It .11, In w. .J .3 a g i . a. A. C 2 ‘ 2.11: .13. ; v: - m V}! l l huh.“ . wfiamuh. z. 5m .15....215 w.) 3 1.5:! . . ... ,. 3a.: .8353 Radar. WK $.33: #3 ENTHI . flirty 93‘..- l'tll, ¢ 4} (50.! . . 3r '9}; . q?!f;r4.l211 v uPn..¥l;...-.HHH.HMM 6.5an I . swarm»? I! . ”by." . ii .,»....n‘t|.l._-_ . . L31T: .u. if?! V ‘ _ . , . t). It... i. t. .; 1...)?»- .rlabl (I .3. “Nil, c‘tfl‘rxuufld. 'svl. ; . A i055”. . 01?. ll... an loaf) LIBRARIES MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled DETERMINANTS OF RURAL TOURISM AND MODELING RURAL TOURISM DEMAND IN KOREA presented by Mi-Kyung Kim has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D degree in Park, Recreation, and Tourism Resources gfioflméxsw 6 Max 26, 2005 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. ’ . DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 121816 2/05 c:/CTRC/Ddo&no.lndd-p.15 DETERMINANTS OF RURAL TOURISM AND MODELING RURAL TOURISM DEMAND IN KOREA By Mi-Kyung Kim A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources 2005 ABSTRACT DETERMINANTS OF RURAL TOURISM AND MODELING RURAL TOURISM DEMAND IN KOREA By Mi-Kyung Kim Tourism development has been suggested as an effective strategy for revitalizing rural communities in Korea that have experienced serious structural and economic problems. The Korean government is playing a leading role in the development of rural tourism. Since the 19905, tourists’ demand for rural tourism has been increasing due to factors such as larger disposable incomes, a more mature travel market, changing tastes and preferences, and increased leisure time resulting from the introduction of a five-day work week system in Korea. This increasing demand coupled with large government investments justifies the need to study rural tourism, especially studies focused on the demand side of tourism. This study was designed to investigate the determinants of rural tourism and to model rural tourism demand in Korea. Rural tourists were identified and profiled and compared with tourists who do not engage in any forms of rural tourism. Then, rural tourists were segmented based upon their motivations for participating in rural tourism. Three different rural tourism motivational market segments were identified; Rural-centric Tourists, Passive Rural Tourists, and VFR Rural Tourists. The profiles of these three motivational market segments revealed significant differences in their socioeconomic characteristics, rural tourism trip characteristics, and participation in different types of tourism. Decisions whether or not to engage in rural tourism include two different decision processes which may or may not occur simultaneously: a participation decision and a frequency of participation decision. Factors that affect tourists’ decisions of whether or not to participate in rural tourism and how frequently to participate were examined and it was determined that the factors that influence the two decisions are different. The factors that affect the frequency of participation in rural tourism are significantly different across the three motivational rural tourism market segments. Comparing two different econometric models, the Poisson-hurdle Model and the Tobit Model verified that tourists’ participation and frequency decisions are different in terms of the importance of different factors although they may occur simultaneously. The evidence indicates that the two rural tourism decision processes need to be considered separately when developing marketing strategies for creating new demand and for increasing the existing rural tourism demand. C0pyright by Mi-Kyung Kim 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to Dr. Edward Mahoney, my academic advisor and dissertation chairman, for his inspiration and assistance during my study in the United States. Without his encouragement the completion of this dissertation would never have been possible. I must also thank Dr. Scott Witter, Dr. Gaylan Rasmussen, and Dr. Richard Spreng for their valuable advice and suggestions. It is a pleasure to extend my gratitude to Dr. Hoe-Chan Lee for his sincere encouragement and support. Special thanks go to the faculty and staff members of the Department of Park, Recreation, and Tourism Resources and to my friend, Lori Martin, for her help and friendship. I am deeply grateful to my parents, Joo-Kwon Kim, Kyung-Sook Song, and to my in-laws, Dae-Hyun Cho, and J ik-J a Kim, for their patience, confidence, and continued loving support. I am especially grateful to my sister, Mi-Jeong Kim for her endless support and encouragement. I would like to express my deepest love and appreciation to my husband, Young- Jeek Cho, and my lovely son, Minsuh Cho, for their love, sacrifice, encouragement, and understanding in helping me to complete this chapter of my life. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 . INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 Rural Problems in Korea .............................................................................................. 1 Tourism as a Strategy for Rural Development ............................................................. 5 Tourism and Rural Development in Korea .................................................................. 8 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................... 15 Objectives, Research Questions, and Hypotheses ...................................................... 22 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................. 27 Definition of Rural Tourism ....................................................................................... 27 The Foundation of Rural Tourism Development and Related Strategies ................... 34 Rural Tourism Studies Conducted in Korea ............................................................... 41 Tourism and Recreation Demand Studies .................................................................. 48 CHAPTER 3 METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 71 Data Collection Method ............................................................................................. 71 Study Population, Sample, and Survey Locations ..................................................... 72 The Survey Instrument ............................................................................................... 79 Survey Administration ................................................................................................ 82 Training Survey Facilitators ................................................................................ 83 Checking and Coding the Completed Surveys and Data Preparation ................. 84 CHAPTER 4 OVERVIEW OF RURAL TOURISM PARTICIPATION AND PARTICIPANTS ........... 86 A Description of the Survey Respondents ................................................................. 86 Rural Tourism Participation and Trip Characteristics ................................................ 9O Comparisons Between Rural Tourists and Non-Rural Tourists ............................... 102 vi CHAPTER 5 MODELING RURAL TOURISM DEMAND ................................................................ 112 Motivational Segmentation of Rural Tourism Market in Korea ............................... 112 Formation of Rural Tourism Motivational Market Segments ............................ 112 Profiles of Three Motivational Market Segments of Rural Tourism ................. 123 Determinants of Rural Tourism Demand in Korea .................................................. 153 Formation and Description of Variables Used in the Model ............................. 154 Participation in Rural Tourism Determinants .................................................... 158 Frequency of Participation in Rural Tourism Determinants .............................. 160 Modeling Rural Tourism Demand in Korea ............................................................. 174 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 181 Summary of the Findings ......................................................................................... 182 Implications of the Study ......................................................................................... 188 Study Limitations ..................................................................................................... 192 Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................... 194 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Survey Questionnaire ...................................................................... 198 APPENDIX B. Comparisons of Three Rural Tourism Motivational Market Segment .................................................................................................................... 206 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 210 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Farm Population and Percentage of Total Population .............................. 2 Table 2. Changes in Farm Household Revenue ................................................ 4 Table 3. Types of Rural Tourism Development and Requirements for Government Financial Aid Between 1984 and 1997 ............................................... 11 Table 4. Rural Tourism Development Programs by the Korean Government .............. 14 Table 5. Previous Studies of the Factors That Influence Tourism and Recreation Demand ................................................................................... 54 Table 6. Population and Sample Size for Megalopolises and Provinces in Korea ...... 75 Table 7. Sample Size and Number of Completed Surveys by Megalopolises and Provinces in Korea ....................................................................... 77 Table 8. Sample Size and the Number of Completed Surveys by Eight Provinces in Korea ...................................................................................... 78 Table 9. Characteristics of the Respondents and Comparisons with the Korean Population ................................................................................ 88 Table 10. Participation in Rural Tourism ....................................................... 92 Table 11. Characteristics of Rural Tourism Trips Taken by Respondents .................. 93 Table 12. Reasons Why Respondents Participate in Rural Tourism ........................ 96 Table 13. The Importance of Various Factors in Determining Rural Tourism Destinations, and Respondents’ Satisfaction with Those Factors ............... 99 viii Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17. Table 18. Table 19. Table 20. Table 21. Table 22. Table 23. Table 24. Table 25. Table 26. Average Spending on Rural Tourism Trips Taken by Respondents ............. 101 Socioeconomic Comparisons of Rural Tourists and Non-Rural Tourists ....... 105 Respondents’ Participation in Different Types of Tourism ....................... 107 Differences in Perceptions of Rural Resources between Rural Tourists and Non-Rural Tourists ................................................................ 109 Results of the Testing of Hypothesis One .......................................... 111 Results of the Initial Factor Analysis Performed on the Importance Assigned to Reasons for Participating in Rural Tourism Trips ................... 115 Final Results of Factor Analysis Performed on the Importance Assigned to Reasons for Participating in Rural Tourism Trips ............................... 117 Agglomeration Schedule of Hierarchical Cluster Analysis using Ward Method ................................................................................... 120 Results of Nonhierarchical Cluster Analysis by Motivations of Rural Tourism Trips (using factor score)................. .................................. 121 Results of Analysis of Variance ...................................................... 121 Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Three Rural Tourism Motivational Market Segments ....................................................................... 127 Characteristics of Rural Tourism Trips of the Three Rural Tourism Motivational Market Segments ....................................................... 133 Rural Tourism Trip Spending of the Three Rural Tourism Motivational Market Segments ....................................................................... 138 ix Table 27. Importance of Factors in Determining Rural Tourism Destination, and Respondents’ Satisfaction with Those Factors of Three Rural Tourism Motivational Market Segments ...................................................... 141 Table 28. Participation in Different Types of Tourism of the Three Rural Tourism Motivational Market Segments ....................................................... 144 Table 29. Differences in Perceptions of Rural Resources of the Three Rural Tourism Motivational Market Segments ....................................................... 148 Table 30. Results of the Testing of Hypothesis Two .......................................... 151 Table 31. Variables in the Model of Rural Tourism Demand in Korea ..................... 156 Table 32. Estimated Results of Poisson-Hurdle Model ....................................... 163 Table 33. Factors that Afi‘ect Frequency of Rural Tourism Participation for Three Rural Tourism Motivational Market Segments ..................................... 168 Table 34. Results of the Testing of Hypothesis Three ......................................... 171 Table 35. Results of the Testing of Hypothesis Four .......................................... 173 Table 36. Comparisons between Estimated Results of Poisson-Hurdle Model and Tobit Model ............................................................................. 178 Table 37. Results of the Testing of Hypotheses Five and Six ................................ 180 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Megalopolises and Provinces in Korea .............................................. 73 Figure 2. Administrative Districts in Seoul ..................................................... 76 Figure 3. The Importance of Various Factors in Determining Rural Tourism Destinations, and Respondents’ Satisfaction with Those Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . 100 xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Rural Problems in Korea Since the 1970s, Korea has experienced rapid economic grth by concentrating on industrialization primarily in urban areas. However, during this period rural areas did not receive the same level of attention. This disparity of focus has occasioned a matching disparity in incomes and/or wage rates between rural and urban areas and has in part been responsible for the rapid population outflow from rural to urban areas. These unbalanced economic development strategies during the past three decades have created structural problems in rural Korea, including a labor shortage caused by depopulation, an age imbalance in the rural population, and stagnation of the rural economies. In the 1990s, the Korean rural economy worsened due to the open agricultural market policy. This policy severely reduced the economic opportunities of many rural communities in Korea, resulted in a decline in the number of farmers, and led to restructured farm ownership, forcing some farm families to augment their incomes with off-farm jobs, to stop farming, to sell agricultural land to speculators, or to declare bankruptcy. Table 1 illustrates how farm populations and farm households have changed since 1970. Table 1. Farm Population and Percentage of Total Population 1970 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 Farm Population“ 14,421 10,827 6,661 4,031 3,933 3,591 3,530 :mentfge 0mm“ 45.8 28.4 15.5 8.6 8.3 7.5 7.4 opulatron Farm Household“ 2,483 2,155 1,767 1,3 83 1,354 1,280 1,264 Percentage “Tom 42.4 27.0 15.6 9.7 9.1 8.5 8.3 Households Fan“ P°p“'at'°" 9‘" 6.1 5.8 3.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 Household Source: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2004 a In thousands The number of farm households in Korea has declined since the 1970s. The farm household population as a percentage of Korea’s total population fell sharply from 45.8 percent in 1970 to 15.5 percent in 1990 and to 7.4 percent by 2003. A sharp decrease has also occurred in the size of farm households: from an average of 6.1 persons in 1970 to 2.8 persons in 2003. Migration of the rural population, reduced cropping index, and a decline in the competitiveness of domestic agricultural products, have seriously damaged rural economies and have produced marked differences of income between different regions of the country, and between urban and rural areas. In addition to reduced rural population, the stagnation of the rural economy is another major problem in rural Korea. The annual average rate of growth of farm household income was only 0.8 percent between 1995 and 1997 (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Korea [MAP], 2004). During that same period, the annual average rate of growth of farm income was a negative 4.4 percent. According to the recent baseline projections of Korean agriculture (Korea Rural Economy Institute [KREI], 2002), farm income is forecast to stagnate further and become unstable during the next decade. The Korean government now supports rural communities in many ways, including direct payments, which consists of financial support paid directly to rural community governments, which in turn use the money to support local farmers (MAF, 2004). Since the late 19903, the Korean government has turned its attention to the diversification of farm household income sources, especially off-farm income. Today, the Korean government is continuously implementing programs to increase non-fann incomes of farm households, through the creation and/or extension of off-farm job opportunities in rural areas. Table 2 illustrates the changes in farm revenue between 1985 and 2000. Table 2. Changes in Farm Household Revenue Percentage of Annual 1985 1990 1994 2000 In crease /Decrease (°/o) 85-94 94-00 Farm Household Revenuea 11,827 16,238 21,775 21,245 7.0 -0.4 Agricultural Revenue 7,627 9,225 1 1,067 10,034 4.2 -1 .6 Off-farm Revenue 2,186 4,184 6,628 6,843 13.1 0.5 (Percentb) (18.5) (25.8) (30.4) (31.5) Comparison with Revenue 112.8 97.4 99.5 80.5 of Urban Households (%) Source: Korea National Statistical Office, 2001 a Unit = 10,000 won (Average conversion rate: US$1.00 = W881.47 in 1985, W707.97 in 1990, W803.62 in 1994, W1130.36 in 2000 provided by Kiup Bank) b Numbers within parenthesis indicate percentage of total farm household revenue. Although the absolute value of farm revenue has increased during the last 15 years, farm revenue, relative to the revenue of urban households, has decreased from 112.8 percent in 1985 to 80.5 percent in 2000. The annual growth rate of off-farm revenue was 13.1 percent between 1985 and 1994, which is much higher than the annual growth rate of agricultural revenue, 4.2 percent during that same period. Since 1994, the annual growth rate of agricultural revenue is a negative 1.6 percent. Rural communities in Korea are similarly facing serious problems: including depopulation, disproportionate aging of the rural population, lack of a labor force, and the government’s agricultural open market policy, according to the Uruguay Round agreement1 by GATT. These problems have resulted in stagnation of the rural economy, as well as degradation of the quality of rural life. For more than three decades, rural communities in Korea have had difficulty solving these problems, and the rural environment has been negatively impacted. Tourism as a Strategy for Rural Development Rural communities, as well as the Korean national government, have recognized the need to revitalize rural areas, including energizing the rural economy and upgrading the living conditions and quality of life in rural Korea. Tourism development has been suggested as the best strategy for rural revitalization; this has apparently worked successfully in many countries (Ribeiro & Marques, 2002; Wilkerson, 1996), and tourism has many potential benefits for rural areas, including different elements of economic development (Frederick, 1992; Lewis, 1998). Some contend that rural tourism is less costly and easier to establish than other rural economic development strategies, such as manufacturing (Wilson et al., 2001 ). l The Uruguay Round (UR) are multilateral trade negotiations launched at Punta del Este, Uruguay in September 1986, concluded in Geneva in December 1993, and signed by Ministers in Marrakesh, Morocco in April 1994. The UR agreements weakened competitiveness of agriculture in Korea. The import of many agricultural products (about 285 of them, including rice) were restricted, however, the UR agreements liberalized agricultural trade. Others believe that it can be developed with relatively little investment credit, training, and capital (Shaw & Williams, 2002). Because jobs in the tourism industry often do not require advanced training, local residents with few skills can readily work as food servers, retail clerks, and hospitality workers. Rural tourism also works well with existing rural enterprises, such as farms, and can be developed locally with participation from local governments and small businesses. Its development is not necessarily dependent upon outside firms or companies. Rural tourism adds income to farms and other households, provides job alternatives, diversifies the rural economy, and makes possible the provision of certain infrastructure. Rural tourism not only offers business opportunities to local residents, but can also serve as a vehicle for marketing a locale to potential residents and firms. Tourists may return later to retire or start a business in rural areas. In addition to economic benefits, rural tourism can enhance the quality of life in rural communities and can support local culture in rural areas by encouraging restoration of local and regional historic and cultural sites. Additionally, rural tourism can bring a transfer of ideas from urban to rural areas, provides urban people with rural living experiences, and fosters conservation efforts. Rural tourism and recreation are among the fastest growing sectors within the tourism industry. Besides the obvious need for revitalization of rural communities, many external factors have induced the recent surge in rural tourism and recreation, including the increasing rates of automobile and weekend travel, larger disposable incomes, a mature travel market, changing tastes and preferences, and increased leisure time resulting from the introduction of a five-day work week system (Alexander & McKenna, 1998) In many developing countries, rural tourism has become an important element of agricultural diversification. In Taiwan, rural tourism has a positive impact on farmers’ incomes and the standard of living in rural areas (Hong, 1998). Thailand has also promoted tourism as a major source of national income. Under the Seventh (1992-1996) and Eighth (1997-2001) Development Plans of Thailand, tourism is seen as an essential component to reach an important objective; that is, “to develop the free, stable and balanced growth of the national economy, to promote opportunities, to develop human potential in the development process, and to reap fair returns from such development” (Rattanasuwongchai, 1998). In Indonesia, rural tourism plays an important role in the growth of both agriculture and tourism simultaneously. This involves a valuable synergy for both sectors, which emphasize a goal of value-added improvement (Iwantoro, 1998). Tourism and Rural Development in Korea Like many other countries, rural tourism is a promising strategy for assisting in generating and diversifying revenues for Korean farmers; it will also help to give Korean agriculture an increased range of functions. In other words, rural tourism development not only generates revenue for rural society; it can also enhance the welfare of both urban and rural people through the growth of farm incomes, conserving the rural environment, improving living conditions, and making more intensive use of rural resources, with benefits for urban people including the provision of leisure resorts and opportunities to study and enjoy nature (Choi, 1998). Recognizing both the current challenges confronting rural communities especially rural agricultural sector and the benefits of rural tourism, the Korean government has allocated considerable fimds and effort into rural tourism development since 1984. The development of rural tourism has been promoted by both the government and agricultural cooperatives. The government does much of the planning, and the cooperatives provide much of the financial support. Rural tourism in Korea has focused primarily on the development and marketing of tourism farms. There were 382 tourism farms in 1997, each averaging a land area of 2.5 hectares. Average investment costs were 656 million won (US$690,000) per farm, more than half of which derived from the owners’ private savings. According to the objectives of the Korean rural tourism program, tourism farms should serve as a major income source for farmers, and should contribute to rural employment. The government also believed that rural tourism should contribute to conservation of the rural environment and should promote sustainable rural development (Bae & Kim, 2003; lung, Byun & Kim, 2004). Different rural tourism development policies and strategies have been implemented over the last 20 years. In its early stages, rural tourism development and marketing mainly consisted of tourism farms that sold farm produce directly. However, after 1988, the government’s rural tourism strategy became more diverse. Some tourism farms were rented rather than owned; some developed multiple facilities, with a complex of accommodation, restaurant and leisure pursuits, etc; while others specialized in nature study, as places where young people could develop their mental and physical abilities, or as a holiday resort. To encourage development of tourism in rural areas, in 1984 the Korean government began offering credit to qualifying villages (Choi, 1998). Table 3 illustrates the basic requirements that rural communities must meet in order to qualify for tourism development financial aid from the Korean government. Between 1984 to 1987 farmers and other qualified individuals engaged in rural tourism development were each extended credit to a limit of 20 million won (U $822,000) per village, with an annual interest rate of 10 percent, and repayment installments scheduled over four years, with a one-year grace period. This credit limit was increased to 50 million won (US$55 ,000) for designated tourism areas in 1988. In 1992, credit was raised to 200-to-250 million won (US$220,000-275,000) for both existing and new designated areas, with a lower interest rate over eight years and repayment in seven years with a three-year grace period. 10 Table 3. Types of Rural Tourism Development and Requirements for Korean Government Financial Aid Between 1984 and 19971' YEAR 1984 1988 1992 1997 Type of 0 Direct sale of 0 Direct sale of 0 Tourism farm Tourism to development farm goods farm goods for studying study nature 0 Rental farms 0 Rental farms nature Weekend for tourism for tourism 0 Weekend farming 0 Tourism farm farming allotments complex allotments Health and 0 Tourism farrrr exercise park for sports 0 Rural resting and leisure Tourism farms 0 Mountain for the aged resorts Qualification 0 Must be 0 Farmers and 0 Joint Residence residents of non-farmers participation over one year designated both qualify by more than on farm and area 0 Newcomers five partnership 0 Joint may qualify households with three participation (all should farm by more than contribute households five farmland) Corporate type households 0 Joint farming group participation organized with by farmers in at least five partnership farm with households, cooperatives Farming of farmers, group, or also of Producer fishermen and cooperatives rural in partnership development with farmers corporations, Mayor or or farm-land magistrate of a improvement county, and associations rural development corporation Farming group, corporate type farming group of more than five farmers " Kyu-Seob, Choi, 1998 Before 2000, Korean nrral tourism was mainly developed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. However since 2000, many different government agencies have participated in rural tourism development. 11 Table 3. Types of Rural Tourism Development and Requirements for Korean Government Financial Aid Between 1984 and 1997a (cont’d) YEAR 1984 1988 1992 1997 Financial 0 Limit 20 o Limit 100 - Limit 150 - Limit 200 assistance million Wonb million Wonb in million Wonb in million Wonb (5 million a new tourism a new tourism in a new Won per area, limit 50 area, limit 200 tourism area, household) million Won in million Won in limit 250 0 Interest: 10% already already million Won in per annum designated area designated area already (repayment in 0 Interest: 8% per 0 Interest: 5% per designated four years annum annum area with a one- (repayment in (repayment 0 Interest: 8% year grace five years with over seven per annum period) a three-year years with a (repayment in grace period) three-year grace five years with period) a five-year gr_ace period) a Kyu-Seob, Choi, 1998 bAverage conversion rate: US$1.00 = W73l.42 in 1988, W780.84 in 1992, W951.” in 1997. (Conversion rate for 1984 is not available, provided by Kiup Bank) In addition to government support, institutional support for rural resorts was begun in 1990 and for home-stay villages2 in 1991. Rural resorts were given credit amounting to 250 million won (U S$275,000) and 30 million home-stay villages were given 30 million won (US$33,000) apiece. Since 2000, many different government agencies have become active in rural tourism development focusing more on the village level. Table 4 describes various Korea’s rural tourism development programs, including: the characteristics of the 2 “Home-stay village” is a village consisted of houses that provide home-stay for tourists. 12 program, the amount of government support, and the number of villages selected for tourism development by different government agencies. 13 .5883 3:82: .823— ofifibfi m_ 832).. a 628m 95— 3 323.:— moom 5 no.2: To» .moom E No. _ 37$ .88 E 2.53;» n co. EmD ”e8h 58.888 ow88>ow£om 8 3 53358889: own—.5 now 0838: Mo .3252 868,386 mow—8:3 meocN 88w .2? owe—.3 8 mo “cognac—gon— “58:83.81“— 888 :88 <2 .8565 883:8 23.5 68:5 8m 86 88:2 88b< 080: «.7788 o==o>2 wczfiocow 8 388 E8 :ozfiEEEeue mow8=_> VTNoom Basic—gov ow£=> 0226:0588 < pow£=> 288E030 88:: i8” 83 88.08.83 .8566 883:8 238 eoomé. co 8852 Even—23% meme—.3 3-88 $8.25ch 8888 com 88 8:: mo obsosbéi .«o ems—5 498.com E8 meme—E w Tmoom a=03 oocdoodom EoEo>9EE~ .852: :288298Q £32m 8.8%:ch 2336:9843 bag—2 $82098 ween cones—om 8:285 own—.3 sonar—omen 88on 05 mo 6:82 bto£=< 2.88800 cog 638—88 EsoE< 3685300 820M 68 ,3 8:8on Eofimflgoa Emgoh 85m .v 038.“. 