This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 07 October 2014, At: 09:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sport & TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjto20

The importance of attributes relatedto physical activity for the tourismproduct's utilityBartosz Szczechowicz aa Faculty of Tourism and Leisure , University School of PhysicalEducation in Cracow , 31-571 Krakow, Al. Jana Pawla II 78, PolandPublished online: 08 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Bartosz Szczechowicz (2012) The importance of attributes related tophysical activity for the tourism product's utility, Journal of Sport & Tourism, 17:3, 225-249, DOI:10.1080/14775085.2012.734061

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14775085.2012.734061

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The importance of attributes related tophysical activity for the tourismproduct’s utilityBartosz Szczechowicz

Recent worldwide tourism trends reveal increased public interest in travel centered on

values connected to the human body, such as health and fitness. In commercial terms,

this calls for the development of tourism packages whose structure would meet the

tourists’ needs and desires related to various forms of physical activity by providing

them with opportunities to participate. However, few scholars have conducted empirical

studies to identify factors determining the utility of such products from the perspective

of consumers. This article is intended to fill this gap. It was assumed here that the

inclusion of physical activity into tourism packages would generate for the tourists

unique features including the opportunity to exhibit courage, testing one’s psychological

and physical abilities, rivalry, adventure, access to sports and leisure facilities,

experiencing risk to one’s health or life, and contact with nature. Subsequently, the

actual importance of these attributes for the utility of tourism packages was measured

using conjoint analysis for a population of Cracow students, who tend to be active

tourists. It was found that respondents prefer tourism packages characterized by high

levels of all of the above-mentioned attributes except for risk. At the same time, they

pay more attention to components forming the actual level of the products than to the

experiences arising from the consumption of those components.

Keywords: Physical Activity; Tourism Package; Consumer Preferences; College Students;

Utility; Conjoint analysis

1. Introduction

Increased public interest in travel focused on values referring to the human body, such

as health and fitness, has produced a growing market for this kind of tourism packages

(European Travel Commision 2006; Eurostat 2008). The types of physical activity

Bartosz Szczechowicz is at the Faculty of Tourism and Leisure, University School of Physical Education in Cracow,31-571 Krakow, Al. Jana Pawla II 78, Poland. Email: bartosz.szczechowicz@awf.krakow.pl

Journal of Sport & TourismVol. 17, No. 3, August 2012, pp. 225–249

ISSN 1477-5085 (print)/ISSN 1029-5399 (online) # 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14775085.2012.734061

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

incorporated in these products include physical exercise, sports, and other types of

activity undertaken voluntarily during tours (Sylvia-Bobiak & Caldwell, 2006).

Some examples are hiking, biking, skiing, canoeing, sailing, climbing, orienteering,

scuba diving, windsurfing, ballooning, and parachuting – all requiring considerable

energy expenditure (Pomfret, 2006).

Physical activity may be regarded as an element of a tourism package which affects its

utility-economic theory and defines this notion as consumer satisfaction resulting from

the consumption of a particular good of service (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 1989). This

influence can be both positive and negative – for example, a trekking trip or access to

sports infrastructure included in the program of a sightseeing tour may afford the tour-

ists some desired feelings and experiences which were previously inaccessible to them

(such as joy and excitement resulting from contact with nature and covering the distance

by undertaking psychological and physical efforts), but at the same time, the tourists take

the risk of injury or loss of health due to the activity involved. Due to the variety of types

of physical activity, the research problem may be formulated more precisely by asking to

what extent the features that accompany the various forms of physical activity affect the

tourist’s satisfaction as measured by the utility level of the undertaken travel.

The assumption that physical activity can be analyzed as a set of characteristic attri-

butes is justified by the long-accepted idea that consumers do not value the products as

such, but because of their specific attributes (Blaug, 1995). Furthermore, as it was

demonstrated by Lancaster in the 1960s, the characteristics of a product are objectively

measurable (Lancaster, 1966; Blaug, 1995). Thus, it is possible to empirically identify

the relative contribution of particular attributes to the total utility of an activity-based

tourism package. The implementation of this kind of empirical research, however,

requires a prior identification of those special attributes, which physical activity

brings to the structure of a tourism package. Here, marketing theory may be of

help. As Corey puts it, marketing describes the concept of a product as a bundle of

benefits provided to the consumer (1975; cf. Schoell & Guiltinan, 1987; Kotler et al.,

1999; Kotler & Keller, 2006), in which the product structure is considered in accord-

ance with the concept of Levitt (1980) as attributes structured at three levels. The basic

layer of the product, referred to as its core, is a set of consumer benefits. For the con-

sumer to actually obtain the benefits, the product has an actual level consisting of

goods and services suitable for the consumer. In turn, the augmented level of the

product consists of elements which provide the consumer with some extra benefits,

and are therefore not necessary for meeting the consumer’s expectations, being a

source of some additional value (Kotler et al., 1999; Kotler & Keller, 2006). For

example, canoeing included into the structure of a tourism package provides the con-

sumer with specific experiences and emotional states (core), requires the provision of a

natural background, equipment, and infrastructure support adequate for this type of

activity (actual level), and also gives the package organizer, the opportunity to offer the

tourists additional services that contribute to their final level of satisfaction, such as

canoeing training or preparation of canoeing gear (augmented level).

A range of empirical methods may be used to determine the structure of the

product most preferred by the consumers, from tests and scales measuring attitudes

226 Szczechowicz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

and preferences to multi-attribute methods, where respondents evaluate a product

described by many attributes. This allows the researcher not only to understand the

consumers’ expectations as to the saturation of the product with particular character-

istics, but it also shows to what extent the presence of particular attributes and their

intensity contribute to the product’s utility in the consumer’s eyes (Hair et al.,

1998). In the study presented in this article, a multi-attribute method known as con-

joint analysis was used. The study was aimed at identifying the importance of attri-

butes related to physical activity to the creation of utility. The conjoint analysis

procedure starts with a preparation of set of real or hypothetical products, each of

which is described by variables (attributes) selected by the researcher and by values,

measured on a nominal scale, assigned to the attributes. Product structures, called pro-

files, described by attributes and their levels, are presented to respondents for evalu-

ation in order to estimate the total utility of each profile. Further on, the total

utilities are decomposed to arrive at part-worth utilities, which indicate the utility

of particular levels of the examined variables, that is, the importance of each of

them to the utility of the examined product in the eyes of the buyers (Schmidt &

Hollensen, 2006; Gustafsson et al., 2007).

The empirical study presented in this article was not, however, focused solely on

benefiting the business of tourism package operators. In the cognitive aspect, it was

primarily designed to determine the extent to which the attributes of physical

activity-based tourism packages are perceived as attractive and thus contribute to

meeting the needs and desires of tourists. Taking that into consideration, the study

was performed on a student population in one of the largest academic centers in

Poland, that is, the city of Cracow. The study population demonstrates a high level

of participation in tourism and, importantly, in its physically active forms. Although

relatively few people in Poland participate in short-term, 2-4-day-long, domestic tours

(only 26% of people aged 20–24) or in long-term domestic tours of 5 days or more

(20%) (Głowny Urzad Statystyczny, 2010), for university students the rate of

tourism activity is much higher in the light of available empirical research, exceeding

60% regardless of the region in Poland (Gryszel et al., 2008; Szromek, 2008). Finally,

the students’ activity has significantly contributed to the contemporary state of

tourism in Poland in its specialized and sporting forms (Kowalik, 1979).

