourism, but also for destination economies, their people, and their environment.

Some importance and benefits of adventure tourism are following as:

Employment Generation

Adventure tourism generates the jobs. Adventure tourism generates directs jobs to accommodation , transportation sector and for travel agencies or tour operators . Adventure tourism also provides the indirect job to tourism suppliers.

Adventure tourism plays an important role in the generation of employment in the economy.

Foreign Exchange

Adventure tourism attracts the foreign tourists at a large scale, as a result, it helps in foreign exchange generation.

When tourist travel to another country, they spend a large amount of money on accommodation, transportation, and shopping. Adventure tourism generates foreign exchange and supports the economy of the host country.

Economy Development

Adventure tourism helps in the development of the host country’s economy. Adventure tourism activities directly support the economy in various forms. The more tourists, more economic growth.

Support Local Communities

Adventure tourism helps in the development of infrastructure and support local communities. Adventure tourism activities directly contributed to the local economy of the communities and increase the living standards of local people.

Conservation of Natural Resources

Adventure tourism activities are nature-based activities. Leaders in the adventure tourism industry are dedicated to making this tourism segment as sustainable as possible. They help in conservation of natural resources as well as cultural.

Creating Business Opportunities

Adventure tourism activities create new business opportunities. There are companies that specialize in helping emerging adventure tourism operators market their product.  Each new adventure tourism activity creates a new business opportunity.

Local and Foreign Investment

Adventure tourism creates business opportunities, as a result, it attracts the local as well as international investors.  Investors invest their money in the accommodation, transportation, and into travel trade organization.

Adventure tourism plays an important role in the economy of the host country .

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Int J Environ Res Public Health

Logo of ijerph

The Moderating Roles of Sensation Seeking and Worry among Nature-Based Adventure Tourists

Kiattipoom kiatkawsin.

1 Tourism Industry Data Analytics Lab (TIDAL), Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea; moc.liamg@niswaktaik

Ngoc Anh Bui

2 Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea; [email protected]

Richard Hrankai

3 Department of Tourism and Service Management, MODUL University Vienna, 1190 Vienna, Austria; [email protected]

Kwangmin Jeong

4 Tourism Industry Research Division, Korea Culture & Tourism Institute, Seoul 07511, Korea

Associated Data

Not applicable.

The adventure tourism subsector continues to be popular today. Both industry and academia define adventure tourism’s scope from either the physical (e.g., outdoor activity and physical activity) or psychological aspects (e.g., thrill seeking and challenges). Recent studies have pointed out that adventure tourism can be interpreted differently across cultures and markets. Still, risk has always been universally accepted as an essential characteristic of adventure tourism. Thus, most empirical research has studied the role of risk as one of the motivations. However, attempts to investigate related elements that are either a response to or a coping mechanism for the presence of risk are scarce. This present study adopted one of the most prominent frameworks in explaining behavioral intentions, the theory of planned behavior, and included involvement and knowledge variables to extend it. Furthermore, the sensation-seeking and worry constructs were tested for their moderating impact on intentions to participate in adventure tours. The results of structural equation modeling and multigroup invariance tests revealed that subjective norms were not a significant predictor of intentions, while both sensation seeking and worry significantly moderated the relationships between the study variables.

1. Introduction

Adventure activities have been studied in the tourism context since the early days of tourism research [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Today, the popularity of the adventure tourism subsector remains relatively strong [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Scholars have attributed this sector’s continuous growth to the “commodification” of adventure tourism [ 2 , 5 ]. Commodification refers to how adventure tourism activities were perceived as predominantly high-risk, high-difficulty activities usually reserved for those with advanced skills, and an intense commitment to include more leisure activities suitable for the mass market [ 1 , 2 , 8 ]. Specifically, the commodification process involves three characteristics. The first includes how the experience’s adventure element has been choreographed and packaged to be more accessible by the adventure tour guide [ 5 ]. Secondly, the risk that is typically associated with adventure activities has been diluted to also include perceived risk as well as actual risks [ 2 ]. Thirdly, the expanded definition of adventure tourism typically consists of the natural environment, making many nature-based activities considered a part of adventure tourism [ 3 , 9 ].

Despite the varying definitions and ambiguous categorization of adventure tourism, several elements remain consistent and still vital for the characteristics of adventure tours [ 4 , 7 ]. The Adventure Travel Trade Association (ATTA)’s definition of adventure tourism states that at least two of the following three elements must be included: physical activity, the natural environment, and cultural immersion [ 7 ]. Another popular definition by Buckley (2007) stated that adventure tours generally include outdoor activities featuring the natural terrain that are exciting for tourists and have an economic benefit for experience providers [ 10 ]. Moreover, the notion of “risk” involved in the activities remains one of the most critical elements associated with adventure, and to some degree, it may be the cause of the inconsistency in the scope and definition of adventure tourism [ 1 , 4 , 7 , 11 ]. Specifically, the soft–hard classification was predominantly based on the level of risk and danger associated with an activity. Therefore, soft adventure tours can include bird watching and camping in a park, while hard adventure tours include mountaineering or flights in space [ 4 , 7 ]. Still, both soft and hard adventure tours still fall within the same umbrella term of adventure tourism but are motivated differently [ 3 , 12 ].

The role of risk and danger has been studied extensively in the tourism context because of its significance in determining adventure tourism experiences. Notably, risk has been used to classify activities into soft or hard adventure [ 1 , 2 , 6 , 13 , 14 ], determine the types of motivation for participating in adventure activities [ 1 , 6 , 10 , 15 , 16 ], and determine experience quality and post-trip evaluation and behaviors [ 6 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. Furthermore, previous researchers have studied other concepts that are still related to risks, such as a sense of accomplishment [ 23 ], the use of specific skills [ 24 ], the opportunity to challenge one’s physical and mental limits [ 15 ], and the chance to learn new skills and discover oneself [ 7 , 25 ]. Nevertheless, studies focusing on the coping mechanism and the preparation in the pre-trip stage, especially in relation to the attitudinal dimensions of adventure tourists, are still lacking. Previous experience and existing knowledge related to adventure activities were found to have significant influences on attitude [ 6 , 23 , 26 , 27 ]. Thus, attitude helps to determine the likelihood of participation in the activity [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. Moreover, constructs such as sensation seeking and worry have been found to help in coping with the level of perceived risks usually associated with adventure tours [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ].

This present study identified two dimensions that are critical determinants of the attitudinal perception of adventure activities, namely, involvement and knowledge. Involvement refers to the level of interest, emotional attachment, state of motivation, and perceived importance of a topic [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. Individuals possessing a high level of involvement in a given subject were found to be highly active in reading and sharing opinions online, have a favorable and positive attitude about the topic, and ultimately be able to accumulate a large amount of experience and knowledge of the subject [ 26 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Consequently, the tourists’ knowledge or experience has been found to be a critical determinant of attitude, risk perception, and purchase/visit intentions [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. The study adopted one of the most popular frameworks used for predicting future behaviors that are predominantly based on individuals’ cognition and attitude, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. Thus, the study attempted to extend the TPB with the addition of involvement and knowledge.