14 Rural tourism in Korea has been gaining popularity among urban dwellers recently. However, there is still diffrculty and limitations confronting efforts for encouraging today’s rural tourism development in Korea. The first, tourism development, financing and marketing policies and programs are not well organized and no government agency has overall responsibility and control over rural tourism development. This number and diversity of the agencies involved has resulted in duplication and overlapping effort. For rural tourism planning in Korea to proceed in an organized manner there needs to be scientific studies and a more analytical understanding of rural tourism in Korea, An accurate analysis of tourism demand should precede any development and investment in rural tourism programs and marketing strategies. Problem Statement Careful analysis of rural tourism demand and supply is a crucial part of the decision-making regarding investments by either the government or private sectors. A more scientific analysis and projections of rural tourism is necessary to bring about a more effective deployment of capital. The study of demand will improve marketing decisions by suggesting policy implications and strategies for promoting tourism products and services (Uysal & Roubi, 1999). To successfully capitalize on the economic benefits 15 of rural tourism, tourism decision-makers at all levels must be aware of changes and developments affecting the tourism demand. Gartner and Lime (2000) suggest that the need for risk reduction in decisions is more critical in the tourism industry than in other industries. Since government has taken charge of rural tourism development in Korea, the need for more studies examining tourism demand are needed to help reduce budget risk. More analytical demand monitoring and forecasting is especially important when it comes to the design and investment in tourism products and services. Tourism products and services are characterized as uniquely perishable. Matching demand with ‘perishable’ or ‘changing’ capacity is very important. Demand for rural tourism can be influenced by government policies as well as changes in preference, tastes and consumption behaviors. Rather than mass tourism, recently there has been interest in alternative tourism, among which rural tourism has become one of the most promising forms. Younger generations of Koreans differ from older generations in terms of demographics lifestyle and their propensities to engage in tourism (Korea National Tourism Organization [KNTO], 2005). To cope with unique characteristics of tourism products and to provide prompt tourism services to ever more demanding tourists, tourism administrators and operators need monitor and attempt to understand the interaction of supply and demand trends. Strategic planners, policy makers, financial 16 officers, and market analysts of rural tourism need to develop and apply state-of-the-art methods to monitor, assess and project the demand for different forms of rural tourism and understand demand by different market segments. Numerous studies have focused on tourism demand, but rarely on specifically on rural tourism. Generally, research on tourism demand consists of two related elements: market demand forecasts and forecasting the factors that influence tourism demand. Most tourism demand studies focus on market demand forecast; for example, regional demand for tourism or demand per consumer. This can be estimated using the number of visits, total visits, visitor days to a certain attraction, etc. Time series models are the most frequently used method to forecast market demand (Gonzalez & Moral, 1995; Smeral, Witt, & Witt, 1992; Smeral & Witt, 1996). Based on the results of these market demand forecasts, government or agencies frequently formulate tourism development plans, including resource allocation, compilation of the budget, investment, and employment. However, it is even more difficult to forecast market demand for rural tourism in Korea for a number of reasons. First, rural tourism in Korea is still at the introductory stage, so there is little time series data available from the past. Also demand for rural tourism is highly influenced by government policies, investments and other external factors which are not well understood because there have not been many scientific studies. 17 Demand studies should not only be focused on providing future use estimates, they must also enhance understanding of the collection of factors that affect rural tourism demand. According to the literature, these factors include: income, discretionary time, travel expenditure, price, socio-demographic characteristics, etc. (Crouch & Shaw, 1990; Eugenio-Martin, 2003; Hangin & Junsen, 1995). By analyzing and understanding those factors, the Korean government can better create and positively influence rural tourism demand. It is useful for tourism planners and local governments to understand how tourism demand changes in response to changes in various demand factors. Researchers have investigated factors that affect tourism demand, primarily through the development of regression models Regression analysis offers a number of advantages (Frechtling, 1996). First, it explicitly addresses relationships evident in the real world, such as the effects of prices, income changes, etc., on tourism demand. Second, it aids assessment of the effects of alternative plans (i.e. marketing plans, government policies) on tourism demand and provides several statistical measures of accuracy. Morlay (1997), Smeral and Witt (1996), Syriopoulos (1995), Turner et a1. (1995), Witt et a1. (1995), and Zalatan and Burge (1980) have all conducted significant studies on tourism demand employing regression models. To achieve more accurate representations of the important relationships 18 characterizing the real world, economic researchers have developed models consisting of systems of interdependent and simultaneous equations, called structural models. The structural models describe the behavior of consumers and other economic factors, as well as the technical relationships such as production functions or demand functions. Structural models have been incorporated into several studies concerning tourism activity (Gonzalez & Moral, 1995; Smeral, et al., 1992; Smeral & Witt, 1996). Since the 19905, many researchers have studied rural tourism in Korea, especially with a focus on tourism development. Most of those studies, however, have focused only on the supply side of rural tourism. To develop tourism in rural areas more effectively, pertinent studies focused on learning more about the consumers of rural tourism and about the demand for rural tourism should also be conducted. Few studies have focused on rural tourism demand in Korea, and the early studies of tourism demand have some problems and limitations. Previous studies based upon individual observations primarily modeled the quantity decision; models and/or techniques employed for the research were insufficiently sophisticated or comprehensive to provide significant results. Also, research results have not been applied to the development of rural tourism, such as policy-making by the government or agencies. Not considering the changing situations of the market, every year the same variables were applied to forecast tourism demand, 19 making it difficult for decision makers to accurately estimate the rural tourism demand that might exist in the future. A systematic examination of both the supply and demand sides of rural tourism and recreation is necessary, if rural communities in Korea are to be able to plan properly to serve an evolving tourism marketplace. As such, this study proposes to examine the real state of rural tourism in Korea by investigating factors that affect consumers’ decisions about rural tourism. No one technique or model exactly forecasts tourism demand. Instead, a comprehensive and specifically designed model, regarding the type of data, the required accuracy, the available time, the easiness of the technique, and the characteristics of the type of tourism industry, is essential to fully investigate the factors that influence tourism demand. In terms of building demand models for this study, two different modeling techniques were used focusing on consumers’ decision-making. The Tobit Model and the Poisson—hurdle Model were selected because of their systematic sophistication in dealing with censored data and modeling count data. When it comes to consumers making decisions about whether or not to engage in rural tourism, their behavior includes two different decision processes: participation decision and consmnption decision. First, this study proposes to begin at the point where consumers decide to engage in tourism and 20 examine which factors affect that decision, in an effort to identify recognizable differences between participants and non-participants in rural tourism. Second, this study proposes to consider the next consumer step: the consumption decision. This step could be explained by merely quantifying how many times people choose to participate in rural tourism. The factors which affect the consumption decision are also examined. It is important to note that these two decision processes may occur either simultaneously or independently. Additionally, this study proposes to discuss various determinants that influence consumers’ decisions concerning rural tourism. This proposed study is comprised of four parts. The first part of the study and dissertation will identify and profile the rural tourism market in Korea. This will involve a comparison of the profiles of rural tourism participants and those who do not participate in rural tourism. The next part will determine whether the Korean rural tourism market can be segmented using motivations for participating in rural tourism. The next part will determine the factors that affect rural tourism participation and consumption decisions. The fourth and last part will develop a model for rural tourism participation and consumption decision-making. Participation decisions refer to the decision to participate in rural tourism. Consumption decisions are the amount of participation (number of rural tourism trips) in rural tourism. The analysis of rural tourism demand will attempt to 21 determine whether participation and consumption decisions are made simultaneously. This will be accomplished by analyzing what variables influence each decision. A Poisson-hurdle Model will be employed; the model assumes that consumers first chose whether or not to participate in rural tourism, and then decide the frequency of participation. This model assumes that the two decisions can be influenced by different factors in contrast to a Tobit Model which assumes that the two decisions are influenced by the same factors. Objectives, Research Questions, and Hypotheses Four objectives are formulated for the study. Research questions and hypotheses related to each objective are described. Obiective One To identify and profile the rural tourism market in Korea Research Questions 0 Who are Korean rural tourists? 0 Do Korean rural tourists have a different profile than non-rural tourists? 22 Hypothesis 1: Persons who participate in rural tourism differ from persons who do not participate in rural tourism with respect to: o Socioeconomic characteristics including: location of residence, gender, age, marital status, monthly household income, education, occupation, length of work week, childhood residence, and relationship to agriculture, 0 Participation in different types of tourism: nature/ecotourism, cultural/heritage tourism, industrial/social tourism, and pleasure tourism, 0 Perceptions of rural resources. Obiective Two To segment the rural tourism market and profile different rural tourism market segments in Korea Research Questions 0 Do Korean rural tourist markets differ in terms of motivational factors? \ 0 Do the motivational market segments have different profiles in terms of trip behavior and characteristics? Hypothesis 2: Rural tourism motivational market segments differ in terms of: o Socioeconomic characteristics including: location of residence, gender, age, marital status, monthly household income, education, occupation, length of work week, childhood residence, and relationship to agriculture, 0 Rural tourism trip characteristics: length of trip, travel party composition, size of travel party, age makeup of travel parties, type of transportation, type of lodging, information source, trip spending, and trip satisfaction, 0 Importance of factors in determining rural tourism destinations, and satisfaction with those factors, 0 Participation in different types of tourism: nature/ecotourism, cultural/heritage tourism, industrial/social tourism, and pleasure tourism, 0 Perceptions of rural resources. Ob'mctive Three To better understand the factors that affect participation in rural tourism and frequency of participation in rural tourism in Korea Research Questions 0 What factors affect decisions to participate in rural tourism in Korea? 24 o What factors then affect the frequency of participation? Hypothesis 3: Tourists’ characteristics will influence their participation in rural tourism. 0 Socioeconomic characteristics will affect decision of whether to participate in rural tourism. 0 Participation in non-rural tourism will affect decision of whether to participate in rural tourism. 0 Perceptions of rural resources will affect the decisions of whether to participate in rural tourism. Hypothesis 4: Tourists’ characteristics will influence the frequency of their participation in rural tourism in Korea. 0 Tourists’ socioeconomic characteristics will affect the frequency of their participation in rural tourism. 0 Tourists’ participation in non-rural tourism will affect the frequency of their participation in rural tourism. 0 Tourists’ perceptions of rural resources will affect the frequency of their participation in rural tourism. 0 Tourists’ motivation for participating in rural tourism will affect the frequency of their participation in rural tourism. 25 Objective Four To develop a demand model for Korean rural tourism that combines decisions as to whether or not to participate in rural tourism and how frequently to participate Research Questions 0 Do decisions as to whether or not to participate in rural tourism occur simultaneously or independently with decisions about frequency of participation? Hypothesis 5: The factors which affect tourists’ participation and the factors which affect tourists’ frequency decision will be different. Hypothesis 6: The Poisson-hurdle Model and the Tobit Model have the different outcomes when it comes to the factors that affect the decisions of rural tourists. 26 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter provides a review of literature dealing with rural tourism and different “demand” factors that researchers have evaluated. It provides a review of literature pertaining to rural tourism including: (1) definitions of rural tourism, (2) foundations of rural tourism development and strategies, (3) studies of rural tourism conducted in Korea and (4) recreation and tourism demand forecasting. Special emphasis is placed on studies of rural tourism in Korea and research conducted in other countries that are particularly relevant to this study. Definition of Rural Tourism What is ‘rural?’ There is no one commonly accepted definition for ‘rural’ (Willits, Beatler, & Timbers, 1990). In Webster’s dictionary, ‘rural’ is defined as “of or pertaining to the country, as distinguished from a city or town; living in the country; and farming/agricultural” (Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998). ‘Rural’ applies to sparsely settled or agricultural country. The definition of ‘rural’ in the Korean dictionary is “a village or area where people make a living by farming, including raising 27 stock, sericulture, horticulture, forestry, and fruit-growing” (Yahoo Korea Dictionary, 2004) Within the literature, there are three different criteria that are used to determine whether a place is ‘rural’ (Lane, 1994). The first criterion relates to the size of a population and the population density of an area. The size of a population classified as ‘rural’ varies in different countries. For example the USA classifies a ‘rural’ population as one with fewer than 50,000 people and a population density of fewer than 1,000 people per square mile (United States General Accounting Office, 1993), Canada classifies a ‘rural’ population as one with fewer than 1,000 people and a population density of fewer than 400 people per square kilometers (Gartner, 2004), England classifies a ‘rural’ population as one with fewer than 10,000 people (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Landscape Access Recreation, 2004), and in Korea a ‘rural’ population is one with fewer than 20,000 people (Kim & Seo, 2002). The second criterion used to distinguish rural areas relates to land uses and economic activities. This standard applies worldwide. The economy of many rural areas is dominated by agriculture and forest-based activities. Generally, over 80 percent of the world’s rural land remains as natural environment (Lane, 1994). The third criterion used of define ‘rural’ is whether or not if retains a social structure with a traditional 28 community identity and heritage. According to Demoi (1991), ‘rural’ refers to a non-urban territory in which human (land-related economic) activity is taking place. Long (1998) proposes a definition of ‘rural’ that reflects a lifestyle one is likely to encounter while visiting a ‘rural’ community; rural may be perceived as a place of safety, with solid values, surrounded by open space and natural beauty, where one is treated respectfully and in a friendly manner. What then constitutes ‘rural tourism?’ Generally, ‘rural tourism’ is tourism that takes place in the countryside. It is defined as “a demand for touristic use of a rural area” (Gartner, 2004, p. 153). Oppermann (1996) defines ‘rural tourism’ as tourism occurring in a “non—urban territory where human activity is occurring, primarily agriculture; a permanent human presence seems a qualifying requirement” (p. 88). For example, bed and breakfasts, farm vacations, recreation trail networks, and harvest festivals, are all sources of ‘rural tourism’ that can be found in small towns. Oppermann (1996) emphasizes that the type of accommodations used by rural tourists is one key aspect in differentiating rural tourism from other types of tourism. Lane (1994) suggests that ‘rural tourism’ exists as a concept, and reflects the differing and complex pattern of rural environment, economy, history and location. 29 ‘Rural tourism’ is directly related to the particular characteristics of rural areas, and it is assumed that the principal motivation for visiting the countryside is to experience its rurality. This motivation justifies the definition of ‘rural tourism’ as an identifiable type of tourism, with rural tourism being an end onto itself — to experience the countryside. Considering the demand and supply of rural tourism, it can be defined more specifically. Demand-side rural tourism is based on the nature of the visitor and is defined as “a visit by a person to any place other than his or her usual work or home environment and that is outside a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area” (Greffe, 1994, p. 23). On the other hand, supply-side rural tourism is more focused on a visitors’ place of stay. Rural tourism is also associated with a particular form of accommodation that offers tourist opportunities to participate in farm-related activities, such as vegetable gardening or caring for farm animals. Lobo (2001) defines ‘rural tourism’ as “recreational experience involving visits to rural settings or rural environments for the purpose of participating in or experiencing activities, events or attractions not readily available in urbanized areas. These may not necessarily be agricultural in nature.” Rural tourist activities might include a country-side tour; purchasing honey from a local farm; or visits orchards, cheese factories, greenhouses, pumpkin patches, road-side fruit and vegetable stands, nurseries, etc. Rural 30 tourism can also include activities such as: participating in fall color tours; fishing in local streams, rivers, or lakes; visiting a maple sugaring house in the spring; taking photographs of beautiful scenery; painting the landscape; hiking a trail; or visiting an abandoned rail lines, conservation area, or local, state, or national park. Persons who participate in these and similar activities are participating in various forms of rural tourism (Buck, 2004). ‘Agricultural tourism’ is specified by the act of visiting a working farm or any agricultural horticultural or agribusiness operation for the purpose of enjoyment, education, or active involvement in the activities of the farm or operation (Lobo, 2001; Buck, 2004). It includes taking part in a broad range of farm-based activities, including farmers’ markets, ‘petting’ farms, roadside stands, and ‘pick-your-own’ operations; engaging in overnight farm or ranch stays and other farm visits; and visiting agriculture- related festivals, museums, and other such attractions. Agricultural tourism operations provide a bridge between urban and rural dwellers. Agricultural tourism, or agri-tourism, is one alternative for improving the incomes and potential economic viability of small farms and rural communities. ‘Farm tourism’ is defined as a subset of rural tourism and is in many ways an incarnation of the traits typical to rural enterprises: small-scale, with local roots, and anchored in local traditions. It also seems to be the oldest form of rural 31 tourism (Nilsson, 2002). The concept of rural tourism has evolved substantially in recent years. One aspect of this change is reflected in the vocabulary used to describe various types of rural tourism activities. For example, some studies refer to outdoor-based tourism as ‘ecotourism,’ while other publications use the term ‘nature-based tourism’ or ‘green tourism’ (Stancliffe, 1992). Although these two terms are not technically synonymous; the term ‘ecotourism’ suggests activities that promote conservation of nature, while ‘nature-based tourism’ is evocative of a broader spectrum of outdoor-based recreation, including hunting, fishing, camping, and the use of recreational vehicles. These new terms reflect new perspectives in the tourism industry. The definition of rural tourism varies between countries reflecting the specific types and characteristics of rural tourism within each country. For example, in Israel ‘country vacations’ center on bed and breakfasts, while tourists participate in ‘agri- tourism’ in Italy, ‘farm tourism’ in Korea, and ‘green tourism’ in Japan (Fleischer & Pizarn, 1997; Park, Ryu, & Lee, 2001; Arahi, 1998). Rural tourism is a multi-faceted activity: it is not just farm-based tourism (Alexander, Kumar, & Day, 1998). It includes farm-based holidays but also comprises special interest nature holidays and coo-tourism walking, climbing and riding holidays, adventure, sport and health tourism, hunting and 32 angling, educational travel, arts and heritage tourism, and in some areas ethnic tourism. Nature-based tourism/ecotourism (sometimes called recreation-based tourism) refers to the process of visiting natural (usually rural) areas for the purpose of enjoying the scenery, including plant and animal wildlife. Nature-based tourism may be either passive, in which observers tend to be strictly observers of nature, or active (increasingly popular in recent years), where participants take part in outdoor recreation or adventure travel activities (Stancliffe, 1992). Heritage tourism is also often included within the scope of rural tourism, and refers to leisure travel that has as its primary purpose the experiencing of places and activities that represent the past. The principal concerns of heritage tourism are historical authenticity and the long-term sustainability of attractions (Gartner, 2004). When studying rural tourism, it is essential to first define exactly what is involved in rural tourism, because a lack of clarity in terms of definition can influence data collection, resulting in partial information on rural tourism with regard to both scope and scale (Sharpley & Roberts, 2004). Based on the reviewed literature, a broad definition of rural tourism will be used for this study. In this study, rural tourism includes the following types of activities: (1) participation in agricultural tourism; including a farm stay, a farm experience, a weekend visit to a farm, an agriculture and food festival, a 33 traditional cultural experience, seaside activities such as clam digging or shell collecting, etc.; (2) a visit to rural areas for the purpose of tourism; including an overnight stay at a bed and breakfast or a recreational forest in a rural area, mountain climbing, camping, trekking, fishing, nature study, estuary exploration, visiting historic sites, etc.; (3) visiting family or friends living in rural areas. The Foundation of Rural Tourism Development and Related Strategies The roots of rural tourism are very similar throughout the world, no matter when it comes into practice (Fleischer & Pizam, 1997). In the early days, rural tourism was developed and encouraged primarily for the purpose of revitalization and diversification of rural areas. A decline in the ability of farming and related agricultural support businesses limited the ability of farmers and rural residents to generate sufficient income causing many farmers to seek new sources of income and to diversify their farms. Also, a systematic and substantial decrease in the rural populations, the aging of these populations, now characterizes many rural areas (Fleischer & Pizam, 1997; Ribeiro & Marques, 2002). Tourism has long been suggested as a strategy of revitalizing rural economies. According to some authors, rural tourism can add income to farms and other households, 34 provides job alternatives, diversifies the rural economy, and makes the provision of certain infrastructure possible (Oppermann, 1996). Therefore, many rural communities turned to tourism to stimulate new economic development (Blaine, Mohammad, & Var, 1993). Governments have been primarily responsible and have taken an active role in the development of rural tourism in many countries. For example, government policy in the US has focused on rural tourism as an economic development tool in the overall strategic planning for rural revitalization. As a result, numerous rural communities, agencies, and organizations throughout the United States have actively encouraged and promoted rural tourism (Blaine et al., 1993). There are numerous success stories that appear to demonstrate positive results from tourism develOpment efforts in rural communities in the United States (Kieselbach & Long, 1990; Borich & Fleming, 1993; Bowling, 1992; Edgell & Cartwright, 1990; Long & Nuckolls, 1992). Gunn (1988) identified three components needed for successful tourism development including a gateway where basic services are found, attractions that exert the pull or reason for visitation, and transportation linkage that connects service centers to attractions and gateways to market. Many, but not all rural communities in the USA have all three of the components mentioned above (Gartner, 2004). 35 Rural tourism has been used as a means of addressing rural problems in Japan. After World War 11, Japanese rural communities experienced population loss, the aging of their populations, and stagnant income growth. Rural tourism was developed as a strategy for revitalization (Arahi, 1998). Similarly, rural tourism has become an essential part of agricultural development in Taiwan (Hong, 1998). Rural tourism has also been used as a rural revitalization strategy, as well as a major source of national income in Indonesia and Thailand, where natural resources are abundant (Iwantoro, 1998; Rattanasuwongchai, 1998) Rural tourism is not new; however, interest in rural tourism has increased rapidly during the past several years. The recent surge in rural tourism has come from the demand-side, due in part to increased disposable incomes, improved lifestyles, increased health awareness, a mature travel market, changing tastes and preferences, and increases in automobile and weekend travel (Hill, 1993; Alexander & McKenna, 1998). Urbanization and nostalgia for rural character has also played a role in the development of rural tourism (Collin & Baum, 1995). Some contents that the more entrenched urbanities become, the more likely they are to reach out and visit rural settings (Hill, 1993). People living in urban areas have become more interested in experiencing rural amenities, such as high quality of life; tranquility; closeness to nature; 36 natural features, such as mountains, rivers, and lakes; and man-made resources, such as parks, recreation facilities, and historic and cultural sites (Kieselbach & Long, 1990; Fleischer & Pizam, 1997). In addition to economic benefits for rural communities, rural tourism also offers lots of benefits to urban people. Lane (1994) offers some tourism market trends that will accelerate the growth of rural tourism in the future. He points to a growing interest in rural life, including heritage and tradition, an increasing health consciousness giving a positive appeal to rural lifestyles and values, market interest in high performance outdoor equipment, search for solitude and relaxation in a quiet natural place, and an aging but active population retiring earlier but living and traveling far into old age. As increasing attention has been paid to rural tourism as a specific form of tourism development, so too has the scope of research into tourism in rural areas become more diverse. Rurafl Tourism Development Strategies There are opportunities as well as obstacles to rural tourism development (Hill, 1993). Opportunities for rural tourism development include general tourism growth, increased family vacationing, environmental interest, the recent dispersion of travel through growing auto travel, a mature travel market, changing tastes and preferences, 37 urbanization, and growing weekend travel. On the other hand, there are also obstacles to rural tourism development, which include weak drawing power, dispersion of attractions and services, meager secondary economic impacts, internal community conflicts, and destination life cycles. Hill (1993) made several suggestions for capitalizing on rural tourism opportunities and overcoming various obstacles. The major challenges he identifies are developing attractions, encouraging entrepreneurship, informing markets, reacting to changing tastes, providing quality service and preserving attractions and attractiveness. Different authors have investigated strategies for successful tourism development in rural areas. Wilson et a1. (2001) addressed the importance of the community context and rural tourism “entrepreneurs” role in tourism development and promotion in rural areas. According to Wilson, the ten most important conditions for successful tourism development in rural areas include: a complete tourism package, good community leadership, support and participation of local government, sufficient funds for tourism development, strategic planning, coordination and cooperation between rural tourism entrepreneurs, information and technical assistance for tourism development and promotions, good convention and visitors bureaus, and widespread community support for tourism. Cooperation of all elements of the industry and the community has also been 38 emphasized by Hunt (1992). Additionally, he has suggests a broad-based program that details development, marketing and management as a strategy for successful development of rural tourism. Tourism has been considered as a vehicle for economic regeneration and employment creation in the UK, too. A number of local authorities have sought to capture the potential economic benefits afforded by tourism and a number of studies have investigated the ways to maximize the benefits. Thomas and Long (2001) presented the development of employee skills as a key issue for effective tourism development. They examined the link between employee skills development and the contribution of tourism to regeneration in rural areas. The issue of sustainability is receiving much more emphasis as it relates to rural tourism policy and development. Rural tourism in southeastern Europe has developed particularly within the context of aspirations towards sustainability. The EU membership emphasizes sustainable development of tourism (Hall, 2004), and many studies on rural tourism development conducted in Europe are more likely to focus on conservation of rural environment than on economic contribution from the tourism development. 