IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i22p9586-d446630.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characteristics and Satisfaction Analysis of Eco-Tour Ships at Ecotourism Sites: Focusing on the Cases of the Nakdong River Estuary, Suncheon Bay Wetland, and Goesan Lake and Sanmagi-Yetgil in Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Byung-Chul An

    (Department of Forest∙Landscape Architecture & Institute for Environmental Science, Wonkwang University, Iksan 54538, Korea)

  • Eun-Yeong Park

    (Department of Environment & Landscape Architecture, Joongbu University, Geumsan 32713, Korea)

Abstract

This study investigated eco-tour ships at Nakdong estuary, Suncheon wetland, and Goesan and Sanmagi-yetgil, 3 of the 26 ecotourism sites in Korea, by analyzing the characteristics and level of ecotourist satisfaction. The field investigation focused on eco-tour ship image, facilities, landscape observed from eco-tour ship, course, and operations. The results of the satisfaction analysis can be summarized as follows. First, there was no significant difference in satisfaction of eco-tour ship image between Nakdong estuary and Sanmagi-yetgil ( p > 0.01), while Suncheon wetland showed a significant difference ( p < 0.01). It is assumed that the fact that the ship was built using timber which better suits the natural environment and coastal ecosystem had a positive impact on the visual image. No significant difference in satisfaction with facilities on eco-tour ships was found between Nakdong estuary and Suncheon wetland, while Sanmagi-yetgil showed a significant difference. Second, satisfaction of the landscape observed from the eco-tour ships showed significant differences in the mean scores of landscape evaluation the three target sites: Sanmagi-yetgil (8.40), Suncheon wetland (7.20), and Nakdong estuary (4.67). These values are based on the qualitative evaluation of the landscape as seen from the eco-tour ship. It is presumed to have been influenced by the diversity of the landscape and the width of the river. The eco-tour ship course satisfaction also showed significant differences in the mean scores: Sanmagi-yetgil (7.37), Suncheon wetland (6.57), and Nakdong estuary (5.00). The landscape and tour course evaluations of the respondents seem to be correlated. In particular, the variety of courses available to visitors in Sanmagi-yetgil was relatively high compared to Nakdong estuary and Suncheon wetland. Third, satisfaction analysis for eco-tour ship operations found that Suncheon wetland and Sanmagi-yetgil did not differ significantly in terms of satisfaction ( p = 0.634), but Nakdong estuary showed a significant difference. The relatively low satisfaction with the eco-tour ship operation at Nakdong estuary is due to the low scores for eco-tour ship commentary, reservation system, and with the facilities, while it is shown that the operation time as well as the landscape observed from the eco-tour ship and the tour course had a combined influence on satisfaction. In the comparative analysis of the impact of eco-tour ships on ecotourism, Nakdong estuary showed a significant difference. This finding indicates a greater influence of eco-tour ships on ecotourism in Suncheon wetland, Sanmagi-yetgil, and Nakdong estuary. Enhanced ecotourism satisfaction improves the probability of return visits. Thus, there is a need to incorporate the characteristics of ecological resources with well thought out operation and increased functional suitability of eco-tour ships to improve ecotourism satisfaction. The eco-ships in the three places in this paper have elements promoting and enhancing their potential. Our findings showed the satisfaction level of the users with the theme of ecotourism.

Suggested Citation

  • Byung-Chul An & Eun-Yeong Park, 2020. "Characteristics and Satisfaction Analysis of Eco-Tour Ships at Ecotourism Sites: Focusing on the Cases of the Nakdong River Estuary, Suncheon Bay Wetland, and Goesan Lake and Sanmagi-Yetgil in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9586-:d:446630
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9586/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9586/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manuel Angel Fernández Gámez & Jose Ramón Sánchez Serrano & Angela Callejón Gil & Ana José Cisneros Ruiz, 2019. "Cruise Passengers’ Intention and Sustainable Management of Cruise Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Hannah Sharp & Josefine Grundius & Jukka Heinonen, 2016. "Carbon Footprint of Inbound Tourism to Iceland: A Consumption-Based Life-Cycle Assessment including Direct and Indirect Emissions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-23, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Melinda Jászberényi & Márk Miskolczi, 2020. "Danube Cruise Tourism as a Niche Product—An Overview of the Current Supply and Potential," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Dandan Liu & Dewei Yang & Anmin Huang, 2021. "LEAP-Based Greenhouse Gases Emissions Peak and Low Carbon Pathways in China’s Tourist Industry," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Sun, Ya-Yen & Cadarso, Maria Angeles & Driml, Sally, 2020. "Tourism carbon footprint inventories: A review of the environmentally extended input-output approach," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    4. Md. Hasanur Rahman & Liton Chandra Voumik & Md. Jamsedul Islam & Md. Abdul Halim & Miguel Angel Esquivias, 2022. "Economic Growth, Energy Mix, and Tourism-Induced EKC Hypothesis: Evidence from Top Ten Tourist Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Yanhong Liu & Erwei Dong & Shiqi Li & Xiaowen Jie, 2020. "Cruise Tourism for Sustainability: An Exploration of Value Chain in Shenzhen Shekou Port," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.
    6. Fei Ma & Wenlin Wang & Qipeng Sun & Fei Liu & Xiaodan Li, 2018. "Ecological Pressure of Carbon Footprint in Passenger Transport: Spatio-Temporal Changes and Regional Disparities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, January.
    7. Jianping Zha & Rong Fan & Yao Yao & Lamei He & Yuanyuan Meng, 2021. "Framework for accounting for tourism carbon emissions in China: An industrial linkage perspective," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(7), pages 1430-1460, November.
    8. David Cook & Nína Saviolidis & Brynhildur Davíðsdóttir & Lára Jóhannsdóttir & Snjólfur Ólafsson, 2019. "Synergies and Trade-Offs in the Sustainable Development Goals—The Implications of the Icelandic Tourism Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-23, August.
    9. Michał Czepkiewicz & Áróra Árnadóttir & Jukka Heinonen, 2019. "Flights Dominate Travel Emissions of Young Urbanites," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-35, November.
    10. Jing Zhang & Bing Xia, 2024. "Carbon Emissions and Its Efficiency of Tourist Hotels in China from the Supply Chain Based on the Input–Output Method and Super-SBM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-27, October.
    11. Manuel Rama & Emilio Carral & Sara González-García & Elías Torres-Feijó & Maria Luisa del Rio & María Teresa Moreira & Gumersindo Feijoo, 2022. "Balance between Hosts and Guests: The Key to Sustainable Tourism in a Heritage City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-18, October.
    12. Chuntao Wu & Maozhu Liao & Chengliang Liu, 2019. "Acquiring and Geo-Visualizing Aviation Carbon Footprint among Urban Agglomerations in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-16, August.
    13. Gustav Engström & Johan Gars & Niko Jaakkola & Therese Lindahl & Daniel Spiro & Arthur A. van Benthem, 2020. "What Policies Address Both the Coronavirus Crisis and the Climate Crisis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 789-810, August.
    14. Chris Roberts & Joel Reynolds & Mary Jo Dolasinski, 2022. "Meta-Analysis of Tourism Sustainability Research: 2019–2021," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, March.
    15. Fang Wang & Tao Xue & Ting Wang & Bihu Wu, 2020. "The Mechanism of Tourism Risk Perception in Severe Epidemic—The Antecedent Effect of Place Image Depicted in Anti-Epidemic Music Videos and the Moderating Effect of Visiting History," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Dele Raheem & Anu Holopainen & Jana Koegst & Maija Tulimaa & Moaadh Benkherouf, 2022. "Promoting Sustainability within the Nordic-Arctic Region’s Food System: Challenges and Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-14, August.
    17. Larbi Safaa & Ahmet Atalay & Daiva Makutėnienė & Dalia Perkumienė & Imane El Bouazzaoui, 2023. "Assessment of Carbon Footprint Negative Effects for Nature in International Traveling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-14, August.
    18. Sudeshna Ghosh, 2022. "Effects of tourism on carbon dioxide emissions, a panel causality analysis with new data sets," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 3884-3906, March.
    19. Geneidy Sami El & Baumeister Stefan, 2019. "The Carbon Footprint of Volunteer Tourism," European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation, Sciendo, vol. 9(2), pages 15-25, December.
    20. Shuxin Wang & Yiyuan Hu & Hong He & Genxu Wang, 2017. "Progress and Prospects for Tourism Footprint Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-17, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:22:p:9586-:d:446630. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.