Furthermore, two personality traits, sensation seeking and worry, have been identified as potential moderators of the study constructs’ relationships. Sensation seeking refers to an individual’s need for varied, novel, and complex sensations [ 33 , 34 ]. Psychologists found that individuals high in sensation-seeking characteristics are often attracted to high-risk activities, such as adventure activities [ 6 , 28 , 35 ]. On the other hand, worry is related to the constant cognitive thinking about the future’s uncertain outcomes [ 36 ]. Both sensation seeking and worry can be important moderators for the other proposed relationships, as both constructs are related to the tourist’s perceived risk. For example, high sensation seekers tend to perceive risky behaviors as less risky than low sensation seekers, thus being likely to engage in such activities more often [ 35 ]. Meanwhile, people worry because they believe it can minimize adverse outcomes and encourage better preparation [ 36 ].

The roles and relationships of involvement, knowledge, sensation seeking, and worry have not been well established in tourist behavior research, especially in the adventure tourism context. Thus, this present study aimed to extend the TPB with four new constructs and validate the proposed conceptual model by sampling Vietnamese nature-based adventure tourists. The following objectives were developed to help achieve the research aim. Objective one was to propose a conceptual framework that extended the TPB with the involvement and knowledge constructs. Then, objective two was to validate the conceptual model using samples of Vietnamese adventure tourists. Lastly, objective three was to test the moderating roles of sensation seeking and worry using the multigroup invariance test.

2. Literature Review

2.1. involvement and knowledge.

The concept of involvement, also referred to as consumer involvement, has often been defined using Zaichkowsky’s (1985) definition as “a person’s perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values, and interests” [ 50 ]. Other researchers have also included the perceived importance of a product to the scope of involvement [ 38 ]. Furthermore, another group of studies demonstrated that emotional attachment or arousal is also an important element of involvement [ 39 , 51 ]. Involvement is considered an unobservable state of motivation, interests, and arousal [ 51 , 52 ]. The concept refers to both the mental state and the behaviors, making it an essential construct in consumer behavior studies due to its efficacy in predicting both attitude and behaviors [ 39 , 53 ]. In other words, involvement can refer to the level of personal attachment or engagement a person has to a brand or an activity, such as for those who enjoy traveling or dining [ 49 , 52 ]. At the same time, involvement can refer to how often a person engages in a behavior, such as frequent travelers traveling more often than the average person or those who read and write travel reviews online often being more involved in trip planning [ 26 , 39 , 40 , 54 ].

The critical role of involvement is even more pronounced among high-involvement products. High-involvement products typically require more research and complex decision-making processes, have relatively high costs, and are not often purchased, such as luxury goods, banking service providers, insurance, and travel decisions [ 26 , 40 , 55 ]. Moreover, some challenging adventure activities usually require the mastering of skills by the participants [ 7 ]. The result of involvement is closely associated with the amount of knowledge or experience an individual accumulates [ 42 ]. Hence, involvement and knowledge are often studied together [ 26 , 56 ].

Knowledge, in this context, is borrowed from the concept of consumer knowledge [ 42 ]. It refers to the assumption that consumers have some experience with information about the product [ 43 ]. In other words, when a tourist has knowledge about adventure tourism, he or she is assumed to have prior experience with the activities. The same concept has also been referred to as familiarity or subjective knowledge [ 29 , 57 ]. Having knowledge of adventure activities is crucial because it can help to reduce both perceived and actual risks [ 7 , 43 ]. More importantly, an expert consumer is likely to have superior knowledge as a result of a high level of involvement and commitment. Therefore, the study proposed a significant relationship between involvement and knowledge, as reflected in Hypothesis 1.

Involvement significantly impacts knowledge among adventure tourists.

2.2. Theory of Planned Behavior

The theory of planned behavior remains a popular framework for predicting human behaviors today [ 58 , 59 , 60 ]. Its application can be found in diverse disciplines with a great degree of success, from predicting young people’s attitudes towards texting while driving to farmers’ intentions to use chemical fertilizers [ 61 , 62 ]. In tourism studies, the TPB has been effective in predicting behavioral intentions in several contexts, such as volunteer tourism, decisions to travel to Tibet, intentions to visit Cuba, bicycle tour participation, and many more [ 48 , 58 , 59 , 60 ]. The TPB has not only been a widely accepted model in its original form but formed the basis for theory extensions. For example, the model of goal-directed behavior was developed as an effort for deepening and broadening the TPB [ 6 , 63 ]. The TPB was also successfully merged with other frameworks to improve its effectiveness in specific fields such as environmentally responsible behaviors and other tourist behavioral research projects [ 6 , 49 , 59 , 62 , 64 ].

The TPB’s development was based on consumer attitudes [ 46 , 47 ]. Attitude has been found to be one of the most reliable and robust proxies of behavior, as consumers are unlikely to engage in an activity or purchase a product that they have a negative attitude toward [ 65 , 66 ]. Attitudes are either favorable/positive or unfavorable/negative beliefs someone holds about a product, a brand, an activity, or a destination [ 28 , 29 , 62 ]. In the context of this research project, the attitude construct measures the level of favorable (or unfavorable) evaluation a person has for adventure tourism activities. The TPB also consists of two other variables, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control. Subjective norms refer to the beliefs individuals hold regarding how much the people around them, such as friends and family, would support the activity in question [ 6 , 66 ]. In practice, subjective norms measure whether friends and family approve or disapprove of their planned intention or their intention to participate in an adventure tour in this case. Perceived behavioral control is the held belief individuals have regarding their ability to participate in the action [ 64 ]. In this case, the ability can be the amount of resources (such as money) required to participate, the necessary skill and capability, and their confidence to partake [ 67 ]. The three variables then predict behavioral intentions, which has received comprehensive support for being an accurate predictor of actual behavior [ 62 ].

The consequences of involvement and knowledge have been well established by previous studies. A study found that the intention to revisit the same hotel brand was influenced by the relatively high level of involvement, as involvement implies the likelihood of the guests to read and interact with the brands’ social media accounts. Thus, they are continually being reminded of the brand and their previous experience. Eventually, their awareness and familiarity propel them to choose the same hotel for their next travel [ 53 ]. Another study about food and travel found attitude to be included by the multidimensional concept of food-related knowledge, and internal attitude significantly impacted behavioral intentions [ 49 ]. Moreover, perceived control has also been studied as a consequence of prior experience and familiarity. In an adventure tourism context, the relationship between perceived control and intentions was completely mediated by the desire to visit an adventure destination [ 6 ]. A research project on travelers’ perceived risk of the Middle East also found empirical support for how tourists’ previous experiences influenced knowledge and, eventually, intentions to plan for a trip. More importantly, the study also found that the perceived risks were lower, as tourists have accumulated more knowledge about the Middle East [ 42 ]. Thus, the hierarchical flow from involvement to knowledge, knowledge to attitude and perceived control, and intentions has been empirically supported. The following hypotheses were consequently proposed.

Involvement significantly impacts attitude among adventure tourists.

Involvement significantly impacts perceived behavioral control among adventure tourists.

Knowledge significantly impacts attitude among adventure tourists.

Knowledge significantly impacts perceived behavioral control among adventure tourists.