39 Has Rural Tourism Development Always Resulted in the Desired Outcomes? Numerous studies have provided various types of evidence that rural tourism development is an effective way to revitalize and diversify rural communities. Getz and Carlson (2000) have suggested that tourism has the potential to enhance the viability of rural communities. Other studies have suggested that population loss and other negative socioeconomic effects may be prevented or postponed through tourism development (Alexander & McKenna, 1998; Nilsson, 2002). Contrary to the general held belief that rural tourism brings great benefits to rural areas, some authors have presented results indicating otherwise. Ribeiro and Marques (2002) have demonstrated that a wide gap and considerable contradictions have been emerging between the rhetoric and the real benefits that tourism has been producing in the local societies and economies of Portugal. And a survey of rural operators and tourists in Southern Germany has revealed that farm tourism provides only a small side-income for farmers (Oppermann, 1996). Hjalager (1996) has discussed the impact of rural tourism on agricultural holdings and has concluded that the financial returns most often do not measure up either to the expectations of the politicians or to those of the farmers. In some respects, rural tourism contributes positively to the innovation of the tourist product since its small scale, 40 ‘green’ issues and special facilities differentiate the product from others. A number of authors argue that rural tourism development may not always be the best strategy for solving rural problems. The successful development of rural tourism depends upon planning and the existence of infrastructure, attractions, essential services, management, maintenance, and an accessible market. In the absence of any one of these elements, a rural region may find that tourism is not a cost-effective option, or that other development tools, such as investment in infrastructure and education, must precede the development of rural tourist attraction and services (Edgell & Carwright, 1990). Only when proper conditions prevail, can tourism be a contributor to rural economic development in the areas. Rural Tourism Studies Conducted in Korea Since 2000, the “demand” for rural tourism in Korea has increased due in part to changing socio-environmental factors, the introduction of a five-day work week system has increased the leisure time of Korean citizens, and industrialization and urbanization have increased tourists’ desire to experience rural life. Many studies have been conducted about participation in rural tourism in Korea (Bae & Kim, 2003; Cha, 2002; Cho et al., 2003; Hwang, Cho, & Kang, 2003; Jang, 2004; Jung et al., 2004; Kim, 2004; Lee, 1996; 41 Park et al., 2001; Park, Lee, & Park, 2002). In the early stages of rural tourism development in Korea, studies focused mainly on factors contributing to successful instances rural tourism development in other countries (Park, 2002; Park et al., 2003; Yoo & Choi, 2001) with the purpose of providing the Korean government with knowledge and ideas for successful rural tourism development. As the demand for rural tourism has increased, more studies have been conducted on these three topics: (1) rural tourism development policy, (2) strategy for development and management of ‘Tourist Farms,’ and (3) tourist preferences concerning rural tourism. Rural Touris_m Development Policy Three relatively recent studies have dealt specifically with rural tourism policy implications (Jung, 2001; Kim, 2004; Park, 2004). Kim (2004) suggests directions for policy-making in each of several tourism components: rural amenities, rural tourism entrepreneurs, rural tourism marketing, transportation infrastructure, and rural tourism demand. Park et al. (2003) evaluated previous policies for rural tourism development and concluded that those policies led people to recognize the need for rural tourism development. However, he also noted some problems with the existing policies, such as 42 lack of infrastructure, including poor road or rail networks, indifferent accommodation in rural areas, and only supply-side-focused development. Jung (2001) stressed sustainable development in rural areas and suggested policy-orientation for green tourism development. Strategies for the Development and Management of ‘Tourist Farms’ in Korea Since the 1980s, the Korean government has developed ‘Tourist Farms’ and has supported them for the purpose of tourism development in rural areas. Many studies have been conducted to suggest strategies for the development and management of ‘Tourist Farms’ in Korea (Cha, 2002; Choi, 1998; Jung et al., 2004; Park et al., 2001; Park et al., 2002). As a basis for policy-making, the actual conditions and management status of ‘Tourist Farms’ have been examined by researchers, and plans for improvement have been suggested. When developing ‘Tourist Farms’ in Korea, location and management skills have been considered to be the most important components (Choi, 1998). Some studies analyzed the preferences of visitors to ‘Tourist Farms.’ Cha (2002) analyzed the demand and supply of the market for ‘Tourist Farms,’ and market analysis has shown that profits are higher when rural communities provide weekend activities and recreation facilities, as well as offering better scenery. Park et a1. (2001) studied rural tourism 43 development strategies, with a particular focus on ‘Tourist Farms.’ They examined the role of niche markets in the development of tourism in rural areas and concluded that niche marketing would be a good strategy and that public/private sector partnerships are necessary. When developing rural tourism, particularly ‘Tourist Farms,’ the biggest problems have been identified as being the length of time taken to obtain planning permission and acquisition of capital (Choi, 1998). At the planning stage, there exists a complex business of obtaining approval of the application, by city-, county- and provincial councils. Delays often arise in this process, and further difficulties arise because of a lack of staff with specialized pertinent training. Approval of credit can also take considerable time, since it depends upon the budget of the central government, which is approved in May each year. These constraints make it difficult to maintain a desired schedule. The general problems of rural tourism development have been identified as a lack of management skills among farmers and local government staff, poor infrastructure including road access, lodging, etc., a limited tourism season, a poor rate of return on investments, and farmers’ lack of information about visitors’ wants (Choi, 1998). Several strategies towards the resolution of these problems have been suggested in the existing 44 literature. First, the main body of development should be rural residents, and a development leader is necessary. The literature shows that if the external public sector is too powerful in the leadership of the development process, it is unlikely to succeed (Park et al., 2001). Second, external support from government, professional, and private organizations are necessary, and partnership between the public and private sectors is essential when carrying out rural tourism programs. Third, it is necessary to establish laws governing rural tourism development, as are found in many industrialized countries (6. g. Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Japan); this kind of support is intended not only to increase the welfare of citizens and farmers but also to preserve rural resources. Fourth, development of rural tourism should be sustainable; in some countries, the term ‘green tourism’ has been used instead of ‘rural tourism.’ Lee (1996) introduced the concept of ‘green tourism’ into the development of ‘rural tourism.’ Rural tourists prefer activities in a natural environment, such as staying overnight in rural areas and camping, as well as natural facilities such as trails, promenades, beaches and forests (Jung et al., 2004). This means that program planners for rural tourism should develop environment-friendly activity programs. Fifth, rural tourism programs should be diversified and have distinctiveness. Kang (2004) has examined some recent rural tourism development programs, conducted by several government agencies, and has 45 criticized those programs; he has found them to be almost identical in their ideas and contents and not distinctive and has determined that they do not have clear objectives. Kang has suggested that rural tourism in Korea has experienced quantity expansion but not quality improvement. Based upon his evaluation of some existing rural tourism programs, he has emphasized the necessity of programs themselves being distinctive. Rural tourism products must offer distinctive content, leading to brand development; distinctive process, such as a distinguished style of delivery, and distinctive people, including the leader of the development (Kang, 2004). Lastly, the demand for rural tourism needs to be maintained. In the beginning, rural tourism was an option of rural development, and the government purposely created a demand for rural tourism and invested substantially in infrastructure. For further development, the demand for rural tourism needs to be supported, and sophisticated analysis of rural tourism is necessary, particularly regarding tourists’ preferences. Rural Tourism Participation Related Studies According to the report “Annual Survey of General Household on Travel Behaviors” conducted by the Korea National Tourism Organization, it is apparent that tourists are increasingly likely to participate in nature-based tourism or experiential 46 tourism with their families (KNTO, 2005). Previous studies have addressed many possibilities for increasing rural tourism demand in Korea (Cho et al., 2003; Park, 2001). Rural tourism will be accelerated by changing lifestyles, development of the transportation network, and the demand for safe food. Cho et al. (2003) analyzed urban residents’ preferences for rural tourism in Korea using survey data. The results showed that only 20.1 percent of urban residents have participated in rural tourism; however 64.6 percent of respondents intend to participate in rural tourism in future. Compared to non- participants, those who have already participated in rural tourism have greater intentions to participate in rural tourism. In Park’s research (2001), 87.6 percent of respondents indicated such intention. From the results of a ‘Tourist Farm’ owner survey, the number of visitors to ‘Tourist Farms’ increased in 2001 and 2002 (KREI, 2002). Of farm owners, 71.4 percent responded that their sales increased during those years. Promotion is considered to be an essential element of the successful development of rural tourism (J ang, 2004). It is important to provide information about rural tourism to support the demand. Hwang et al. (2003) analyzed the use of Internet sites developed to promote rural tourism. He found that only 7.5 percent of urban residents had visited such sites, those who have done so found those web-sites to be extremely useful resource. 47 Tourism and Recreation Demand Studies Tourism and recreation demand has been a popular issue for academic researchers and industry practitioners for quite some time. Demand monitoring and forecasting activity is particularly important in tourism management in part because it is often quickly and substantially impacted by many different factors both inside and outside a country. Study of tourism demand is a prerequisite for sound tourism planning. For successful tourism management, tourism decision-makers at all levels must be aware of changes and developments affecting tourism trends. Since it is very important to the economies and society, many studies of tourism demand have been undertaken. Tourism demand forecasting helps to answer questions such as: (1) How many tourists are likely to arrive at a destination in a given time period?, (2) Which areas represent the best marketing opportunities for a destination?, and (3) Which factors are most influential in determining future visitation to a destination? (U ysal & Crompton, 1985, p. 7) Previous literature that has focused on tourism demand can be broadly divided into three groups. The first group focuses on tourism demand forecasting issues. The second group of studies aims to identify the factors that influence tourism demand, and the majority of studies concerning tourism demand fall into this group. The third group of tourism demand studies focuses on the models and techniques of forecasting tourism 48 demand. Tourism Demand ForecaLsting Studies Tourism in the past few decades has witnessed a tremendous growth and expansion worldwide. It has been considered as the major source of income in the form of foreign exchange earnings in both Italy and Spain (Goeldner, Ritchie, & McIntosh, 1999; Lim, 1997), with the tourism industry being the top employer in Canada, Japan, the UK, and the USA (Hawkins & Ritchie, 1992). Numerous studies has been undertaken to forecast international tourism demand and to analyze its characteristics (Sheldon & Var, 1985; Bakkal, 1991; Witt & Witt, 1992). Demand estimates have also been produced for different tourism niche markets, such as international business tourism and international conference attendance (Kulendran & Witt, 2003; Witt et al., 1995). Compared to the number of studies focused on international tourism demand, studies focused on the demand for domestic tourism have been relatively few (Chen, 2000; Witt, Newbould, & Watkins, 1992; Durden & Silberman, 1975). Hu (2002) has asserts that the lack of domestic tourism demand studies have resulted fiom the very minor direct effects of domestic tourism on countries’ balances of payments. In addition, domestic travel has been difficult to monitor in part because it does not involve the 49 crossing of international borders (Cooper et al., 1998; Latham, 1998). Tourism demand can be estimated using many different indicators, including: the number of visitations (Gonzalez & Moral, 1996; Durden & Silberman, 1975; Qiu & Zhang, 1995), tourist expenditures (Gonazlez & Moral, 1996; Qiu & Zhang, 1995; Smeral, 1988; Cai, Hu, & Feng, 2001), length of stay (Silberman, 1985), and so on. In fact, those standards are interdependent of each other; for example, tourist expenditures can be expressed as the product of three factors: the number of tourists, the average length of stay, and the average expenditure per day. Demand forecasting provides critical information for tourism decision-makers to anticipate potential growth and risks in the near future for a specific economy, region, and, in the case of international tourism, country. Studies Focused on the Identification of the F actors Th_at Influence Tourism and Recreation Demand The second group of studies aims at identifying the factors that influence tourism and recreation demand and estimating the elasticity of demand with respect to these factors (Zalatan & Burdge, 1980; Silberman, 1985; Smeral, 1988; Surnathi, 1990; Morley, 1991; Smeral et al., 1992; Qiu & Zhang, 1995; Gonzalez & Moral, 1995, 1996; Smeral & 50 Witt, 1996; Jorgensen & Solvoll, 1996; Lim, 1999). Although a growing number of researchers are skeptical concerning accuracy of tourism forecasting methods, studies of the factors influencing tourism and recreation demand and the degree of the effect, can provide more specific and useful information to tourism managers and decision-makers for effective operating and planning. According to the literature, demand for tourism especially domestic tourism depends significantly upon the level and growth of gross national product (Smeral, 1988). Economic growth influences tourism demand through mechanisms caused by the interdependence of certain elements of the socioeconomic system, such as increase of disposal income, rapid development of traffic infrastructure, increase in urbanization, etc., so the factors that influence tourism demand can be found in a wide scope. Silberrnan (1985) estimated the effects of cost and other factors on the length of stay of visitors to Virginia Beach (VB), Virginia. He included a wide range of factors including: economic variables (price, distance, annual family income), demographic characteristics (age, gender, marital status, number of children, party size, employment status), vacation characteristics (lodging, number of trips to VB during the summer, type of activities engaged in, etc.) and destination characteristics (visitor’s image of VB). His study determined that the following variables were significantly associated with length of 51 stay: direct cost per day, distance traveled, annual household income, effect of the recession, more than one trip to VB, staying at a campground, advanced planning, planning to visit again, participating in sports, learning about VB from advertising, and the contribution to image of being a classy site and/or being a rundown site. Regarding price elasticity, visitors’ length of stay was not shown to be very sensitive or responsive to changes in cost per day. This means that the demand for VB depends mainly upon all of the non-price factors described above. Based on the results of the study, Silberman made several suggestions about the direction of the advertising campaign, changes in the tax structure, and a proposed capital improvement project. Sumathi (1990) identified that travel cost is the most important variable explaining the number of recreation trips to Price County, Wisconsin. He also analyzed the effect of advertising on recreation demand in the study. The factors that influence tourism demand can also vary by season or destination. Jorgensen and Solvoll (1996) analyzed how the demand for inclusive tour charters (ITC) among Norwegians in one particular period of time was influenced by: disposable income, expectation of future prosperity, price level, and weather conditions. They concluded that Norwegians’ demand for ITCs is income- and price-sensitive, but the degree of sensitivity varies from season to season; less income-sensitive during off-peak periods while less 52 price-sensitive during peak period. Gonzalez and Moral (1995) forecast international tourism demand in Spain using explanatory variables of income, price, changes in tourist tastes, and seasonality. Lim (1999) reviewed many published empirical studies on modeling international tourism demand and integrated the findings according to the important explanatory variables used (income, transportation costs, and tourism prices), the proportion of significant findings, and the effect size of these major explanatory variables. In conclusion, tourism and recreation demand is assumed to depend mainly upon levels of income and the price of tourism. But the literature reveals that other factors can also be important such as socioeconomic factors, such as the preferences of visitors and the popularity of the tourist destination under consideration; marketing expenditures; the increase in the length of ‘second holidays’; the possibility of vacations outside of the high season; increase in standards of living in developed countries; and some destination- specific factors (Gonzalez & Moral, 1996). Knowledge of the factors that influence tourism and recreation demand provides useful insights for understanding the tourism decision-making process and leads to relevant policy suggestions for both the public and private sectors engaged in tourism development and marketing. 53 Table 5. Previous Studies of the Factors That Influence Tourism and Recreation Demand Author Demand Indicator Factors Influencing Tourism and Recreation Demand Durden and Number of tourists - Income Silberman (1975) entering Florida - Travel cost - Weather conditions Zalatan and Travel abroad by - Change of living cost of destination country Burdge (1980) US. residents - Commonality of language Silberman (1985) Smeral (1988) Bockstael, Strand, McConnell, and Arsanjani (1990) Creel and Loomis (1990) Gonzalez and Moral ( 1 995) Length of stay at Virginia Beach Real revenue from international tourism Participation and frequency in Sportfishing Number of trips for deer hunting in California Tourist arrivals and expenditures in Spain 54 Cost of international tourism Economic variables (direct cost per day, distance traveled, annual household income) Vacation characteristics (lodging, number of trips to VB during the summer, type of activities engaged in, etc.) Destination characteristics (visitor's image of VB) Others (effect of the recession, plan to revisit, etc.) Price Income (travel budget) Trip cost Boat availability (inboard/outboard) Recreational budget Age Travel cost Travel time Average length of trip Number of years previously hunted in the zone Characteristics related to deer hunting Household income Price of client countries and competitor countries Income Table 5. Previous Studies of the Factors That Influence Tourism and Recreation Demand (cont’d) Author Demand Indicator Factors Influencing Tourism and Recreation Demand Qiu and Zhang Tourist arrivals and - Per capita income (1995) Jorgensen and Solvoll (1996) Chase, Lee, Schulze, and Anderson (1998) Train (1998) Lim (1999) Cai, Hu and F eng (2001) Daniel and Ramos (2002) expenditures in Canada from the USA, the UK and France, and Germany and Japan Number of inclusive tour charters in Norway Willingness to pay for three national parks in Costa Rica Anglers’ choice of fishing trip and fishing site International tourism demand (tourist arrivals/ departures and expenditures/ receipts) The annual expenditure of urban domestic travelers Tourist arrivals in Portugal from Spain, the UK, Germany, France, and the Netherlands 55 Exchange rate Travel price index Immigration Crime rate Special events Changes in residents' tastes Improvement in the quality of transportation Disposable income Expectation of future prosperity Price level Weather conditions Income Price (entrance fee) Demographic (age, education, nationality) Destination specific variables (fish stock, aesthetics rating, log of size of each site, number of campgrounds, number of State Recreation Access areas, listed in Angler Cs Guide to Montana, number of restricted species) Travel cost Income Transportation costs Tourism prices Per capita GDP Income (manipulated from GDP, CPI, and population) Price (cost of living in and cost to travel to Portugal) Tourism and Recreation Dem_and Models A variety of modeling techniques have been tested in terms of their ability to estimate and forecast tourism and recreation demand. Researchers have proposed different types of demand model for different circumstance depending upon the study objective or the type of data used. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches have been developed and used to forecast tourism demand. The qualitative approaches include more traditional methods such as the Delphi model, and the Judgment-Aided model. These methods are characterized by the use of accumulated experience of individual experts, or groups of people assembled together to predict the likely outcome of an event (Uysal & Crompton, 1985). Quantitative approaches, which are more frequently used, include Time Series model, the Gravity and Trip Generation model, and the Multivariate Regression model. Uysal and Crompton (1985) reviewed the methods commonly used to forecast tourism demand and suggested that a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods produces the most accurate forecasts. Gonzalez and Moral (1995, 1996) analyzed external demand for Spanish tourist services within the framework of Structural Time Series Models which were formulated directly from unobserved components such as trends and seasonalities. A Gravity Model 56 approach was employed to analyze the determinants of Florida tourist flows by Durden and Silberman (1995). Some researchers have raised concerns about the methods used to forecast tourism demand. These concerns have been summarized by Hu (2002) and include: (1) a lack of effort in providing actual forecasts, instead of building and evaluating forecasting models, (2) poor forecasting performance, (3) a low frequency of data collection when forecasting tourism demand, and (4) difficulty in specifying proper forecasting models. A number of studies have evaluated the relative forecasting performance of various demand models (Witt, Song, & Louvieris, 2003; Gonzalez & Moral, 1995; Witt et al., 1995). For example Gonzalez and Moral (1995) analyzed the performance of alternative methods for forecasting international tourism demand for Spain. They compared the forecasting performance of the Structural Time Series Model with that of two alternative models, the Transfer Function and Error Correction Models. Li, Song, and Witt (2004) criticized the previous approaches to forecasting tourism demand, particularly single-equation approaches, and tested a linear approach, known as the Almost Ideal Demand System, in the context of international tourism demand. To forecast or model tourism demand at the destination level, the general-to-specific modeling approach has been suggested as a useful tool (Song & Witt, 2003). 57 Daniel and Romos (2002) forecasted inbound international tourism demand to Portugal, applying cointegration analysis (the Almost Ideal Demand System, and the Structural Time Series Model) and the Error Correction Model, which have not been commonly used to model tourism demand. They indicate that demand models used in a majority of prior studies have been simple time-series econometric models, estimated using multiple least-squares regression. They argue that this method is not appropriate for tourism, since a number of non-stationary, explanatory variables have been used and recommend more advanced techniques either by improving traditional methods or deve10ping new methods. Song and Wong (2003) have addressed the concern that traditional tourism demand analyses, which uses ordinary least squares or maximum likelihood methods, do not allow for behavioral changes of tourists over time, and they have proposed a new methodology, a time-varying parameter approach to tourism demand modeling. And, finally, the ability of various econometric and univariate time- series models to generate accurate forecasts of international tourism demand have been evaluated by Witt et al. (2003). Modeling techniques for tourism demand vary depending upon the types of dependent variables that are used—continuous, discrete, or count data. For example, to model tourism demand, measured as tourist expenditure (a continuous type of data), 58 ordinary least squares or maximum likelihood methods can be used. Logit modeling is a widely accepted method for coping with discrete choice data. Logit models provide a framework to explore the trade-off between the attributes of the various alternatives, each of which is associated with a utility. A logit model can be extended into several different specific models for a case. Herriges and Phaneuf (2002) have examined the ability of the repeated nested logit and repeated mixed logit models to capture patterns of correlation and substitution in multiple site recreation demand applications. By employing the multinorrrial logit model, Carvalho et al. (1998) have tried to find a better way to model the choice processes used by travelers when faced with various travel alternatives having different characteristics. In many tourism and recreation studies, the dependent variable is often a count of the number of trips taken or visits made during the course of a season or year. If tourism or recreation demand is estimated by the frequency of trips to a destination, which are count natured data, then a Poisson Model is appropriate to use for modeling the demand. For example, Creel and Loomis (1990) have demonstrated that count data estimators may better fit data from a count data process than would a continuous distribution-based estimator of modeling demand for deer hunting in California. In their study, recreation demand was estimated based upon the total number of trips taken for deer hunting in 59 California. Four count data models (Poisson, truncated Poisson, negative binomial, and truncated negative binomial maximum likelihood estimation) and three continuous data models (ordinary least squares, nonlinear normal, and truncated nonlinear normal maximum likelihood estimation) were employed for their study. They concluded that the count data models predicted substantially better results than the continuous data models. In addition, the Poisson Model was found to be clearly superior in terms of predicting the total number of trips taken, while the truncated nonlinear normal maximum likelihood estimation was found to be clearly inferior. The literature reveals that there is no single model or technique that is best for estimating tourism and recreation demand. The most appropriate model or technique varies depending upon the forecasting objectives, the tourism or recreational activity to be forecasted and the type of data that is available. It is very important to select the most appropriate forecasting method for each specific case of forecasting. The Tobit Model and the Poisson-Hurdle Model Various econometric models have developed to estimate tourism and recreation demand. In the majority of tourism demand studies, econometric models have been used for forecasting purposes. However, in this study, rural tourism demand would be modeled 60 by applying and comparing the results of two econometric models, namely the Tobit Model, and the Poisson-hurdle Model. Many authors believe that tourism and recreation demand involves a two-stage decision-making process. The first decision is whether or not to take a trip, which determines the probability of participation. Tourists that do decide to participate (e.g., in rural tourism) must then decide their level of participation/consumption including the number and length of trips. Bockstael et al. (1990) separated travelers’ participation and quantity decisions in sportfishing, and Creel and Loomis (1990) applied this concept to deer hunting in California. However, early studies of tourism demand focused individual primarily on quantity/consumption decisions. However, different authors argue that models that only considering quantity/consumption, and only include those who have already decided to participate. To develop more valid demand models, decisions on whether to participate and how much/often to participate must be included. The Tobit Model and the Poisson-hurdle Models are appropriate for verifying the necessity of developing two-stage decision making demand models. 