2. Activity-based Tourism Packages

2.1 Physical Activity as a Factor Generating Tourist Benefits

Modern economic and marketing theories no longer describe products purely in terms

of meeting basic human needs (Sheth et al., 1991; van Rekom, 1994; Sanchez et al.,

2006; Williams & Soutar, 2009). Thus, the benefits gained by participants of physical

activity-based tourism packages should not be understood solely as rewards of func-

tional nature such as improved health, psychological and physical rejuvenations, and

enhanced fitness. As MacCannell observed (1999), the value of a product is deter-

mined by customers primarily through the prism of expected future consumption

Journal of Sport & Tourism 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

of experiences (Pine & Gilmore, 1999). In respect of the subject matter of this study,

such experiences arise from the broadly defined tourist’s reflection on the human body

and its physical nature. Therefore, they involve emotions and feelings associated with

various forms of recreation and sport activities. In this context, it is worth drawing

attention to ludic (Huizinga, 1950) and agonistic (Caillois, 1961; Gyimothy & Mykle-

tun, 2004) experiences as well as the atmosphere of concentration, rivalry, and heroism

surrounding the participation in many games and activities (Lipiec, 2007b). With

regard to the different kinds of sport activity carried out during tours (Gibson,

1998; Robinson & Gammon, 2004), the participants may also wish to test their phys-

ical and psychological limits, especially if space-oriented sports, such as climbing,

mountain skiing, sailing, scuba-diving, ballooning, or gliding, are involved (Matuszyk,

1998). In these types of sport activities, the participants’ experiences are primarily

determined by the continuous need to exhibit courage, strength, physical and psycho-

logical endurance, and considerable technical skills. Last but not least, the tourists’

reflection may also focus on aesthetic issues such as the beauty of the human body

engaged in a physical activity or the beauty of actions performed by a person

(Lipiec, 2007a). This last aspect is manifested, for example, when a tourist is

engaged in various sporting events as a spectator.

Products are increasingly often described in terms of meeting those desires of con-

sumers which result from social interactions with other consumers (Veblen, 1899;

Levy, 1959; MacCannell, 1999; Khalil, 2000; Witt, 2010). Hence, products may

provide a way of communicating emotions and values that cannot be otherwise con-

veyed in a verbal manner (Firth, 1973). From this vantage point, a tourism package can

be seen as a sign referring to the axiosphere associated with physical activity to use

semiotic terms (Parmentier, 1994). This happens when the consumption of a

tourism product stimulates reflection in the consumer’s social environment regarding

the values attributed to the human body and its capabilities. This may not only evoke

some transitory experiences in the recipients of the sign, but may also lead to their

recognizing the promoted values, adopting the presented attitudes, and getting sys-

tematically involved in the promoted activities. The symbolism of the product in ques-

tion may be revealed in yet another way: when consuming a tourism package, the

participants may adopt the meanings embedded in it, just as people wearing sport

shoes often feel faster and more athletic, and are also perceived as such by others

(Pitrus, 2005). This leads to the conclusion that the symbolism of activity-based

tourism packages arises from values related to physical activity incorporated in their

structure. The participants are therefore viewed as active, health-conscious individuals

characterized by substantial fitness, courage, heroism, and fortitude.

2.2 Tourism Package Attributes Related to Physical Activity at the Level of the Actual

Product

The sphere of consumer benefits presented above is, as it was mentioned above, at the

core of tourism packages (Levitt, 1980; Kotler et al., 1999; Kotler & Keller, 2006). It is

not, however, delivered to the consumers independently, but through a corresponding

228 Szczechowicz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

set of components referring to the axiosphere and constituting the actual product level

(Kotler et al., 1999; Kotler & Keller, 2006). This level includes a number of different

goods and services necessary to carry out a tour, the most important being transport,

accommodation, catering services, but it also incorporates some attributes directly

connected to the realm of physical activity.

Movement is a special component of activity-based tourism packages considered at

the actual level. The key factor is that tourists explore the area that surrounds them in a

dynamic way, making a mental and physical effort. The significance of this fact can

hardly be overestimated, since tourists’ personal involvement in exploration gives

them a chance to feel emotions and have experiences unavailable via passive behavior.

This is also stressed by Urry (2007), who writes that kinesthetics is the tourist’s sixth

sense which informs one about the position of the body in space through sensations of

movement registered by joints, muscles, and tendons. Urry, citing Gil (1998) and

Lewis (2001), also draws attention to the special role of touch in the perception of

movement, for example, through the feet on the pavement or the mountain path,

or the hands on a rock-face or a steering wheel (Urry, 2007). In this regard, tourists’

kinetic experience can be diversified in terms of quality and intensified through

specialized equipment (e.g. bicycles, snowshoes, skis, snowmobiles, climbing shoes)

and the corresponding modes of movement (Urry, 2007). This type of personal equip-

ment as well as access to sports and recreational facilities enabling the pursuit of pre-

ferred physical activity also constitute important elements of the actual level of

activity-based tourism packages.

The above-mentioned attributes – movement and the related phenomena – gen-

erate very special experiences for tourists, and thus they are often linked to adventure

tourism (Millington et al., 2001; Weber, 2001; Page et al., 2005; Pomfret, 2006; Buckley,

2007). This analogy emphasizes an important but not exclusive motivation for partici-

pation in activity-based tours, which is the pursuit of exciting, or sometimes fear and

horror-inspiring, adventures (Cater, 2006). This calls for the recognition of two

additional factors as important elements of the actual level of activity packages:

special interest natural areas (Beedie & Hudson, 2003; Chhetri et al., 2004) and risk

(Page et al., 2005; Trauer, 2006; Bentley et al., 2001, 2007). The role of natural space

as a source of special tourist experience has been noted by Winiarski and Zdebski,

who emphasize the fact that a specific experience of the sublime is becoming increas-

ingly frequent in reflections describing the impressions of tourists staying in mountain

areas (Winiarski & Zdebski, 2008). On the other hand, Andrzej Urbanczyk, a Polish

sailor, while describing his personal aesthetic experience of single-handed sailing

oceans and seas, points to impressions of immensity, purity, and the mobility of the

surface – in contrast to mountainous regions (Urbanczyk 2008). Risk, however, as

an element of the structure of activity-based tourism packages, is a natural conse-

quence of including various forms of physical activity into the tour program. Each

form of physical activity is fraught with some typical accidents and related injuries

to participants, occurring at a certain probability (Bentley et al., 2001, 2007). As a

result, consumer preferences for involvement in physically active tourism should be

Journal of Sport & Tourism 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

differentiated by the degree of the tourists’ risk-taking propensities (in the sense of

readiness to put their health or life at risk).

The hypothetical purposes of travel discussed here include those resulting from the

tourists’ desire to participate in sport. This may either take the form of tourist activity

in which sport is a leading motive (Sport Tourism) or activity undertaken to

implement leisure or cognitive motives in which sport and recreational motives are

an essential complement (Tourism Sport; Robinson & Gammon, 2004). Therefore,

the article focuses on those tourism packages that offer the consumers the opportunity

to participate in sports as spectators as well as on those that are associated with rec-

reational sport during travel. In both cases, physical activity is considered to be an

attribute of a tourism package which generates specific feelings and emotions in tour-

ists. Watching a sports event may inspire the consumer to admire the athletes’ physical

fitness, their exceptional skills, techniques of performing various activities, and the use

of specialized equipment. It is worth adding that the interaction generated between the

audience of a sports event and the athletes may be so significant that the spectators

may no longer be regarded as passive participants (Weed, 2005). Doing sports gives

the tourists the opportunity to verify their own psychological and physical capabilities,

both by taking physical effort and by confronting their own potential with the abilities

and results of other people. It should be emphasized that the tourism packages under

consideration exclude participation in professional sports events as contestants since

such events are related to the implementation of obligations arising from one’s

work and go beyond tourism pursued in one’s leisure time.

3. Methods

3.1 Previous Applications of Conjoint Analysis in Tourism and Physical Activity

The conceptual and methodological foundations of conjoint analysis are underpinned

by the microeconomic theory of utility (Walesiak & Bak, 2000), which assumes that

respondents are able to assess the profiles under consideration in such a way that

they indicate as the most preferred profile the one which they assume to bring them

the greatest benefits, meaning that while making decisions, they seek to maximize sat-

isfaction (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 1989). Based on these assumptions, conjoint analy-

sis belongs to a group of methods of data classification and analysis measuring

respondents’ preferences using a decompositional approach (Walesiak & Bak, 2000;

Pullman et al., 2002). The respondents’ assessments of the profiles presented to

them show the total utility level of each profile for each respondent separately, and

they also make it possible to estimate part-worth utility levels for each respondent

through decomposition of the total utility. This reveals the utility of each examined

level of each attribute to a given respondent. Using statistical methods, one can

further process the data and generalize the results for the whole examined population.

In this way, two types of information are acquired. First, the relative importance of the

attributes is determined, that is, the extent to which each attribute affects the total

utility of the product. Second, the intensity level of each attribute preferred by the

230 Szczechowicz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

respondents is revealed. These two pieces of information allow one to estimate, for a

given group of respondents, the product utility of every possible profile that can be

generated (Schmidt & Hollensen, 2006; Gustafsson et al., 2007).