Attitude significantly impacts behavioral intentions among adventure tourists.

Subjective norms significantly impact behavioral intentions among adventure tourists.

Perceived behavioral control significantly impacts behavioral intentions among adventure tourists.

2.3. Sensation Seeking

Risks may have often been perceived as something to avoid or minimize from the perspective of tourists looking for activities to attend and destinations to visit [ 28 , 60 ]. However, in the context of adventure tourism, risks may be the appeal that pulls tourists to the destination [ 15 , 36 ]. By definition, adventure tourism involves tourists voluntarily seeking to engage in high-risk activities driven by various motives such as challenging themselves, gaining novel experience, exploring their physical and mental limits, discovering new experiences, and more [ 6 , 28 , 36 ]. However, limited research has examined risk as a favorable attitudinal perception and as a motivation for participating in an activity. This present study identified sensation-seeking characteristics to help explain the relationships among the study variables.

Sensation seeking is a personality trait that determines the extent to which individuals like to seek novel experiences in their lives. Those exhibiting high sensation-seeking behaviors are likely to seek experiences that offer arousal stimulation, novelty compared to the ordinary, or a combination of the two [ 33 , 34 ]. Adventure activities or other high-risk activities were found to be applicable to satisfy those sensation seekers [ 6 , 28 , 35 ]. The context of adventure tourism not only comprises risky physical activities but also includes cultural immersion and the travel element, making the concept of sensation seeking more applicable than other related concepts such as risk/thrill seeking, rush, edgework, and flow [ 3 , 5 , 7 ]. A previous study found that those with low sensation seeking struggled to cope with stress more than high sensation seeking individuals [ 68 ]. Additionally, sensation seeking was found to moderate the relationship between attitude and behavior among young people in the leisure context [ 69 ]. In the same vein, this study posits that sensation seeking moderates the relationships between the proposed study variables as reflected in the following hypotheses.

Sensation seeking significantly moderates the relationships between (a) involvement and knowledge, (b) involvement and attitude, (c) involvement and perceived behavioral control, (d) knowledge and attitude, (e) knowledge and perceived behavioral control, (f) attitude and behavioral intentions, (g) subjective norms and behavioral intentions, (h) perceived behavioral control and behavioral intentions.

Worry is a predominantly cognitive construct that describes an activity involving a consistent thought related to future events [ 36 ]. In other words, worry is believed to be caused by individuals’ evaluation of future events’ uncertain outcomes. Because the outcomes can be ambiguous or uncertain, those who require explicit and predictable evidence in their decision-making processes tend to struggle to cope [ 37 , 70 ]. Thus, they often start a chain of thoughts that revolves around possible outcomes, which are unknown [ 36 ]. Risky activities such as adventure tours imply a generally higher chance of the participants sustaining injuries or any other undesirable effects [ 7 , 28 , 38 , 42 , 43 ]. Hence, the concepts of risk, uncertainty, and worry are inevitably linked.

Although worrying is widely accepted to be a negative experience because most of the thoughts are associated with negative outcomes and unpleasant effects, people still believe that worry can be helpful even if they also accept that worrying is ultimately pointless [ 36 , 37 ]. Most notably, worry is linked to self-protective behaviors. In other words, worriers tend to be more thorough when planning and are likely to engage in more preparations and follow safety precautions more precisely [ 28 , 42 , 43 , 70 ]. Prior knowledge and experience play a significant role in aiding the decision-making process for those who worry because they can anticipate the type of risk and have more information on preparation and cautionary behaviors [ 43 , 70 ]. Consequently, the level of worry should either strengthen or weaken the relationships between the study variables. For example, those with a lower level of worry may hold a more favorable attitude towards adventure tourism, as they think about the uncertain outcomes less than those with a high level of worry. The following hypotheses were developed to test the moderating role of worry. Additionally, Figure 1 graphically illustrates the study variables and the relationships among them.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-18-02021-g001.jpg

Proposed conceptual model.

Worry significantly moderates the relationships between (a) involvement and knowledge, (b) involvement and attitude, (c) involvement and perceived behavioral control, (d) knowledge and attitude, (e) knowledge and perceived behavioral control, (f) attitude and behavioral intentions, (g) subjective norms and behavioral intentions, (h) perceived behavioral control and behavioral intentions.

3.1. Measurement Items

This present study adopted all the measurement items from previous studies. The eight latent constructs in the proposed conceptual model were all measured using a total of 37 items. The three antecedents of the TPB—attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control—were measured using items adopted from Lee et al. (2012) [ 67 ]. The knowledge construct was measured using three items from Algesheimer et al. (2005) [ 71 ]. Four items from Amaro and Duarte (2015) were adopted to measure the involvement construct [ 39 ]. The measurement items used to measure the two moderating variables, sensation seeking and worry, were adopted from Hoyle et al. (2002) and Larsen et al. (2009), respectively. Lastly, the dependent variable, behavioral intentions, was measured using four items from Lee at al. (2012) [ 67 ]. After adoption, the wording of the original items was adapted to accurately reflect the study’s adventure tourism context while still maintaining the original meaning of the items. Moreover, 5-point Likert-type scales were used to measure all the measurement items. A list of all the measurement items used in the survey can be seen in Table A1 in the Appendix A .

3.2. Survey Development

The survey also included a short cover letter that briefly described the nature of the research and explained the research contexts to the participants. Statements assuring the anonymity and noncommercial use of the data were provided in this section. Two qualifying questions were then added after the cover letter. The questions asked if the participant had experienced adventure tours in the past two years or planned to partake in an adventure tour within the next two years. Only those who answered at least one of the two qualifying questions were asked to complete the rest of the survey. In the last section of the survey, a number of demographic and travel characteristic questions were added. The draft version of the survey was then subjected to a pre-test. Subsequently, the final English version of the survey was translated into Vietnamese. The translated version was distributed to Vietnamese travelers for another round of pre-testing. Pre-testers recommended including a definition of adventure tourism and providing examples of popular adventure tour destinations and activities within Vietnam.

3.3. Sampling and Data Collection

The research project sampled any Vietnamese tourists who had participated in an adventure tour within the last two years and those who had yet to participate but were planning to partake within the next two years. In order to reach those groups of adventure tourists, the final version of the survey in Vietnamese was input into a Google Form. The link to the survey was then distributed across various travel forums, online communities, and social network groups related to adventure tourism. Physical copies of the survey were also distributed to a smaller group of known adventure tourists to supplement the online collection. Due to the niche interests of adventure tourism, a mixture of snowball and convenience sampling techniques was deployed.

3.4. Data Screening and Sample Profiles

A total of 308 completed surveys were collected. Both the online data and offline collection were combined into a single file using the IBM SPSS software version 23. The raw data were subjected to data screening for cases with many missing data, unengaged responses, normality, and outliers. The raw data contained no missing data, and the screening process found no evidence of outliers. Unengaged responses were identified by calculating the standard deviation for each row. Cases with a standard deviation lower than 0.5 were thoroughly examined. In total, 21 cases were removed due to suspected unengagement. The remaining 287 cases’ distribution fell within the acceptable range. Specifically, the skewness ranged from −1.732 to −0.542, and the kurtosis ranged from −0.818 to 6.421.