61 The T obit Model The difficulty associated with utilizing individual observations for estimating tourism demand functions is that often a large portion of randomly selected respondents/cases do not participate in the type of tourism being modeled/forecasted. For instance, if a researcher wanting to collect information about participation and demand for rural tourism in Korea randomly selects respondents from the population and conducts a survey. A relatively large percentage will not participate. The demand for rural tourism for that segment of the population is “0.” The treatment of non-participants is crucial. At the least, incorrect treatment of non-participants will lead to biased estimates of demand coefficients (Maddala, 1986). The demand of non-participants in tourism needs to be censored as zero. The Tobit Model is the oldest and best known of the econometric model to estimate relationship with “censored” data (McCracken & Brandt, 1987; Dardis, Horacio, & Patro, 1994; Hellerstein, 1992). The general Tobit Model is defined as: y:=x,fl+8,.~N(0,az) (1) yr 2 max(O:Y:) where y, is a latent variable referring to the frequency of participation in rural 62 tourism including zero trips, x,- is the vector of independent variables for individual i, y, is the observed value of participation, and 5,- is the error term. From a behavioral perspective, Tobit assumed that all persons/consumers are potential users of a good and that consumption levels and market participation are influenced by the same variables in the same way. This model does not separate participation decision from quantity decision; however, the decomposition of Tobit analysis provides a substantive economic implication related to modeling demand (McDonald & Moffrtt, 1980). In this model, the dependent variable y, consists of conditional expectation (positive consumption) and unconditional expectation (zero or positive consumption): 6(fl'x./0') E .- , >0 = 'x,+0' ' 2 (yly ) [3 $0656.70) () E07,) : (D(fi—x'—)fl'xr + 0.6[L6ij 0' 0' where 6 and (1) denote the standard normal density function and the distribution function. The effect of a change in x,- on E ( y, ) : 6E(y.) fl'x]5E(y. |y.' > 0) . 60 ' 3 6x, ( a 6x, (y. In ) ax, () 63 The total change in E ( y, )comprises two parts. The first part of the right-hand side of the equation (3) shows the change in E(y, ) when y, is positive, weighted by the probability of being positive, and the second part of the equation shows the change in the probability of being positive, weighted by the expected value of y if positive. These two parts refer to the quantity decision and the participation decision. The Poisson-Hurdle Model In standard utility theory, everyone is assumed to be a potential consumer of all goods. Zero consumption may be due to an individual’s non-participation. A lack of participation or nonuse may be due to some limiting or inhibiting factor such as a low income or a lack of discretionary time. The Double-hurdle Model, an alternative to the widely used Tobit Model, is the statistical counterpart to the aforementioned theoretical structure and has been applied to many demand studies (Blaylock & Blisard, 1993; Blundell & Meghir, 1987; Cragg, 1971). This model postulates that, to observe positive consumption, the individual must pass two hurdles: (1) be a potential consumer of the goods and (2) actually consume the goods. This allows for the possibility that zero consumption is a result of the participation or consumption decision. Hence, potential travelers may have zero consumption. 64 The Double-hurdle Model is useful for modeling demand in cases where a separation of participation and consumption (amount/quantity) decisions is an important issue. Theprocess of estimating demand using the Double-hurdle Model involves two steps: (1) using a probit selection model for participation, and (2) truncated regression for the consumption function including only participants. One advantage of the Double- hurdle Model over the Tobit Model is that the former allows variables to have differing effects on consumption and participation decisions. It is important to consider the nature of the data when modeling demand and applying a statistical model. The dependent variable has been measured as a non-negative integer in many demand studies such as doctor and hospital visits (Cameron & Trivedi, 1986; Cameron et al., 1988), daily beverage consumption recorded by glass or bottle (Mullahy, 1986), incidents of pollution-induced illness (Portney & Mullahy, 1986), and daily homicide counts (Grogger, 1990). The estimation and application of count regression models have seen increasing use in the analysis of outcomes naturally measured as non-negative integers. The Poisson-hurdle Model is a modified count data model of the Double-hurdle Model. Count data models have been applied to the study of tourism demand because such demand is non-negative and occurs in integer quantities. These models have the 65 advantage of naturally fitting the ‘count’ nature of trip frequency data. Shaw (1988) first suggested the count data model, the Poisson Model, for recreation demand (Englin & Shonkwiller, 1995). In the field of tourism and recreation, Hellerstein (1989, 1991) applied this model to canoe trips, and Creel and Loomis (1990) applied it to deer hunting. Some modified Poisson Models have been applied to boating trips (Gurmu & Trivedi, 1996), hiking (Englin & Shonkwiler, 1995; Lutz, Englin, & Shonkwiler, 2000), and mountain biking (Fix, Loomis, & Eichhom, 2000). Accounting for the non-negative integer nature of the dependent variable improves accuracy in estimation over distributions that allow negative or fractional values. In the case of tourism demand, trip frequency cannot be negative and therefore should be censored at zero in the data set; failure to control for this censoring will lead to biased estimation. The Poisson Model is one of the most simple count data models and can be written as: Pr(Yi = 1') = FPO) = ex wt 2.} p( .! ) (4) n o o u‘h o o where r = 1, 2, ..., n observatrons, Y, rs the r observation on the count variable of interest, j = 0, 1, 2, are the possible values of Y,- (i.e. the set of nonnegative integers), 66 and If is the Poisson parameter to be estimated. This model can be extended to a regression setting most easily by allowing for different II,- which can vary according to i,- = exp(X.-fl) (5) that extends (4) to the regression case where X,- is a 1 by h vector of observed covariates and )6 is an h by 1 vector of unknown parameters to be estimated. The exponential specification is used to restrict 11,- to be positive as is required for a proper distribution. As in the continuous linear demand model, the number of trips demanded/taken is specified as a function of factors such as price, substitutes, income, and other possible demographic characteristics. However, the continuous model specifies an additive or multiplicative error term while the Poisson Model does not (Hellerstein & Mendelsohn, 1993). The Poisson distribution is described by only one parameter /I , and the mean is equal to the variance in the simple Poisson distribution. In this study, rural tourism demand is estimated by the number of rural tourism trips taken, ‘count’ natured data, with about one half of survey respondents having not participated, needing to be censored as zero. Considering these aspects and recommendations and observations in the literature, the Poisson Model is appropriate for 67 estimating rural tourism demand. However, simple Poisson Model does not separate the decision processes, and the purpose of this study is to model rural tourism demand by separating tourists’ decision processes, with those being participation (whether or not the samples participated in rural tourism) and frequency decision (if the samples participated in rural tourism, how often did they participate). Based on the literature it was determined that, rural tourism demand in Korea can be estimated by applying the Poisson-hurdle Model, a modified form of the Double- hurdle Model for count data, and it separates the participation and frequency decisions for modeling demand. The basic idea underlying the hurdle formulations is that a binomial probability model governs the binary outcome of whether a count variate has a zero or a positive realization. If the realization is positive, the hurdle is crossed, and conditional distribution of positives is governed by a truncated-at-zero count data model. The Poisson-hurdle Model for estimating rural tourism demand can be defined as Pr(Y.- =0)=e"" (6) MY. = jlY. > 0) = ex —/1 2." 11’ P( flz) 2 (7) 2 [1- F (0)]“1 = p (eXP(42)-1)j! Equation (6) presents a binary probability model for rural tourism participation 68 decision (yes or no); A] is the parameter of a Poisson distribution governing the probability of observing a positive count. Equation (7) is the Poisson probability model for rural tourists’ frequency of participation decision, which is truncated on the left at the value of 0. The truncated probability function differs from the standard probability function by the factor [1 - F p (0)]'l . Since F p(0)um .5889... .02": 0.000 .80.... .5099... 0 $5.... 00.8000... 0.03 62.59 .08. a. 00.09038“. 88.2.2.8. a...» 2.803. a 96 o . a . o . o . o . . AE00\000.30\ \om 3 AR wN \ow .. \°N .. 8. n ma . 8020\8280&$5.00 58 $5.53 0.... :...0.. 028.898 0... £1.30 $.6N X». 2 find. o\om.m $0.. 60.0 £5558 0.0.5 $550.53 38.898000 ..0 .0... o . a . c . o . o . . 60.0 .5035. $5.00: 8m 3. AN N 85 N. \ow .. \o. m 8 N .80 .853 5...: 500.. 5500:034035808138 $.02. 0 8“. $0.? .XRNN o\om.m. o\ov. 2 c\om.m SN 0260... 3.3.8.80 b... o... o . o . o\.. o\ .0 o . . 8.00000 85 3 \..m N o N 9.. 8. a co N .0...o..880 0 .o $02.0... 0 $0.858 62.80080 .0820 :0 2.2.0 o... $0.9. .8de AXL... o8”... .xRN 8N 8.0.. .02.... 0 .7...» o... . . . . . . .80 08w .0 X... N .50 m. $0 .. RN m N. N 6.05850 .8 .8808. 5...: £585.35 $230.5 0.30.. 028.898 0... 2...... $50 2. .3 2...: as: m . .N 3.0.8203... .232 a 5.; 53.... 0.05 2.50 232 a. o . a . o . o . o . . $85.95 05.55 $5.850$ \& N0 \cm NN \ao o. \oo 0. \oo c. N N .9... 03.2.... 00.. 65.08.98 A5500. 0.... 0$0...> 00.. 028.898 0... $5.0m $0.”. 8...; $0.8 $0.0 SUN 008.. .000. .00 .o 00.0:. 0.. o\om.wm .XRNN $0... $03 8...” EN 35.8.. $59.30 $555 $=£05 00:00.00. .808. 0.30.. 8n. 2%.? .8de {and . fond. $0” ovN 00.0 .08. 0 a. 0am 0.8%... .0 0.9.8. 0 ..m.> 0.. $0.0m .XRNN $0.0 £86. $0.... 3N 00.0 .08. 0 E $0.3. 0.2.0.... .o 3.80. ..m.> 0.. $0.?” $3.. .8. N. .XFéN $92 SN .88.. .88....080. 0 32> 0.. $02 $3 03.: so.” $4.8 8.. as .82 a a. .38.. 2:8... .832 3.30 oh 202 :50 $0.... 5.2 $.08 40m 25. 23.2 08% o. .o 80.3.2 .28 oh . N m v m 2.8.3.... 2.8.3.... :83. 0800”. am a0> «80.80... .83. a. 20928.. 8.8.2.093. .33 2.0003. .N. 030... 60889.0. bo>nm .8889... .02": 0.000 .80.... 8.00-03. 0 00.00 00.0000... 08... 0.0.80. .08. 0. 00.00.2000 0.02.0008. 8.3 000000.. 0 $.00 $..0N $0.0 $0.0 $0.N 0.... 00.00... 00 0... $0.00 $0.0N $N.0. $0.0 $0.0 0.... Q0>..00\..050 ..0>...00\.:0..0v .0>..00.. 8.0.3 0 00000 0... ...,...0 00.2. 00.0 .8... 0.... 0... .90 05000... .05 0 00...... .0... 0:0. 880.098 0. $0.00 $o.Nm $0.0 $N.0 $0.N .0. 00.0 .08. 0 0. 0.00>0 8.000.080 .000. 0.800 0... $0.00 $N. . m $0.0. $0.0 $m.N .0.. 8.0.. 0000.003 0 22> 0... 0.0.... 0.0.0. 0.2. ...,... 0.0.. 0... .8. 9.80 a 8.3. $0.00 $0. . m $0.0. $0.5 $0.. N0.. 00.0 8.0.. 0 0002.098 0... o . a . .. . a . o . . 02.008880 .0000. \..N ..0 \o. 00 0N o. \00 0 \..0 N .0 . 0.803050. .0>..00.. 0000.08.82.00 .000. 0 0. 0.00.2000 0 ... o . a . o . o . o . . 50.0 600.08% $50.08 .0083 \R 00 \c. 00 $0 0 $0 0. $0 0 ..0 . $00.00 $580... $5083.02... 0002.098 .0.......2.$0 00 .0 n. . N m 0 m .0889... .088 E. 000$. .8003. 8m 80> 3.0.00. «0.0.80... .08”. 0. 0.092000 0.0008003. .33 000000”. .N. 0.00... 97 Respondents also indicate the importance of the factors in selecting their rural tourism destinations and the degree of their satisfaction with those factors. As reported in Table 13, rural tourists consider the quality of natural environment as the most important factor when determining rural tourism destinations, followed by accessibility/ transportation. For many rural tourists the quality and types of agricultural product or activities available are considered less important. The degree of satisfaction with different destination selection factors is much lower than the importance with which respondents rated those factors (3.33 vs. 3.99 respective means). Rural tourists were the most satisfied with the quality of the natural environment, followed by the food available at the destination, while they were very dissatisfied with toilet and parking facilities and the types of activities available on their trip. Figure 3 shows the difference between importance and respondents’ satisfaction with each factor. 98 .Gocmcmm bo>um docmzmmflo bo>n3 28m too—3 “586% a win: 3.5805 83 88a some how :ozoflmzmm a 6:5..an_ bo>um 453.88— 82": 23.9. 9.8—5 «Bahrain a mars. 3582: 33 cocoa.“ some ..8 3:8..an— a 99 $...~ $3: $_ .mm $3: $3. 2; 03233.. 832.3. co 8.5 $2 $n- $93. $_ .8 $3 8.». aaefim>ozob 82:5 550 $3. $2 $93 $§m $5. $N.... 8:. 35¢ a use. 8:255 as; $3. $3 $_ .wm $nR $3 an 32.85 328%... he 8.5 as. 5:20 $3 $_ .2 $5. a v $2; $3. 2.... £5§8€2€§§§H $§ $~.~_ $92. $w. _ m $3 2.... 82:5 333 $2 $3 $2m $93 $3 Sm 3226. .3528”. $2. $3 $92. $3M $3 2...". 88 $2 $3 $2; $5.2. $2: 23 Evacosém .eamz _ N m v m a flaw :82 amcouomm FEB aozofimtmm an.» 9m $3 $_ .a $3M $92 $3: 8..” 988a 338:? co 8.5. Ba 32.0 $3 $3 $N. _ m $5. $_.: 8.». 03252 8:33.. .8 v.25. $3 $3 $2; , $o. :. $_ .8 a: $23! .353; $§ $3” $98 $3.« $~.- :2 8:. 35¢ a 58.. 8:253 as; $3 $2 $5: $3. $2.“ 2:. Bog $2. $3 $3: $2: $3». 2 .v 3:23.50:th 8:58“. 550 $3 $3 $92 $3. $_ .3 5. 82:5 3qu $2 $3 $3 $2.. $N.? m3. bzéaoooscozéaéeh $3 $2 $§ $2,. $3.. :3. auecoficm Eaaz _ m m v m gag ESE :: :32 aflouoam «0 859.88— % g whowomm 82:. 53> couofimcam .flcowaommom Ea .maouflfimofl Sago... REM wEEEcBoQ 5 £9on 3053 .«o 85:09.5 BE. .2 2an Figure 3. The Importance of Various Factors in Determining Rural Tourism Destinations, and Respondents’ Satisfaction with Those Factors F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 Factor E Importance El Satisfaction Notes: Importance and satisfaction for each factor was measured using a five-point Likert scale (l=Not Important/Very Dissatisfied, 5=Very Important/Very Satisfied). Descriptions of factors: Fl=“Travel Information about a Rural Area,” F2=“Accessibility/Transportation,” F 3=“Lodging Facilities,” F4=“Food," F5=“Natural Environment,” F6=“Residents’ Kindness,” F7=“Other Facilities,” F 8=“Quality and Types of Agricultural Products,” and F9=“Types of Activities Available.” 100 Table 14 illustrates respondents’ spending in six expense categories, while on rural tourism trips; their spending occurred both at their primary destinations and at other places on the trip. Nearly three quarters of spending (71.2%) occurred at their primary destinations. Average spending during rural tourism trips is 45,740 won (US$38.38) per person per day. Rural tourists spend the most on food expenses (W16,746, US$14.05), followed by travel expenses (W8,719, US$7.32), and lodging expenses (W8,512, US$7.14). Table 14. Average Spending on Rural Tourism Trips Taken by Respondentsa At the .P'i‘F‘a'y At Other Places Trip Spendingb D6323?“ (Mean) Food Expenses 11,932 4,814 Travel Expenses 5,531 3,188 Entertainment Expenses 3,518 1,296 Lodging Expenses 6,828 1,684 Shopping Expenses 2,615 1,027 Other Expenses 2,147 1,132 Total Sp_ending 32,173 M a The numbers indicate trip spending per person per day. b Unit = won (W1,191.68 = US$1.00 in 2003 provided by Kiup Bank). 101 Comparisons Between Rural Tourists and Non-Rural Tourists The first objective for this study was to identify and profile rural tourism markets in Korea and Hypothesis 1 is: Those who participate and/or do not participate in rural tourism in Korea difl'er with respect to socio—economic characteristics, participation in non-rural tourism, and perceptions of rural resources. This section distinguishes rural tourists by comparing them with persons who do not participate in rural tourism. Tables 15, 16, and 17 provide the results of tests performed relative to Hypothesis #1. Table 15 reveals a significant statistical relationship between whether a person participates in rural tourism and their socio-economic characteristics, including location of residence, age, marital status, monthly household income, education level, length of work week, childhood residence, and relationship to agriculture (at a significance level of 0.05). Residents of Seoul and the surrounding areas and provinces are more likely to participate in rural tourism than those in other megalopolis areas. Rural tourists are on average older on average (35.1) than non-rural tourists (32.8). Rural tourists are more likely to be married (58.3%) than non-rural tourists (43.1%). Regarding monthly income, 32.8 percent of rural tourists receive more than 4,000,000 won in monthly income (about US$3,357.00), compared to 27.7 percent of non-rural tourists. Education levels of rural 102 tourists, while high, are somewhat lower than those of non-rural tourists. Just over three quarters (76.6%) of rural tourists hold a college/university degree or an advanced degree, while 80.6 percent of non-rural tourists have attained similar levels of academic achievement. Rural tourists put in shorter work weeks than non-rural tourists; 52.7 percent of rural tourists work five days a week compared to 45.6 percent of non-rural tourists. As would be expected, a higher percentage of rural tourists were raised in rural areas (44.4%) and have families or relatives engaged in agriculture (66.3%) than non- rural tourists (34.4% and 58.4%, respectively). Table 16 presents the difference in tourism propensity for persons who do and do not participate in rural tourism. Analyses reveal that propensity to participate in forms of non-rural tourism is related to participation in rural tourism. In other words, persons who participate in rural tourism are engaged in other different types of tourism. In general, respondents prefer to travel for both relaxation and activity (48.9% of rural tourists and 41.1% of non-rural tourists), and non-rural tourists are more likely to travel for relaxation only. Rural tourists and non-rural tourists differ significantly regarding the number of domestic tourism trips participated in each year at a significance level of 0.15. One third 5 The conventional significance levels in academic research are the 1 percent level, the 5 percent level, and the 10 percent level (Aaker et al., 1998; Aczel, 2002). 103 of rural tourists (31.8%) took more than five domestic trips annually, while only 19.0 percent of non-rural tourists did so. The results indicate that rural tourism may be a substitute for and is competition to other types of tourism including nature/ecotourism, industrial/social tourism, and pleasure tourism but not with cultural/heritage tourism. Non-rural tourists on average make more trips lasting more nights and days than rural tourists. No statistically significant relationships were found between respondents’ participation in rural tourism and their perceptions of rural resources, although rural tourists perceive rural resources to be more important than non-rural tourists in general (Table 17). Whether this was because they engaged in rural tourism (e. g. education, awareness) or it was a reason why they went on rural tourism trips was not determined. Respondents were asked to indicate the most important function of rural resources out of five functions provided; statistically different results between rural tourists and non-rural tourists were revealed. Rural tourists believe that “being places of natural scenic beauty, green zones, and rural experience” (31.2%), followed by “as a production of safe agricultural products” (23.7%) are the most important function of rural resources. On the other hand, non-rural tourists consider the most important function of rural resources to be “as a place for production of safe agricultural products” (31.0%). 104 Very interestingly, rural tourists are more likely to be willing to pay taxes to preserve rural resources (64.1%) than are non-rural tourists (59.1%); however, no significant difference was found between the two groups in the maximum amount they were willing to pay. Table 15. Socioeconomic Comparisons of Rural Tourists and Non-Rural Tourists . . . . Rural Tourists Non-Rural Soc1oeconom1c Characteristics (50 3%) Tourists p-value ' (49.7%) Location of Residence Seoul and the Surrounding Areas 45.3% 40.9% 7.092 0.029“ erIegalopolises 28.9% 36.6% Provinces 25.8% 22.5% 100.0% 100.0% Gender Male 47.2% 43.9% 1.119 0.290 Female 52.8% 56.1% 100.0% 100.0% Age r 2029 34.1% 45.0% 19.246 0001‘“ 30-39 36.8% 36.0% 40-49 20.2% 14. 1% 50-59 8.1% 4.5% 60 and Over 0_.8_°/_o 0_&4_% 100.0% 100.0% Marital Status Married 58.3% 43.1% 23.702 0000“" Single 41.7% 56.9% 100.0% 100.0% Monthly Household Income3 Less than W1,000,000 3.0% 4.1% 14.454 0.013“ W1,000,000-W1,999,999 16.0% 24.8% W2,000,000~W2,999-999 26.8% 23.8% W3,000,000-W3,999,999 21 .4% 19.5% W4,000,000-W4,999,999 12.6% 1 1 .8% lWS,000,000 and over 20.2% 15.9% 100.0% 100.0% ’ Unit = won (W1,19l .68 = US$1.00 in 2003 provided by Kiup Bank). , , ' indicates significance levels at .1, .05, and .01, respectively. 105 Table 15. Socioeconomic Comparisons of Rural Tourists and Non-Rural Tourists (cont’d) , _ . , Rural Tourists Non-Rural Socioeconomic Characteristics (5 0.3%) Tourists x2 p-value (49.7%L Education Middle School 1.5% 0.8% 9.013 0.029“ High School 21.9% 18.6% College/University 63.8% 72.0% Graduate School Q8240 _8_._6_°/_q 100.0% 100.0% Occupation Professional 17.1% 16.7% 9.834 0.277 Clerical 29.7% 32.0% Producer/Engineer 8.0% 8.4% Service 14.7% 13.1% Public Servant/Teacher 11.8% 13.3% Own Business 10.1% 6.5% Student 4.6% 3.3% Retired/No job 0.2% 0.6% Other £3340 £42 100.0% 100.0% Length of Work Week Five Days a Weekb 52.7% 45.6% 4.089 0.043“ More Than Five Days a Week _4_L3_°/_g M 100.0% 100.0% Childhood Residence Urban Area 56.0% 65.6% 9.873 0002‘“ Rural Area M M 100.0% 100.0% Relationship to Agriculture Families or Relatives 66.3% 58.4% 7.093 0.029“ Engage in Agriculture b Includes the cases of respondents who worked five days every other week. .0. , , m indicates significance levels at .1, .05, and .01, respectively. 106 5368928 :6. 65 £6. 4. 8 m_o>o_ 3:35sz 88265 . . $6.62 $6.66: $6.66— $6.6 $6.6 $66 08—2 8 6 $:.m $66 $6.m Wm $66 $3.6 $:.6 N $3.». $6.: $: .6: _ 6N6.6 666.6 $6.3. $6. _ N. $._ .2. 282 35. 83:8. 3:28:82: .8 86:52 $6.63 $6.62 $6.63 $68 $6.6 $6.6 082 .8 6_ $6.2 $6.3 $6.5 6% $.m.vm $6.6m $.N.6~ vim $6.6m $6.6m $6.2” N-— .:666.6 $6.3 $6.6— $6.N $6. 2 282 86:. 82:86. 068an .8 868:2 $6.66: $6.2: $6.63 a g «\fllml. 882663.: oz $: . _ v $6.2. $: .3. oocotomxm 8.: we :03 mm 80:88.3— 86 .38... 8 8.8.2 $6.: $6. 2 $6.: 2.8.6 Ezcotoaxm 6.8 o>to< 862a— ..nn6.6 55.6 $6. _ m $6.6m $. _ .6m 83888: 8.6 8.5:. 8 8.8.5 £3285 82.58. $26 $23 8393 mam—.86. mat—.8. =< 628686.86 Saw—8.6 wfigi #2 881-82 .86: Saga. .8 89¢. :88me E 868898 356.868: .6: 03$. 107 2:83.868. .:6. 6.8 .66. .:. 8 208: 85855:... 8.88:: . . 0.0 O. Q 108 ...5... 2.2- ...N z... Nam 5.8 8.5.0.5.. 5.58.. .352 .55.... :23. 3.3- .3 .3. N . .. 38.2 ..E ..o .352 .552 £33. 52. 3.. .3. o . .. 3.: .o .352 .55... 32:. 8388:. 2.58:: .33. m8..- .3... E... .3. 5.8 8.5.0.5.. 5.5.... ..o .352 .552 .33. .3..- N3. 5.... 3.... 38.2 .88.. .352 .55.... 8. .3 8m..- .3. 3... NE. ...E. 8.. .352 .55. math. Emtzoh _M_oom\_a_bm:vc— 33. 2.3. E... K... P... .2... 8.5.2:... 5.58.. .352 .55.... $3. 8... .3. 3... 3... .332 9.8.. .352 .55.... 3.3. .23.- mm... .3... on... ...E .o .352 .55. was. Emtsoh 8882:8380 :33. 3%- 3.... mg ...m 5.8 8.5.0.5.. 5.5.8.. .352 .55... .2... 3.3.- mm. 3.. 9... 35.2 9.8.. .352 5.5. .33. 3..- 3.. 8.. 3.. 5.8.. .352 .55.... math. Emmuzouooeouaaz $58 .2959 3552-202 2.3... 6.2.3. 2.8.7. 32.50:. 38:8. =< 28:86:28.: 83.50% 838.7% #2 8.3:-.82 :23: 3.283 25:88:. .8 89¢. 288.65 n: 868868.: 88:82:82 .6: 28:. 53:00am“: .3. Ba .3. J. “a £03. oofiumiwfi «8865 a a CO. O. 0 2:3 95. .3 8235 88 a 8. am: u 3.83% 83 n E5 0 253 3.58: a ma .5 59555 vain—Ea— .5 woo: wag—u:— a 6538— bo>um 4.89.2.8— aoZnC 0_QO tow—5 “soaéé a mafia 3.5338 80>» 82:82 3.5.. .3 8233qu .flcovcoamom a 109 :9: $5.8 xv: 388: .8333. 0.3 .6 8:88... .x. _ .2 <32 .33 3&3... 3.9th 55532 op £06 £3.” feed 8.52:0 .2823; 28 32:38:80 Eco.— oEomoE oh 0%.: §§ $2: a; as $5 .95; £3.55 .8 £358.”. magmas < :23. M32 .32 gm. _ m §.R oococaxm 33¢ a $.23 820 523m 028m .232 mo 08: < 38:83— .Ezm .«o notes—E Eaton—EH $32 0:... $3 $2 $2 89.85 5.: 2o: $N.: $2: §i c8623 - Sade; $3; $3: 9%.: Scams - 83$... .xaam :18 $3 833.. - 8983 on; 8: eat; 5.? .59. 33 8 25.2.5 exam 3 95:3 033 .85. «SH 82.582 .83. 3.” .x; .a $26 $9 6 3288a 35m 0:32.. 9 .5 a E 9 mafia £3 83 NZ «3 m3. 388.... 53.3%.. ”ham .6 8:88... 5.2 was- Sm GM ”.3” 3:35 _~_._9E£ 58%: op 82 33 NE m3 m; 8.3.5 3.533: Ea 825528 :83 0285 ch 83 2 2 3m N3” :2 a; 23 ...Em .35: $55.2 é sengm 3285 < Nomd mmc.— ”QM voé —o.v oocotoaxm 35M .5 .mocoN GOP—mu Sun—mom omcoom 3.532 .«O Dow—m < 88:83— .82M m0 326:...» 2%.... £53 3.23 “537% \Nx 83:8. 83:8. =< 82:83— :“.BM mo mcocmoeom Quay—$02 3.5% “mag—oh ESMASZ 28 amino... 3.5m coozom 88:8va 3.5% no £53380; 5 80:80me .2 053. The Results of the Testing of Hypothesis One The findings of the study reveal that there are significant differences between those who participated and do not participate in rural tourism in Korea with respect to socioeconomic characteristics, including: location of residence, age, marital status, monthly household income, education level, length of work week, childhood residence, and relationship to agriculture at a significance level of 0.05. Significant differences between rural tourists and non-rural tourists were also found for participation in non-rural tourism, including in nature/ecotourism, industrial/social tourism, and pleasure tourism at a significance level of 0.1. However, there are no significant differences between those who participated and do not participate in rural tourism with respect to their perceptions of rural resources. The results of the testing hypothesis one are presented in Table 18. 110 Table 18. Results of the Testing of Hypothesis One Hypothesis One: Those who participated and do not participate in rural tourism in Korea dzfler with respect to: Socioeconomic Characteristics Location of Residence Accepted p<0.05 Gender Rejected Age Accepted p<0.01 Marital Status Accepted p<0.0l Monthly Household Income Accepted p<0.05 Education Accepted p<0.0S Occupation Rejected Length of Work Week Accepted p<0.05 Childhood Residence Accepted p<0.01 Relationship to Agriculture Accepted p<0.05 Participation in Diflerent B/pes of Tourism Tourism Propensity Accepted p<0.05 Number of Domestic Tourism Trips Accepted p<0.01 Number of lntemational Tourism Trips Rejected Number of Nature/Ecotourism Participation Days Accepted p<0.05 Number of Cultural/Heritage Tourism Participation Days Rejected Number of Industrial/Social Tourism Participation Days Accepted p<0.l Number of Pleasure Tourism Participation Days Accepted p<0.01 Perception of Rural Resources Functions of Rural Resources: A Place of Natural Scenic Beauty, Green Zones, or Rural Rejected Experience A Pgeserving Ecosystem for Animals, Plants, Birds, and Rejected F is To Preserve Local Communities and Traditional Cultures Rejected To Maintain Territorial Integrity Rejected Production of Safe Agricultural Products Rejected Willing to Pay a Tax to Preserve Rural Resources Accepted p<0.1 Maximum Tax They Were Willing to Pay Rejected The Most Important Function of Rural Resources Accepted p<0.05 lll CHAPTER 5 MODELING RURAL TOURISM DEMAND This chapter identifies and profiles motivational rural tourism market segments and presents a model of rural tourism demand in Korea. The first section describes the formation and profiling of three rural tourism motivational market segments related to: socioeconomic characteristics, rural tourism trip characteristics, participation in different types of tourism, and perceptions of rural resources. The second section describes the determinants of rural tourists’ decisions about participation and the frequency of participation in rural tourism. The last section presents the demand model for rural tourism in Korea. Motivational Segmentation of Rural Tourism Market in Korea Formtion of Rugal Tourism Motivatiorfl Ma_11¢ 000—003 055 0.5000000. ..0 00000 05 0000.02 0 momd ...:...... $56 33.2 o2... 0005 036 hvmdm .09.... 9.0.... $.92. $.93. $9.03 .2900. $.53 $.30. $.93 $.90. $...3 $.93 $.93 $.93. $.93. $.33 $.93. $.93 $.30. $.92. $.93 .xfidm dem .3..de ..\..N.om .XéNm 02%.; .x.m.mm ..\oo.oo_ $0.2 .XLSN ..\..o.m~ .x.m.vm 02%....» ..\..w.¢m 026.3 ..\..m._N gwdm ..\.._.om 2%.? $0.03 $.93. $2.03 $.93. .29.... $.20. $.93 $.9... $2.3 $.93 $.93. $.92. $.90. $9.3 $.92. $.92. $.98. $.92. $.93 o\..m.mv ..\ov.wm ..\..m.mm £669 .xbdm ..\..N.Nv 02.0.: ..\..o.o 02.53 .xhsm {adv fomév .xEdm £6.09 dem .x.m.mm ..\..m.ov .x; .mm 02.0.3 $.903 $.92. $.30. $.90... $.20. $.90... $.93 $.93 $.90. $.93. $.92. $.92. $3.. $.9m3 $.9..3 $9. . .. .2900. $903 $.93 ..\..w.mm .XLdm Xwém 02.0.2 $0.0m .X.m.©m $.98 ..\..o.o {afimm 02.3mm .XLNM ..\..v. _ m XodN .XR. .N $0.9m ..\..N.om $0.0m .dem 02.0.3 0.50.02? 2 00w0w=m .02 00300.0... ..0 02:80“— 003320w< 2 o0w0w0m 002.0.3— ..0 02:80..— 0.3_=2..w< 0. 03002.23. 002 .003— 00..< 00...: 00:0203— 0005220 0.003 0 0>0Q 023 :05. 0022 00—003 0 0%0Q 02... .83 ...oB .o 505.. 0050 02. 02:00:03. E025m .0030 00020.5 005000;:0E0m 23:3 02>..0m ..002w0mt000005 .0202”. 30200030...— 02.000000 _00:0m 0.02.0.5 b_000>_03\0w0=00 .850 .0... Bop—om 0:22 02.0022... 030.7% .9 $2": $9 . 3 uuofiuom 02.50.! .00..“ E 3.0000. 03053.0. .33: 3:239:03 E02000... End 002:. 05 ..0 02.020.00.820 2800000208 .vm 030,—. down: $.90? 0:0Ewom Sign. :23— 020000— 82": .2903 000Ewom «2.50“. 2.5001003— 003030000020 2600000208 128 Characteristics of Rural Tourism Trips Taken by Members of the Three Rural Tourism Motivation_al Market Segments The three segments were next compared statistically with respect to their rural tourism trip characteristics and activities including: length of trip, travel party composition, size of travel party, age makeup of travel parties, type of transportation, type of lodging, information source, and trip satisfaction. The results are shown in Table 25. The results revealed significant differences (at significance level of 0.1) across segments on all but one (trip satisfaction) of the trip characteristics. VF R Rural Tourists take fewer day and more day trips (18.9%) than the Rural- centric Tourists (12.7%) or Passive Rural Tourists (11.2%). The average travel party size of VFR Rural Tourists (9.91 persons) is larger than that of the Rural-centric Tourists (7.69 persons) and the Passive Rural Tourists (7.02 persons). Private automobile is the most frequently used mode of transportation for all three of the segments. Passive Rural Tourists are more likely to travel by train and Rural-centric Tourists are more likely to travel by bus. Rural-centric Tourists (40.0%) and VFR Rural Tourists (35.3%) are likely to stay overnight at friends’ or relatives’ houses while on their overnight rural tourism trips than are Passive Rural Tourists (10.4%). Rural-centric Tourists are much more likely to stay at 129 “Farm Stay” or “Tourist Farm,” than are Passive or VFR Rural Tourists. Nearly two thirds of the “Farm Stay” users (70.4%) who responded to the survey and exactly half of “Travel Farm” users (50.0%) are Rural-centric Tourists. On the other hand, more than half of “Motel and Hotel” users (57.8%) and nearly two-thirds of “Pension'o” users (61.2%) are Passive Rural Tourists. The Internet and recommendations of friends or relatives are the two most frequently used source of information about rural tourism trips; however, the percentage of tourists using each source differs significantly among the three segments. Rural- centric Tourists (55.1%) and VFR Rural Tourists (49.2%) are more likely to obtain information from fi'iends or relatives, while Passive Rural Tourists (58.6%) are more likely to use the Internet to obtain information about rural tourism trips. Rural Tourism Trip Characteristics of the Rural-centric Tourist Segment Rural-centric Tourists are more likely to take overnight rural tourism trips (87.3%) with their families (64.9%), and the average size of their travel parties is 7.7 persons. More than ninety percent of the Rural-centric Tourists take rural tourism trips by car (73.2%) or bus (19.5%). The most frequently used type of lodging for this segment is ‘0 “Pension” is a new type of lodging which is getting popular in Korea. It is similar to a guest house. 