Although theoretical foundations of conjoint analysis were developed back in the

1960s (Luce & Tukey, 1964) and since the beginning of the following decade this

method has ranked among the leading tools used to identify consumer preferences

of products characterized by multiple variables (Baarsma, 2003), conjoint analysis

has been rarely used to identify consumer preferences regarding tourism and physical

activity products. Still, analysis of these few cases (MacKenzie, 1992; Dellaert et al.,

1995; Kemperman et al., 2000; Ross et al., 2003; Suh & Gartner, 2004; Suh &

McAvoy, 2005) proves that that the object of a conjoint analysis study can be

defined with variables related to physical activity. Furthermore, most crucially, attri-

butes of the studied object can be linked not only to the elements constituting the

actual product level, but also to consumer expectations concerning benefits arising

from consumption (MacKenzie, 1992; Suh & McAvoy, 2005). Consequently, variables

used to characterize activity-based tourism packages need not be limited to prefer-

ences for alternative forms of physical activity and the availability of sports and recrea-

tion infrastructure, but may also take into account the sphere of potential tourist

experiences. Thus, conjoint analysis may demonstrate the extent to which the values

underpinning the product are socially internalized and contribute to satisfying the

needs and desires of consumers.

3.2 The Object of Research and the Data Collection Method

The research problem addressed with conjoint analysis concerns the identification of

respondents’ preferences in relation to the selected type of product and the analytical

procedure starts with the specification of variables, referred to as features, attributes,

or characteristics, with which the product is described in the study. It is important at

this stage to take into account only the most relevant variables, and the selection can

either be arbitrarily made by the researcher based on studies of the relevant literature

or result from pilot studies aimed at identifying the attributes of the product the

respondents consider the most important (Walesiak & Bak, 2000). However, with

the growing number of product attributes, the number of profiles which must be pre-

sented to respondents for evaluation in order to maintain adequate reliability of

research also increases. An excessive number of profiles can in turn lead to a situation,

where respondents will not be able to be assigned to each variable (Green & Srinivasan,

1978; Walesiak & Bak, 2000).

In this article, the object of study is defined as a tourism package characterized by

eight variables referring to physical activity. Each variable was assigned two or three

possible levels (Table 1).

The selection of variables was based on a study of literature dealing with partici-

pation in activity-based tourism packages. The basic results of the study are presented

in the introductory part of this article. The level of physical activity was taken to be the

fundamental variable differentiating the examined tourism events. At the same time,

Journal of Sport & Tourism 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

taking into consideration the special demands of various types of physical activity on

the conditions in which they are carried out, the variables were selected with a view to

access to sports and recreation facilities and contact with nature. These three variables

remain in the actual sphere of the structure of the object in question, because they

provide the circumstances in which tourist benefits may be revealed. The benefits

are described with a view to two attributes associated with sports activity, namely,

the opportunity to test one’s psychological and physical abilities and the opportunity

to participate in rivalry with other people or forces of nature. The other variables were

connected to various forms of adventure tourism; they included the opportunity to

exhibit courage in overcoming the hardships of a tour and to experience an exciting

adventure or things not available in the consumer’s everyday life, and also the risk

factor which accompanies many forms of physical activity.

The empirical data necessary to conduct conjoint analysis are most often collected

through a questionnaire survey, which was also applied in the case discussed here.

The so-called full-profile method was selected for data collection (data collection

being understood as the general manner of presenting the profiles to respondents for

them to be able to evaluate them). The method involves presenting product descriptions

to respondents in such a way that each product is characterized with all the variables

simultaneously, and the difference between them consists of the levels of intensity of

particular variables (Walesiak & Bak, 2000). In this approach, the total number of pro-

files that can be generated is equal to the result of multiplication of the number of levels

set for each variable. Considering that eight attributes were selected in the study with 2,

2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, and 2 levels, respectively, that gives a total of 576 profiles. As the

Table 1. Attributes of tourism packages and their possible levels

Attributes Levels

A. Required level of courage and fortitude 1. Low2. High

B. Testing one’s psychological and physical abilities 1. No2. Yes

C. Rivalry with other people or nature 1. No2. Yes

D. Element of adventure 1. No2. Yes

E. Level of physical activity 1. Low2. Medium3. High

F. Access to sports and leisure facilities 1. Limited2. Substantial

G. Level of risk to one’s health or life 1. Low2. Medium3. High

H. Contact with nature 1. Limited2. Substantial

232 Szczechowicz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

respondents could not possibly compare such a number of profiles, the SPSS Conjoint

module available in the SPSS statistical package for Windows was used to reduce the

number of profiles to a more manageable number that would still ensure the statistical

reliability of results. Eventually, 16 profiles were generated and presented to respondents

in a questionnaire consisting of tables describing the profiles (Table 2). Respondents

were asked to rate each profile by assigning a number from the set {1, 2, . . ., 100}, repre-

senting the probability with which they would decide to participate in a particular tour.

The conjoint analysis procedure identifying consumer preferences for physical

activity-based tourism packages was to be conducted for the entire study population

and also for its fractions distinguished in terms of selected attributes of the respon-

dent, which was reflected in several additional questions in the questionnaire. One

of the questions differentiated the respondents in terms of participation in tourism:

therefore, tourists and non-tourists were identified. Within the former group, tourists

who participate in activity-based trips and tourists who do not take such trips were

identified. The examined respondents were also differentiated by gender, the attribute

which was regarded as the fundamental demographic characteristic of the population.

The last characteristic that was taken into account involved the abilities and interests of

the respondents.

3.3 Selection of Study Population

Taking into consideration the objective of the study, the survey was directed to a popu-

lation which would not only be considered a specific group of buyers of tourism goods

Table 2. Profiles of tourism packages presented to respondents for evaluation

Profile

Variables and their levels

Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7 Z8

1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 12 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 13 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 14 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 17 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 28 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 19 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 2

10 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 111 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 212 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 113 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 214 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 215 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 216 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 2

Journal of Sport & Tourism 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

and services, but whose attributes would be especially conductive to the examination

of the manner of perceiving and seeking physical activity in tourism packages. Repre-

sentatives of this population should be characterized by a high level of participation

in tourism, and especially in its active forms. At the same time, given the nature

of the tools used to study consumer attitudes and preferences, the respondents

should be characterized by a well-developed system of views and beliefs – for

their answers to reveal relations of a relatively permanent nature. On the other

hand, the attitudes and interests presented by the members of the selected population

should be characterized by noticeable differences – such criteria allow for a

better understanding why a customer chooses one product over another and what

makes the customer satisfied or not with a particular product (Szymura-Tyc,

2005).

With these assumptions in mind, the population of Polish college students was

defined as the general study population due to the high levels of their participation

in tourism. As already stated above, in the case of college students, the index of

tourist activity amounts, depending on the examined region, to 60–85% (Gryszel

et al., 2008; Szromek, 2008; see also Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, 2006). In

the light of available empirical research results, the student community is distin-

guished by a high level of participation in active forms of tourism – for example,

63% of the students of the Technical University of Koszalin (Mazurek, 2000) engage

in this kind of tourism. In accordance with modern developmental psychology, stu-

dents are individuals with a fairly well-developed system of ideas and beliefs (Zeb-

rowska, 1977; Tyszkowa, 1990; Harwas-Napierała & Trempała, 2005), also in terms

of values associated with tourism activity (Zdebski, 2006). The population of

college students reveals a range of different interest reflected in various forms of spend-

ing leisure time, attitudes toward health and fitness and lifestyles. This, in turn,

coupled with the availability of substantial leisure time and access to a number of insti-

tutions supporting tourist and sports activity, gives hope that this group of respon-

dents will reveal significant needs and high aspirations in terms of participation in

physical activity-based tourism.

The study population was further restricted to a single large academic center in

Poland, namely the city of Cracow, which has seven universities, three art academies,

and one theological university. A total of almost 162,500 students are enrolled at these

universities (Table 3).

At the same time, it was assumed that the variety of degree courses pursued by the

students (Table 3) will reflect the students’ differentiation in respect of their interests

and attitudes toward health and physical fitness (Połturzycki & Wesołowska, 1995).