Among the 287 retained for further analysis, 53.3% were male, and 46.3% were female. Slightly over half, at 51.2%, reported their age to be between 27 and 35 years old. Ages ranging between 23 and 26 years old represented 25.4% of the research samples. Only 4.9% of the samples reported being older than 45 years old. The majority were single (59.9%), followed by married (33.1%). Most of the samples held university degrees; bachelor’s degrees accounted for 55.1%, and master’s degree holders accounted for 22.3%. Additionally, most of the sample were either full-time employees (54.0%) or self-employed (23.0%). Students accounted for 16.7% of the samples.

The research samples reported their previous experience with adventure tours. The largest group (39.7%) had participated in an adventure tour at least three times, while 33.1% had never taken one before. Among those who had been or were planning to go, friends were the most popular (63.8%) accompanying persons. Going alone accounted for 10.8%, while going with family accounted for 12.2%. Lastly, mountain climbing was the most popular activity (39.7%) among the research samples, followed by trekking (22.6%), cave exploring (20.6%), waterfall diving (7.3%), and other activities (9.8%).

4.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The hypothesis testing followed the two-step structural equation modeling (SEM) approach suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) [ 72 ]. The first step was the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which focused on the relationship between the observable items and the latent construct, or the measurement model. The first step examined the model fit statistics between the study variables and the data. The results yielded satisfactory model fit scores ( χ 2 = 466.792, df = 296, p = < 0.001, χ 2 / df = 1.577, RMSEA = 0.045, CFI = 0.971, and IFI = 0.971). Next, composite reliability (CR) scores were calculated for each latent construct. The scores ranged between 0.813 and 0.940, all higher than the minimum threshold of 0.7 [ 73 ]. Hence, the data collected were deemed reliable. The average variance extracted (AVE) was subsequently calculated to test the convergence validity of the constructs. The minimum requirement for the AVE is 0.5 [ 74 ], and all the constructs in the study produced higher AVE scores than the requirement, with 0.592 being the lowest score. The square roots of the AVE values were then compared against the correlations of each pair to establish the discriminant validity. In general, all the correlations were lower than the square roots of the AVEs except the correlation between behavioral intentions and sensation seeking. Thus, the pair was subjected to a further step of testing by combining the items of both constructs into one. Then, a model comparison test was performed for the original measurement model vs. the measurement model with combined items. The result showed that both models were statistically different (∆ χ 2 = 110.045, ∆ df = 7, p = < 0.001). Hence, evidence of discriminant validity existed. A summary of the CFA results can be seen in Table 1 .

Summary of confirmatory factor analysis results.

a Squared root of AVE. b Correlation. Note 1. Goodness-of-fit statistics: χ 2 = 466.792, df = 296, p = < 0.001, χ 2 / df = 1.577, RMSEA = 0.045, CFI = 0.971, IFI = 0.971. Note 2. INVO = Involvement, KNOW = Knowledge, ATTI = Attitude, NORM = Subjective norms, CONT = Perceived control, INTEN = Behavioral intention, SENS = Sensation seeking, WORR = Worry.

4.2. Structural Equation Modeling

After successfully validating the measurement model, the second step was to examine the relationships between the latent constructs as hypothesized. Similar to the first step, the model fit statistics of the structural model were first examined. The fit indices of the structural model were also satisfactory ( χ 2 = 382.427, df = 180, χ 2 / df = 2.125, RMSEA = 0.063, CFI = 0.957, IFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.950, NFI = 0.923, and PGFI = 0.688). Path analysis found that all but one of the proposed relationships were significant. Specifically, the path between involvement and knowledge was significant and positive (β = 0.581, p = < 0.001). Hence, Hypothesis 1 was supported by the data. Hypothesis 2, involvement–attitude (β = 0.461, p = < 0.001) and Hypothesis 3, involvement to perceived control (β = 0.540, p = < 0.001), were also supported. Hypothesis 4, knowledge to attitude (β = 0.199, p = < 0.01), and Hypothesis 5, knowledge to perceived control (β = 0.236, p = < 0.001), were both supported by the data. Subsequently, the influence of the three antecedents of the TPB on intentions found attitude (β = 0.392, p = < 0.001) and perceived control (β = 0.620, p = < 0.001) to be significant, but subjective norms did not yield a significant result (β = 0.019, p = > 0.05). The SEM results also showed that 75.2% of the total variance explained the final construct, intentions. Lastly, involvement was found to produce the largest total impact on intentions (0.646), followed by perceived control (0.620). Table 2 presents a summary of the SEM results.

Summary of structural equation modeling results.

Note: INVO = Involvement, KNOW = Knowledge, ATTI = Attitude, NORM = Subjective norms, CONT = Perceived control, INTEN = Behavioral intentions.

Another part of the SEM process was to test the indirect effects among the variables using the bootstrapping method. The number of bootstrap samples was 2000 at 95 percentile confidence intervals. The test was conducted to determine the type of mediating effect between two variables in the proposed model. The results found all the mediators to be partial mediators, hence, significant indirect effects among all the indirect relationships. Table 3 provides a summary of the indirect effect assessment. Additionally, the conceptual model with the SEM results is illustrated in Figure 2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-18-02021-g002.jpg

Conceptual model and structural equation modeling (SEM) results.

Summary of indirect effect assessment results.

Note 1. *** p = < 0.001, ** p = < 0.01, * p = < 0.05. Note 2. INVO = Involvement, KNOW = Knowledge, ATTI = Attitude, CONT = Perceived control, INTEN = Behavioral intentions.

4.3. Multigroup Moderation

Hypotheses 9a–h were tested using the multigroup invariance test method. Hence, the method first categorized sensation seeking into high and low groups, determined the invariance at the measurement-model level, and tested the invariance of each path at the structural-model level. The study used k-means clustering to determine which research samples exhibited high (or low) levels of sensation seeking according to the measurement items used. The results grouped 255 samples into the high group (mean = 4.27) and 32 into the low group (mean = 2.84). Then, the model fit statistics of the nonrestricted measurement model were compared to those of the full-metric invariance version. The results of the model comparison show both groups to be statistically different (△χ 2 (21) = 35.408, p = < 0.05). Statistically different relationships between the high and low groups at the structural level were subsequently tested for. For the structural model, paths that were not significant for both groups were removed to establish the baseline model fit statistics (χ 2 = 697.772, df = 362, χ 2 / df = 1.928, RMSEA = 0.057, CFI = 0.926, TLI = 0.914, and IFI = 0.927). Only one path from subjective norms to intentions was not significant in both groups. Then, each nested model was calculated, and if the result for the model comparison against the baseline model was significant, the moderating effect of sensation seeking was confirmed.