130 friends’ or relatives’ houses (40.0%), followed by B&Bs (16.3%), and farm stay (14.1%). More than eighty percent of Rural-centric Tourists (83.1%) obtain information about rural tourism trips from friends or relatives and the Internet. The average rural tourism trip satisfaction of Rural-centric Tourists is the lowest (3.621 I) of the three segments. Two thirds of Rural-centric Tourists (64.0%) are either very satisfied or satisfied with their rural tourism trips; however, 7.3 percent are either very dissatisfied or dissatisfied. Rural Tourism Trip Characteristics of the Passive Rural Tourist Segment Almost ninety percent of Passive Rural Tourists (88.8%) take overnight rural tourism tn'ps. Passive Rural Tourists are more likely to take rural tourism trips with families (43.2%) or friends/relatives (46.4%), and almost fifty percent (47.7%) travel in a group of more than five persons. Nearly half of this segment (44.6%) travel with a group made up exclusively of adults. Similar to the other segments, the most frequently used mode of transportation by Passive Rural Tourists is private automobile (78.9%). Passive Rural Tourists are more 11 Respondents’ satisfaction regarding rural tourism trips was measured using a five-point Likert scale (1=Very Dissatisfied, 5=Very Satisfied). l3] likely to stay at a general type of lodging, such as hotel and motel (20.2%) or pension (22.4%) and to obtain information primarily through the Internet (58.6%). The average rural tourism trip satisfaction of Passive Rural Tourists is the highest (3.79) of the three segments. Three quarters of Passive Rural Tourists (75.5%) are either satisfied or very satisfied with their rural tourism trips, while 3.4 percent are either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Rural Tourism Trip Characteristics of the VF R Rural Tourist Segment Compared to either of the other segments, a higher percentage of VF R Rural Tourists (18.9%) take day-long rural tourism trips. Nearly two thirds of this segment (63.9%) take rural tourism trips with their families. Over eighty percent (82.4%) travel by car, and one third (35.3%) stay at friends’ or relatives’ houses while on rural tourism trips, as would be expected. Similar to other segments, recommendations of friends and relatives (49.2%) and the Internet (39.4%) are the two most frequently used source of information about rural tourism trips. Two thirds of VFR Rural Tourists (65.4%) are either satisfied or very satisfied with their rural tourism trips, while 3.2 percent are either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. I32 50282.52 .8. can .3. J. an £03— 85053? 58865 . . .0. O. O .539 .35 Eb Ear—:3 .85.. 0358:0852 588 05 95:83 flconaoamom a .85 85558 3.5.. ..w=o_ .95.. x08 533$ 33% £53.55 ‘8 5583 5.2 63888 .8.“ $085535 5 56:5 0.8 mowsgeoa 38203 Eon—wow ”302 133 $5.25 $5.3 $5.8 $5.55 $5.55 $555 5555 52220 55 $33. $5.5: $5.3 $.23 $5.2. $5.3 $5.3. 5355332555.? $5.5: $5.3 $5.5 $5.3 $5.5: $5.55 55 333258022 .55... 55.: $5.3 $5.55 $5.35 $5.2. $.29 $5.3 555 3.2.52 momtdm 33th. we anew—a2 uw< $5.5 $5.55 $5.35 $5.2 $5.5: $5.5 252.52 $5.56 $5.55 $5.35 $5.3. $5.3 $5.5“ 5-5 $5.3 $5.: $5.35 $5.55 $5.5 $5.3 v.5 $5.5 $5.8 $5.5: $5.5 $.25 $5.2 N ...855 SEN $5.8 $5.2 $5.: $5.». $.35 $5.5 _ 5.55 322.5 5o 35 $5.3 $5.2 $5.8 $5.9 $5.3 $5.: 33802 85.5853. $5.5: $.25 $5.8 $5.5 $5.5 $5.9 8.58:8 $5.3 $5.2 $5.55 $5.55 $5.3 $5.3 8330558.; $5.58 $5.45 $5.25 $.25 $5.58 $5.55 85555 :58... 35.3. $5.: $5.R $5.: $5.2 $5.5 $5.5 25? 52:89:00 EA 325:. $5.25 $5.8 $5.58 $5.3. $5.25 $5.55 “@826 .35... 3:. $5.»: $5.9 $5.5 $5.: $5.5: $5.3 55:3 55:5 55:3 2.2": $5.6 A58”: $5.59 85.”: $5.53 539i ~x «nofiuom 3.53. «non—wow «nausea. Eon—mom amt-Sh. moflmtflofiano nth :23— g :23— ofinuam eta-.3433— ...anmEMmm Sta: 3:959:83 Emma—oh HEM 8:; .3 53¢. 859.8. 18353 5035565530 .mm 035,—. 5.0380558 ..o. 5.... .3. ... .5 5.26. 350......95 583...... :. .: .. .58.... a £5...» ...2. 322.5 <.. 65.5.. 52% a 2 5.8.5 5. .. .583. a. 8.2.2. wagow m. 20...; wvao. ..o 2.5. 32. < o .35.. £2. #3 835.... :05 o. .55. 85.398 85.50. .85.. 023... 9 5.5.5.9 8.. 52.0.03: 8.5.. Eh... ..o 2.5. < 5 65.5.. 8...... 83% a .5 58m 5 ARR...» ..o .58 35.90.52. a... 2.8830 5.3 50.5.3.3 553 9.3.5. .0 2.5. 3.. owfiaoubn. 5 ...oo. .3... 5.5 85.39 .85.. 9.8.5888 .8... 2.. 52.58.. 5.5055853. a .55... 85.39 .88 ..o as”... .3 50.38. 5.5.5355 Nanak 5.8.55 ..o .582. m.m5 6.5.836 ..o. 8853...... 5 5.52.5 8.. 33.582. A828: 2.25% .852 $5.: $5.5... $5.5. $5.5. $5.: $5.55 2.5... .5805 $5.5. $5.5 $5.5: $5.... $5.... $5.55 .5525... 58.5253. $5.: $5.55 $5.: $5.55 $5.: $5.55 5555558 $5.5: $5.8 $5.5: $5.5. 555.5... $5.:. 82.23.5555... $5.5: $5.55 .0555: $5.... $5.5 $5.5 .8555 $5.: $5.55 $5.55. $5.5 $5.5. $5.5. 58:525.). $5.: $5.55 $5.: $5.55 $5.: $5.55 5:55.285 $5.5: $5.5 $5.5: $.35 $5.5: $5.5 8.8.5585 :53... 555.55 $5.: $5.5 $5.: $5.8 $5.:. $5.55 .555 :5“. ..w...w..o»...o 2.5... $5.5. $5.5. $5.... $5.8 $5.5. $55. .5...... $5.: $5.5 $5.5. $5.8 $5.5: $5.55 Sm $5.: $5.... $5.: $5.55 $5.5. $5.5 5.85 :58... 5.5.5. $5.5: $5.5 $5.55. $55.. $5.55. $5.55 .5 5:89.88... (.0 on»... .55.": $5.55. «non—wow «each. 9.5.5183. .555": $5.5: ...oEMom «each. uuufiwom 3.53. .83. a“; .83. 95.9....— A...Eoov .5355m5m. .858: .525...5>.:§< 85.58... .83. 3...... .3 55...... 85.50... .83. ..o 8.5.5.8595 .mm 035... $5.": $5. . a 55.97% x 8.5.5.5820 at... 134 a 0 5.3585318. ...a .3. ... 5 22,... 852.555 8.8.5... .. . ...00. .0... 0... 0.5.5.0. .8... 02.8.3823. .50... 0.... 009.38.. 30000008... _. .8... 85.50. .8... ..0... 5.3 ..0...m..0m 53> 033 5.5.2505 .95.. 0.8.55 ..0 8003.. md 6.9.3.3 .0. £085.35... 0. 030.... 0.... 88.00030 .8200. ..3Ew0m ”0.02 $5.: $5... $5.: $5... $5.: $5.2. 5055500 00> $5.: $5.5. $5.: $5.... $5.... $5.55 3......800 $5.: $5.... $5.... $5... $5.»: $5... .2502 $5.55: $5.... $5.55. $5.... $5.5: $5.5 8.5.55 .5... 5...: $5.: $5.... $5.: $5.:. $5.: $5.... 3.5.5... 55> ..0..00..m..0m 0...... $5.5... $5.5. $5.5: $5.... $5.55: $5.55 355.005.8580 8.5.5.558... $5.8 $5.5 $5.8 $5.... $5.... $5.55 505805.. .555: $5.... $5.55: $5.55 $5.... $5.... .25.... $5.: $5.5m $5.: $5... $5.5. $5.5 05.852.53.552 :58... 5...... $5.: $5.... $5.: $5.... $5.: $5.... 3 03.97% .5... 0.5.»: $5. . m: .aofiuom 3.8.0... .0...“ mg .55.": $5.... .uofiuom «0.2.0... .83. 038.... 85.": $5.... .00Eu0m 3......0... 0.580.85— 00...0m 00.3.5.8... 8.5.3.088... 0.... $3.000. “5.202.370 3.58.... 38.85.20: 85.0.0... .83. 00...... .3 55...... 85.80... .83. ..0 8.3.3.0085 .mm 030... 135 Rural Tourism Trig Spending by Three Rural Tourism Motivational Marl_(et Segments Statistically significant differences (at a significance level of 0.1) concerning rural tourism tn'p spending were found among the three motivational market segments. Trip spending was calculated as spending per person per day on rural tourism trips. Table 26 illustrates the results of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests. Rural-centric Tourists (W50,442) and Passive Rural Tourists (W50,86312) spend more, on average, on their rural tourism trips than VFR Rural Tourists (W3S,O33) do. The trip spending of rural tourists was measured in two parts, spending at the primary destination and spending at other places. Significant differences, concerning where trip spending occurred, were found among three motivational market segments. Overall, nearly two thirds of the total spending on rural tourism trips occurred at the primary destination. The percentage of spending occurring at places other than the primary destination was higher for Rural-centric Tourists (33.7%), compared to 26.3 percent of Passive Rural Tourists and 26.9 percent of VF R Rural Tourists. ANOVA tests were applied to six categories of trip spending including; food expenses, travel expenses, entertainment expenses, lodging expenses, shopping expenses, and other expenses. The results revealed significant differences among the three '2 Unit = won (Wl,l9l .68 = US$1.00 in 2003 provided by Kiup Bank). 136 motivational market segments in five categories of trip spending, with the exception being entertainment expenses. The percentages of trip spending across the six categories were found to be markedly similar between Passive Rural Tourists and VF R Rural Tourists. Passive Rural Tourists and VF R Rural Tourists also spent more on lodging and travel expenses and less on shopping and other expenses, than Rural-centric Tourists. One third of the total spending of Rural-centric Tourists (33.2%) was on lodging and travel expenses, compared to 40.3 percent of Passive Rural Tourists and 38.7 percent of VF R Rural Tourists. On the other hand, 20.1 percent of the total spending of Rural- centric Tourists was on shopping and other expenses, compared to 13.4 percent of Passive Rural Tourists and 11.9 percent of VFR Rural Tourists. 137 a a .>.o>..ooamo. ..o. ..S. .3. ... um m.o>o. 02.85%... 8.86:. .: : . 623 95. B 823... 88 a. 8. 5m: u 8.2.5... 83 u ...5 ._ ...oo. .35 a... Sago. .83 02.85859. .88 o... wanton”... acoucoamoz a o\oo.oc. vaom wEvcgm .80... 138 :33 .93 $3.2 3.3. $2.2 Snow .33. 8mm $3~ fig $3... :3 $5.2 .8: .82.. 350 a 32% .30.. :33. 3...... $. .Q :08 $2.5 83.. $3. $3... $8.... 2.. a manhwmafimm $3.2 «.82 $2.... 8ow g Mwmlow. 3 :3... SN... $3 88 $2 2:. $§ ”3.. 882...”. $53.5 2...... 8:. $5. : N. 3 $2: 8% $2: ...ch 322...”. .58:.§2=m :23. 8.... $3 3.: $3 2.2 $N.... an: 883$ .25 :33. on...“ $.28 ..NE $§N $8. $3. 25. macaxm .23... .E... 8..” $5: $8 $3. 8:: $3. $3. 882...... was... .83. 3.2 $53 2.. 2 $3... $9: $3.. an: 882...... Be. .583 $5.:on .580; mazéomm 2.8.6.. 3.2.25 2.2": $0. . m. Gonna .$m$m. 82".. $2.3 2.37% K :38me unison. Eon—Mom «arson. Eon—wow ant-5H. awe...:2.m at... .95.: E .95: o>.mmam 3.5.59.9...“ «fizmamm .83.: 3:629:83 Emgo... .83. ooh... .3 $5525 at... amino... .83. 6m 2%... The Importance of Various Factors in Determining Rural Touris_m Destinations, and Respondents,’ in Three Rural Tourism Motivational Mar_ket Segments, Level of Satisfaction with Those Factors Rural tourism participants were asked to rate the importance of a variety of factors when determining a rural tourism destination. They were also asked about their level of satisfaction with those factors during that trip. Nine factors were provided in the questionnaire including: “Travel Information About a Rural Area,” “Accessibility and Transportation,” “Lodging Facility,” “Food,” “Natural Environment,” “Residents’ Kindness,” “Other Facilities Such as Toilets or Parking,” “Quality and Types of Agricultural Products,” and “Types of Activities Available.” Rates of importance and satisfaction on each factor were compared among the three motivational market segments. Analyses of variances disclosed significant differences among the three motivational market segments in five of the nine factorsl3 . “Natural Environment,” “Accessibility and Transportation,” and “Lodging Facilities” were the three most important factors of all three motivational segments; however, the degree of importance was significantly different among the three segments. All three segments rated “Quality and Types of Agricultural Products” and “Types of Activities 13 Those five factors include: “AccessibilityfTransportation,” “Lodging Facilities,” “Natural Environment,” “Other Facilities such as Toilets or Parking,” and “Quality and Types of Agricultural Products.” 139 Available” as the least important factors. Significant differences were found among the three motivational market segments in the satisfaction ratings of four factors: Rural-centric Tourists are more satisfied with the factors “Quality and Types of Agricultural Products” (3.52”), “Residents’ Kindness” (3.50), and “Types of Activities Available” (3.24) than are VFR Rural Tourists (3.23, 3.37, and 3.01 for those three factors, respectively) and Passive Rural Tourists (3.15, 3.27, and 2.95 for those three factors, respectively). Passive Rural Tourists are more satisfied with “Lodging Facilities,” (3.46) than are Rural-centric Tourists (3.36) and VFR Rural Tourists (3.26). In general, three motivational market segments were more satisfied with “Natural Environment” and “Food,” while less satisfied with “Types of Activities Available” and “Other Facilities such as Toilet and Parking.” ‘4 Mean value of satisfaction rating of the item was measured using a five-point Likert scale (l=Very Dissatisfied, 5=Very Satisfied). 140 Avocmtam bo>um .vocmtnmma bo>n$ 28... tax: 8.3-3... a 9.7.: 3.532: 83 .32... some .8 558.323 ._ .ccatan. bo>un 45:85. 82": £3... tau—5 .5093... a wax... 3.532: 33 .88.... some 8.. coautoag .. 503.8%“: .5. v.8 .3. 4. 3 m_o>o_ 3:35:me 8.3%.: a r 141 ”a... 3...... S .m 85 S... 353%»...6 32:8“. .050 2...... 8:. N3 .2 8m 82 .23. a 32.... 8.3.58... .35 ............ ”a... .3. gm «3 03233. 8:38... ...o 8.5 SN... 32 Ni 3.... can co..§8m§bb._3.§8< 3...... 82 2% 3m 3m 8.....8... 2.2.3 ....~..... NS... .3 8m ..3 $2.26. .9528... ............ 2.3. mm... m . .m man 388... Easofifio .25 ..8 £20 8.... 8m. and an... ..3 ..8... 8.... a... E... ...,... .2. .coecesfi. .eauz ”amoroflmcmm 3.2. .3... ..nm 8.... is 03252 3:33.... 8.5 . .......... 8a... ...A mom ...,... $3.5... .ea_3..w<.o 8.5 as. 5.5.0 as... E... ..3 ...X 35 9.2.2... .3528... 3 N... as... a... 2.... 5.... 82 .83. a 32.... 5.388.... .35 ...S... .8... 2.... a... ..3 353,525. 8.....8. 550 gm... 3.... S... 2.... 8... ..8”. :38... £3. a... ..m... 8... 3.5.8. 9.33 :3... 8m... ..N... R... m . ... co..§8m§tb=£.§8< .3... a: a... 2.... 8... 23:83:”. .832 ”avocdtoQE~ $2": axe. . m. Gem": £39 32".. 6&3 2.37% K uaofiwom Eon—mom Eon—wow €88..— .asfi 2:8... 3:89 .25— E> =23— oznmam 35:34.23— omofi 5.3 couoafimfim .m.:owaoqmom v5... £235.39 Swine... 35¢ a wEEEBBQ 5 £98,... 9.253 .0 353.895 KN 03¢ 2:me~.@ .3S: 3:95.333 Emu—.8. :23. 3.3... .3 $58...”— Participation in Different Types of Tourism by Three Rural Tourism Motivational Market Segments First, the three rural tourism motivational market segments were compared regarding their tourism propensity, and the number of domestic and international tourism trips taken during the last year. Then, the three segments’ participation in different types of tourism trips was compared. The number of tourism trips taken in a year (2003) was counted for five different types of tourism: rural tourism, nature/ecotourism, cultural/heritage tourism, industrial/social tourism, and pleasure tourism. Table 28 illustrates the results of separate chi-square tests and the analyses of variance tests. The results revealed a statistical significant relationship (at a significance level of 0.1) among the three motivational market segments concerning the number of international tourism trips. Rural-centric Tourists took more international tourism trips (1.55”) than did Passive Rural Tourists (1.44) and VFR Rural Tourists (1.39). It is not found to be statistically significant, but the average number of domestic rural tourism trips was the highest for Rural-centric Tourists (5.28'6), followed by 15 When calculating the average number of international tourism trips, more than six times was censored as six. 1 . . . . . 6 When calculating the average number of domestic tourism tnps, more than ten times was censored as ten. 142 Passive Rural Tourists (5.21) and VFR Rural Tourists (4.67). In regards to their tourism propensity, rural tourists take trips for relaxation, as well as for experiences in general. About 30 percent of rural tourists in all three motivational market segments responded that they travel for relaxation only. The percentage of rural tourists who travel to participate in specific activities is higher for Rural-centric Tourists (16.2%), compared to Passive Rural Tourists (11.3%) and VF R Rural Tourists (7.2%). Rural tourists’ participation in different types of tourism was measured by annual number of trips, annual number of trip nights, and annual number of participation days. The annual numbers of participation days in four types of tourism, with the exception of pleasure tourism, were significantly different among the three motivational market segments. The annual number of participation days of Rural-centric Tourists was the highest in rural tourism (8.40), followed by those in industrial/social tourism (1.01), and in cultural/heritage tourism (0.96). The annual number of participation days in nature/ecotourism was the highest for Passive Rural Tourists (2.71), compared to both of the other segments: 2.66 days for Rural-centric Tourists and 1.55 days for VFR Rural Tourists. In general, all three of the motivational market segments participated in rural tourism the most, followed by nature/ecotourism and pleasure tourism. 143 $9533: .3. :5: .mo. 4. 8 m_o>o_ 8:85:me 8:865 :. .: .. .xfi 8 385:8 33 8:5 x7. SE: 0:02 .388 :8» a :8 85:38. .83— o_m:_.::_ .3 :83 at: 85:58 3:223:35 .«o 39:5: omega 2:. a do: 3 3:05:00 83 5.2:: :8 :2: 0:02 .288 :85 a :8 3::th 3.5M 03:5:— 3 :8—8 at: 85:33 3:880: :0 65.85: owflog 2:. a .:o_§a_o: :8 3%.: o: 5.3:: 5.3.39: BSK 8.33.: mo 23:»: hum 63:58 :8 £08553: :_ 859.: 0:: 898580: 38208 825% 6:02 $5.8 $5.8 $5.: $5.5: $5.8 $5.5 252:3 $5.3 $5.8 $5.3 $5.3 $5.3 $5.2 an $5.3 $5.9. $5.0 $5.2 $5.5: $.13. N $5.:. $.35 5.55.5 $5.:. $.55 $5.R _ .25... 55;. $5.3 $5.2 $5.5 $5.9. $5.53 $.35 252 am; 3.— ..mm.— math. fiat—SH. 3:039:35 MO :3552 $5.: $5.2 $5.5: $5.2. $5.5 $5.8 25282 $5.5 $.SN $5.8: $5.3. $.25: $5.5m 5-5 $5.3 $5.8 $.30 $5.2. $5.3 $53 in 35.5 $5.... $5.3 $5.:“ $5.53 $.33. $5.3 $5.3 N: :3. :3 .53 at: 5:8: 2.855: :o 595.2 $.23 $5.3 $5.5: $5.3 $5.5: $5.55 885:2: oz oo:o_:omxm :om $5.va $5.55 $5.va $.23 $5.3 $.EN 8__§8.=o_a§_oms:.3535»: $56 $5.5: $5.:: $5.55 $5.:: $5.:. 35:85:03.: 8.. 2:23:25 5.2.5 8% $5.3: $.35 $5.53 $5.:. $5.5 $._.:~ 8:338:25. 98:2: 55:25::— 83:8. $2“: $5.13 $55": $5.59 82".. $5.3 ~597Q NR Eofiwom 5.58. Eofiuow BEEF «:oEuom «at—5h. :omfifiomfiam 833:. .23: 55 .23: 39...: «£52.25 uEuSMum. :33: 3:833:63: Emma—oh 35% 8:5. .3 BEBE. :0 89¢. Bushfi— E 8:36:35: .wm 03$. 144 53:00:50: .3. v5 .3. ._. :5 5.26— 3585%? 5286:: . . .25 555.5 55.. 55.5 .5.. 22. 5552.55.55 55.255 .5 .2522 .252 555.5 555.5 55.5 55.. 2.5 2.5.2 5:5 :5 .5222 .222 555.5 555.. .55 55.. 55.5 2:5 :5 .2522 .252 8598: 2:535 .5555 5 .5.5 55.5 55.5 .5. 2.: 52.2.5.2... 5.5.25.5 :5 .5522 .252 5.. . .5 5.55.. .5..5 .55 55.5 2.22 5:5 :5 .5222 .252 .5555 .525 5.5.5 55.5 .2 2:5 :5 .3552 .252 math 851:8. _:_oom\_5_::m:c5 .5555 555.5 55.5 55.5 55.5 2...: 5552.55.55 5.25.5 :5 .5222 .252 ...5555 555.5 5.5 55.5 55.5 2.52 555:5 .2522 .252 555.5 555.5 55.5 55.5 .55 2:5 :5 .5222 .252 math 852:0... owfitogfiaiu ...555.5 555... 55.. .5.5 55.5 25: 52.2.5.5: 5.5.255 :5 .5522 .252 .....55.5 555.5 55.5 55.. 5.... 2.5.2 555:5 .2522 .252 5... .5 5.5.. 55.5 5... 5... 2:5 :5 .5222 .252 at... 82588923: Z :55 555... 55.5 55.5 5.... 5.55: 5552.55.55 5.5.255 :5 .5222 .252 2555.5 555.5 55.5 55... 55... 2.5.2 5:555 55.22 .252 .5555 555.5 ...5 5.5.5 55.5 2:5 :5 .2532 .222 5:5. 82:28. :23— ...5.u.. $5.55 .555": $5.55. .55.": $5.55. 2.2-: 5: 28.555 .8525 255.555 5.5.5 252505 ...0 55.5.5 5252555.: 52:52:. «at—.5. 55.2.5. .:o_:~&o_tam €5.58. 3:3— E :23— o>_nm:.— 95:34.23— G.::ooV firmfimfl. 355.8: 32:..32852 852.8... .83. 55:5. .3 85.2.8. mo 8%... Bahama E 5.52:0.th .mm 03:... 145 The Perceptionsfiof Rural Resources by Three Rural Tourism Motivational Market Segments The three market segments were compared regarding their perceptions of rural resources including: their willingness-to-pay a tax to preserve rural resources, the maximum tax they were willing to pay and the most important role of rural resources. The results of the analysis of variance test and separate chi-square tests are contained in Table 29. The results revealed no significant differences among the three segments concerning their perceptions of rural resources. Overall, rural tourists were more likely to perceive rural resources as ‘places to preserve local communities and traditional cultures’ and ‘places to maintain territorial integrity, including flood or landslide prevention.’ However, the most important role of rural resources differed among the three segments. A quarter of Rural-centric Tourists (26.4%) responded that the most important role of rural resources is ‘production of safe agricultural products.’ One third of Passive Rural Tourists (33.9%) and VFR Rural Tourists (32.9%) rated ‘a place of natural scenic beauty, green zones, or rural experience’ as the most important role of rural resources. Nearly two thirds of the rural tourists in all three segments expressed willingness to pay a tax to preserve rural resources; however, the maximum amount they were willing 146 to pay tax differed across the three segments. The results revealed that Rural-centric Tourists were more willing to pay such a tax than Passive Rural Tourists and VF R Rural Tourists. Just over 14 percent of Rural-centric Tourists (14.7%) and Passive Rural Tourists (14.6%) responded that they were willing to pay more than 60,000 wonl7 to preserve rural resources, compared to 5.3 percent of VF R Rural Tourists. One third of Rural-centric Tourists (35.3%) responded that they were willing to pay a tax 10.000 won or less, compared to 42.3 percent of Passive Rural Tourists and 50.5 percent of VF R Rural Tourists. '7 Unit = won (W1,l9l.68 = US$1.00 in 2003 provided by Kiup Bank). 147 5038032 .8. can .3. ._. E 205. 3235:»? 380:2: .: .: .. 25m 9i B 8288 88. 5 8. am: u 8434.3 .53 u “a: 0 3:3 .832 a 8 .5 ect.—32a 03.35: .8 vooc wig—2: a .Oswtoqg bo>um 4.5395 82": 28m 5%.. ”£3.05“ a mafia 35808 0.53 89582 .83 mo 8238th .mEo—ucommom a 32:82 .83.. otomoa 9 53 a a3 9 w===3 0.8 8.3395 Exam .8333 he €083 v.3 .oEEaxu Bu .momoficuaq E 58% 2s momma—822— 38208 805% ”802 $8.5 8w: A823 82:. @883 83.” 388$ 3.3.8:? 8% co 88828 $8.»: 8pm 283: 8:8 A833 828 sbtwes 35:5 53:82 oh @935 $N.? $31898 A893 83: 8.3.5 3823:. Ea 825558 .83 2588 oh A83: .8. a 31.5 8a.: €8.va 8n? .7: as. .825 .353 .2855. .8 5288on 358... < :3 55 88.3 .8. _ m 38.8 98.3. $8.3 $8.2 ooaotaxm .8; a .88m :85 .baam 288m .8328 8a: < mooSOmoM .83— .«o 23. 2.3595 “82 2:. A83 892 3%.: 83m axe: 8qu 25.8; 85 202 $88 .52 A83: 80% A83: .83 898i - god; A83: 8a.: $1.8 9.8.8 exam.» 3 83m 8°.ch - 25.33 A833 :85 @9qu 81$ 38. _ 9 828 25.3.... - 8983 82 32 A825 :88 392$ 82¢ $8.3 878 83 8 80.2.: when 9 mam—=3 203 .35. xfl. Eagxaz A825 838 A833 82:. 3%.me 8a.: 8.858% Eng 8:88.: 9 8e a 8; 2 8:525 mm». 33 A838 82:. £888 89:. A838 8.3 8288a 35m 8585 8 5a. a .5 3 85:3 «NE. 53 m _ .m :.m SN 3385 _ea_3_a< 88m co 58285 33 33 2 .m mom o; 3835 3:2th 53:82 oh on _ .o 3.: own man own 85:5 3828: Ea 825888 384 388i 8. 39o as; . 23 m3 :3 85 Ba .85 .383 .maéé 88 88888. 8:885 < 29¢ 52. com 2% Ga oococaxm 35m s 8:5 820 538m 280m .8582 .6 885 < meow—acme“ 3.5% m0 macros—3m $2": .88. _ a $8": .803 82": .838 833$ N \k «NH—WNW «HM—”WW «WNW mooSOmoM .83— .«o 2238.8; :23— ~E> .25— 3.3a“— 85:34.23— ..fiszMmm. ~83»: 328338: 8858. REM 025. .3 mooSOmom REM mo 8233qu E 832855 .am 2an 148 The Results of the Testing of Hypothesis TWO Statistical comparisons of the three rural tourism market segments were conducted on their socioeconomic characteristics, rural tourism trip characteristics, importance of factors in determining rural tourism destinations and satisfaction with those factors, participation in different types of tourism, and perception of rural resources. The results revealed significant differences (at a significance level of 0.1) across the segments on: (1) four socioeconomic variables, including: age, marital status, education level, and childhood residence; (2) eight rural tourism trip characteristics, including: length of trip, travel party composition, size of travel party, age makeup of travel party, type of transportation, type of lodging, information source, and trip spending; (3) the importance of five factors in determining rural tourism destination, including: accessibility/transportation, lodging facilities, natural environment, toilet/parking facilities, and quality/types of agricultural products; (4) satisfaction with four factors considered in determining rural tourism destinations, including: lodging facilities, residents’ kindness, quality/types of agricultural products, and types of activities available; and (5) participation in four different types of tourism, including: international tourism, nature/ecotourism, cultural/heritage tourism, and industrial/social tourism. 149 The three rural tourism motivational market segments were compared regarding their perceptions of rural resources, and the results revealed no significant differences among the three segments at a significance level of O. 1. Table 30 presents the results of the testing of hypothesis two. 150 Table 30. Results of the Testing of Hypothesis Two Hypothesis Two: Rural tourism motivational market segments dtfler in terms of: Socioeconomic Characteristics Types of Activities Available 151 Rejected Location of Residence Rejected Gender Rejected Age Accepted p<0.01 Marital Status Accepted p<0.01 Monthly Household Income Rejected Education Accepted p<0. 1 Occupation Rejected Length of Work Week Rejected Childhood Residence Accepted p<0.01 Relationship to Agriculture Rejected Rural Tourism Trip Characteristics Length of Trip Accepted p<0.1 Travel Party Composition Accepted p<0.01 Size of Travel Party Accepted p<0.01 Age Makeup of Travel Parties Accepted p<0.1 Type of Transportation Accepted p<0.05 Type of Lodging Accepted p<0.01 Information Source Accepted p<0.01 Trip Spending Accepted p<0.05 Trip Satisfaction Rejected Importance of F actors in Determining Rural Tourism Destinations Travel Information About a Rural Area Rejected Accessibility/Transportation Accepted p<0.05 Lodging Facilities Accepted p<0.01 Food Rejected Natural Environment Accepted p<0.1 Residents’ Kindness Rejected Other Facilities (Toilet/Parking) Accepted p<0.05 Quality and Types of Agricultural Products Accepted p<0.01 Table 30. Results of the Testing of Hypothesis Two (cont’d) Hypothesis Two: Rural tourism motivational market segments dtfler in terms of: Satisfaction with Factors Considered in Determining Rural Tourism Destination Travel Information About a Rural Area Rejected Accessibility/Transportation Rejected Lodging Facilities Accepted p<0.1 Food Rejected Natural Environment Rejected Residents’ Kindness Accepted p<0.05 Other Facilities (Toilet/Parking) Rejected Quality and Types of Agricultural Products Accepted p<0.01 Types of Activities Available Accepted p<0.01 Participation in Difi’erent Types of Tourism Tourism Propensity Rejected Number of Domestic Tourism Trips Rejected Number of lntemational Tourism Trips Accepted p<0.05 Number of Nature/Ecotourism Participation Days Accepted p<0.01 Number of Cultural/Heritage Tourism Participation Days Accepted p<0.1 Number of IndustriaVSocial Tourism Participation Days Accepted p<0.1 Number of Pleasure Tourism Participation Days Rejected Perception of Rural Resources Functions of Rural Resources: A Place of Natural Scenic Beauty, Green Zones, or Rural Rejected Experience A Plreserving Ecosystem for Animals, Plants, Birds, and Rejected Fis To Preserve Local Communities and Traditional Cultures Rejected To Maintain Territorial Integrity Rejected Production of Safe Agricultural Products Rejected Willing to Pay a Tax to Preserve Rural Resources Rejected Maximum Tax They Were Willing to Pay Rejected The Most Important Function of Rural Resources Rejected 152 Determinants of Rural Tourism Demand in Korea The third objective of this study presented in Chapter 1 was to investigate factors that affect tourists’ decisions about participation and frequency of participation in rural tourism in Korea. Two hypotheses were tested: Hypothesis 3: Tourists ’characteristics, including (a) socioeconomic characteristics, (b) participation in non-rural tourism, and (c) perceptions of rural resources will influence their participation decisions regarding rural tourism. Hypothesis 4: Tourists ’characteristics, including (a) socioeconomic characteristics, (b) participation in non-rural tourism, (c) perceptions of rural resources, and (d) motivation for participation will influence their decisions about how frequently to participate in rural tourism. To investigate the factors that affect tourists’ decisions concerning rural tourism, the Poisson-hurdle Model is employed. The next three sections provide: (1) formation and description of variables used in the model, (2) the determinants decisions whether or not to participate in rural tourism, and (3) the determinants of decisions concerning participation frequency. Determinants were also examined for the three market segments described above. 153 Formation and Description of Vafibles Used in the Model Two dependent variables were used to test the hypotheses: (1) whether or not to participate in rural tourism during the past year (Hypothesis #3), and (2) if a respondent participated, how many times did they participate during the year (Hypothesis #4). Several different independent variables were considered in the formation model. According to previous tourism demand studies, the major determinants of tourism demand are the prices of tourist goods and services, the prices of related goods and services (substitutes and complements), the income of tourists, and the factors related to tourist tastes (Durden & Silberman, 1975; Gonzalez & Moral, 1995; Jorgensen & Solvoll, 1996; Kulendran & Witt, 2003; Lim, 1999; Morley, 1991; Qiu & Zhang, 1995; Silberman, 1985; Smeral, 1988; Smeral et al., 1992; Song & Wong, 2003; Uysal & Crompton, 1985; Witt et al., 1995; Zalatan & Burdge, 1980). However, there are no specific criteria or guidelines regarding which factors are most appropriate for a particular tourism product or destination. Based on a review of twenty different empirical studies of tourism demand the following variables were considered for inclusion in the model: location of residence, socioeconomic variables (i.e. monthly household income, occupation, marital status, childhood residence, age, and education level), and trip spending. Explanatory variables used in this study include: a substitute of rural tourism variable (participation in non-rural 154 tourism), a tourist job-related variable (length of work week), tourism propensity, perceptions related to rural resources variables, and motivation for participating in rural tourism. Table 31 shows the variables included in modeling rural tourism demand. 155 8:010:70 .50 00 :03 cuoz ”78> .9555 975:. 00 00338—0”: .5.“ _0>8._. 00 0.005 I b30002: 80:00:. cubfio :n000w0n b_m._0>_:D\0w0=00 0 00004 E hue—5 Dam .054 00:00:00 0:025:00 mO< 0w< on._0£O ”7002 FEM 3:55 02.2 00:0200m 00050—30 otoeo 21025.2 sees: >§<2 meow .352 onuofio xvi—00 0053 50:50 m9. 