Based on these assumptions, purposive sampling was applied in order to select the

target study population out of the general population. This method has already

been successfully applied in international studies on college student attitudes

toward physical activity (Jankowski & Krawczyk, 1997).

The first stage of selection involved the choice of public higher education insti-

tutions located in Cracow. Within each of them, full-time degree courses were ident-

ified as strata and then ordered by assigning each course to one of the six fields defined

234 Szczechowicz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

in the Revised Field of Science and Technology Classification: natural sciences, engineer-

ing and technology, medical and health sciences, agricultural sciences, social sciences,

and humanities. In addition, for the purposes of this study, arts were treated separately

from humanities as the seventh stratum, thus emphasizing the profile of students

involved in artistic disciplines. In turn, within the selected degree courses, random

sampling was applied to select the so-called dean’s student groups to be surveyed

with the questionnaire described above.

3.4 Sample Size and Structure

The purpose of the study was to determine how people with different interests and apti-

tudes perceive and seek values associated with physical activity in tourism packages.

Therefore, it was decided that the size of particular categories of respondents should be

the same and the study population was divided into equal-sized strata. The number of

respondents within each stratum was 150, which is sufficient to ensure reliability of

results for individual strata. This number of respondents provides an adequate sample

size from the point of view of the research tool used (Wittink & Cattin, 1981, 1989),

while also ensuring sufficient reliability of survey results for the entire sample. The total

number of respondents was 1050, while a typical sample size in surveys of market attitudes

and preferences of buyers is about 1000 (Sudman, 1976; Kaden, 2008).

Following the assumptions outlined above, the survey involved a group of 1050 stu-

dents representing 46 degree courses assigned to six fields of science and technology

and the field of arts; 69% of the respondents were females (N ¼ 722) and 31%

males (N ¼ 328), which quite accurately reflects the actual gender ratio among

Table 3. The population of college students in Cracow by university

No. Higher education institutionNumber of students (as of

November 30, 2008)

1 Jagiellonian University in Cracow 46,5422 AGH University of Science and Technology 31,5893 Tadeusz Kosciuszko Cracow University of

Technology15,001

4 University of Agriculture in Cracow 12,5185 Cracow University of Economics 20,7856 Pedagogical University of Cracow 16,4887 University School of Physical Education in Cracow 46298 Academy of Music in Krakow 6169 Jan Matejko Academy of Fine Art in Cracow 1175

10 The Ludwik Solski State Drama School in Cracow 37411 The Pontifical University of John Paul II in Cracow n/aTotal (1–11) 162,487

Source: Based on Głowny Urzad Statystyczny (2009).

Journal of Sport & Tourism 235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

college students in Cracow (Głowny Urzad Statystyczny, 2009). Due to the adopted

criteria, the age range of the respondents was quite narrow: the youngest surveyed

student was 18, while the oldest was 27, with the arithmetic mean age of the study

group being 20.4.

4. Results

4.1 Total Study Group

The study revealed that 90% of the respondents (N ¼ 946) participated in tourist

trips, out of which 72% (N ¼ 680) reported participation in trips involving physical

activity. In the latter group, 58% of the respondents (N ¼ 397) choose trips with

optional physical activity, that is, they stay at a destination with an event program

including various forms of sports and recreational games. A greater percentage of

respondents (71%, N ¼ 482) participated in trips with inherent physical activities

such as hiking, biking, skiing, canoeing, and sailing. These percentages do not add

up to 100% due to the fact that a large proportion of respondents (N ¼ 199) reported

participation in both types of travel (Table 4).

Two types of information were obtained from the implementation of the conjoint

analysis procedure. First, the relative importance to respondents of all the variables

describing profiles of tourism packages was determined. Second, part-worth utilities

were estimated for each variable level.

The analysis of empirical material demonstrates that respondents attach the greatest

importance to those variables which are related to the actual level of tourism packages

(Table 5). These variables are quite easily identifiable in the product structure as the

level of physical activity and the level of risk to one’s health or life. The third most

important variable taken into consideration by the respondents is contact with

nature. The less tangible product components directly related to expected experiences

Table 4. Participation of students in tourism and in tourism involving physical activity

No. Category of respondentsNumber of

studentsRelative

percentage

1 Non-participating in tourism 104 102 Participating in tourism, including: 946 90

A. Non-participating in physical activity-based tourism 266 28B. Participating in physical activity-based tourism,

including:680 72

a. Participating in trips with optional physical activity(e.g. a stay at a destination with an event programincluding various forms of sports and recreationalgames)

397 58

b. Participating in trips with inherent physical activities(such as hiking, biking, skiing, canoeing, and sailing)

482 71

236 Szczechowicz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

arising from future consumption, that is, the required level of courage and fortitude,

an element of adventure, and testing one’s psychological and physical abilities, were

ranked as less important. The least significant variables were access to sports and

leisure facilities and rivalry with other people or nature.

Analysis of the preferred profile of tourism packages reveals that products involving

physical activity components are perceived by respondents as attractive in terms of

meeting their needs and desires. Given a choice between available packages, respon-

dents prefer low risk, but at the same time, choose high levels of the other variables

under consideration. Therefore, they exhibit preferences for products rich in attributes

characteristic of adventure tourism, such as contact with nature, high levels of physical

activity, adventure, testing one’s abilities, and substantial fortitude. Interestingly,

another component of highly rated tourism packages is the rivalry factor, which can

be argued to impart the quality of a sports feat to the undertaken travel. However, a

limitation imposed by respondents on activity-based tourism is the sense of safety.

Respondents desire experiences and emotions arising from participation in

activity-centered tourism (adventure or sport tourism), but under conditions that

do not pose a threat to human health or life. Therefore, extreme tourism does not

fully fit into the profile of travel preferred by them. Extreme tourism is based on

forms of physical activity that provide the consumer with experiences that arise in

situations of immediate threat to one’s health or life and which seem to be difficult

or impossible to achieve by other means (Page et al., 2005; Trauer, 2006; Bentley

et al., 2001, 2007).

Table 5. The relative importance and part-worth utilities of attributes of tourism packages

AttributesRelative

importance LevelsPart-worth

utilities

A. Required level of courage andfortitude

12.08 1. Low 22.092. High 2.09

B. Testing one’s psychological andphysical abilities

9.54 1. No 22.212. Yes 2.21

C. Rivalry with other people or nature 9.14 1. No 20.982. Yes 0.98

D. Element of adventure 10.01 1. No 23.742. Yes 3.74

E. Level of physical activity 18.94 1. Low 23.222. Medium 20.043. High 3.26

F. Access to sports and leisure facilities 9.44 1. Limited 22.732. Substantial 2.73

G. Level of risk to one’s health or life 17.90 1. Low 2.632. Medium 1.573. High 24.20

H. Contact with nature 12.96 1. Limited 25.022. Substantial 5.02

Journal of Sport & Tourism 237

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

4.2 Participation and Non-participation in Tourism

The preferences of various sub-groups of respondents are compared in the conjoint

analysis procedure in two stages. In the first stage, this is done in the same way as

for the entire study sample – for each sub-group, a profile preferred by the represen-

tatives of that sub-group is generated. In the second stage, the preference profiles of all

sub-groups are compared with each other, with a focus on differences in the preferred

levels of intensity of each variable.

Proceeding in this manner, it was found that in the college student population, the

preferred product profiles are only slightly different from the viewpoint of students’

participation or non-participation in tourism (Table 6). Both segments of students

rank the first four variables in the same way, which is also consistent with the

results for the study population as a whole. Among the remaining variables, respon-

dents participating in tourism value most ‘element of adventure’, then ‘testing one’s

psychological and physical abilities’, and ‘access to sports and leisure facilities’, with

‘rivalry with other people or nature’ coming last. Respondents not participating in

tourism rank these variables differently. They attach more importance to the elements

of rivalry and availability of infrastructure than to testing their abilities or the desire to

Table 6. The relative importance and part-worth utilities of attributes of tourism packages

by participation in tourism

Attributes Levels

Participating intourism

Non-participating intourism

Relativeimportance

Part-worth

utilitiesRelative

importance

Part-worth

utilities

A. Required level of courageand fortitude

1. Low 12.21 22.20 10.85 21.042. High 2.20 1.04

B. Testing one’s psychologicaland physical abilities

1. No 9.50 22.30 9.91 21.442. Yes 2.30 1.44

C. Rivalry with other people ornature

1. No 9.01 20.95 10.26 21.262. Yes 0.95 1.26

D. Element of adventure 1. No 10.04 23.88 9.74 22.482. Yes 3.88 2.48

E. Level of physical activity 1. Low 18.84 23.20 19.88 23.452. Medium 0.11 21.343. High 3.09 4.79

F. Access to sports and leisurefacilities

1. Limited 9.39 22.85 9.95 21.672. Substantial 2.85 1.67

G. Level of risk to one’s healthor life

1. Low 17.93 2.67 17.57 2.202. Medium 1.62 1.073. High 24.29 23.27

H. Contact with nature 1. Limited 13.08 25.18 11.85 23.502. Substantial 5.18 3.50

238 Szczechowicz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

experience something extraordinary. The fact that persons who do not participate in

tourism rank the variables differently from those who do may possibly result from

their not being fully aware of their needs and desires in respect of tourism.