The moderating impact of sensation seeking was found to be significant in four relationships—specifically, Hypothesis 9b, the path from involvement to attitude (△χ 2 (1) = 3.905, p = < 0.05). Although both the high- and low-sensation-seeking groups showed positive and significant relationships, the low-sensation-seeking group exhibited a stronger influence of involvement on attitude. In other words, those who are low on sensation-seeking personality tend to spend more time researching and reading about adventure tours. This ultimately predicts a favorable attitude towards adventure tours as established by the SEM results. Furthermore, the relationship between involvement and perceived control was also significantly moderated by sensation seeking (△χ 2 (1) = 9.040, p = < 0.01). The relationship between knowledge and perceived control was also significantly moderated by sensation seeking (△χ 2 (1) = 9.500, p = < 0.01). However, the low group exhibited a negative but still significant relationship. In other words, among low sensation seekers, the knowledge of adventure tourists does not predict their perceived capability in participating in adventure tours. Lastly, the relationship between attitude and intentions was also moderated by the sensation-seeking variable. Thus, Hypotheses 9c,e,f were also accepted. A summary of the multigroup invariance test results for sensation seeking is provided in Table 4 .

Summary of multigroup invariance test results (sensation seeking).

Note 1. *** p = < 0.001, ** p = < 0.01, * p = < 0.05. Note 2. IN = Involvement, KN = Knowledge, AT = Attitude, NO = Subjective norms, CO = Perceived control, INT = Behavioral intentions.

Similar to the multigroup invariance test for sensation seeking, the moderating effect of worry was analyzed with the same procedure. The k-means clustering results yielded 169 samples in the high-worry group (mean = 3.59) and 118 in the low-worry group (mean = 2.08). The measurement model was also significantly different between the high and low groups (△χ 2 (21) = 25.554, p = < 0.05). The path from subjective norms to intentions was also not significant for both groups and was removed before establishing the baseline model. The baseline model fit of the structural model was established as follows: χ 2 = 591.179, df = 362, χ 2 / df = 1.633, RMSEA = 0.047, CFI = 0.950, TLI = 0.942, and IFI = 0.951.

The path-by-path analysis found three relationships to be significantly moderated by worry. The path from involvement to knowledge was significant for both groups, with the low group having a slightly stronger effect (△χ 2 (1) = 6.674, p = < 0.05). In other words, those who tended to worry less about adventure tours also showed a stronger prediction of a high level of involvement resulting in a higher level of knowledge. Similar to the first relationship, the paths from involvement to attitude (△χ 2 (1) = 8.903, p = < 0.01) and to perceived control (△χ 2 (1) = 3.321, p = < 0.10) were moderated by worry. The low-worry group also exhibited a stronger influence when compared to the high group. Hence, Hypotheses 10a–c were supported. Table 5 summarizes the results of the multigroup invariance test for worry. In addition, Figure 3 provides a graphical illustration of the moderating effects of both sensation seeking and worry on the conceptual model.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is ijerph-18-02021-g003.jpg

Conceptual model and multigroup invariance test results.

Summary of multigroup invariance test results (worry).

5. Discussion

5.1. general discussion.

The proposed study model produced a robust predictive ability for the final construct, the behavioral intentions to participate in adventure tours, as 75.2% of the total variance explained the construct. The addition of both involvement and knowledge helped to improve the predictive ability based on their high total impact on intentions, 0.646 and 0.224, respectively. This suggests that those involved and knowledgeable about adventure tourism are likely to participate in the future. The results are consistent with previous findings on involvement and knowledge and their impact on intentions [ 40 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 70 ]. The successful extension of the TPB was also supported by the relatively strong model fit statistics, suggesting that the study model remained parsimonious even though additional constructs were added. Previous attempts at theory extensions also used such statistical results to determine the extended models’ efficacy [ 6 , 47 , 63 , 64 , 75 , 76 ].

The hypotheses were generally supported by the results. Individuals who spend time and effort to read and learn about adventure tourism are also likely to accumulate more knowledge about the activity, similar to previous findings [ 40 , 53 , 56 ]. Additionally, consistent with empirical evidence are the effects of involvement and knowledge on attitude and perceived behavioral control [ 38 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 56 , 65 , 70 ]. It is logical that individuals would spend time and effort to learn about and immerse themselves with things they are interested in. Furthermore, it is also expected that one would have a favorable attitude towards their own interests. Similarly, one would likely feel more confident engaging in familiar activities and those one has prior experience with. Still, involvement yielded a more substantial impact on attitude and perceived control than knowledge, suggesting that having prior experience and knowledge in the adventure tourism context is unnecessary. Thus, adventure tours are also suitable for a wider group of tourists but still not suitable for the general mass market. Hence, the additional constructs not only have statistical support but are also logically sound.

One of the three antecedents of the TPB, subjective norms, did not significantly predict behavioral intentions. Even though the three antecedents have often been found to consistently predict intentions, some past research projects did not find all three significant [ 6 , 49 , 58 ]. For example, in a food tourism context, subjective norms also did not significantly affect intentions [ 49 ]. The authors explained that due to the relatively novel and niche interests of food tourism, food tourists are less susceptible to external influences by their reference group. Similarly, in another adventure tourism study, the authors also found the subjective norms not to be a significant predictor of intentions [ 6 ]. In this study, the result was due to how adventure activities are not accepted by the public and how people are often recommended by close friends and family to avoid participating. Both lines of reasoning could also apply to this study. Adventure tourism tends to involve younger people and travel in groups with friends. The sample profiles of this study also supported this notion. At the same time, the roles of attitude and perceived behavioral control were important predictors of intentions as hypothesized and consistent with previous studies [ 6 , 49 , 60 , 62 ].

The moderating role of sensation seeking yielded some useful findings. Among the four paths, three were significantly moderated by sensation seeking; the path from knowledge to perceived control changed to negative among low sensation seekers while remaining significant. The relationship describes that if an individual has prior experience or knowledge about adventure tours, they also have the necessary skills and confidence to partake in adventure tours. However, those who have less tendency to seek new and arousing activities do not necessarily feel confident to participate even if they have prior experience. Similarly, the moderating impact of worry also shows that those with a high level of worry tend to rely on involvement more to feel confident and have control. The findings are consistent with previous studies in that those who are often worried tend to rely more on preparation and information as evidence to solve problems or make decisions [ 36 , 37 ]. In addition to these notable findings, the results suggest that high sensation seekers’ attitudes towards adventure are less influenced by their levels of involvement. This implies that attitudes can be either internally generated or driven by emotion rather than relying on a cognitive process. On the contrary, those in the low-worry group exhibited a stronger impact of involvement on knowledge and attitude. This supports the same notion as for those in the high-sensation-seeking group that adventure activities are not solely driven by a cognitive process but also a product of an individual emotional process.

5.2. Implications

The findings could be useful for various groups of stakeholders. In terms of practical implications, the study highlighted some key contributions. First, the adventure tourism subsector relies on a substantial amount of pre-trip information, such as descriptions about activities, preparation procedures, precautionary information, and knowledge sharing between members. Involvement has been proven to play a vital role within the sector. Adventure tour operators can leverage this nature by engaging more with the community through various online platforms. Operators should also focus on providing as much information to prospective tourists as possible, either on their websites or through social network groups. Unlike other tourism subgroups, adventure tourism does not necessarily benefit from elements of surprise. The excitement and thrill of the experience should already be stimulated by the natural settings and the physical requirements. Instead, the participants and tour operators should focus on the preparation and safety of all the people involved. Preparation and the information provided by the tour operators before the trip should create even more excitement. The more materials there are, the more participants would need to spend time learning and interacting. Hence, it would help to generate an even greater degree of involvement for the participants.