00a 3:00 0023-003000000 3035800 02007: 08005 35:02 onoz :nm0> ASE—5 3203 505mm 0.003 0:03 $0.03..— 559 003.0% 002 cfloZ 2n00> >585 3203 #003 0 mann— im 0:03 on02 ”78> 5:800 9203 0.003 .050 b0>m 0:80 0>E 0:03 ouoz 35.0% .3559 5203 x003 a mama 03m 0103 0.83 0.83 do .005: olofio ”7.00% zgfl m0a>O~E 00:30.5 E 0:0Emom 0&200 gum; 58:: 0,2002 @38an a 0528: cuss—HO :Hm0> 5:830 430mm 00?. wEwS—ogm 0:0 Boom 5 E0203: OOQDUMWOM ho COmHflOOI— hbzhmkmubcgmv UNEQEQUNQNUQW mmqm<2<> HZmDmem—QZH math 0250... 35¢ .00 000802 30:03:00 Ems: 80:00:. .83— 5 0030069“: .00 500.600..— onEmcsoh .33— E 08925: :02 0D 0 o u x Q :nEmtsoh HEM E 0:00_0_§: 8:50 :25: 80:00:. 3.5: 5 00:0 Eva: mmqm<2<> HZmDZmEmQ :0wmtom0fl «SD 0802 0033.0; 0o 25 2£E> 8.3. a 08800 8.0.53 :50 0o :82 20 5 8§E> ..m 05.: 156 80300.0. 0.50 :0 @3825 03,—. 0:083:00 OZEmem chfix—m 03... 80:000. .000 8 803090300 Boom 803000 200.03— 00.30.00 :0 00:03..— xmm> 0 .5 m 803000 80.3 800000 808....0 0008300 0H80m. 03.2.0“— < 0.00m 803000 $0.—.01; @8333 00.0 >080 0.5 N 003000 . 000m 00300.0 20010.30 $033300~ 80300000 050 8 0080300 0 .5 _ 003000 fining 3.3% 8 =030$030K§ =03§30V< oHoZ :uw0> >88=0 00.3 00080000 .080 38000:: 03 x00. >0m.03-mm0:w:==>> olofio 3.113008008030004 2:. >885 00% 300000 0803200. 0% 00 8030:0080 otofio ”Ecstas— ao: 20 55:0 025 0525 .0300... 0555502 .7050 ”0&80380080 3002 0:0. >8800 0<000 008330 0803608... 0:0 $88800 0000 mgr—0005 $N.—050 £H80tomE~ 3002 of. >88:0 O00 803000.000 $020000: I . I 008030900 c.1050 0180380080 3002 030. >880 20000 000 80 m0=0N 80000 50000 0800m .0002 .30 0003 0.000000% 3.350 000300.000 >88=0 00.50200 003.0. 80300.0. 0300800 .30 0008: Z 00 > 00 0030. 803000. 00005 .30 008:2 0:083:00 050.00 803000. 00000.: 8 80308000: 00 > 000 33.0. 803000. 03328.: .30 00802 00083800 $0.—.7: 803000. 0680330005 8 803082000 00> .0: 003,—. 803000. 00:00 .30 00802 00083800 02,000 80300.0. 08300508200 8 803082300 00> .0: 83,—. 80300300000302 .30 00802 00083800 EH 003030> €0.63 028: a 05800 80:8. 050 00 082 20 a 8303, .2 use. 157 Participation in Rural Tourism Determin_ants Of the twenty-nine variables described in Table 31, twenty-two variables were actually incorporated as part of the model of participation decisions”. Four variables, including three participation motivations and rural tourism trip spending were excluded because they were only available for respondents who participated in rural tourism. Three others were excluded to avoid the singular matrix problem when estimating the model”. They were: ‘location of residence as province,’ ‘work six days a week,’ and ‘perception of rural resources as a place of production of safe agricultural products.’ The results of the Poisson-hurdle Model are in Table 32. The results determined that there are four socioeconomic characteristics that are statistically significant in decision to participate in rural tourism (Hypothesis #3a). Those four variables are: location of residence as megalopolis (MEGALO), marital status (MARRY), occupation of white-collar job (JOB), and childhood residence in a rural area '8 Those variables include: SEOUL, MEGALO, AGE, MARRY, INCOME, EDU, JOB, WORK], WORKZ, WORK4, RLIVE, TEND, DOMESTIC, NATRIP, CUTRIP, INTRIP, PLTRIP, GREEN ECO, LOCAL, LAND, and WTP. The description of each variable is presented in Table 31. 19 For example, to avoid the singular matrix problem when estimating the model, the variable ‘work six days a week (WORK3)’ was treated as a basic variable and excluded from the model. That is, the statistics of three other job related variables (WORKI, WORKZ, and WORK4) can be interpreted as relative value on a basic variable (WORK3). 158 (RLIVE). Residents of megalopolises and white-collar employees are less likely to participate in rural tourism (p<0.01 and p<0.05, respectively). On the other hand, respondents who are married and those who were raised in rural areas are more likely to participate in rural tourism (p<0.05 and p<0.1, respectively). The results also indicated that participation in four (non-rural) types of tourism negatively influences whether respondents participate in rural tourism (Hypothesis #3b). Persons who participate in nature/ecotourism (p<0.01), in cultural/heritage tourism (p<0.1), in industrial/social tourism (p<0.05), and in pleasure tourism (p<0.01), are less likely to participate in rural tourism. Either these types of tourism are substitutes for rural tourism, or persons who participate in these types of tourism do not prefer or are unable to participate in rural tourism. The total number of domestic tourism trips taken positively affects rural tourism participation (p<0.01). The more often respondents engage in tourism the more likely they are to decide to participate in rural tourism. Perception of rural resources as “a place of natural scenic beauty, green zones or rural experience” are statistically (significance level of 0.01) positively related to participation in rural tourism (Hypothesis #3c). However four other “perception of rural resources variables” do not significantly affect the rural tourism participation decisions. 159 Frequency of Participation in Rural Tourism Determinants The Poisson-hurdle Model also identified factors that affect the decisions regarding the frequency of participation in rural tourism. Eight socioeconomic variables influence frequency of participation decisions (Hypothesis #4a); four of them have positive influence and four have a negative influence. The four variables which positively affect the frequency of participation in rural tourism are: (l) marital status (MARRY), (2) length of work week—five days a week (WORKI ), (3) whether they were raised as children in a rural area (RLIVE), and (4) tourism propensity (TEND). Respondents who are married and those who were childhood was spend in rural areas participate in rural tourism (p<0.05) more frequently. Frequency of rural tourism participation is also greater for people who work five days a week (instead of longer work weeks) and who prefer to travel for both relaxation and experience (p<0.05 and p<0.1, respectively). Frequency of participation is negatively affected by (1) location of residence— Seoul and the surrounding area (SEOUL), (2) monthly household income (INCOME), (3) education level (EDU), and (4) length of work week—work five days every other week (WORKZ). Residents in Seoul and the surrounding area and the more educated—who have 160 college or university degrees—participated less frequently in rural tourism (p<0.05 and p<0.1, respectively). Those with higher incomes (p<0.01), and those who work five days every other week (p<0.05) participate less frequently in rural tourism. The results indicated that if a respondent participates in nature/ecotourism they are statistically (p<0.01) more likely to participate more often in rural tourism than those who do not indicating the possibility of a complementary relationship (Hypothesis #4b). Conversely if someone participates in cultural tourism they participate less frequently in rural tourism (p<0.1). This suggests that cultural/heritage tourism may be a substitute for rural tourism. Participation in the other types of tourism examined does not statistically affect the frequency of participation in rural tourism. The total number of domestic tourism trips taken positively influences the frequency of rural tourism participation (p<0.01). Persons who participate in rural tourism do so more frequently if they are active tourists. Perceptions of rural resources are not statistically related to how frequently participate in rural tourism (Hypothesis #40). However, it is interesting to note, but it is not clear why, that persons who perceive rural resources as ‘ places of natural scenic beauty, green zones or rural experience,’ and ‘places for preserving local community and traditional cultures’ participate less frequently in rural tourism. On the other hand, people 161 who perceive rural resources as ‘a place for preserving ecosystems’ and ‘a place for maintaining territorial integrity’ participate more frequently in rural tourism. Motivations for participating in rural tourism also positively affect the frequency of participation (Hypothesis #4d). Respondents who participate in rural tourism for the purpose of engaging in recreation activities, or to visit friends or relatives, participate more frequently in rural tourism (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively). Trip spending per day per person negatively affects the frequency of rural tourism participation (p<0.01), the more people spend on a trip, the less frequently they participate in rural tourism. It is important to recognize that this may be because persons who participate less frequently may take significant but fewer trips. Remember too that the trip that they provided spending estimates for were self-selected. Less frequent rural tourism participants may have provided spending estimates for their most significant (e. g. longer, greater distances from home). There is also significant potential for recall bias when it comes to this variable. 162 Table 32. Estimated Results of the Poisson-Hurdle Model Rural Tourism Participation Decision Rural Tourism Frequency Decision Variables Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value Socioeconomic Characteristics SEOUL 0.0205 0.183 01661” -2219 MEGALO -04625‘“ -3704 -0.0748 -O.859 AGE 0.0047 0.653 -0.0058 -1243 MARRY 0.2949“ 2.470 0.1710” 2.042 INCOME 0.0005 1.578 -o.0009“‘ -3475 EDU -0.0612 -0533 -01447' -1.854 JOB 01905“ -2044 0.0026 0.039 WORK] 0.1210 1.042 0.1604“ 2.109 WORKZ 0.2029 1.539 02345” -2224 WORK4 0.0195 0.161 0.1188 1.353 RLIVE 0.1589‘ 1.719 0.1323” 1.979 TEND 0.1460 1.629 0.1173‘ 1.838 Participation in Non-Rural Tourism DOMESTIC 0.2076‘” 9.538 0.1291‘” 11.080 NATRIP -00898‘” -4.101 0.0574‘“ 4.974 CUTRIP 00825‘ -1.885 -00573‘ -1.708 INTRIP 00929" -2090 0.0478 1.519 PLTRIP -01283'“ .4507 0.0168 0.916 Perceptions of Rural Resources GREEN 0.3470‘” 2.953 -01024 -l.181 ECO 0.1377 1.037 0.1219 1.402 LOCAL -00799 -0479 -0.l406 -1.100 LAND 0.0553 0.420 0.0152 0.160 - WTP 0.0690 0.760 00420 -O.654 Motivation of Participation in Rural Tourism FACTOR] 0.1 196“ 2.486 FACTORZ -00429 -1.1 17 FACTOR3 0.0874‘” 3.348 Trip Spending SPENDING -00065‘” -4.086 CONSTANT -09569'” -3357 0.6001‘" 2.689 Log Likelihood Function -1595. 19 Note: The description of each variable is presented in Table 31. , , . indicates significance levels at .l, .05, and .01, respectively. 163 Table 33 Shows how the three market segments differ in terms of the affect of different factors on how frequently they participate in rural tourism. Only the second stage of the Poisson-hurdle Model20 was employed to determine if there were any differences across the three segments. Determinants of frequency of participation in rural tourism vary across the three market segments. Just three factors including age (AGE), number of domestic trips taken (DOMESTIC), and perception of rural resources (LAND) are common, but the degree of influence was different. Nine factors affect frequency of participation in rural tourism decisions by members of the Rural-centric Tourist Segment. Four factors positively affect the decision while five are a negative influence”. Those who are married and were raised as children in rural areas participate more frequently in rural tourism. The more domestic tourism trips the more frequently they participate in rural tourism. And people who perceive rural resources as ‘a place for preserving local community and traditional cultures’ participate 20 Only participants in rural tourism are included in this analysis; thus, the second stage of the Poisson- hurdle Model, truncated regression part, was only employed. And independent variables of motivation for participation in rural tourism were excluded for the analysis, because the three mral tourism segments were developed by their motivation for participation. 21 Four factors that positively affect the frequency of participation decision are: MARRY (p<0.01), RLIVE (p<0.01), DOMESTIC (p<0.01), and LOCAL (p<0.05). Five factors that negatively affect the fi'equency of participation decision are: SEOUL (p<0.01), MEGALO (p<0.01), AGE (p<0.01), JOB (p<0.1), and SPENDING (p<0.05). The description of each variable is available in Table 31. I64 more frequently in rural tourism than those who do not perceive that to be so. On the other hand, members of this segment that reside in Seoul area or megalopolises participate less frequently in rural tourism, compared to segment members who live in the provinces”. White-collar segment members also participate less frequently in rural tourism, compared to people with other types of jobs. Ten different factors were statistically significant determinants of the frequency of rural tourism participation for persons comprising the Passive Rural Tourist Segment. Five factors positively affected participation frequency and equal number had a negative influence23 . As people’s ages increase they are more likely on average to participate more frequently in rural tourism. Not surprisingly, people who work five days a week participates more frequently in rural tourism than do people who work Six days a week. Again, propensity to take tourism trips also positively influences participation in rural tourism. Married members of this segment participate less frequently in rural tourism than single segment members. Interestingly, perceptions of rural resources negatively 22 To avoid the singular matrix problem when estimating the model, the variable ‘location of resident as province (PROVINCE)’ was treated as a basic variable and excluded from the model. 23 Four factors that positively affect the frequency of participation decision are: AGE (p<0.05), WORK] (p<0.01), WORK4 (p<0.01), DOMESTIC (p<0.01) and NATRIP (p<0.01). Five factors that negatively affect the frequency of participation decision are: MARRY (p<0.01), GREEN (p<0.1), LOCAL (p<0.1), LAND (p<0.1), and SPENDING (p<0.05). The description of each variable is available in Table 31. 165 affect the decision about how frequently to participate in rural tourism. Segment members who perceive rural resources as ‘a place for production of safe agricultural products,’ ‘a place of natural scenic beauty, green zones or rural experience,’ ‘a place for preserving local community and traditional cultures,’ and/or ‘a place for maintaining territorial integrity,’ participate less frequently in rural tourism. For VF R Rural Tourists, eleven factors affect the decision about how frequently they participate in rural tourism; seven of the factors have a positive affect and four factors influence participation frequency negatively“. Older segment members those in white-collar jobs, and members who work only five days a week participate more frequently in rural tourism. Members of this segment who travel for both relaxation and experiences participate more frequently in rural tourism than do those who travel only for relaxation or only for experiences. As the number of domestic tn'ps taken by segment members increases, the frequency of rural tourism participation increases. It was not expected that frequency of rural tourism participation decreases among members of this segment as their incomes increase. Again the possibility is that rural 24 Seven factors that positively affect the frequency of the participation decision are: AGE (p<0.01), JOB (p<0.05), WORK] (p<0.1), TEND (p<0.0l), DOMESTIC (p<0.0l), NATRIP (p<0.01) and INTRIP (p<0.01). Four factors that negatively affect the frequency of participation decision are: INCOME (p<0.01), CUTRIP (p<0.05), LOCAL (p<0.05), and WTP (p<0.05). The description of each variable is available in Table 3 l. 166 tourism might be an inferior good or that richer segment members have more substitutes including international tourism. For this segment only, the more those members participate in cultural/heritage tourism the less often they participate in rural tourism. 167 02000000000 .5. 0:0 .8. 0. .0 0.00. 00.005ch 000205 . . ANS 0005 000000. 000300 0.0 5 00000000 00 3000000 08.08 000003008 80100. .00: 0005 05 .00 0055-000 0 ._m 030,—. 5 0000000 & 030_0> 0000 00 000000000 20. 0002 Sund- mmmod- and 008.0 000.0 N050 A5000 mmo. m .: _ $N.0 SN. _- owe _ .c- ”000- 28.0. 02.020 00nd- :mmmmd- momd 00 0 0.0 m _ m0 336 ASE-D0 03; .3000 ”00.0 5008.0 000.0 a 30.0 And-:02 $N.0 ...m mmmd and ...Nvm _ .0 02-0 in 0 m0 .0 00.50200 Eat—.00. final-:02 5 0030500000— 0090 5003.0 mom; :3: .0 $N.0- vwmod- 020,—. ~000- mSOd- :2 ._ mam _ .o wad $00000 02-00 .8. _ - «Maud- m~0.~ Eavmvd 30. 7 an» _ .0- 3203 30.0 30 .0 man. T m _ m m0- 03.0- $2 .0. 20>» BS..— .0wmmd 00m.m $030.0 03.0- 82 .0- 3203 $.00 :30}. SN; 0mm _ .o 30. T .0900. 000 02.0 300.0 cum. 7 0:00- 000.— 0086 D00 m00.- ...mmcod- 0mm. T 300.0- 536- 008.0- 020020 80.0 003.0 Sod- 58000. 30.0 ...00000 >5 :3” 3?de wvfim :mvmod 556- 333.0. 00< 80.0. med- 30.0 008.0 3 m0. ESQ-.0- 0:002 m S. _ - mammo- :_._ ~00 _ .0 mmfim- 2.003.0- ADOmm 0030000000000 00800000303 020?“ 0005000 020.3 00005000 020.3 00005000 0.20. .000 0 38”: £0.00 82": £5.00 «uoauom «mm—=00. «aofiuom 000500. «00505 3.500. .003— E :23— 030000 8.50004003— 00000Ew0m 000—02 00000200: 00050.0. 00:0 000.0. 00.0 0000000000 800.500. 00.50 .00 00000000 05 “00.0.0. 0E. 0000000 .mm 030,—. 168 5030000000 .00. 000 .m0. .0. 00 0_0>0_ 00002-00030 000000000 . . ANN-0 m0w000 000000 0003000 05 00 00000-00000 000 800.500. 000—0000 300003000. 050.300 .000.. 00.00 05 .00 000000000 0 .00 0000.0. 00 000000000 00 0300.09 0000 .00 00000000000 00... ”0002 al.04001- flflu 030m 80250 085.95 wolq 000.0- 0000. _- 08.0- 0002- 30.0 3030.0 0250200 80.0 080.0 000.0- .0080- 03.0- .0080- 07002000 05500 000. 80.0- .. 0 80.0- 0020. 88.0- 003- 0020- 0.03 000.0 00:0 80. _- .330- 000.0- 02.3- 025 000.0- :00;- 03. _- .0003- 0: .0 .0300 00000 000.0 008.0 002 080.0 08. _- 300.0. 000 80.0- 8:0- 000. _- .3000- 000.0. 0000 .0. 20000 $0.-scum“ 12:."— hc 232-0930: 0200»; EEOEOOO 020;-“ EBOEDOU 03570 25000-3000 00?... .00. _ 00 E00": £300 82": 03.000 000Euom 000.50g. 000.0uum 000.50.0- 00000u0m 000.500. .250 00> 05.0 0.09.00 00284230 00.0080 0000000m0m 00000002 000000030002 0000.80.0- 00030 0000.0. 00.0 0000000000000 0000.50.0- 00030 00 0000000000 000 000.000. 000.0- 00000000 .00 030.0 169 The Results of the Testing of Hypothesis Three The factors that influenced tourists’ decisions of whether or not to participate in rural tourism were investigated. The findings indicated that there are four socioeconomic characteristics that are statistically significant with regards to tourists’ decisions of whether or not to participate in rural tourism, including: location of residence as a megalopolis, marital status, occupation in a white-collar job, and childhood residence in a rural area. The results also indicated that participation in four types of tourism, including: nature/ecotourism, cultural/heritage tourism, industrial/social tourism, and pleasure tourism negatively influenced tourists’ rural tourism participation decisions. Only one of the variables of tourists’ perceptions of rural resources—a place of natural scenic beauty, green zones, or rural experience—was found to affect the rural tourism participation decision. Table 34 reports the results of the testing of hypothesis three. 170 Table 34. Results of the Testing of Hypothesis Three Hypothesis Three: Tourists 'characteristics will influence their participation in rural tourism. Socioeconomic Characteristics Location of Residence-Seoul Rejected Location of Residence-Megalopolis Accepted p<0.0l Age Rejected Marital Status Accepted p<0.05 Monthly Household Income Rejected Education Rejected Occupation-White Collar Job Accepted p<0.05 Work Five Days a Week Rejected Work Five Days Every Other Week Rejected Not Related With Five-Day Work Week System Rejected Childhood Residence-Rural Area Accepted p<0.1 Tourism Propensity Rejected Participation in Dtflerent Types of Tourism Number of Domestic Tourism Trips Accepted p<0.01 Number of Nature/Ecotourism Participation Days Accepted p<0.01 Number of Cultural/Heritage Tourism Participation Days Accepted p<0.1 Number of Industrial/Social Tourism Participation Days Accepted p<0.05 Number of Pleasure Tourism Participation Days Accepted p<0.01 Perception of Rural Resources Functions of Rural Resources: A Place of Natural Scenic Beauty, Green Zones, or Rural Accepted p<0.01 Experience A Pgeserving Ecosystem for Animals, Plants, Birds, and Rejected F IS To Preserve Local Communities and Traditional Cultures Rejected To Maintain Territorial Integrity Rejected 171 The Results of the Testing of Hypothesis Four The factors that affect tourists’ decisions of how oflen to participate in rural tourism were identified. The findings indicated that there were eight socioeconomic characteristics that influenced tourists’ decisions of how often to participate in rural tourism at a significance level of 0.1, including: the location of residence as Seoul and the surrounding areas, marital status, monthly household income, education level, work five days a week or every other week, childhood residence in a rural area, and tourism propensity. The results also indicated that participation in two different types of tourism— nature/ecotourism and cultural/heritage tourism, and two of the motivations for participating in rural tourism—participating in rural recreation activities and visiting friends or relatives influenced tourists’ decisions of how often to participate in rural tourism. Trip spending was also found to affect tourists’ fiequency of participation decisions in rural tourism at a significance level of 0.1. On the other hand, tourists’ perceptions of rural resources were not found to be statistically related to how frequently they participated in rural tourism. Table 35 reports the results of the testing of hypothesis four. 172 Table 35. Results of the Testing of Hypothesis Four Hypothesis Four: Tourists ’characteristics will influence the fiequency of their participation in rural tourism. Socioeconomic Characteristics Location of Residence-Seoul Accepted p<0.05 Location of Residence-Megalopolis Rejected Age Rejected Marital Status Accepted p<0.05 Monthly Household Income Accepted p<0.01 Education Accepted p<0. 1 Occupation-White Collar Job Rejected Work Five Days a Week Accepted p<0.05 Work Five Days Every Other Week Accepted p<0.05 Not Related With Five-Day Work Week System Rejected Childhood Residence-Rural Area Accepted p<0.05 Tourism Propensity Accepted p<0.1 Participation in Difirerent Types of Tourism Number of Domestic Tourism Trips Accepted p<0.01 Number of Nature/Ecotourism Trips Accepted p<0.01 Number of Cultural/Heritage Tourism Trips Accepted p<0.1 Number of Industrial/Social Tourism Trips Rejected Number of Pleasure Tourism Trips Rejected Perception of Rural Resources Functions of Rural Resources: A Place of Natural Scenic Beauty, Green Zones, or Rural Rejected Experience A Preserving Ecosystem for Animals, Plants, Birds, and Rejected Fish To Preserve Local Communities and Traditional Cultures Rejected To Maintain Territorial Integrity Rejected Motivation of Participation in Rural Tourism To Participate in Rural Recreation Activities Accepted p<0.05 To Enjoy Rural Setting Rejected To Visit Friends or Relatives Accepted p<0.01 Trip Spending Accepted p<0.01 173 Modeling Rural Tourism Demand in Korea The fourth objective of this study is to develop a two stage rural tourism demand model. Stage one involves the decision to participate and stage two how often/much to participate. Two hypotheses are tested in this section, to achieve that objective. Hypothesis 5: The factors which aflect tourists ’ participation and consumption decisions will be diflerent in Korean rural tourism. Hypothesis 6: The Poisson-hurdle Model and the Tobit Model have the dzfierent outcomes when it comes to the factors that affect the decisions of rural tourists. The Poisson-hurdle Model was used to test Hypothesis #5. Since the factors affecting decisions whether or not to participate and how often to participate in rural tourism were covered in the previous section, this section focuses on examining whether or not there is benefit/gain to modeling them as separate decisions. First, determinants of the participation decision and the frequency of participation decision are compared using the results of the Poisson-hurdle Model. The Poisson-hurdle Model results show that five common factors that affect both participation and frequency of participation out of the twenty-two variables included in both analyses. These are the five common factors: marital status (MARRY), childhood 174 residence (RLIVE), number of domestic trips taken during the year (DOMESTIC), participation in nature/ecotourism (N ATRIP), and participation in cultural/heritage tourism (CUTRIP). However, the degree to which those variables affect whether respondents participate and the frequency at which they participate differs. Particularly, participation in nature/ecotourism positively affects whether respondents participate in rural tourism, but negatively affects frequency of participation decision. This finding indicates a degree of complementarities between nature/ecotourism and rural tourism which makes sense. However, it also implies that they are substitutes. There are statistically (significant at 0.1) different coefficients for eleven variables; five impact only upon participation and six upon frequency of participation in rural tourism25 . These results imply that tourists’ participation and frequency of participation decisions do not occur concurrently and this in turn suggest there is reason to view, and treat them as separate decision processes when examining and estimating 25 Five variables influence whether respondents participate in rural tourism [location of residence— megalopolis (MEGALO), white-collar job (JOB), participation in industrial/social tourism (INTRIP), participation in pleasure tourism (PLTRIP), and perception of rural tourism (GREEN)], on the other hand, six variables influence only participation frequency [location of residence—Seoul and the surrounding areas (SEOUL); monthly household income (INCOME); education level (EDU); length of work week— work five days a week (WORKl) and work five days every other week (WORKZ); and tourism propensity (TEND)]. The description of each variable is available in Table 31. 175 rural tourism demand. This assessment is further confirmed by comparing the results of the Poisson-hurdle Model and the Tobit Model. In the Tobit Model, the participation and the frequency of participation decision are not distinct processes. Table 36 compares the results of the Poisson-hurdle Model and Tobit Model. The Tobit Model identified ten factors26 which affect rural tourism decisions. Factors that are significant in the Tobit Model affect either the decision to participate or the decision concerning frequency of participation in the Poisson-hurdle Model. This is because the Tobit Model considers the participation decision and frequency of participation decision are linked/related. The need to separate tourists’ decision processes can be verified by testing the hypothesis #6 that ‘the Poisson-hurdle Model and the Tobit Model have the same outcomes when it comes to the factors that affect the decisions of rural tourists (Ho).’ This was tested by applying likelihood ratio statistics (LR) based on the difference in the log- “ Those include five factors which have positive influence—MARRY,WORK1,RLIVE, DOMESTIC, and GREEN, and five factors of negative influence including MEGALO, JOB, NATRIP, CUTRIP, and PLTRIP. The description of each variable is presented in Table 31, and their coefficients from the Tobit Model are presented in Table 36. 176 likelihood functions (LLF)27 for the unrestricted and restricted models (Wooldridge 2003). The likelihood ratio statistic is twice the difference in the log-likelihoods: LR = 2(LLFM + LLFAZ - LLFmbn) where LLFM and LLFM are the log-likelihood values for the decision whether or not to participate and how often to participate in the Poisson-hurdle Model, and LLFmbi, is the log-likelihood value for the Tobit Model. A multiplication factor of 2 is necessary in the formula in order for LR to have an approximate chi-square distribution under Ho_ LR = 2 * [(-568.67) + (-1026.52) — (-1633.28)] = 2 * 38.09 = 76.02 The likelihood ratio (LR) statistic (x2) is estimated to be 76.02, which is greater than the critical value of 45.64 (with a significance level of 0.01 and a degree of freedom of 26). And therefore the null hypothesis ‘the Poisson-hurdle Model and the Tobit Model have same outcomes when considering the factors that affect the decisions of rural tourists’ is rejected. This further verifies that rural tourists’ decisions about participation and frequency of participation do not take place simultaneously and are in fact discrete. 27 Log-likelihood function is ‘the sum of the log likelihoods, where the log-likelihood for each observation is the log of the density of the dependent variable given the explanatory variables; the log-likelihood function is viewed as a function of the parameters to be estimated’ (Wooldridge, 2003). 177 $33838.— .S. van .3. J. “a $30. 3585ch «88:2: . . .0. O. O ..m 073. E @8585 m_ czar—9 :08 mo Exam—80v on... “302 £3- ...33? 23 385 So? ...22? BE: 82. 83.? 22 ”Sc... 98.? :38? mate SE- :33? 8:- .Eq? 33. .28.? card 83- :22? E? 5:23 82.. sues? .552 a: _ £835 25.. _ 232 .o «moo ...eSS ufimmzoo Banach. 12.5-52 E 28.2—35.5 178 $2 52 an: .m: S 6%; 8:... ozm: $2 :23; $3 :225 a: .325 m2? m 65 52 $2 a: 3 § .c 3:; 3:53 SE. 983 $N.? :33? 9.2 683 9:53 Sm: .863 62:6. ..325 ms: 225 3203 83- .33? 685 £85 35.? :82? mo. :3- «at? 42:- .23.? an? 28.? new use 385 E? ...88? £2 82:. £287: on? 3262 $3 :225 Eva ..ovomd 5:22 am? 88.? $2- 38.? $3. 285 BE $N.? 32%.? 63.? 3.8.? 35- 583.? 328:on .8389 cosgmofimlm Emtzoh REM 8.6.1on .83— 38: Butanéafiom Eco—2 :noh 05 was five: ozusnénammom 05 mo 338M 8383mm 05 coogom mnemimQEoU .3” 2an 23:89.8 ._e. 98 .3. J. «a £26— 353.in 830%.: . . ._ m 03¢ E 33895 mm 033.? some mo cater—omen 22. ”8oz ...Nedh amok 23m “5258.: wmdmg- demeT modem- corona v2.5.8.5 we..— gfi ...wS? 9&5 Sad- ..._ zed- deed ..Leeed nmmd- Seemed- PZ-~ E30580 023,.“ 806580 0395 “=32.th season @26on noEooD >oeoew2m 53665 :23 Eton— Emtsoh 3.5M amt—5H .83— 3% .322 «30,—. E52 o.e§:-:8m_om 3.283 $32 :98. 05 e5 E52 223-8885“ 2: we $33M eoEEwmm 05 cooéom mnemtmefiou .3 03mm. 179 The Results of the Testing of Hypotheses Five and Six To develop a two stage rural tourism demand model, two hypotheses were tested and both were accepted as being significant. The results of the Poisson-hurdle Model revealed that the factors affecting tourists’ decisions about participation in rural tourism were difierent than the factors affecting tourists’ decisions about how frequently to participate in rural tourism. The likelihood ratio test, using the difference in the log-likelihood functions, revealed that the Poisson-hurdle Model and the Tobit Model had different outcomes when it comes to the factors that affect the decisions of rural tourists. The former separated tourists’ participation and frequency decisions, while the latter did not. Table 37. Results of the Testing of Hypotheses Five and Six Hypothesis p—value Hypothesis Five: Accepted p<0.1 The factors which affect tourists ’ participation and the factors which aflect tourists 'fi'equency decision will be diflerent. Hypothesis Six: Accepted p<0.01 The Poisson—hurdle Model and the Tobit Model have the different (dfi26) outcomes when it comes to the factors that aflect the decisions of rural tourists. 