Despite the fact that respondents who participate in tourism assess specific product

characteristics in a slightly different manner from those who do not, both of these seg-

ments of students reveal preferences for tourism packages with exactly the same levels

of particular variables. The profile of these packages also coincides with that preferred

by the study population as a whole.

4.3 Participation and Non-participation in Activity-based Tourism

The group of respondents participating in tourism may be further subdivided accord-

ing to whether they engage or not in physical activity during travel. As it was already

mentioned, respondents were categorized according to this criterion based on whether

they engage in activity-centered tours or not. Respondents representing the physically

active segment rank the variables in a very similar way to those in the passive segment.

In this case, only one difference was observed, albeit an interesting one. Tourists par-

ticipating in physical activity-intensive travel report the ‘level of physical activity’ to be

the most important attribute of tourism packages, followed by the ‘level of risk to one’s

health or life’. This sequence is reversed in the case of passive tourists, for whom safety

is the foremost factor in assessing the value of a tourism package, with ‘level of physical

activity’ ranking second (Table 7).

The way respondents not participating in activity-based tourism rank the variables

explains why they do not choose travel centered on physical activity: they prefer trips

with a high level of safety which is not always guaranteed on activity-based tours

(adventure tourism, sport tourism), involving various forms of physical activity.

It is of note that while product attributes favored by active tourists are consistent

with the profile preferred by the entire study population, passive tourists prefer

tours with medium and low levels of physical activity. Thus, the actual behavior of

respondents in this segment remains in line with their reported expectations. It is

further worth mentioning that these respondents, even despite their preferences for

lower levels of physical activity, desire tourism packages that would make it possible

not only to experience adventure, but also to participate in rivalry, test their psycho-

logical and physical abilities, and demonstrate their fortitude. In designing a tourism

product that would correspond to this combination of attributes, at the actual level

one could incorporate popular types of recreational activities as short-term or

optional components or as various forms of psychological activity. It should be

noted here that the attributes of adventure, rivalry, and fortitude are present not

only in highly specialized physical activities.

4.4 Gender-based Differences

The pattern of analysis presented above was reiterated for the gender criterion as it was

thought that this factor could also differentiate respondent preferences (Table 8).

Journal of Sport & Tourism 239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

The results indicate that men find ‘required level of courage and fortitude’ more

important than ‘contact with nature’ and pay more attention to ‘access to sports

and leisure facilities’ than to ‘testing one’s psychological and physical abilities’, while

women rank these variables in reverse order. Still, women and men exhibit similar pre-

ferences for the specific levels of the variables in question. The only difference is visible

in relation to the variable ‘level of risk to one’s health or life’: women prefer a low level

of this attribute, whereas men prefer a medium level. A similar pattern of levels of par-

ticular variables does not mean, however, that part-worth utilities are identical for men

and women. As seen from the table, women have a weaker preference for a high level of

physical activity as well as for variables referring to required courage and the rivalry

factor. On the other hand, women strongly prefer high levels of such attributes as

opportunities to test their abilities and experience something extraordinary. They

also highly value access to infrastructure, sports and recreation facilities, and

contact with nature. These observations reveal significant differences in the expec-

tations of men and women in terms of levels of attributes related to physical activity

in tourism packages. Men tend to accept greater risk and look for extreme experiences.

While women desire similar experiences as men, they do so only under conditions

which would guarantee higher levels of safety.

Table 7. The relative importance and part-worth utilities of attributes of tourism packages

by participation in activity-based tourism

Attributes Levels

Participation in activetourism

Non-participation inactive tourism

Relativeimportance

Part-worth

utilitiesRelative

importance

Part-worth

utilities

A. Required level of courageand fortitude

1. Low 12.03 22.80 12.68 20.672. High 2.80 0.67

B. Testing one’s psychologicaland physical abilities

1. No 9.53 22.48 9.42 21.832. Yes 2.48 1.83

C. Rivalry with other people ornature

1. No 9.01 21.18 9.04 20.352. Yes 1.18 0.35

D. Element of adventure 1. No 10.21 24.19 9.60 23.102. Yes 4.19 3.10

E. Level of physical activity 1. Low 19.03 24.40 18.36 20.122. Medium 20.09 0.613. High 4.49 20.49

F. Access to sports and leisurefacilities

1. Limited 9.40 22.86 9.36 22.842. Substantial 2.86 2.84

G. Level of risk to one’s healthor life

1. Low 17.71 2.25 18.49 3.762. Medium 1.69 1.443. High 23.94 25.20

H. Contact with nature 1. Limited 13.08 25.37 13.06 24.712. Substantial 5.37 4.71

240 Szczechowicz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

4.5 Students by Degree Course

The conjoint analysis procedure was also carried out for each of the seven student seg-

ments defined according to fields of study. It was thought that the interests of the

respondents would affect their perception of values related to physical activity in

tourism packages. Data showing the relative importance of particular attributes for

respondents in different fields of study are presented in Table 9.

It was observed that the variables can be classified into two groups based on how

they are ranked by students representing particular fields of study. ‘Level of physical

activity’, ‘level of risk to one’s health or life’, ‘contact with nature’, and ‘required

level of courage and fortitude’ can be grouped together, as they are critical for the

evaluation of the attractiveness of tourism packages for all of the seven respondent seg-

ments. Two characteristic pairs can be distinguished within this group of attributes,

the level of physical activity and the risk level being one, and contact with nature

and level of courage the other. Variables in the first pair are always top ranked by

the surveyed students, while those in the second pair always occupy third and

fourth places. However, the order of the variables within pairs is different for particular

respondent segments. In contrast to other students, engineering and humanities’ stu-

dents find the risk level to be more important, while all segments of respondents,

Table 8. The relative importance and part-worth utilities of attributes of tourism packages

by gender

Attributes Levels

Women Men

Relativeimportance

Part-worthutilities

Relativeimportance

Part-worthutilities

A. Required level ofcourage andfortitude

1. Low 11.55 21.27 13.24 23.882. High 1.27 3.88

B. Testing one’spsychological andphysical abilities

1. No 9.77 22.40 9.02 21.802. Yes 2.40 1.80

C. Rivalry with otherpeople or nature

1. No 9.21 20.65 8.98 21.702. Yes 0.65 1.70

D. Element of adventure 1. No 9.94 23.91 10.16 23.392. Yes 3.91 3.39

E. Level of physicalactivity

1. Low 18.70 22.67 19.46 24.432. Medium 0.11 20.353. High 2.56 4.78

F. Access to sports andleisure facilities

1. Limited 9.48 22.93 9.36 22.302. Substantial 2.93 2.30

G. Level of risk to one’shealth or life

1. Low 18.20 4.07 17.24 20.552. Medium 1.91 0.813. High 25.98 20.26

H. Contact with nature 1. Limited 13.14 25.28 12.54 24.442. Substantial 5.28 4.44

Journal of Sport & Tourism 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

except for engineering and medical students, rank contact with nature third. Variables

in positions five to eight are ordered differently for respondents in different fields of

study.

At the same time, it was observed that the variables ‘contact with nature’ and ‘testing

one’s psychological and physical abilities’ were most appreciated by arts students. This

may be explained by their heightened sensitivity to natural beauty and by frequent and

direct confrontation of their abilities and skills during practical classes. Students of

medical and health sciences attach the highest value to ‘level of physical activity’,

which can be interpreted as resulting from their increased awareness of the importance

of conscious, regular physical activity and exercise to one’s health and fitness.