Adventure activities maintain the appeal of the risk and thrill elements. However, it is worth noting the difference between actual risk and perceived risk. While perceived risk can be leveraged as part of storytelling and marketing, actual risk should be avoided or minimized. The results also point out the critical role of knowledge and perceived control, which implies that the more one participates, the more experience and perceived control one accumulates. In combination with the varied level of expertise required for each of the adventure activities, it is imperative that the right person participates in the right type of activity and at the right level of difficulty. However, most destinations do not have a universal assessment and guidelines for adventure activities, making it difficult for beginners to find out where and what activity is most suitable for their skill level. Destinations or national tourism organizations may consider adopting universal classification systems such as those found among ski resorts (green/blue, red/black, and double black) to denote the level of difficulty. The classification would help to reassure those who tend to worry by giving them a higher level of certainty about the chosen challenge ahead. Simultaneously, gamification can help to motivate high-sensation-seeking individuals to challenge themselves further and achieve status among peers.

Theoretically, the study provided empirical evidence for the proposed study model, which adopted the well-established TPB and extended it with two additional critical variables. The new additional variables have been proven to be essential in explaining adventure tourism intentions, as they substantially improved the intentions’ explanatory power. The results for the two moderators also yielded satisfactory statistical scores as well as offering practical contributions. The sensation-seeking variable provided evidence on how adventure tourists are still fundamentally looking for emotional arousal that is not offered from other passive activities. At the same time, worry did not turn out to be a constraint or prohibit participation in adventure activities. Instead, it further highlighted the importance of pre-trip preparation. Both of the moderating variables have received little research attention in tourism research, although tourism activities involve many elements and varying degrees of uncertainty, which can be explained by both variables.

5.3. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

The study is bound by a few limitations. The study samples were limited to Vietnamese tourists. Thus, the social norms, types of activities, and difficulty levels are all strictly applicable to the Vietnamese adventure tourism context. However, other destinations may still find the results of this study appropriate and relevant. At the same time, future studies are encouraged, to replicate this study’s conceptual framework in other research contexts. The sample profiles are also limited in their generalizability’s scope, as the accurate distribution of the adventure tourists may not have been adequately captured in this study due to the data collection’s pragmatic restrictions. The findings of this study have also highlighted two avenues for future research. Firstly, the role of emotional arousal should be further explored. There are other types of emotional responses for adventure activities that other researchers can investigate, such as fear, escapism, stress relief, and more. Secondly, the critical role of pre-trip arrangement and preparation could be explored. The concept of worry is strongly linked to the uncertainty before the trip. Therefore, if tour operators can prepare the participants adequately in the pre-trip stage, many adventure activities could appeal to the mass market. Lastly, a study on the differences in emotion and cognition between those who have previous adventure tour experience and those who do not could yield insightful findings for tour operators.

Measurement items.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K. and N.A.B.; methodology, K.K. and N.A.B.; validation, R.H.; formal analysis, K.K.; data curation, N.A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, K.K.; writing—review and editing, R.H. and K.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed consent statement.

Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

nature based adventure tourism

Tourist reminder

Briefly about the most important thing. The largest transport hubs, useful phone numbers and contacts of tourist centers — everything to make your trip to the Murmansk region go perfectly.

Most of the Murmansk Region lies beyond the Arctic Circle. The territory occupies three peninsulas - Kola, Rybachy and Sredny, washed by the Barents and White Seas. It also includes a number of islands: Ainovsky, Seven, Veliky and Kildin.

geo

The region borders Finland and Norway in the west, Karelia in the south, and the Arkhangelsk Region across the White Sea.

The territory of the Murmansk Region belongs to the regions of the Far North. Snow cover lies from mid-October to mid-May (in mountainous areas from late September to mid-June).

climate

The average annual temperature in summer is from +8C to +14C, in winter — from -8C to -13C. In summer, frosts, snowfalls, and heavy rains are possible. The climate of different areas is different. So, in the south it is moderately marine, and in the north it is subarctic, thanks to the warm influence of the Gulf Stream. Strong winds are frequent on the seashore and mountain plateaus.

In winter, the polar night is characteristic (from November 29 to January 15), in summer - the polar day (from May 21 to July 22.)

The Murmansk region lives in the UTC+3 time zone. The time coincides with Moscow time.

Flight time

The flight time from Moscow to Murmansk is 2 - 2.5 hours. The flight from St. Petersburg will also take about two hours.

National and cultural features of the region

The traditions of folk culture of the indigenous inhabitants of the region, the Sami and Pomors, the first Russian settlers on the Kola Peninsula, have been preserved and continue to develop in the Murmansk region.

culture

Types of tourism

The Murmansk region is of interest for various types of tourism. Fans of ecological travel and photo hunting will be able to get acquainted with the wildlife of the Arctic, see and photograph reindeer, foxes and martens, ermines and moose, white partridges and polar owls, and perhaps even the owner of the taiga - a brown bear. Diving enthusiasts will find a unique underwater world of two seas. Numerous rapid rivers are ideal for kayaking and kayaking. Fans of extreme travel can go by icebreaker and dog sledding to the North Pole and Franz Josef Land. Stone seekers are waiting for deposits of amethysts, apatites and other minerals. Those for whom rest is impossible without good fishing will be able to get the coveted trophy - sea bass, catfish, trout or even salmon. And, of course, the amazing northern lights will not leave anyone indifferent.

There are a lot of interesting things in the Murmansk region for fans of skiing, who are waiting for three resorts - one is located near Kirovsk, on the slopes of Khibiny, the second, Monchegorsky, to the west of the mountains, and the third, Kandalaksha, to the south. The length of the ski slopes is from 1.5 to 2 km, the height is from 400 to 600 m. The northern slopes of the Aikuaivenchorr massif are equipped for freestyle skiing, there is also a ski stadium and an ice rink.

The largest cities of the region

The administrative center of the region - Murmansk is a modern city with a developed infrastructure and identity. Murmansk is the world's largest city located beyond the Arctic Circle, one of the largest ports in Russia.

Here you can see the world's first nuclear icebreaker “Lenin”, impressive monuments of history and the navy, as well as taste the delicacies of local cuisine.

map

But we advise you to look at other cities and villages of the region: Monchegorsk is a beautiful modern city; Kirovsk is the center of the mining industry; Kandalaksha is one of the oldest settlements on Murmansk.

One of the most popular places for tourism is the village of Teriberka. The only place in the European part of Russia that can be reached by road to see the open Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean.

There are historical monuments and museums in Kola, Kirovsk, Pechenga. The geological museum in Apatity is particularly popular.

nature based adventure tourism

pages.memo.two-section.transport-description-one

Murmansk International Airport accepts flights from Anapa, Antalya, Arkhangelsk, Kaliningrad, Krasnodar, Moscow (Domodedovo, Sheremetyevo, Vnukovo), St. Petersburg, Simferopol, Sochi, Helsinki and Cherepovets.

The airport is located 24 kilometers southwest of the center of Murmansk. The journey time is about 45 minutes.

Khibiny Regional Airport accepts flights from St. Petersburg, Moscow and Cherepovets. The airport is located on the territory of the administrative district of the city of Apatity. The city of Kirovsk is located just 32 km from the Airport.

Tourist information centers of the Murmansk region

You can get reference materials and detailed information about the tourist sites of the region, infrastructure, weather conditions and companies of the city in the Tourist Information Centers of the region (TIC).

TIC provides information to both Russian and foreign tourists. At the disposal of tourists, the TIC provides printed information in the form of maps, booklets, brochures.

Tourist Information Center of the Murmansk region

Address: Murmansk region, Murmansk, Lenin str., 82 (Azimut Hotel, first floor)

Telephone: +7 991 669 54 60

Email: [email protected]

Visiting specially protected natural areas of regional significance

Natural parks and state nature reserves of regional significance can be visited by tourists only in coordination with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Murmansk region.

List of objects: Varzugsky Nature Reserve, Kolvitsky Nature Reserve, Kutsa Nature Reserve, Ponoysky Fishery Reserve, Ponoysky Zoological Reserve, Simbozersky Nature Reserve, Seidyavvr Nature Reserve, Lapland Forest Reserve, Kaita Nature Reserve, Rybachy and Sredny Peninsulas Nature Park, Korablek Nature Park.

Tourism is allowed on the territory of the natural park "Rybachy and Sredny Peninsulas" subject to approval. On the territory of the reserve "Seidyavvr" - notifications. Rafting on rivers is allowed on the territory of the reserves "Kutsa" and the fisheries "Ponoysky" by agreement. Other forms of unorganized tourism and recreation are prohibited.

Registration of visits to other regional reserves by private individuals is voluntary.

To visit the reserve, you need to issue a pass. You can register using the links: Varzugsky Nature Reserve , Kolvitsky Nature Reserve , Kutsa Nature Reserve , pages.memo.four-section.ten , Zoological reserve "Ponoysky" , Simbozersky Nature Reserve , Reserve "Seidyavvr" , Lapland Forest Nature Reserve , Kaita Nature Reserve , Nature Park "Rybachy and Sredny Peninsulas" , Korablek Nature Park , Teriberka Nature Park

Understand [ edit ]

With a population of over 300,000, Murmansk is the largest city in the Arctic and an important Russian naval base and commercial port. Unlike Arkhangelsk on the White Sea, its harbor does not freeze in winter. It was the last city founded by the Russian Empire . In World War II , known to Russians as the Great Patriotic War, Murmansk served as a port for the arctic convoys, and after the war became the Soviet Union's most important submarine base. This history provides a major reason to visit the city, museums and port.

Climate [ edit ]

In the Far North, Murmansk experiences cold winters with temperatures routinely dropping below −20 °C (−4 °F). The brief summer offers mild temperatures between 10–15 °C (50–59 °F). Strong winds are common, especially at the higher parts of the city.

By boat [ edit ]

During the summer months, 68.973889 33.076046 2 Murmansk Shipping Company offers occasional trips to and from Barentsburg on Svalbard . They also serve remote villages along the northern coast of the Kola peninsula , most notably the isolated naval base of Ostrovnoy, with 2-3 trips per month.

A few cruise lines also visit the city during the summer season. The pier facilities are nil, basically a bare pier in a freight handling area, but with areas for buses, taxis, etc.

By bus [ edit ]

Pasvik Turist [dead link] provides a bus connection from Kirkenes in Norway daily at 14:00 or 15:00 (confirm on website) for 350 NOK one-way or 600 NOK return (Sept 2017). They also offer Russian taxi (maximum 3 passengers) from 2000 NOK one way. A once-weekly bus service is also available from Ivalo , Finland by Auto Express .

Book in advance, and be there on time, since it is a bad idea to miss the bus and overstay Russian visas.

By car [ edit ]

There are roads from Ivalo, Finland (290 km) and Kirkenes, Norway (220 km). When calculating travel time expect hour-long waits at the border and keep the time difference in mind. A trip starting in Kirkenes at 09:00 (Norwegian time) might end at 16:00 (Russian time).

Get around [ edit ]

Map

On foot [ edit ]

Although Murmansk is long and thin, most sites of interest to visitors are within a fairly compact area in the city center. 68.964005 33.073114 1 Prospekt Lenina is the main north-south thoroughfare through the city center and the central Five Corners Square . Avid walkers could cover the entire stretch of the central area from the Poliarnie Zori Hotel on the south end of the city center to the Alyosha Statue , on a plateau on the north side of the city, in less than two hours.

Trolleybuses are available on most larger streets and generally follows a north-south route, if you are heading east ("up the hill") you have to rely on the small mashtruka buses. Both buses and trolleybuses can be much delayed during rush hours due to traffic jams. A route planner showing real time location of trolleybuses on the most used lines is available online [dead link] , the catch is it's in Russian only.

Connect [ edit ]

Consulates [ edit ], stay safe [ edit ].

Some neighbourhoods may be unsafe at night, particularly Rostu and Zhilstroy.

Packs of stray dogs roam around suburban areas and have been known to attack humans carrying food. There are also bear sightings along the road leading to the airport. Although bears usually flee upon contact, mothers protecting cubs may be aggressive.

Go next [ edit ]

The wilderness of the Kola peninsula and Murmansk Oblast is perfect for camping, fishing or hunting. Many visitors continue out in the wild from here. There are several large national parks nearby and there are several companies to organize your trip.

Or you can head north; Murmansk is a great place to start for your icebreaker cruise to the Arctic Sea and the North Pole .

nature based adventure tourism

  • Has custom banner
  • Has map markers
  • Airport listing
  • Articles with dead external links
  • Has mapframe
  • Maps with non-default size
  • Do listing with no coordinates
  • Drink listing with no coordinates
  • Has routebox
  • Usable cities
  • Usable articles
  • City articles
  • Has Geo parameter
  • Murmansk Oblast
  • All destination articles
  • Pages with maps

Navigation menu

IMAGES

  1. Dandeli

    nature based adventure tourism

  2. What is Ecotourism?

    nature based adventure tourism

  3. Adventure & Indulgence Tour

    nature based adventure tourism

  4. 9

    nature based adventure tourism

  5. THE 12 BEST Places for Adventure Travel Holidays (2021 Guide)

    nature based adventure tourism

  6. Adventure Tourism

    nature based adventure tourism

VIDEO

  1. Nature #travel

  2. #nature #travel

  3. Fascinating Facts You Never Knew About OUR WORLD

  4. Explore the World: A Journey to 10 Enchanting Destinations

  5. ❤️Most beautiful places on Earth

  6. What is Adventure Tourism, and How to Embrace Thrilling Adventures?

COMMENTS

  1. Adventure Travel & Nature Tours

    Your Nature &Adventure Travel Experts. Since 1985, Natural Habitat Adventures has delivered life-enhancing nature and wildlife experiences to small groups of travelers passionate about the natural world. Our unique itineraries are meticulously designed to offer intimate encounters with nature in our planet's most riveting wild destinations ...

  2. Sustainability Comes to Life. Nature-Based Adventure Tourism in Norway

    The paper applies a micro-sociological perspective to the nature-based adventure tourism scene where the interplay between tourists, guides, adventure activities and nature is understood as multiple dialectic performances co-produced by the different actors. Goffman's dramaturgical metaphors, and concepts of frames, appearance, and manner ...

  3. What is nature tourism and why is it so popular?

    Nature tourism is all about visiting natural areas and is closed aligned with the concept of rural tourism. Places that nature tourists might visit include might include beaches, forests or national parks. Activities focus on the natural environment rather than visiting man-mad features; think stargazing and hiking, for example.

  4. Conceptualizing nature-based science tourism: a case study of Seili

    A growing global desire for tourism and recreation is nature-based, involving interactions with or appreciation of the natural environment (e.g., Margaryan, 2018; Mehmetoglu, 2007 ). Nature-based tourism is an umbrella term including various forms of niche tourism (Novelli, 2005) such as wildlife tourism, ecotourism, and adventure tourism.

  5. Nature-based Tourism: Benefits and youth involvement

    Nature-based tourism (NBT) is defined as the number of outdoor activities performed by tourists in the natural environment. NBT activities represent high level adventure activities like jet boating, skydiving and mountain climbing as well as more relaxing activities like bush walking, wildlife and scenic tours and boat cruises (aucklandcouncil, August, 2009) 1.

  6. What is ecotourism? How to travel responsibly and sustainably.

    Nature-based travel, too, can risk losing the plot, from sanctuaries that operate like petting zoos to the development of tropical coasts into even the most nature-forward resorts.

  7. What Is Adventure Tourism?

    Adventure tourism is closely related to nature-based tourism (Buckley et al. 2003), and there is also an overlap with ecotourism. Adventure tourism is 'nature tourism with a kick, nature tourism with a degree of risk taking and physical endurance' (Christ et al. 2003). It focuses on doing, whilst the other categories mentioned often focus ...

  8. Full article: 20 years of Nordic nature-based tourism research: a

    This paper provides a review of research in nature-based tourism in the Nordic region, discuss it from an international viewpoint and provide an outlook for the future research agenda. To do this, we analyze the Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism for papers focusing on nature-based tourism from 2010 to 2020, as well as 29 key ...

  9. The Art of Guiding in Nature-Based Adventure Tourism

    The context is nature-based adventure tourism in the specific mediums of mountain bike and backcountry ski tours in Utah and Idaho, USA. Qualitative interviews of clients and guides combined with participant observations are used to explore how guides interact with clients to increase their perceived value. Important findings are related to how ...

  10. (PDF) The Art of Guiding in Nature-Based Adventure Tourism

    Art of Guiding in Nature-Based Adventure Tourism 7 Downloaded by [University of Utah], [Jeffrey Rose] at 11:51 09 July 2015 who did the data collection has 25 years of experience as a mountain biker.

  11. 5 Retreats to Reconnect With Nature

    In fall 2022, Ms. Escobar created a two-night overnight retreat called Night Clerb at Ace Hotel Palm Springs ($300). This year and next, Night Clerb events will take place in Puerto Rico, Alaska ...

  12. PDF Active engagement with nature: outdoor adventure tourism

    example, Brymer et al. (2009) suggest nature-based sports facilitate a deep and ingrained appreciation of nature, something key to sustainable tourism (Hanna, Johnson, Stenner, & Adams, 2014), and arguably ... Active engagement with nature | Hanna et al. 3 adventure tourism activities. We then present our findings from a series of interviews ...

  13. Sustainability Comes to Life. Nature-Based Adventure Tourism in Norway

    Our focus is on nature-based adventure tourism (Buckley, 2006, 2010; Mihalic, 2006; Rokenes et al., 2015; Beams et al., 2019 ) to foreground the sustainability aspects of commercialized

  14. Outdoor Recreation, Nature-Based Tourism, and Sustainability

    More broadly, outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism provide experiences that are known to have positive health outcomes [ 30, 31, 34, 35 ]. Nature experiences can lead to an array of positive emotions, including awe, happiness, joy, and contentment [ 21 ], and have been associated with significant stress reduction [ 34 ].

  15. Conceptualising the power of outdoor adventure activities for

    We define the latter as 'participating in nature-based outdoor adventure tourism or recreation activities which may be challenging and may include perceived or real risk.' Although there is considerable research on the motives encouraging outdoor adventure activity participation (e.g., Buckley, 2012 ; Cater, 2008 ; Houge Mackenzie & Hodge ...

  16. Full article: Prospects for nature-based tourism: identifying trends

    Nature-based tourism businesses: companies and organizations that receive payment for providing goods and services in support of NBT ... Rokenes, A., Schumann, S., & Rose, J. (2015). The art of guiding in nature-based adventure tourism - How guides can create client value and positive experiences on Mountain Bike and Backcountry Ski tours.

  17. Adventure Tourism

    Adventure tourism activities are nature-based activities. Leaders in the adventure tourism industry are dedicated to making this tourism segment as sustainable as possible. They help in conservation of natural resources as well as cultural. Creating Business Opportunities. Adventure tourism activities create new business opportunities.

  18. The Moderating Roles of Sensation Seeking and Worry among Nature-Based

    Thirdly, the expanded definition of adventure tourism typically consists of the natural environment, making many nature-based activities considered a part of adventure tourism [3,9]. Despite the varying definitions and ambiguous categorization of adventure tourism, several elements remain consistent and still vital for the characteristics of ...

  19. Kola Peninsula Russia

    Kola Peninsula is located in the far northwest of Russia and is a part of Murmansk Oblast. Being a geological extension of the Baltic Shield and of the Norwegian coastline, it appeals to the eye with the magnificent fjords, tundra and taiga, mountains and Arctic coasts—all in a relatively small region that can be traversed in ~7 hours by car.

  20. Tourist guide of the Murmansk region

    The territory of the Murmansk Region belongs to the regions of the Far North. Snow cover lies from mid-October to mid-May (in mountainous areas from late September to mid-June). The average annual temperature in summer is from +8C to +14C, in winter — from -8C to -13C. In summer, frosts, snowfalls, and heavy rains are possible.

  21. Sustainable visitor experience design in nature-based tourism: an

    Experiences are at the heart of nature-based tourism - without good experiences, demand dwindles, and as a result, the nature-based tourism industry suffers. ... and Buckley (Citation 2021) claim that nature tourists gain psychological restoration through calm and tranquil nature contemplation while adventure tourists gain psychological ...

  22. Murmansk

    Murmansk (Russian: Му́рманск) is a city in the extreme northwest of Russia and the world's largest city north of the Arctic Circle. It lies in the Kola Bay on the Kola Peninsula, by the Barents Sea.. Understand [edit]. With a population of over 300,000, Murmansk is the largest city in the Arctic and an important Russian naval base and commercial port.

  23. Ostrovnoy Map

    Ostrovnoy. Ostrovnoy, previously known as Murmansk-140, is a closed town in Murmansk Oblast, Russia. As of the 2010 Census, its population was 2,171; down from 5,032 recorded in the 2002 Census. Photo: Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0. Ukraine is facing shortages in its brave fight to survive.