180 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study was designed to accomplish four objectives: first, to identify and profile the rural tourism market in Korea; second, to segment the rural tourism market and profile different rural tourism market segments in Korea; third, to better understand the factors affecting decisions whether or not to participate in rural tourism and also how frequently to participate; and lastly, to develop a demand model for Korean rural tourism based both decisions of whether or not to participate and how frequently to participate. Chapter one provides reasons for the emphasis and growth in rural tourism in Korea including changes in rural economies that are requiring different forms of economic development. The Chapter also provides a broad overview of rural tourism policy and development strategies. Also presented is a description of the research problem, study objectives, research questions, and hypotheses. Chapter two reviews literature on the subject of rural tourism and tourism demand studies and methods. Chapter three describes and discusses the methods used to collect the data that was needed including the development of the survey instrument, the study population, sampling, survey administration, and preparation of the data for analysis. 181 Chapter four presents survey results that describe rural tourism participants and their participation characteristics and behaviors. Chapter five reports the findings of modeling rural tourism demand in Korea. The findings in this chapter are focused on motivational segmentation of the rural tourism market, identifying the determinants of rural tourism demand, and developing a demand model for Korean rural tourism. The sixth and last chapter summarized findings related to the study objectives and presents different implications of the study. Limitations inherent in the study methods including data collection and survey design are discussed along with recommendations for future research. Summary of the Findings This summary focuses primarily on the extent to which research results and findings achieve the objectives established for the study. The summary provides: a profile of the rural tourism market in Korea, a description of rural tourism motivational market segments, identification of the determinants of rural tourism demand, and a model of rural tourism demand in Korea. 182 A Profile of the Rural Tourism Market in Korea (Obiective 1) In 2003, more than 50 percent of the survey respondents participated in various forms of rural tourism. Significant differences exist between the characteristics of persons who participate and do not participate in rural tourism. They were compared in terms of their socioeconomic characteristics, their participation in non-rural tourism activities, and the importance they assign different roles/functions of rural resources. Persons who engage in rural tourism are generally older and have higher average incomes than those who do not engage in rural tourism. They are also more likely to be married and work less days (i.e. five compared to six days) a week. As anticipated, rural tourists are also more prone to have different links and relationships with rural areas such as spending their childhoods in rural areas or still having families or relatives engaged in agriculture. These connections are important in identifying and marketing (e. g. product-line, marketing communications) to potential rural tourists. Interestingly persons who do not engage in any forms of rural tourism are more active (e. g. average number of trips, trip nights, and participation days in non-rural tourism, including nature/ecotourism, industrial/social tourism, and pleasure tourism) in other types of tourism. This implies either that rural tourism substitutes other types of tourism, or that rural and non-rural tourists have different preferences regarding 183 recreation and travel. This is an important question that should be examined in future research. Rural tourists place more importance on rural resources ‘a places of natural scenic beauty, green zones, and setting for rural experiences’ compared to Non-rural Tourists whoassign more importance on rural resources for production of agricultural products. Rural tourists are also statistically more likely to be willing to pay taxes to preserve rural resources. Three Rural Touris_m Motivational Marlgt Segments (Obiective 2) Three different motivational market segments were identified: Rural-centric Tourists, Passive Rural Tourists, and VF R Rural Tourists. A primary (rural tourism) trip purpose of Rural-centric Tourists is to participate in rural centric activities, such as an coo-experience, nature experiences, or farm stays. This segment comprises 28.9 percent of all rural tourists. Passive Rural Tourists, the largest segment (39.5%), consists of persons whose primary purpose for visiting rural areas is to participate in more classic tourism activities, such as relaxing in nature and visiting recreational forests or historic sites. VF R Rural Tourists take trips to rural areas for the purpose of visiting friends or family members and/or to attend a special event such as wedding or family reunions. This 184 segment makes up 31.6 percent of rural tourists. However, as the population of rural areas declines, and fewer persons reside in and are raised in rural areas, this segment is likely to decline unless roots and linkages to rural areas and heritage are preserved. Roots and connections to rural areas are important in determining rural tourism participation these connections may weaken if rural areas continue to decline. Hence there is a symbiotic relationship between the health of rural areas and rural tourism that need to be recognized and studied in more depth. Profiles of each of these segments including their socioeconomic characteristics, rural tourism trip characteristics, participation in different types of tourism, and perception of rural resources were developed (see Appendix B). They were also compared statistically on different profiling characteristics revealing significant differences in their socioeconomic characteristics (i.e. age, marital status, education level, and childhood residence), rural tourism trip characteristics (i.e. length of trip, travel party composition, size of travel party, age makeup of travel party, type of transportation, type of lodging, and information source), rural tourism trip spending, perception of factors in determining rural tourism trip destinations, and participation in different types of tourism (i.e. rural tourism, nature/ecotourism, cultural/heritage tourism, and industrial/social tourism). 185 Determinants of Rural Tourism Demand in Korea (Objective 3) Factors affecting whether persons participate or not in rural tourism, and how often to participate, were investigated by applying the Poisson-hurdle Model. Of twenty- two variables included in the model of rural tourism participation the following nine were determined to positively and negatively significant in determining participation”: location of residence (e. g. in a megalopolis) (—)29, marital status (+), employment in a white-collar job(-); frequency of participation in nature/ecotourism (-), cultural/heritage tourism (—), industrial/social tourism (-), and pleasure tourism (-); number of domestic tourism trips taken (+); and perceptions of rural resources as ‘place of natural scenic beauty, green zones or rural experience’ (+). Of twenty-six variables included in the model of the frequency of rural tourism participation fourteen were found to be statistically significant: location of residence in Seoul and the surrounding area (—); marital status (+); monthly household income (—); education beyond a college or university degree (—); five day work week (+) or work five days every other week (-); raised as a child in a rural area (+); participation in non-rural 28 The significance level of 0.1 was applied. 29 The sign in parenthesis indicates a direction of impact on the rural tourism participation decision (“+” = positive, “-”= negative impact). 186 tourism variables including number of nature/ecotourism trips taken (+), number of cultural/heritage tourism trips taken (-) and number of domestic tourism trips taken (+); and reasons for participating in rural tourism including rural recreation activities’ (+) and ‘to visit families or friends’ (+); and trip spending (—). Factors affecting the rural tourism fi'equency decision were compared and contrasted for each of the three rural tourism motivational market segments. There are significant differences in the factors that influence frequency of participation across the three segments. Three factors were common determinants of participation frequency including: age, number of domestic trips taken during the past year, and perception of rural resources as ‘preserving local community and traditional cultures.’ ModelingRural Tourism Dem_and in Korea (Objective 4) A two stage demand model for Korean rural tourism was developed based upon the decisions of whether or not to participate in rural tourism and then the frequency of participation. Results of the Poisson-hurdle Model reveal that the factors that influence the decision to participate are significantly different from those that influence the amount of participation indicating that the two decisions processes are sufficiently distinct. This conclusion was verified by comparing the results of two different models, the Tobit and 187 Poisson-hurdle Models; the Poisson-hurdle Model separates the two tourist decision processes, but the Tobit Model does not. Further the likelihood ratio test shows that rural tourists’ decisions about participation and frequency of participation did not occur simultaneously. Therefore, it is desirable to separate the decision processes of rural tourists when studying rural tourism demand. Implications of the Study Rural communities and the Korean government recognize the need to revitalize rural communities/economies and tourism development is one strategy they are pursuing. On the demand side, people in Korea will have more leisure time due to the introduction of a five-day work week system and this will affect leisure and tourism behaviors. Many people are interested in trying new tourism alternatives and rural tourism is the most promising alternative tourism in Korea. The likelihood of increasing demand for rural tourism means that it will be more important to learn more about rural tourism demand, preferences and behaviors. Understanding this demand is critical for developing policy, and guiding public and private investment decisions and marketing. This study provides profiles rural tourism markets and verifies the benefits of segmenting rural tourism markets in Korea. This 188 study identified the determinants of rural tourism demand and also verified the need to separate rural tourists’ decisions about participation and frequency of participation. When developing marketing plans and establishing policy for rural tourism development the issue of sustainability also needs to be considered. Basically, ‘rurality’ is a unique selling point of rural tourism, and increasing the numbers of visitors to rural regions and there are limits to the scale and types of rural tourism development without negatively impacting rurality. So, while rural areas are in need of economic development, it is important to recognize the potential negative implications of various types of rural tourism and non-tourism development. Before a local community or government embarks on a strategies (e. g. marketing, investment) to enhance rural tourism, they must consider whether or not tourism development the best form of economic revitalization for the area and if so, how can the community/ government maximize the benefits (economic earnings) while preserving rural environments? There are other implications of this study important for both government and the private agencies engaged of rural tourism marketing and development. There are also implications for future research on rural tourism in Korea. The profiles of rural tourists provide information about potential rural tourists 189 which can be used to develop marketing strategies for rural tourism. In particular, profiles of different rural tourism motivational market segments provide detailed information of the niche markets of rural tourism. Targeting niche markets is an effective strategy for local governments to develop small scale and community appropriate rural tourism without large-scale investments that can dramatically change the character of their areas. For example, if the local government plans to develop rural tourism using rural resources, such as outstanding and distinctive natural environments, without large investment, they can target Passive Rural Tourists, who primarily visit rural areas to enjoy rural settings. On the other hand, in regions where natural resources are insufficient to attract tourists, rural tourism which focuses on rural activities differentiated from those offered in other areas, can be developed. Promoters of those regions can targetRural-centric Tourists, whose primary purpose for visiting rural areas is to participate in rural recreation activities. Motivational market segmentation can help in understanding why different persons participate in rural tourism, and it provides information (e.g. demographic profile, trip behaviors) to develop and target niche marketing strategies. Communities which understand tourists’ motivations for participating in rural tourism can ultimately can more effectively design and market their product/experience-lines. 190 By verifying that the rural tourism participation decision and the frequency decision do not occur simultaneously, this study suggests that rural tourism planners develop two different marketing strategies: one for creating new demand for rural tourism and one for increasing the existing rural tourism demand. Identifying the determinants of rural tourists’ participation decisions helps to shape strategy for creating new demand for rural tourism. The determinants of the rural tourism frequency decision are useful when developing strategies for increasing rural tourism demand. The partial effects of the factors revealed the degree of impact on rural tourism demand, thereby, providing some ideas to government agencies, concerning how the factors show be prioritized when developing strategy for rural tourism. This study has also implications for researchers; it has verified the need to separate the rural tourism participation decision and the frequency decision when modeling rural tourism demand. Researchers can apply this modeling technique to other types of tourism and can investigate the determinants of participation and the frequency of participation in other types of tourism. Also this two-stage model for tourism demand can be applied when estimating tourists’ spending while on a trip. 191 Study Limitations Several limitations were identified in the methods employed for the study. First, sampling bias was assessed in this study. The study population comprised Korean adults, and a proportionate sampling method was employed to allocate the number of samples across the country. However, those samples were not randomly selected in each region. Surveys were conducted onsite by survey facilitators, and those survey locations may also have introduced bias. Despite researcher efforts to select respondents at the locations absent bias and while employing systematic sampling techniques, some sampling biases may have been induced by the use of non random sampling methods. Second, although a number of surveys based in proportion to the population of the area were completed in each region, respondents whose permanent residences were different from the area in which they participated in the survey were included in the findings, leading to discrepancy between the sample sizes and the actual number of surveys completed in each region. Third, non-respondent bias and refusal bias occurred in this study. No further tests for non-respondents, including people who refused to participate in the survey were taken for this study. Fourth, respondents were asked to tell about their rural tourism trips taken during 192 the past year (2003). Their responses may contain recall biases, because it is hard for most respondents to recall the exact number of trips, trip days, etc. so long afier they occurred. Respondents were also asked a series of in-depth questions about a specific rural tourism trip and they might not have been able to recall all the details about that specific rural tourism trip and, hence may have provided approximations instead of specifics. Recall bias is of most concern when conducting a year end survey. Fifth, a total of 1,032 complete surveys were collected for this study. Regarding the total population of Korean adults, this sample size is not large enough to generalize the results of the study. A small sample size causes higher sampling error, and it is a major factor that determines the quality and accuracy of survey data. Lastly, a limitation was found in the survey instrument employed for the study. Rural tourism is at an introductory stage in Korea, and few studies have been conducted in this field. In addition to the variables for modeling demand from the literature, exploratory variables were included in the questionnaire, including respondents’ reasons for participating in rural tourism and their perceptions of rural resources. All of those variables measuring respondents’ motivations for rural tourism participation and their perceptions of rural resources were not tested and verified. 193 Recommendations for Future Research The recommendations for future research are based in part on the limitations of this study that were previously discussed. First, it is recommended that future surveys be conducted using larger samples and random sampling methods. Also, non-response bias should be checked in future surveys. To minimize recall bias, a wave survey method is recommended consisting of a surveys being conducted the first week of each month over the course of a year. The surveys collect information about rural trips during the prior month. A wave survey method is appropriate when studying a variation of tourism demand by season and the potential impacts of factor such as new marketing campaigns, price changes and special promotions. Rural tourism in Korea is still at an introductory stage, and there is no established definition of rural tourism. Discrepancies in definitions may be one reason why the results vary considerably across studies. A common definition is needed that can be applied across studies. Also, rural tourism is one of the emerging tourism alternatives in Korea and “demand” and participation can be impacted by changes in government policies. So, continuous research on rural tourism is needed to monitor the changing demand and preferences of tourists and to assess the impacts of supply and marketing. To investigate the cohort difference, a replicate study after a certain numbers of years (e.g. 194 three or five years after conducting this study) is recommended. When studying a rural tourism market, it is recommended to segment that market based upon different aspects other than motivation for participation; for example, segmentation by the frequency of participation in rural tourism can give information about the heavy and light participants in rural tourism. Regarding the fact that local governments are eager to develop rural tourism as a means of generating revenues, since the introduction of the local autonomy system in Korea, a niche marketing strategy would likely be the most effective for local governments. Thus, segmenting the rural tourism market in Korea is recommended. Future studies should also focus on rural tourism “brand” (e.g. destinations, attractions) decisions. After deciding to participate in rural tourism, tourists’ next decisions are likely to be deciding the types of activities they will participate in and destination for their trips. Understanding this decision processes provides valuable information to tourism planners and local communities wishing to develop rural tourism. Finally, more research should be focused on the impacts of rural tourism development and ways to insure sustainability of rural character while at the same time providing economic opportunities. Powerful tensions exist between the forces for rural economic development the forces for conservation of rural resources and rurality. Pro- 195 active strategies are needed that incorporate ways to develop rural tourism while maintaining the characteristics and culture of rural areas. 196 APPENDICES 197 APPENDIX A Survey Questionnaire 198 Rural Tourism Survey Leisure and tourism demand in Korea is growing rapidly. The expected introduction of pubic welfare, including the five-day workweek, dispersion of vacations, and old-age pension system will accelerate the trend. Improvement in quality of life and in working efficiency through increasing the opportunity of leisure and tourism is a matter of national concern as well as of individual interest. This survey’s objective is to collect information providing better understanding of the actual conditions and demands of tourism - especially rural tourism - in Korea and to consider alternative tourism. The information collected will help to establish a national tourism policy. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries sponsored the project and Sejong University is conducting this study. There are no right or wrong answers. All the information you provide will remain confidential and only aggregate data will be reported. We will be most grateful if you please take ten minutes to answer this questionnaire carefully. Thank you, sincerely, for assisting us with this important matter. Dr. Lee, Hee-Chan & Mi-Kyung Kim Dept. of Hospitality and Tourism Management Sejong University Tel: 02-3408-3183 / FAX: 02-3408-3312 Date of survey: Survey Region: Surveyor Name: 199 Tourism Behavior Section products lleTri' ® Participating in agricultural tourism: farm stay, farm experience, weekend visit to a farm, agriculture/food festival, traditional cultural experience, collecting fishery ® Visiting rural areas for the purpose of tourism: bed & breakfast (B&B), recreational forest, mountain climbing, camping, tracking, hiking, fishing, nature study, estuary exploration, historic sites, pension 6*») Visiting family or friends living in rural area 'Pension is a type of lodging in Korea which is similar with B&B. 1. Did you participate in rural tourism trips during the last year (From Jan 1 — Dec 31, 2003)? El No (I? skip to “Question 15") 2. Please record the number of trips to rural areas for the purpose of tourism and the number of nights you stayed at a rural tourism destination during the last year. DYes Spring Summer Fall Winter 1 (March, April, May) (June, July, August) (Sep., Oct, Nov.) (Dec., Jan, Feb.) Number of trips I Number of Lights I Please select one rural tourism trip that you took last year and answer Questions 3 to 14 based on your actions during that specific trip. 3. Keeping that specific rural tourism trip in mind, when and where did it take place? (If you visited more than two places during your trip, please indicate every place you traveled) When did you travel? Travel Place Number of nights Pn'mary rural tourism destination: Another place visited on that trip: Another place visited on that trip: Month: Total number of nigh£___‘ 4. Select the category that best describes the party accompanying you on that rural tourism trip. (Greek one) CIAlone Cl Family Cl Friends/relatives UColleagues DAssociation members ClOther( ) 5. In which types of vehicle did you travel during that rural tourism trip? Cl Car ClTrain Cl Bus Cl Plane Cl Other ( ) 6. Where did you get information about rural tourism prior to that specific trip? ClTV Cl Newspaper/magazine Cl Internet ClTravel Agent Cl Family/friends Cl Other( ) 7. If you stayed overnight during that rural tourism trip, please indicate the type of lodging you used. Cl Farm stay Cl B&B DCampground Cl Recreation forest CITourist farm Cl Motel/ hotel E] Second home Cl Pension El Friends] relatives DOther( ) 8. How many persons, including yourself, accompanied you on this trip? Number of people: 200 9. Including yourself, please record the number of people of each group in your party on this trip. Number of female adults (age 20 or older): Number of male adults (age 20 or older): ‘ Number of preteens age 13 or younger): Number of teenagers (age 14-19): 10. Please rate your overall level of satisfaction with this rural tourism trip. DVery dissatisfied Cl Dissatisfied Cl Neutral El Satisfied El Very satisfied 11. Still thinking about the trip you selected in Question 3, please rate the reasons why you chose to participate In rural tourism during that trip. Not Very Reason for participation in rural tourism Important Imoortant 1. To experience a farm stay 2. To visit a travel farm 3. For nature study ( field a‘udy, visit a nature study facility) 4. For nature-based recreation (trekking, hiking, camping, rafting) 5. To experience nature (picking mushrooms, Wild greens, or Oiestnuts, etc.) 6. For an eco—experience (obseran birds or plants, etc.) 7. For an “agricultural experience” (nee-planting, treading barley plants, digging potatoes; etc.) 8. To experience farm life (baking & eating potatoes/sweet potatoes/cams) 9. To experience a folk play (flying a kite, sledding, etc.) 10. For a health experience (mud-walled hut, room with under-floor heating system, etc.) 11. To visit a weekend farm 12. To visit a recreational forest 13. To participate in a local agriculture/food festival (strawbeny festival, ginseng festival) 14. To buy agricultural produce 15. To make or eat local foods 16. To visit a temple or historic site in a rural area 17. To visit family or friends living in a rural area 18. To attend local community events in a rural area 19. To attend an alumni association, gathering a holiday, or a ceremonial occasion 20. To enjoy relaxation or to spend leisure time 21. To enjoy natural scenic beauty in a rural area 22. To experience sea village life (estuary exp/oration, sea vii/age stay, gathering marine products) 23. To go fishing 24. To attend a winter festival (snow festival, smelt festival) @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@®@@ @@@@@@@A @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @C‘JD@@@@@v1 @@@@@@@©@@®@@@@@@© @©@@®@®w @®@®®®®®®®®®®®®®®® ®@®®®®®~ @96899999689999999 @QQGQC‘DC—DH 25. To join a group tour 201 12. Please rate how important each of the following items was to you when deciding to visit the rural tourism destination you identified in Question 3. How Important? How Satisfied? N91. 1th 1th list! 1 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 1. Travel Information about a rural area 2. Accessibility/'1' ransportation 3. Lodging facilities 4.Food 5. Natural environment 6. Residents' kindness 7. Other facilities (toilets/parking) Products 8. Quality and types of agricultural 9. Types of activities available Trip Spending Section 13. Please report your spending during the rural tourism trip you identified in Question 3. (Please be sure to read the following descriptions carelir/ly before responding.) your rural tourism trip. I?“ If family or friends accompanied you on this trip, please indicate the entire amount of money that you (9W) spent on yourself and others. a: [29391; include money that others in your party spent on you or themselves. r? Please separate the money that you spent W193 and 91591393; while on (0m Eafimlic At Primary At Other Travel Expenses At Primary At Other Dev era m oce fl e 5, drinks) Destination Places (Gasoline, tolls) Destination Places No spending D D No spending D D Less than W 10,000 D D Less than W 4,999 D D W 10,000 - W 19,999 D D W 5,000 - W 9,999 D D W 20,000 - W 29,999 D D W 10,000 - W 19,999 D D W 30,000 - W 49,999 D D W 20,000 - W 29,999 D D W 50,000 - W 69,999 D D W 30,000 - W 39,999 D D W 70,000 - W 99,999 D D W 40,000 - W 49,999 D D W 100,000 - W 149,999 D D W 50,000 - W 69,999 D D W 150,000 - W 199,999 D D W 70,000 - W 99,999 D D W 200,000 - W 299,999 D D W 100,000 - W 199,999 D D W 300,000 - W 499,999 D D More than W 200,000 D D More than W500,000 D D 202 Entertainment Expenses At Primary At Other Lodging Expenses At Primary At Other (Attractions, games) Destination Places (3&3. hOtEI/ motel, 080510". Destination Places condominium, campground) No spending D D No spending D D Less than W 9,999 D D Less than W 29,999 D D W 10,000 - W 19,999 D D W 30,000 - W 49,999 D D W 20,000 - W 39,999 D D W 50,000 - W 79,999 D D W 40,000 - W 59,999 D D W 80,000 - W 119,999 D D W 60,000 - W 99,999 D D W 120,000 - W 149,999 D D W 100,000 - W 199,999 D D W 150,000 - W 199,999 D D More than W 200,000 D D W 200,000 - W 299,999 D D More than W 300,000 D D (siflmfigmd’i‘a) 82.21.2321. “$.33." 06'" 5......“ 82.21333 “1332.” No spending D D No spending D D Less than W 9,999 D D Less than W 9,999 D D W 10,000 - W 19,999 D D W 10,000 - W 29,999 D D W 20,000 - W 39,999 D D W 30,000 - W 49,999 D D W 40,000 - W 59,999 D D W 50,000 - W 99,999 D D W 60,000 — W 99,999 D D W 100,000 - W 199,999 D D More than W 100,000 D D More than W 200,000 D D 14. Is the spending you indicated in Question 13 for 19919313933999 or for W? D For my entire group D For myself only 15. Excluding rural tourism, which of the following type(s) of tourism trips did you participate in during the last year? (Please cheokthe boxesnextto eadi ofthe typesoftoun’sm tripsyoutooklastyear. 