Engineering students reveal the greatest appreciation for ‘element of adventure’,

while students of social sciences attach the greatest importance to ‘access to sports

and leisure facilities.’ In these two cases, respondent segments’ conclusions are deba-

table, but it may be hypothesized that the first group of students seeks psychological

and physical relaxations from daily technical routines through active tourism. Argu-

ably, the second group has a heightened awareness of symbolic meanings inherent

in products due to knowledge of the mechanisms governing human behavior. There-

fore, respondents in this group may appreciate the presence of certain attributes in the

product structure even in situations where their potential is not fully exploited in the

act of consumption. However, further research is needed to address this issue.

Analyzing the part-worth utilities of variables (Table 10), it should be noted that

across the various segments, students prefer similar levels of individual variables,

which is generally consistent with the product profile preferred by the study popu-

lation as a whole (Table 5). An exception here is students of medical and health

sciences, who do not desire a rivalry factor during tourist travel. Interestingly, they

find the medium level of risk to their health or life appealing.

Table 9. The relative importance of attributes of tourism packages by field of study

Attributes

Relative importance of attributes

Fields of studya

Nat. Eng. Agr. Hum. Soc. Med. Arts

A. Required level of courage and fortitude 12.79 12.97 11.33 11.78 11.23 12.45 11.99B. Testing one’s psychological and

physical abilities9.71 9.35 9.44 8.91 9.87 9.47 10.02

C. Rivalry with other people or nature 8.92 9.08 8.73 9.46 8.83 9.35 9.59D. Element of adventure 9.48 11.53 9.88 9.96 10.05 9.74 9.42E. Level of physical activity 18.81 17.39 20.28 17.43 18.86 20.47 19.34F. Access to sports and leisure facilities 8.90 9.80 9.32 9.79 10.45 9.89 7.96G. Level of risk to one’s health or life 18.48 17.43 17.28 18.61 18.76 17.26 17.45H. Contact with nature 12.90 12.46 13.73 14.05 11.94 11.37 14.23

aDesignations for fields of study: Nat., natural sciences; Eng., engineering and technology; Agr.,

agricultural sciences; Hum., humanities; Med., medical and health sciences; Soc., social sciences.

242 Szczechowicz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The empirical research revealed that the study population is interested in tourism

packages rich in attributes arising from physical activity. It was noted, however, that

the utility of such products depends to a greater extent on components that make up

the actual product level, rather than on experiences resulting from future consumption.

Another noteworthy fact is that in the student population, the preferred profiles of

activity-based products are practically not differentiated in terms of respondent apti-

tudes and interests, with only a minor influence of gender. This could suggest that

values related to physical activity are universal and highly internalized in the surveyed

population as a whole and in its particular segments. However, self-reported descrip-

tions of the physical and tourist activities actually undertaken by the respondents seem

to contradict the above assumption: over 10% of respondents do not engage in phys-

ical activity in their free time at their place of residence, only a slightly greater percen-

tage spend on physical activity less than half an hour per week, and about 90% of them

do not belong to any sport or tourism organizations. While about 90% of respondents

Table 10. Part-worth utilities of attributes of activity-based tourism packages by field of

study

Attributes Levels

Part-worth utilities

Fields of studya

Nat. Eng. Agr. Hum. Soc. Med. Arts

A. Required level ofcourage andfortitude

1. Low 21.92 22.79 22.05 22.64 21.65 22.23 21.342. High 1.92 2.79 2.05 2.64 1.65 2.23 1.34

B. Testing one’spsychological andphysical abilities

1. No 21.96 22.89 22.44 22.01 22.72 21.00 22.372. Yes 1.96 2.89 2.44 2.01 2.72 1.00 2.37

C. Rivalry with otherpeople or nature

1. No 21.33 22.00 21.59 20.96 20.47 0.04 20.562. Yes 1.33 2.00 1.59 0.96 0.47 20.04 0.56

D. Element ofadventure

1. No 23.38 24.61 23.88 23.49 24.15 23.03 23.682. Yes 3.38 4.61 3.88 3.49 4.15 3.03 3.68

E. Level of physicalactivity

1. Low 22.94 23.83 22.49 22.87 23.76 23.25 23.402. Medium 20.69 0.11 21.15 0.85 0.40 21.07 1.303. High 3.63 3.72 3.64 2.02 3.36 4.32 2.10

F. Access to sports andleisure facilities

1. Limited 22.13 23.59 22.56 23.21 23.67 21.98 21.972. Substantial 2.13 3.59 2.56 3.21 3.67 1.98 1.97

G. Level of risk to one’shealth or life

1. Low 2.40 2.43 2.17 3.73 4.36 0.05 3.252. Medium 1.27 1.82 1.23 1.84 2.40 0.73 1.673. High 23.67 24.25 23.40 25.57 26.76 20.78 24.92

H. Contact with nature 1. Limited 24.33 24.79 25.55 26.08 24.53 23.42 26.432. Substantial 4.33 4.79 5.55 6.08 4.53 3.42 6.43

aDesignations for fields of study: Nat., natural sciences; Eng., engineering and technology; Agr.,

agricultural sciences; Hum., humanities; Med., medical and health sciences; Soc., social sciences.

Journal of Sport & Tourism 243

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

report that they participate in tourism, almost 30% of them do not take part in trips

that would require any sort of physical preparation or exercise on their part.

Despite the fact that components associated with the sphere of physical activity

attracted the interest of the majority of respondents, it appears that they were per-

ceived as attractive but not necessarily desirable. This observation indicates that the

respondents’ assessments of the profiles could have reflected their inclinations

rather than their actual expectations. It is likely that respondents provided their

answers at the level of affect, expressing their positive emotions related to the

studied products, while actual consumer choices are guided to a greater extent by con-

scious cognitive processes, which may lead to different assessments from those

obtained in the study. In the light of the above, it seems advisable to conduct empirical

research on the issue of explicit and implicit attitudes toward the studied types of

human activity, which could help to make more accurate predictions about consumer

behavior based on respondents’ assessments of activity-centered products. Further-

more, it would be useful to gain a better understanding of the cost factors generated

by the presence of physical activity in tourism packages. In this respect, the most

important objective would be to identify the emotional costs resulting from tourists

pursuing various kinds of activity in unfamiliar, poorly developed, culturally

hostile, or objectively dangerous environments.

Of interest is analysis of the relative importance of variables describing tourism

packages in this study. It was found that the variable that contributes the greatest

value to the utility of the studied product (as seen by the studied population) was

the ‘level of physical activity’. It should be remembered that this variable brings to

tourism packages an element of movement with the associated energetic expenditure

and dynamic perspective. The second most important variable in terms of contri-

bution to the utility of the product in question was the ‘level of risk to one’s health

or life’. However, while physical activity is a sought-after variable in the sense that stu-

dents prefer its high levels, risk carries negative connotations. This is especially true in

the case of women, who attach great importance to this attribute and want it to be

possibly the smallest. Remembering that risk is often present in those forms of physical

activity that lie at the core of adventure tourism packages, it should be stressed (as

already mentioned in the results section) that both the general population of respon-

dents and the female sub-population expect the offered tours to provide them with

unforgettable experiences (as they prefer a high level of the variable ‘element of adven-

ture’) and welcome the opportunity to exhibit courage in a rivalry setting during the

tour (the variable ‘required level of courage and fortitude’ comes fourth in terms of

relative importance, and respondents prefer its high levels).

In the context of the relationship between the sphere of physical activity and sport

tourism, it is worth noting that two out of the eight variables considered directly

referred to values linked to the sphere of sport: ‘testing one’s psychological and phys-

ical abilities’, and ‘rivalry with other people or nature’. However, it turned out that

from the perspective of the studied population, these variables contributed little to

the overall utility of the tourism packages in question. The former ranked sixth in

the hierarchy of variables, while the latter ranked eighth, that is, came last. Thus, of

244 Szczechowicz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

greater importance for the respondents were experiences arising from movement

(third place in the hierarchy of variables) as well as those elements of the package

that transport the tourist in a world of values that do not occur in his or her everyday

environment (including adventure and challenge, but not of the kind strictly based on

rivalry and proving one’s worth in interactions with other people).

All of the above suggests that the studied group of consumers perceives attributes

related to physical activity as attractive, albeit not always desirable, components of

tourism packages. At the same time, it seems that due to the special characteristics of

the studied population, the results may be analyzed in a wider context, not limited to

the selected population, as many students actively engage in tourism, including that

related to physical activity, and display a variety of interests. The detailed results of

this study also seem to encourage further research on tourist perceptions of components

related to physical activity, both with the use of conjoint analysis and focus group

approaches, as the latter allow a more in-depth analysis than multi-attribute methods.

Of particular interest may be studies on public expectations concerning tourism

packages designed around individual forms of tourist activities such as hiking, biking,

skiing, and sailing. The body of knowledge concerning attributes specific to the

various types of travel could be then used in comparative studies. At the same time, con-

joint analysis can be successfully applied in examining not only tourism packages, but

also consumer perceptions of other types of products, such as cultural facilities

related to human physical activity, sport events, natural areas underpinning physical

activity, and spiritual culture of the local communities inhabiting the areas visited.

In the market-wise dimension, the results presented in this study should not be under-

stood as revealing the structure of a product desired by the studied group of tourists (stu-

dents) to be offered in the form determined herein. The results should be interpreted in

terms of the augmented and potential spheres of the studied product – they show the pos-

sibilities of enriching the experiences of tourists undertaking the effort of engaging in

physical activity, rather than present some concrete solutions in respect of the configur-

ation of the constituent attributes of tourism packages. Furthermore, consumer experi-

ences, interpreted as characteristics of the studied object, may be embedded in the

product through a variety of constituent elements of its actual and augmented spheres.

For example, a high level of testing one’s psychological and physical activities may be

attained in tourism packages referring to various types of tourism (sport or adventure

tourism) and forms of tourism (walking, cycling, skiing, sailing, etc.) as well as by provid-

ing tourists with various elements and expressions of physical activity. This conclusion,

however, should not be treated as a limitation to the implemented method – just on

the contrary, the results show the direction to be followed by tour operators, without

imposing restrictions on the creativity of their managers.

Acknowledgement

The study was financed with a grant from the Ministry of Science and Higher Edu-

cation in 2009–2010 as a research project: ‘The role of physical culture in the value

creation of a tourism product’ (no. N N112 018636).

Journal of Sport & Tourism 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

References

Baarsma, B. E. (2003) The valuation of the IJmeer nature reserve using conjoint analysis, Environ-mental and Resource Economics, 25(3), pp. 343–356.

Beedie, P. & Hudson, S. (2003) Emergence of mountain-based adventure tourism, Annals of TourismResearch, 30(3), pp. 625–643.

Bentley, T. A., Page, S. J. & Laird, I. S. (2001) Accidents in the New Zealand adventure tourism indus-try, Safety Science, 38(1), pp. 31–48.

Bentley, T. A., Page, S. J. & Macky, K. A. (2007) Adventure tourism and adventure sports injury: TheNew Zealand experience, Applied Ergonomics, 38(6), pp. 791–796.

Blaug, M. (1995) Metodologia ekonomii [The Methodology of Economics, or How EconomistsExplain] (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN).

Buckley, R. (2007) Adventure tourism products: Price, duration, size, skill, remoteness, TourismManagement, 28(6), pp. 1428–1433.

Caillois, R. (1961) Man, Play and Games (New York: The Free Press).Cater, C. I. (2006) Playing with risk? Participant perceptions of risk and management implications in

adventure tourism, Tourism Management, 27(2), pp. 317–325.Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej [Publish Opinion Research Center] (2006) Wyjazdy na

wypoczynek w latach 1992–2006. Komunikat z badan [Leisure Trips in 1992–2006. ResearchAnnouncement] (Warszawa: Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej).

Chhetri, P., Arrowsmith, C. & Jackson, M. (2004) Determining hiking experiences in nature-basedtourist destinations, Tourism Management, 25(1), pp. 31–43.

Corey, E. R. (1975) Key options in market selection and product planning, Harvard Business Review,53(5), pp. 119–128.

Dellaert, B., Borgers, A. & Timmermans, H. (1995) A day in the city. Using conjoint choice exper-iments to model urban tourists’ choice of activity package, Tourism Management, 16(5),pp. 347–353.

European Travel Commission (2006) Tourism Trends for Europe (Brussels: European TravelCommission).

Eurostat (2008) Panorama on Tourism (Luxembourg: Eurostat).Firth, R. (1973) Symbols: Private and Public (London: George Allen & Unwin).Gibson, H. J. (1998) Active sport tourism: Who participates?, Leisure Studies, 17(2), pp. 155–170.Gil, J. (1998) Metamorphoses of the Body (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press).Głowny Urzad Statystyczny [Central Statistical Office] (2009) Szkoły Wyzsze i ich finanse w 2008 r.

[Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2008] (Warszawa: Głowny UrzadStatystyczny).

Głowny Urzad Statystyczny [Central Statistical Office] (2010) Turystyka w 2010 [Tourism in 2010](Warszawa: Głowny Urzad Statystyczny).

Green, P. E. & Srinivasan, V. (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook,Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), pp. 103–123, September.

Gryszel, P., Jaremen, D. E. & Rapacz, A. (2008) Aktywnosc turystyczna młodziezy akademickiej[Tourism activity among college students], in: W. W. Gaworecki & Z. Mroczynski (Eds)Turystyka i sport dla wszystkich w promocji zdrowego stylu zycia [Tourism and Leisure forthe Promotion of Healthy Lifestyle], pp. 298–305 (Gdansk: The Higher School of Tourismand Hotel Industry).

Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A. & Huber, F. (Eds). (2007) Conjoint Measurement. Methods and Appli-cations (Berlin and New York: Springer).

Gyimothy, Sz. & Mykletun, R. J. (2004) Play in adventure tourism. The case of arctic trekking, Annalsof Tourism Research, 31(4), pp. 855–878.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.(New Jersey: Prentice Hall International, Inc).

246 Szczechowicz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Harwas-Napierała, B. & Trempała, J. (Eds) (2005) Psychologia rozwoju człowieka. Tom 1. Charakter-ystyka okresow zycia człowieka [The Psychology of Human Development. Vol. 1. Description ofthe Human Life Cycle Stages] (Warszawa: Polish Scientific Publishers PWN).

Huizinga, J. (1950) Homo Ludens: A Study of Play Element in Culture (Boston: Beacon Press).Jankowski, K. W. & Krawczyk, Z. (Eds) (1997) Wartosci i wzory kultury fizycznej młodziezy. Badania

porownawcze [Values and Models of Physical Culture of Youth. Comparative Studies] (Wars-zawa: Jozef Piłsudski University of Physical Education).

Kaden, R. J. (2008) Badania marketingowe [Marketing Research] (Warszawa: PWE).Kemperman, A. D. A. M., Borgers, A. W. J., Oppewal, H. & Timmermans, H. J. P. (2000) Consumer

choice of theme parks: A conjoint choice model of seasonality effects and variety seeking be-havior, Leisure Sciences, 22(1), pp. 1–18.

Khalil, E. L. (2000) Symbolic products: Prestige, pride and identity goods, Theory and Decision,49(1), pp. 53–77.

Kotler, Ph. & Keller, K. L. (2006) Marketing Management, 12th ed. (New Jersey: Pearson PrenticeHall).

Kotler, Ph., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J. & Wong, V. (1999) Principles of Marketing, Second EuropeanEdition (Cambridge: Prentice Hall).

Kowalik, T. (1979) Rozwoj form organizacyjnych turystyki akademickiej [The academic tourism:Development of form of organization], in: S. Bak (Ed.) Turystyka studencka w Polsce [StudentsTourism in Poland], pp. 7–58 (Warszawa: Szkoła Głowna Planowania i Statystyki).

Lancaster, K. J. (1966) A new approach to consumer theory, The Journal of Political Economy, 74(2),pp. 132–157.

Levitt, T. (1980) Marketing success through differentiation – of anything, Harvard Business Review,59(1), pp. 83–91, January–February.

Levy, S. (1959) Symbols for sale, Harvard Business Review, 37(4), pp. 117–124, July–August.Lewis, N. (2001) The climbing body: Choreographing a history of modernity, Doctoral thesis,

Department of Sociology, Lancaster University.Lipiec, J. (2007a) Fizycznosc ludzka w swietle nauki i filozofii [Human physicality in the light of science

and philosophy], in: J. Lipiec (Ed.) Pozegnanie z Olimpia [Farewell with Olympia], pp. 23–40(Krakow: Wydawnictwo FALL).

Lipiec, J. (2007b) Sport jako wartosc [Sport as a value], in: J. Lipiec (Ed.) Pozegnanie z Olimpia[Farewell with Olympia], pp. 15–22 (Krakow: Wydawnictwo FALL).

Luce, R. D. & Tukey, J. W. (1964) Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamentalmeasurement, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1(1), pp. 1–27.

MacCannell, D. (1999) The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class (California: Universityof California Press).

Mackenzie, J. (1992) Evaluating recreational trip attributes and travel time via conjoint analysis,Journal of Leisure Research, 24(2), pp. 171–184.

Matuszyk, A. (1998) Humanistyczne podstawy sportow przestrzeni (na przykładzie alpinizmu) [Huma-nistic Principles of the Theory of Space Sports (on the Example of Climbing)] (Krakow:University School of Physical Education).

Mazurek, J. (2000) Społeczno-ekonomiczne uwarunkowania uprawiania turystyki przez młodziez stu-dencka [Socio-economic conditions of tourism activity among college students], in:A. Szwichtenberg & E. Dziegiec (Eds) Przemysł turystyczny [Tourism Industry], pp. 259–271 (Koszalin: University of Technology).

Millington, K., Locke, T. & Locke, A. (2001) Occasional studies: Adventure travel, Travel TouristAnalyst, 4(1), pp. 65–97.

Page, S. J., Bentley, T. A. & Walker, L. (2005) Scoping the nature and extend of adventure tourismoperations in Scotland: How safe are they?, Tourism Management, 26(3), pp. 381–397.

Parmentier, R. J. (1994) Signs in Society. Studies in Semiotic Anthropology (Bloomington and India-napolis: Indiana University Press).

Journal of Sport & Tourism 247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Pine, B. J. II & Gilmore, J. H. (1999) The Experience Economy: Work is The Theatre and Every Businessa Stage (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).

Pitrus, A. (2005) Znaki na sprzedaz. W strone zintegrowanej teorii reklamy [Signs for Sale. Toward theIntegrated Theory of Advertising] (Krakow: Wydawnictwo RABID).

Połturzycki, J. & Wesolowska, E. A. (1995) Podsumowanie i wnioski [Summary and conclusions], in:J. Połturzycki (Ed.) Studenci a uniwersytet. Badania nad wyborem studiow i funkcjami uczelni[College Students and University. The Choice of Studies and Function of UniversityResearch], pp. 123–139 (Torun: Wydawnictwo Adam Marszałek).

Pomfret, G. (2006) Mountaineering adventure tourists: A conceptual framework for research,Tourism Management, 27(1), pp. 113–123.

Pullman, M. E., Moore, W. L. & Walder, D. G. (2002) A comparison of quality function deploymentand conjoint analysis in new product design, The Journal of Product Innovation Management,19(5), pp. 354–364.

van Rekom, J. (1994) Adding psychological value to tourism products, Journal of Travel and TourismMarketing, 3(3), pp. 21–36.

Robinson, T. & Gammon, S. (2004) A question of primary and secondary motives: Revisiting andapplying the sport tourism framework, Journal of Sport Tourism, 9(3), pp. 221–233.

Ross, S. D., Norman, W. C. & Dorsch, M. J. (2003) The use of conjoint analysis in the development ofa new recreation facility, Managing Leisure, 8(4), pp. 227–244.

Samuelson, P. A. & Nordhaus, W. D. (1989) Economics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company).Sanchez, J., Callarisa, L., Rodriguez, R. M. & Moliner, M. A. (2006) Perceived value of the purchase of

a tourism product, Tourism Management, 27(3), pp. 394–409.Schmidt, M. J. & Hollensen, S. (2006) Marketing Research: An International Approach (Harlow:

(Pearson Education).Schoell, W. F. & Guiltinan, J. P. (1987) Marketing: Contemporary Concepts and Practices, 3rd ed.

(Boston: Allyn and Bacon).Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I. & Gross, B. L. (1991) Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption

values, Journal of Business Research, 22(2), pp. 159–170.Sudman, S. (1976) Applied Sampling (Orlando: Academic Press).Suh, Y. K. & Gartner, W. C. (2004) Preferences and trip expenditures: A conjoint analysis of visitors

to Seoul, Korea, Tourism Management, 25(1), pp. 127–137.Suh, Y. K. & McAvoy, L. (2005) Preferences and trip expenditures: A conjoint analysis of visitors to

Seoul, Korea, Tourism Management, 26(3), pp. 325–333.Sylvia-Bobiak, S. & Caldwell, L. L. (2006) Factors related to physically active leisure among college

students, Leisure Sciences, 28(1), pp. 73–89.Szromek, A. R. (2008) Wyjazdy turystyczne oraz powody ich zaniechania wsrod studentow slaskich

uczelni. Logistyczny i dyskryminacyjny model opisu skłonnosci do wyjazdow turystycznych[The Silesian college students: Reasons for not participating in tourism trips. The logisticand discrimination model of description of penchant for participation in tourism trips],in: M. Jalinik (Ed.) Innowacje w rozwoju turystyki [Innovations in Tourism Development],pp. 261–270 (Białystok: University of Technology).

Szymura-Tyc, M. (2005) Marketing we wspołczesnych procesach tworzenia wartosci dla klienta i przed-siebiorstwa [Marketing in the Contemporary Process of Creation Value for Customer andFirm] (Katowice: University of Economics).

Trauer, B. (2006) Conceptualizing special interest tourism – Frameworks for analysis, Tourism Man-agement, 27(2), pp. 183–200.

Tyszkowa, M. (1990) Aktywnosc i działalnosc dzieci i młodziezy [Activity of Children and the Young](Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne).

Urbanczyk, A. (2008) Przesłuchanie Andrzeja Urbanczyka [The Interrogation of Andrzej Urbanczyk](Warszawa: Publishing House ‘Ksiazka i Wiedza’).

Urry, J. (2007) Spojrzenie turysty [The Tourist Gaze] (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN).

248 Szczechowicz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Veblen, T. (1899) The Theory of the Leisure Class (New York: MacMillan).Walesiak, M. & Bak, A. (2000) Conjoint analysis w badaniach marketingowych [Conjoint Analysis in

the Marketing Research] (Wrocław: University of Economics).Weber, K. (2001) Outdoor adventure tourism: A review of research approaches, Annals of Tourism

Research, 28(2), pp. 360–377.Weed, M. E. (2005) Sports tourism theory and method: Concepts, issues & epistemologies, European

Sport Management Quarterly, 5(3), pp. 229–242.Williams, P. & Soutar, G. N. (2009) Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in an adventure

tourism context, Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), pp. 413–438.Winiarski, R. & Zdebski, J. (2008) Psychologia turystyki [Psychology of Tourism] (Warszawa: Wydaw-

nictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne).Witt, U. (2010) Symbolic consumption and the social construction of product characteristics, Struc-

tural Change and Economic Dynamics, 21(1), pp. 17–25.Wittink, D. R. & Cattin, P. (1981) Alternative estimation methods for conjoint analysis: A Monte

Carlo study, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), pp. 101–106, February.Wittink, D. R. & Cattin, P. (1989) Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update, Journal of Market-

ing Research, 53(3), pp, 91–96, July.Zdebski, J. (2006) Aktywnosc turystyczna w przebiegu zycia [Tourism activity in the human life

cycle], in: G. Gołembski (Ed.) Turystyka w ujeciu podmiotowym i przestrzennym. Człowiek–Przestrzen–Przedsiebiorstwo [Tourism in Human and Spatial Perspective. Human Being–Space–Enterprise], pp. 41–48 (Wrocław: University of Economics).

Zebrowska, M. (Ed.) (1977) Psychologia rozwojowa dzieci i młodziezy [Developmental Psychology ofChildren and the Young] (Warszawa: Polish Scientific Publishers).

Journal of Sport & Tourism 249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

9:16

07

Oct

ober

201

4