7hen recordthe number of trips and the number of nights each season lbr each trip.) é Particip Types of Tourism Trips Summer (3-fl Q-B) Spring Fall (9-111 Winter (1-2 12 # of it of # of # of trips nightsi trig nights Nature] Ecotourism (mountain tourism, marine tourism, spa) #of #of #Of ME nights trig nights #OfJ Cultural / heritage tourism (heritage sites such as a palace or temp/e, craflwork exhibition or crafiwork-malu’ng experience, cultural event or festival, sports game) Industrial/social tourism (industrial park, exposition, visit to fiends/relatives living in an urban area) Pleasure tourism (pleasure resort. amusement park, leisure town- hotel or resort; sports-golf or skr; casinos) Did not participate in any type of tourism 203 Agriculture] Rural Resources Section 16. Rural resources perform many functions, including supplying us with provisions. Please indicate how you feel about each of these functions, by checking one box for each item listed below? Your Feelin 5 Functions of Rural Resources Strongly . . . Strongly negative Negative Neutral Posrtive positive 1. A place of natural scenic beauty, green zones, or rural experience (D (2) C3) (9 C5) 2. A preserving ecosystem for animals, plants, birds, and fishes 0) (8 © 69 © 3. To preserve local communities and traditional cultures GD ® © @ C5) 4. To maintain territorial integrity (induding flood orlands/ide (D ® © @ © prevention or as a natural bank) 5. Production of safe agricultural products (D ® ® @ C5) 17. The movement of rural populations to urban areas can make balanced development of a country more difficult, and many negative impacts can occur, including extermination of traditional cultures and preservation of beautiful scenery for people to enjoy. Are you willing to pay a tax to fund preservation of rural resources? DYes D No (0": Skip to "Question 19“) 18. If you are willing to pay a tax to preserve rural resources, what is the maximum your household is willing to pay per year? (Check one.) DW10,000 DW20,000 DW30,000 DW40,000 DW50,000 DW60,000 DW70,00fl uwsopoo cwgopoo cwroopoo cwrsopoo owzoopoo DOther:W I 19. A fund for preserving rural resources could be allocated to protect the following multi- purposes of rural resources. Please rank order each of the following purposes from 1 to 5 based on which functions you believe are the most important. (1=the mostimportant, 5=the least important) Functions of Rural Resources Rank 1. A place for natural scenic beauty, green zones, or rural experience 2. A preserving ecosystem for animals, plants, wild birds, and fishes 3. To preserve local communities and traditional cultures 4. To maintain territorial integrity (induding flood or landslide prevention or as a natural bank) 5. Production of safe agricultural products Demographic Information Section 20. How likely are you to participate in rural tourism in the future? D Extremely likely D Likely D Neutral D Unlikely D Extremely unlikely 21. If you plan to participate in rural tourism in the future, how many times per year do you expect to do so? # of rural tourism trips: 204 22. Does the company that employs you (or your spouse) operate on a five-day workweek? DYes, every week DYes, every other week D No (Skip to "Question 24‘) D Not applicable (Skip to "Question 24‘) 23. Do you travel more than before, as a result of that company operating a five-day workweek? DYes DNo 24. Do you think that people may travel more often if five-day workweek is operated? D Yes D No D Do not know 25. In 2003, how often did you participate in domestic tourism (within South Korea)? D None D Once DTwlce DThrlce D Four times D Five times D Six times DSeven times D Eight times D Nine times DTen times or more (specify : ) 26. In 2003, how often did you participate in lntemational tourism (outside of South Korea)? DNone DOnce DTwice DThree times D Four times D Five times DSix times or more 27. Where did you grow up until you graduated elementary school? DUrban area DRural area 28. Do you have any families or relatives who engage in agriculture? DYes D No D Do not know 29. How is your propensity to travel? D Prefer to travel for relaxation D Prefer active and experiential tour D Prefer to travel for relaxation as well as for experience D No preference to travel or different in each situation 30. Name of city in which you reside currently: 31. Your age: 32. Your gender: D Male D Female 33. Your marital status: DMarried DSingle DOther 34. Your education: DMiddle school DHigh school DCollege/University DGraduate school 35. Your religion: D None D Buddhist D Christian D Catholic D Other: 36. Your occupation: DProfessional DClerical DProducer/engineer DService D Public servant/teacher DOwn business D Student D Retired or No job D Other: D Housewife (Husband’s occupation: ) 37. Check which range best describes your monthly gross household income. D Less than W500,000 DW500,000 - W999,999 DW1,000,000 - W1,499,999 DW1,500,000 - W1,999,999 DW1,999,999 - W2,499,999 DW2,500,000 - W2,999,999 DW3,000,000 - W3,499,999 DW3,500,000 - W3,999,999 DW4,000,000 - W4,999,999 D More than WS,000,000 Thank you very much for your help!! 205 APPENDIX B Characteristics of the Three Rural Tourism Motivational Market Segments 206 .35 22.8. .80. ..0... .22 552.8. 20> .0 0052.8 .020 $0.8 ...xcmdvv 52.20.8055 .8 8:852:85. 2 35 22.8. .80. .800 8.82.0.2 .8 00.80. .002. 2.5000... .82 0:... .803 82.... .5220. .0 .2055 2 w2w8. ..0 32 50: 2.580... .80. 2.... ..8 3 8.98 .2...” 8.2.5 as as... 5.3 a: 0.08: 003 5.. .025 ..0 geese .v .05 m 50800 8 0.20. 53 .025 0.0 2...? 02:5. ~22 5.025 2.0.8 .35 22:58 0.0 2...... .35 22.00. .80. ..0... ~23 552.8 20> .0 552.8 .020 $03 8.0.8 use... m. 8.5 22.8. .8... .800 8.52.0.2 .8 00.80. 52. 2.580... .00.: 02... 28.80 5.20.. .05 $.30 .00.: m. 8.0.02 ..0 3b .003 2.50.00... .82 0.. ... .8 B 8.98. so... .5225 .05 2.80 23 a: 0.00:. 002 50 .025 8 seed... .0 0:0 m 502.00 8 02m 53 .028. 0.0 28.3. 82:5. ~23 5.08.. $N.? a... 2.0.503 as 3...... .35 22.8. .8... ..05 ~23 552.00 20> .0 552.0... 5.20 28.3 2.2.3 833.285... 8 828522000. 2 35 22.8. .8... .85 82.2.0.2 ..0 00.80 .003 2.580... .82 0:... .080... 80...... .5220. .0 .2055 2 w2w8. ..0 3b .002. 2.580... .82 0:... .8 B 8.98. .88 .5825 0:0 2.0.00 .23 3: 0.00:. 08> 53 .08.. ..0 $0.3. .v .05 m 5080.. .8 020 5.. .025 0.: $2... 5.55. .23 5.08.. 28...... ...5 22:58 0.0 $05 .0088 8.82.0.2 .w2w8. ..0 32 30.88338. ..0 3b .53 .08.. .8 350.00. 09. .53 .08.. ..0 02m .828980 53 .08.. d5 .8 2&5. 2 0:00.. 0.03 0005.05... .50....55 ”8.2.0.0885 2.... 22.8... .83. 0.3.5.30 2 .0335 52.0.0. 8 0025.. 022 $5.3 .00.: .80. 2 528 0.03 9%.? 0.003 0 08.0 02.. :0... 0.0:. 0.83 93...; 0030.0 0052.0 8 25.028.30.80 082 £82.. .eee.eee.v>» .08 0200:. 3585 26.. s3... ...2 2 .5500 2... ..0 owe 08.03... .558: 0.0 28.8 .5028... 2 a\.. wdm .05 5.0 w20808m 8 .80m 2 0.0.5. o\... .8 0.3.0050 2 00w0w5 00200.0. 8 00.25.. 022 $65 .00... .80.. 2 .0028 0.03 5.6... 0.003 a 2.0.0 02.. :0... 08.: 0.83 .5... .v .0050: 005200 .0 20.028.30.80 02:. need» deedeefe. .08 0.80:. 25:02 08: .x...wm .m.mm 2 .5500 2... .8 0w: 0w80>< .0052 0.0 £ch: .5028... 2 £26m .05 .55 8.08080. 8 .80m 2 0.20.0. $2... 0.3.0050 2 0335 52.0.0. 8 00:50.. 022 exceed .00.: .80.. 2 .0028 0.02 $5.5 0.003 0 30.0 02.. :05 0.0.: 0.8..» $5.? 0050.. 005200 8 20.025.05.80 022 £2.08 dee.eee.v>» .08 058... 358:. 23. .28 ...mm 2 .5500. 25 .8 0w: 08.03.. .558 0.0 $58 .5028... 2 .x. new .05 000.0 8.0805,. 8 ...00m 2 0.0.00. $N.? 00525. 00020.20 .05 .8585 .208. 5.8:. .05 2 0:00.. 0.03 5055...... .50....55 ”8.2.0.0805 0.20:0000.00m .558 .250... .83. 23> .555 .280... .83. 020.00.. .555 .280... .83. 0.35:. 35:35 50.5.). 28528.). 82.00... .83. 00...... 8 302.3800 .m x853< 207 ._.__.-- _. - ...0...0..0>< 00...>50<.8 003...... 0:0 ...005...00... 8800.... ...000002v. 2:00.03... ...0.0:00... .80..:0..w<.8 003»... 0:0 2.000.. 000.02 08.00.. 000:... o .0305... 80.3.2... 8.5 ..s. 2.30.. 0:0 ...w2...0.. 0:0 .050... 00 ..000 0055.00... 5.50.. ...00.....00... w2w00..: ...:050.830:8...\.........00000<: ...808:0..>:m .8802: 0020:. 08.00.. 000.... .. 805055 bo>um 805050020 80>": 0.000 8.... 883-02.. 0 w20: 080008 003 8.00. ..000 .23 :0..00..050m 0 65.838. bo>nm 80.838. 82.1... 0.000 8.... 883-02.. 0 8.8 080008 003 8.00.. ..000 8.. 080.838. .. ...00053xm. w23305m: 0:0 ...00053xm. 5.50: ...00053xm. .0>8..... ...00053xm. 8800.... ...00053xm. 000...: 0020:. 00.85.00 8.0530 0005... 0 .. . 0.0. 0.005024. 005.>50<8 003%... 0. 8.00.. 0050500 .000. 05... .306. :0..0..030:8...\b......00000< ...a 8...... 000...... 050...: 5.0.8 808858”. .8802 ”0.0 08.00.. 0050500 .008 00...... .30.... 0.0000... .08....0..w<.8 003»... 0:0 2.000 2 8.00. 80.838. .000. 0:... $N.... 808828... .8802 0:0 .00.... 80:0... 050...... .03.. 85883882250558... ”0.0 08.00.. 80.838. .008 00...... .00... 030.03. 80.2.... ..0 003»... 0. 8.00.. 0050500 .000. 0... .. . m... S... .23. 0 5...... 888...... .20... 0.... .8... ..8. .00... .5658... .8302 ”0.0 08.00.. 0050500 .008 00...... ...0... 0.8.x... 83.3.0... .6 8.... 0.... 2.0.8 0 .92.. .82.... 0...... 2... .80.... 80...... 050...... ..s. .8... 8508030822520500... .83.. 8.5.2.2.... .8302 ”0.0 08.00. 80.838. .008 00...... .8... 8.2.0.. .0 .08... 00 ..000 0055.00... 5.50 2 8.00.. 0050500 .000. 0... .8... 08...... 83.8.0... .o 3.... ...a 5.8.0 2... .00... 000 3 .850 8088.35. .8802 8.0 08.00.. 0050500 .008 00...... 0...... 0.00505. 00...2.0<..0 003»... 0. 8.00.. 80.838. .000. 0.. 3. A30. 00.....8. 050...... ..s. .0. .0. :050.830:0....\.........00000< .03.. 5.80.35 .8302 ”0.0 08.00.. 80.838. .008 00...... 908.00. 80.. ..23 w:58 8.80.0500 0:0 ..08.00.. 02.. ..0 w:58 080.838. 2 08.0. 0.03 5055.....0 8005.55 “008.00... 0005... .23 :0500..050m 0:0 8050:5000 80.80 3. .08... 8.28.059 2 008.00.. 8 005.838. 85...... .v 50535 w2w00. 0:0 5.3.0.03 00053.8 .0>05 8 82...... 8...... 88...... ..8. 0. 205.00 8.05% .005... 0.... 500.3 5.50 .0 $0.0m 0:0 8502.50 5853 0... .0 00.8000 ..\....m.. 08.0...» m. 08...... .0... 5.08000 .23.... .83. 03> 8806.. 000535 w2w00. 0:0 5.3.0.03 000535 .0>05 8 82...... .88.... was... ..8. 2 585.00 8.05% .53... 05... 0000.3 5.50 .0 ..\..m.5m 0:0 85:58 D0853 0.5.0 008000 .80. 80.00.... m. 085... .5... 805% .280 3. .83. 02000.. 8520.. 000535 .0>05 ...a .88.. 085...... 00.00... .3 830...... .88.... 82......» ..8. 0. 385.00 8.05% .005... 05... 500.3 5.50 .0 03.0.2. 0:0 8502.000 D0853 0.... .0 008000 $0.00 03.00»... m. 0.85... 8.... 808w0m .280... .83. 0.85:. 500.3 5.50 .0 0:0 8502.50 5853 0... .0 8.05% 2 0:0 «00.85.00 8.0530 80.0....0 2 080.. 0.03 00055.20 800....:w.m 82053 3.. 3. 80.80... .83. 8.800. 080:.w0m .0503. 2850.503. 80.80... .08”. 00...... .8 005.8... .8 080503800 .m 20:033.... 208 88:82 88:82 .82 .«o cote—HE Batons: :28 .«o 8:05 “Stag .8958?— 368 2: ma .uocotoaxo .82 #88 05 mm .oocotuaxo :23 8:: mo accuse “carcass 5 £83 52m 533 258 .838 ‘8 8% a. 8:: «3.2 32:80.. .85.. 02085 9 85a >3 8 wEEB 05; $93 80. C .599 2:805 898 amuse 38$??? €08 83.59 0355:8830 Gm. S Emtsouooobuaaz A33 552 .83. ”5 mac 5:36:53 mo hon—SE owflo>< o 253%. “Each .83— m”; 3 £38 52m 533 £58 0 .823 we 08E a. 3:2 $6.?” 38282 3:: 02085 0 9 mafia man 8 wEEB gm; $6.3 5.3 page 2385 30.8 83:8 _m_oom>m_bm:u£ 35.8 Eat—.8 ogre—$8330 2 fimv 8338032582 .59 23:3 BE ”5 b8 :2“anqu mo “35:: owflo>< “soc—wow «mt—EH :23— 023.5— HmoE 05 mm .3355 72330:? as Mo 88329 was eaten ..89582 3.5.. 2:80.:— o 9 $53 >8 8 wEEB 02w: $0.5 :9: page 2:30; A a. : amuse Esflfisg Gas 552 ”wacofimEBU God EmEosooBéaz .8me .552 as”. ”E as“. coumafimtma mo “3:5: owflo>< o EoEwom “Each :23— 06:55 .258 22> moocobbfi Eauafiwfi 02 ”3.5081 35% ‘8 30:30th .Emtzo. _m_oom\_m_bm=v£ new .Emtaou eggs—>233”. gnaw—3883232 .Emtzoa .83 E 258 0.53 moucohotmc 38535 ”Emtzoh mo 89¢. “schema E catamaran 33:88 flangom 8x32 7825502 Emma—oh EM 3:? mo 858m .«o mnemEQEoU .m 595an 209 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., & Day, G. S. (1998). Marketing Research (6" ed.). New York; John Wiley & Sons. Aczel, A. D. (2002). Completed Business Statistics (5th ed.). Homewood: Irwin. Alexander, N., & McKenna, A. (1998). Rural tourism in the heart of England. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10, 203-210. Arahi, Y. (1998). Rural tourism in Japan: The regeneration of rural communities. (Food & Fertilizer Technology Center Report). Retrieved January 5, 2005, from http://www.ffic.agnetorg/libgry/abstract/eb457.html Bae, S.-E., & Kim, J .-T. (2003). A study on rural tourism for sustainable rural development: The Mundangri case. Koran Journal of Agriculture Extension, 10, 77-85. Bakkal, I. (1991). Characteristics of West German demand for international tourism in the northern Mediterranean region. Applied Economics, 23, 295-304. Blaylock, J. R., & Blisard, W. N. (1993). Women and the demand for alcohol: Estimating participation and consumption. The Journal of Consumer Aflairs, 27, 319-334. Blaine, T. W., Mohammad, (1, & Var, T. (1993). Demand for rural tourism: An exploratory study. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 770-773. Blundel, R. W., & Meghir, C. (1987). Bivariate alternative to the univariate Tobit model. Journal of Econometrics, 33, 59-80. Bockstael, N. E., Strand, I. E., McConnell, K. E. & Arsanjani, F. (1990). Sample selection bias in the estimation of recreation demand functions: An application to sportfishing. Land Economics, 66, 40-49. 210 Borich, T. 0., & Fleming, C. (1993). Making more of less: Promoting tourism in the rural areas of Western Iowa. Small Town, 24, 20-21. Bowling, M. (1992). Illinois rural tourism: Do rural areas benefit from increases in travel expenditures? Small Town, 22, 19-26. Buck, R. (2004). Agri-tourism vs. rural tourism - “Do you know the difilzrence? ” Retrieved February 20, 2005, from http://wwwagn'tourscanadacom Cai, L. A., Hu, B. & Feng, R. (2001). Domestic tourism demand in China’s urban centres: Empirical analyses and marketing implications. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8, 64-74. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1986). Econometric models based on count data: Comparisons and applications of some estimators and test. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 1, 29-53. Cameron, A. C., Trivedi, P. K., Milne, F., & Piggott, J. (1988). A microeconometric model of the demand for health care and health insurance in Australia. Review of Economic Studies, 55, 85-106. Carvalho, M. C. M. de, Dougherty, M. S., Fowkes, A. S., & Wardman, M. R. (1998). Forecasting travel demand: A comparison of logit and artificial neural network methods. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49, 717-722. Cha, D.-U. (2002). A study on developing rural communities through the marketing strategies: The link between tourist farms and their neighboring villages. Korean Journal of Forestry and Recreation, 4, 39-48. Chase, L. D., Lee, D. R., Schulze, W. D. & Anderson, D. J. (1998). Ecotourism demand and differential pricing of national park assess in Costa Rica. Land Economics, 74, 466-482. Chen, J. C. (2000). Forecasting Method Applications to Recreation and Tourism Demand. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 211 Cho, J .-H., Kim, T.-K., Park, S.-H. & Park, J .-H. (2003) An analysis of urban residents’ preference on rural tourism. Korean Journal of Agricultural Management and Policy, 30, 387-401. Choi, K.-S. (1998). Rural tourism in Korea. (Food & Fertilizer Technology Center Report). Retrieved January 5, 2005, from http://www.fltc.a_1gnet.org[1ibrag/_abstract/eb45Saghtml Churchill, CL A. (1999). Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations (7" ed.). Chicago: Dryden Press. Colin, M., & Baum, T. (1995). Island Tourism: Management Principles and Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cooper, C. P., Fletcher, J ., Gilbert, D., Wanhill, S. & Shepherd, R. (Eds). (1998). Tourism: Principles and Practice (2“ ed.). Essex: Addison-Wesley Longman, Limited. Cragg, J. G. (1971). Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica, 39, 829-844. Creel, M., & Loomis, J ., (1990). Theoretical and empirical advantages of truncated count data estimators for analysis of deer hunting in California. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 72, 434-441. Crouch, (1 1., & Shaw, R. N. (1990, June), Determinants of international tourist flows: Findings from 30 years of empirical research. Proceedings of 21 3’ Annual Conference of the Travel and Tourism Research Association, New Orleans, USA. Daniel, A. C. M., & Ramos, F. F. R. (2002). Modeling inbound international tourism demand to Portugal. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 193-209. Dardis, R. D., Horacio, G. S. & Patro, D. (1994). Analysis of leisure expenditures in the United States. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 209-321. 212 Dernoi, L. A. (1991). About rural and farm tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 16, 3- 6. Durden, G. D., & Silberman, J. (1975) The determinants of Florida tourism flows: A gravity model approach. Review of Regional Studies, 5, 31-41. Edgell, D. L., & Cartwright, M. L. (1990). How one Kansas town used tourism to revitalize its economic base. Business America, 111, 14-17. Englin, J. & Shonkwiler, J. S. (1995). Estimating social welfare using count data models: An application to long-run recreation demand under conditions of endogenous stratification and truncation. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, 104- 112. Eugenio-Martin, J. L. (2003). Modeling determinants of tourism demand as a five-stage process: A discrete choice methodological approach. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4, 241-354. Fix, P., Loomis, J ., & Eichhom, R., (2000). Endogenously chosen travel costs and the travel cost model: An application to mountain biking at Moab, Utah. Applied Economics, 32, 1227-1238. Fleischer, A., & Pizam, A. (1997). Rural tourism in Israel. Tourism Management, 18, 267- 372. Frederick, M. (1992). Tourism as a Rural Economic Development Tool: An Exploration of the Literature. (Report No. 122). Washington DC: US. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Frechtling, D. C. (1996). Practical Tourism Forecasting. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann. Gartner, W. C. (2004). Rural tourism development in the USA. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6, 15 1-164. 213 Gartner, W., & Lime, D. (Eds). (2000). Trends in Recreation, Leisure, and Tourism. Walingford: C.A.B. lntemational Gets, D. & Carlsen, J. (2000). Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors. Tourism Management, 21, 547-560. Goeldner, D. R., Ritchie, B. J. R. & McIntosh, R. W. (1999). Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies (8m ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Gonzalez, P., & Moral, P. (1996) Analysis of tourism trends in Spain. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 739-754. Gonzalez, P., & Moral, P. (1995). An analysis of the international tourism demand in Spain. International Journal of Forecasting, 11, 233-251. Greffe, X. (1994). Is rural tourism a lever for economic and social development? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2, 22-40. Grogger, J. (1990). The deterrent effect of capital punishment: An analysis of daily homicide counts. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 295-303. Gunn, C. (1988). Tourism Planning (2"‘1 ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis. Gurmu, S., & Trvedi, P. (1996). Excess zeros in count models for recreational trips. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 14, 469-477. Hair, J. R., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5m ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hall, D. (2004). Rural tourism development in Southeastern Europe: Transition and the search for sustainability. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6, 165-176. Hall, D. (2000). Rural tourism management: Sustainable options conference. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 295-299. 214 Hangin, Q. & Junsen, Z. (1995). Determinants of Tourist Arrivals and Expenditures in Canada. Journal of Travel Research, 34(2), 43-49. Hawkins, D. E., & Ritchie, B. J. R. (Eds). (1992). World Travel and Tourism Review: Indicators, Trends, and Forecasts. Walingford: C.A.B. lntemational. Hellerstein, D. (1992). Estimating consumer surplus in the censored linear model. Land Economics, 69, 83-92. Hellerstein, D. (1991). Using count data models in travel cost analysis with aggregate data. America Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73, 860-866. Hellerstein, D. (1989). The Use of Count Data Models in Travel Cost Analysis: An Application to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Ph.D dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Hellerstein, D., & Mendelsohn, R. (1993). A theoretical foundation for count data model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 604-61 1. Herriges, J. A., & Phaneuf, D. J. (2002). Inducing patterns of correlation and substitution in repeated logit models of recreation demand. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84, 1076-1090. ‘ Hill, B.J. (1993, September). The future of rural tourism. Park and Recreation, 28, 98- 123. Hjalager, A. (1996). Diversification in agricultural tourism: Evidence from a European community programme. Tourism Management, 15, 103-111. Hong, W.-C. (1998). Rural tourism: A case study of regional planning in Taiwan. (Food & Fertilizer Technology Center Report). Retrieved January 5, 2005, from http://www.fltc.agnetorg/libragL/abstrag/ebfi6.html Hu, C. (2002). Advanced Tourism Demand Forecasting: Artificial Neural Network and Box-Jenkins Modeling. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. 215 Hunt, J. D. (1992). Rural tourism: New focus on a traditional industry. Western Wildlands, 18, 2-3. Hwang, D.-Y,, Cho, Y.-S., & Kang, K.-H. (2003). Survey on the urban residents’ Intemet- site use of rural tourism. Journal of Tourism and Culture, 5, 329-344. Iwantoro, S. (1998). Rural Tourism - The impact on rural communities, 1. Indonesia (Food & Fertilizer Technology Center Report). Retrieved January 5, 2005, from http://www.fftc.agnet.org/li1LaIy/_article/eb45:8a.html J ang. K.-J. (2004). A study on alternatives to promoting green rural tourism in the Jeonbuk province. Journal of Tourism Policy, 16, 193-226. Jung, K. (2001). Policy of green tourism development for rural revitalization. Rural Economy, 24, 139-162. Jorgensen, F., & Solvall, G (1996). Demand models for inclusive tour charter: The Norwegian case. Tourism Management, 17, 17-24. Jung, K.-H. (2001). Policy orientation for green tourism to regenerate rural areas, Rural Economy, 24, 139-162. Jung, K.-H., Byun, H.-K., & Kim, K.-H. (2004). A study on the sustainability of agri- tourism in Korea. Journal of Tourism and Leisure, 16, 85-104. Kang, S. (2004) Rural tourism: Its diversity and distinctiveness. Report by Samsung Economic Research Institute. Seoul: Korea. Kieselbach, S. R., & Long, P. T. (1990, March). Tourism and the rural revitalization movement. Parks and Recreation, 25, 62-67. Kim, N.-J. (2004) Policy orientations for rural tourism: A consideration of the rural amenity concept and components of tourism phenomenon. Journal of Tourism Sciences, 28, 263-281. 216 Kim, K.-H., & Seo, S.-H. (2002). Urban Economy (2“ ed.). Seoul: Hongmunsa. Korea National Statistical Office. (2005). Trend of employment in Korea. Retrieved January 18, 2005. from http://kosis.n_so.go.kr/cgi- bin/sws 777pomcgi?A_REPORT ID=MA&A_CONTENTS=0501&A LANG=1 Korea National Statistical Office. (2001). Farm Household Economy Survey Report 2000. Seoul, Korea: Author. Korea National Tourism Organization. (2005). 2004 Annual Survey of General Household on Travel Behaviors (Project Report). Seoul, Korea: Author. Korea Rural Economic Institute. (2002). A Development Model of Green Tourism for Rural Revitalization and Its Practical Application (Project Report). Seoul, Korea: Author. Kulendran, N., & Witt, S. F. (2003). Forecasting the demand for international business tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 41, 265-271. Landscape Access Recreation. (2004). What is rural? Retrieved November 11, 2004, from http://www.countrvside.gfluk/LAR/Landscape/RandE/dataHub/useful_inforrna tion/URBANSETTdefn.asp Lane, B. (1994). What is rural tourism? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2, 7-21. Latham, J. (1998). Patterns of international tourism. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4, 45-52. Leem L., & Maddala, G (1985). The common structure of tests for selectivity bias, serial correlation, heteroscedasticity and non-normality in the Tobit model. International Economic Review, 26, 1-19. Lee, K.-J. (1996). A study on the introduction of green tourism in rural tourism planning in Korea. Journal of Tourism Policy, 2, 231-244. 217 Lewis, J. B. (1998, September). The development of rural tourism. Parks and Recreation, 33, 99-107. Li, G, Song, H., & Witt, S. F. (2004). Modeling tourism demand: A dynamic linear AIDS approach. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 141-150. Lim, C. (1999). A meta-analytic review of international tourism demand. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 273-284. Lim, C. (1997). Review of international tourism demand models. Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 835-849. Lobo, R. (2001). Helpful agricultural Tourism (Agri-tourism) Definitions. Retrieved October 28, 2004, from http://www.sfc.ucdavis.edu/agitourism/definition.html. Lohr, S. L. (1999). Sampling: Design and Analysis. Pacific Grove: Duxbury Press. Long, P. (1998). Rural Tourism Foundation Information Piece. Boulder: University of Colorado. Long. P., & Nuckolls, J. (1992). Rural tourism development: Balancing benefits and costs. Western Wildlands, 18, 9-13. Lutz, J., Englin, J ., & Shonkwiler, J. (2000). On the aggregate value of recreational activities: A nested price index approach using Poisson demand systems. Environmental and Resource Economics, 15, 217-226. Maddala, G. S. (1986). Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCracken, V. A., & Brandt, J. (1987). Household consumption of food-away-from- home: Total expenditure and by type of food facility. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69, 274-284. McDonald, J. F., & Moffitt, R. A. (1980). The uses of Tobit analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 62, 318-321. 218 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. (2004). Agricultural Census. Retrieved October 5, 2004. from http://kosis.nso.go.kr/cgi- bin/SWS_1020.cgi?KorEng=1&A_UNFOLD=1 &TableID=M'l;ATITLE&TitleI D=IA&FPub=3&UserID= Morlay, C. (1997). An evaluation of the use of ordinary least squares for estimating tourism demand models. Journal of Travel Research, 35, 69-73. Morley, C. (1991). Modeling international tourism demand: Model specification and structure. Journal of Travel Research, 30, 40-44. Mullahy, J. (1986). Specification and testing of some modified count data models. Journal of Econometrics, 33, 341-365. Nilsson, P. (2002). Staying on farms: An ideological background. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 7-24. Oppermann, M. (1996). Rural tourism in southern Germany. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 86-102. Park, E.-S. (2001). A Study of Value Improvement in Rural Area. Project Report by Korea Rural Economic Institute. Seoul: Korea. Park, H.-K. (2002). Rural tourism and extension service system: The Israeli case. Koran Journal of Agriculture Extension, 9, 161-171. Park, H.-K., Lee, S.-W., & Park, J .-Y. (2002). The evaluation of indicators for rural tourist farm with path analysis. Rural Society, 12, 75-102. Park, H.-K., Ryu, S.-H., & Lee, S.-W. (2001). A study on tourist farms and rural tourism development strategies in Korea. The Journal of Community Development, 26, 45-73. Park, S.-H. (2004). Revitalization of local economy by rural tourism. Research Report by Korea Research Institute of Human Settlements. Seoul, Korea. 219 Park, 8., Song, M., Sung, J ., Park, J. & Jang, M. (2003). Policies of rural tourism: In the case of United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Taiwan. Retrieved January 18, 2005, from http://www.krei.re.kfir/issue/index.php?vDown=read&vTop= 1 &erv=D1 72&vB id=d Portney, P. R., & Mullahy, J. (1986). Urban air quality and acute respiratory illness. Journal of Urban Economics, 20, 21-38. Qiu, H., & Zhang, J. (1995). Determinants of tourist arrivals and expenditures in Canada. Journal of Travel Research, 34, 43-49. Rattanasuwongchai, N. (1998). Rural tourism—The impact on rural communities: 11. Thailand. Seminar Report by Food & Fertilizer Technology Center. Taipei: Taiwan. Ribeiro, M., & Marques, C. (2002). Rural tourism and the development of less favored areas — between rhetoric and practice. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 211-220. Sharpley, R., & Roberts, L. (2004). Rural tourism — 10 years on. International Journal of Tourism Research, 6, 119-124. Shaw, D. G. (1988). On-site samples’ regression: Problems of non-negative integers, truncation, and endogenous stratification. Journal of Econometrics, 37, 211-223. Shaw, G, & Williams, A. M. (2002). Critical Issues in Tourism (2"d ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Sheldon, P., & Var, T. (1985). Tourism forecasting: A review of empirical research. Journal of Forecasting. 4, 183-195. Silberman, J. (1985). A demand function for length of stay: The evidence from Virginia beach. Journal of Travel Research, 23, 16-23. 220 Smeral, E. (1988). Tourism demand, economic theory and econometrics: An integrated approach. Journal of Travel Research, 26, 38-42. Smeral, E., & Witt, S. F. (1996). Econometric forecast: Tourism demand to 2005. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 891-907. Smeral E., Witt, S. F., & Witt, C. A. (1992). Econometric forecasts: Tourism trends to 2000. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 450-466. Song, H., & Witt, S. F. (2003). Tourism forecasting: The general-to-specific approach. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 65-74. Song, H., & Wong, K. K. F. (2003). Tourism demand modeling: A time-varying parameter approach. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 57-64. Stancliffe, A. (1992, August). Whose Green Tourism? World Magazine, 63, 82. Sumathi, N. R. (1990). An Analysis of the Influence of Advertising on Demand for Outdoor Recreation. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK. Syriopoulos, T. (1995). A dynamic model of demand for Mediterranean tourism. International Review of Applied Economics, 9, 318-336. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, F. S. (1989). Using Multivariate Statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Thomas, R., & Long, J. (2001). Tourism and economic regeneration: The role of skills development. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3, 229-240. Train, K. E. (1998). Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics, 74, 230-239. Turner, L., Kulendram, N., & Pergat, V. (1995). Forecasting New Zealand tourism demand with disaggregated data. Tourism Economics, 1, 51-69. 221 United States General Accounting Office. (1993). Rural development: Profile of rural areas. Retrieved November 11, 2004, from http://archivegao. gov/t2pbat6/ 149199.pdf - 2240.3KB Uysal, M., & Crompton, J. L. (1985). An overview of approaches used to forecast tourism demand. Journal of Travel Research, 23, 7-17. Uysal, M., & Roubi, S. M. (1999). Artificial neural networks versus multiple regression in tourism demand analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 111-118. Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary. (1998). ART FL Project: 1913 Webster 's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://hum_anities.uchicago.edu/orgs/ARTFL/forms unrest/webster.form.html Wilkerson, M. L. (1996). “Information for developers” Developing a rural tourism plan: The major publications. Economic Development Review, 14, 79. Willits, F. K., Bealer, R. C. & Timbers, V. L. (1990). Popular images of ‘Rurality’: Data from a Pennsylvania survey. Rural Sociology, 55, 559-578. Wilson, 8., Fesenmaier, D. R., Fesenmaier, J ., & Van Es, J. C. (2001). Factors for success in rural tourism development. Journal of Travel research, 40, 132-138. Witt, S. F., Newbould, G D. & Watkins, A. J. (1992). Forecasting domestic tourism demand: Application to Las Vegas arrivals data. Journal of Travel Research, 31, 36-41. Witt, S. F., Song, H., & Louvieris, P. (2003). Statistical testing in forecasting model selection. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 151-158. Witt, S. F., Sykes, A. M., & Dartus, M. (1995). Forecasting international conference attendance. Tourism Management, 16, 559-570. Witt, S. F. & Witt, C. (1992). Modeling and Forecasting Demand in Tourism. London: Academic Press. 222 Wooldridge, J. M. (2003). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach (2nd ed.). Cincinnati: South-Westem College Publish. Yahoo Korea Dictionary. (2004). Yahoo Korea Dictionary. Retrieved November 11, 2004, from http://kr.dic.vahoocom/search/eng/search.html?p=rural+&condition%5B%5D= l &condition%5B%5D=2&condition%SB%5D=3&condition%5B%5D=4&x=2 4&5—4 Yoo, S., & Choi. D. (2001). Characteristics of policy for green tourism in Japan. Rural Economy, 24, 47-62. Zalatan, A., & Burge, R. (1980). The future of US. international tourism: Some neglected factors. Journal of Travel Research, 16, 15-19. 223 uaijmij‘jjjinjjijji”align: