Memorable Experiences in Slow Tourism An Empirical Investigation of Camping

Alessandro M. Peluso, Virginia Barbarossa, Verdiana Cbieffi, and Gianluigi Guido

1. Introduction

Camping is a form of tourism in which tourists stay in strict connection with nature. In Europe, 12% of all nights spent in tourist accommodations in 2017 were spent at campsites (Eurostat, 2019). Camping entails a wide set of activities that are typically performed at a slow pace (Brooker &c Joppe, 2013), such as sport activities, hiking, socializing with other tourists and local people, and staying in strict contact with the local culture (Mikulic, Prebezac, Seric & Kresic, 2017; Moira, Mylono- poulos & Kondoudaki, 2017). As such, camping falls within the conceptual domain of slow tourism (Blichfeldt & Mikkelsen, 2015), which is a contemporary phenomenon characterized by tourists’ tendency to travel, stay in a destination, and visit places at a decelerated pace (Dickinson & Lumsdon, 2010). Slow tourism is the opposite of traveling with the fastest transportations available, taking a quick look at tourist attractions, and staying in a destination for very short periods. In contrast, slow tourists love to move from one place to another slowly (e.g., by walking or bicycling), remain in a destination for long enough to discover its unique aspects, and immerse themselves in local traditions and culture—all in an effort to enrich themselves as human beings (Oh, Assaf & Baloglu, 2016). Given this desire to inhabit places rather than merely visit them, it is feasible to consider camping, and the broader concept of slow tourism, as humanistic.

This chapter presents an empirical investigation of camping, with the aim of bolstering the body of studies that adopt a humanistic perspective on tourism. Derived from humanist philosophy (Caton, 2016), such a perspective has emerged in business management (Mele, 2003) and the tourism industry (Botterill, 1989) in order to postulate that human development should be the ultimate goal of economic activities. In tourism, a humanistic perspective essentially means that the primary goal of tourist studies should be understanding how tourism can contribute to the satisfaction of human needs, the development of human values, and the achievemenr of happiness and well-being. Consistent with this view, the empirical study presented herein served two objectives. One was to assess the dimensions of camping that could arouse positive feelings (e.g., enjoyment, satisfaction), stimulate human intellect and culture, and ultimately transform tourists’ holidays at campsites into unforgettable experiences that contribute to campers' human development. The other objective was to identify those experiential dimensions that might increase campers’ positive responses in terms of satisfaction, positive word of mouth, and likelihood of repeating the experience in the future.

In the following section, the chapter illustrates the phenomenon of slow tourism. The third section describes outdoor tourism with a special focus on camping, while the fourth section introduces the concept of memorable tourism experience. The fifth section summarizes the research objectives. The sixth section presents the empirical study by illustrating the followed methodology and the results obtained from statistical analysis. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the empirical findings and their implications for scholars, managers, and policy-makers.

2. Slow Tourism

Slow tourism has emerged as a new form of tourism that is often considered a sustainable alternative to mass tourism (Fullagar, Markwell & Wilson, 2012). It has developed in response to recent environmental and societal issues, such as climate change, pollution, and stressful lifestyles, which make people feel powerless, out of control, and dehumanized (Frey & George, 2010; Howard, 2012; O’Regan, 2012; Parkins, 2004). More philosophically, the development of slow tourism could be seen as reflecting modern societies’ increasing emphasis on an inner dimension of sustainability (Horlings, 2015; Jullien, 2018), which refers to all those personal beliefs and values (e.g., harmony with nature, universalism, etc.) that could hopefully lead individuals to change the world for the better by changing themselves. Slow tourism indeed shares the basic principles that drive similar phenomena, such as slow food and slow consumption (Petrini, 2001; Pietrykowski, 2004), which revolve around the idea that a decelerated lifestyle is more compatible with environmental sustainability, subjective happiness, and societal well-being (Hall, 2009; Lums- don &c McGrath, 2011).

Despite researchers’ broad awareness of this topic, there is a lack of consensus in the literature about the conceptualization of slow tourism. While some scholars have defined slow tourism in terms of traveling, others have emphasized the motivational and attitudinal aspects of tourists’ experiences. For instance, in the first strand of literature, Dickinson and Lumsdon (2010) defined it as a form of tourism in which tourists travel slowly from one destination to another, stay in a destination longer than usual, and consider the travel itself to be an essential part of their experience. As a result, slow tourism seems more compatible with environmental values (e.g., naturalness) and subjective wellness (e.g., relaxation) than other forms of tourism rooted in hasty traveling and a lack of time when visiting places (Moore, 2012). In the second stream of literature, Oh et al. (2016) proposed a conceptualization around the inner aspects of slow tourism, defining it as an experience in which tourists travel at a mentally slow pace—independently of the speed and manner of transportation—to satisfy intrinsic motivations and attain personal goals. According to Oh et al. (2016), the motivations for undertaking a slow tourism experience include relaxation (i.e., a tourist’s desire to feel free of stress and anxiety), self-reflection (i.e., the tourist’s desire to experience a sense of connection to the self), escape (i.e., a desire to feel disconnected from daily routines), novelty-seeking (i.e., a desire for newness and adventure when visiting new places), engagement (i.e., a desire to feel a sense of enjoyment and involvement when traveling), and discovery (i.e., a desire to derive pleasure from learning and understanding new things and ways of life). Personal goals connected to a slow tourism experience may include revitalization (i.e., the extent to which tourists feel reinvigorated and recharged after a holiday) and self-enrichment (i.e., the extent to which tourists are inspired and rediscover themselves) (Oh et al., 2016).

Slow tourism incorporates relevant experiential dimensions, such as sightseeing and immersing oneself in the local landscape (Heitmann, Robinson & Povey, 2011; Lumsdon Sc McGrath, 2011), interaction with residents and places (Dickinson & Lumsdon, 2010; Dickinson, Lumsdon & Robbins, 2011), spending time learning about places and local cultures (Moira et al., 2017), and living at a slower pace (Parkins Sc Craig, 2006). Recognizing this experiential component, many destinations such as Italy (Haupt, 2017) have been investing increasing amounts of resources to develop slow tourism and attract tourists with higher levels of spending power, environmental conscientiousness, and attention to authentic local cultures and traditions.

3. Outdoor Tourism and Camping

Outdoor tourism is a typical example of slow tourism (Dwyer Sc Edwards, 2000). It comprises those forms of tourism where most recreational activities occur in open-air environments. Outdoor tourism experiences typically incorporate adventure recreational activities that directly connect tourists to the natural environment, taking them away from stress, anxiety, and time pressure (Coghlan Sc Buckley, 2012; New- some, Moore Sc Dowling, 2002; Weber, 2001). Such experiences include fishing, trekking, landscape watching, bicycling, and camping (Coghlan, 2007; Brooker Sc Joppe, 2013), which allow tourists to escape from daily life routines and savor a slower, more deliberate connection with nature.

Camping, the focal point of this study, is a typical outdoor tourism experience whereby tourists spend most of their time in wilderness or rural settings in strict connection with the natural environment (Brooker & Joppe, 2013). Thus, camping is a good example of slow tourism as it normally involves a decelerated life pace (Blichfeldt &c Mikkelsen, 2015). This is not only because campers often lack access to modern high-speed technologies and services (e.g., fiber Internet connection, high-speed transportations) but also because they have opportunities to stay longer in campsites and devote enough time to discover natural attractions, play sport activities, and learn about local cultures and traditions, all while away from daily routines and stressful obligations.

Camping has witnessed substantial growth in recent times (Mikulic et al., 2017). In Italy, for instance, camping has developed substantially over the past few years in quantity and quality. In terms of quantity, Italy now claims 14% of all nights spent in campsites in the EU, which is the second-largest total in Europe (Eurostat, 2019). As for quality, Italian campsites have been increasingly recognized for the high quality of their infrastructures, services, and locations [II Sole 24 Ore, 27 July 2017). In the wake of slow tourism, modern campsites have started offering differentiated and high-quality services that allow campers to live unique experiences, for example, by practicing sport activities and doing excursions along natural and historical attractions. Thanks to this evolution, camping is no longer considered an inexpensive temporary sojourn for tourists with limited budgets; rather, it is a niche tourism sector for certain tourists who seek authentic nature-based experiences, social interaction, and personal invigoration (Brooker & Joppe, 2014; Garst, Williams & Roggenbuck, 2010).

As camping has grown, so has scholarly interest in the topic. Past studies have investigated different strategic aspects of camping, such as campers’ judgments of individual campsite attributes (Mikulic et al., 2017; Van Heerden, 2010), their satisfaction with campsites in general (Hardy, Ogunmokun &c Winter, 2005; O’Neill, Riscinto & Hvfte, 2010), their perception of campsite pricing strategies (Park, Ellis, Kim &c Prideaux, 2010), and how camping might serve regional repositioning purposes (Grzinic, Zarkovic & Zanketic, 2010). To date, only a few studies have investigated the experiential meanings that campers attribute to camping, but they generally support the idea that this form of tourism can contribute to human development and well-being. For instance, Garst et al. (2010) conducted a qualitative investigation on US campers that found that the most relevant meanings associated with this form of tourism are: restoration (i.e., relief from stress and anxiety), special places (i.e., places that evoke traditions and memories), family functioning (i.e., social and constructive interaction among family members), experiencing nature (i.e., staying in strict contact with the natural environment), self-identity (i.e., expressing self-related aspects), social interaction (i.e., socializing with others), and children learning (i.e., providing kids with learning opportunities). In a more general study on nature-based tourism, Breiby (2014) found that certain aesthetic components may enrich tourists’ experiences. Specifically, her findings indicated that feeling a sense of harmony with nature and viewing beautiful landscapes are particularly relevant to fostering tourists’ perceptions of extraordinary experiences.

Although interesting, the aforementioned findings do not provide a complete description of camping experiences. To satisfy this goal, we adopt and discuss the theoretical framework developed by Kim, Ritchie and McCormick (2012): the memorable tourism experience model.

4. Tourist Experience and Memorable Tourism Experience

Over the past few decades, modern economies have shifted from standardized production to customization (Breiby, 2014; Pine &c Gilmore, 1999), whereby companies increasingly offer personalized solutions (i.e., products with integrated services). These solutions have often been designed around consumers’ needs, which has had the effect of modifying their expectations and desires, as well as shaping their consumption experiences (Guido, 1992, 1998, 2014). Against this backdrop, scholars from different disciplines have committed more attention to studying consumption experience (Addis, 2005). In the marketing domain, some scholars have defined this construct as consumers’ holistic perception about their whole interaction with a product, service, or brand, beyond the moment of mere purchase and usage (Guido, Bassi & Peluso, 2010; Peluso, 2011). Adopting a more psychological perspective, others have regarded consumption experience as a multidimensional concept that encompasses both rational and emotional aspects. For instance, in line with Holbrook and Hirschman’s (1982) seminal work about the critical role of emotions in consumption (e.g., fun, pleasure), Schmitt (1999, 2011) looked at the consumption experience as a complex internal reaction that comprises sensory, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses. Building on this view, Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello (2009) developed a model that conceptualizes consumption experience with a product, service, or brand as a four-dimensional construct, which comprises a sensory dimension (i.e., the intensity with which a product, service, or brand stimulates senses), an affective dimension (i.e., the extent to which it arouses emotional feelings), a behavioral dimension (i.e., the extent to which it induces actions), and an intellectual dimension (i.e., the intensity with which it activates rational thinking).

An interesting contribution in this area of inquiry has been the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary experiences. While the former typically occur routinely within everyday life (e.g., eating), extraordinary experiences occur less frequently yet are far more emotionally intense, engaging, and transcendent, and thus completely immersive for the experiencing consumer (e.g., enjoying a holiday in a luxury resort or an excursion in a natural park) (Саш & Cova, 2006; Schmitt, 2011). Consumer research (Arnould &c Price, 1993; Bhattacharjee &c Mogilner, 2013; Lind- berg & 0stergaard, 2015) has found that extraordinary experiences can be humanistic (i.e., transformative for individuals) insofar as they can generate enduring memories, increase happiness, and stimulate personal growth.

The concept of extraordinary consumption experience is particularly suitable for describing tourism activities, which are experiential and exceptional in nature. Indeed, tourism research (e.g., Kim et al., 2012; Oh, Fiore &t Jeong, 2007) has often drawn from the marketing literature to describe tourism experiences. In line with the notion of extraordinary experience, tourists’ vacations often involve intensive activities that produce a feeling of complete immersion and, subsequently, long-last memories. Based on this reasoning, Kim et al. (2012) introduced the concept of memorable tourism experience, defined as an experience that tourists can positively remember for an indefinite time after it has occurred (see also Tung & Ritchie, 2011). Their work postulates that delivering memorable tourism experiences is critical to encouraging future revisits and positive word of mouth. Moreover, memories of such experiences seem particularly effective at fostering human development, as they can activate transformative processes that increase happiness and well-being (Sthapit & Coudounaris, 2018).

Of course, not all tourism experiences are unforgettable in a positive way; to activate good memories, they should have certain characteristics. Kim et al. (2012) empirically validated a model that conceptualizes memorable tourism experience through seven different dimensions that can independently contribute to unforgettable and extraordinary experiences. These seven dimensions included hedonism (i.e., the extent to which a tourist’s experience is enjoyable and exciting), novelty (i.e., the extent to which the experience is perceived as unique), local culture (i.e., the extent to which it conveys positive impressions about local people and culture), refreshment (i.e., the extent to which it is perceived as liberating and revitalizing), meaningfulness (i.e., the extent to which it is self-relevant), involvement (i.e., the extent to which it meets the actual interests of tourists), and knowledge (i.e., the extent to which it allows tourists to enrich their knowledge).

5. Research Objectives

The foregoing discussion implies that there are positive consequences, both humanistically and managerially, to offering tourists the opportunity to live memorable experiences. From a humanistic perspective, such experiences are likely to increase personal happiness and well-being.

240 Alessandro M. Peluso, et al.

Figure 13.1 Theoretical framework Source: Authors’ own elaboration

Managerially, such experiences might lead to positive outcomes for the tourist attraction or destination, such as personal revisits or spreading positive information to others. Yet, despite increasing attention among scholars, the construct of memorable tourism experience has never been applied to a specific setting like camping. Therefore, the empirical study presented later in the chapter is the first to adopt Kim et al.’s (2012) model to describe camping experiences, with the final aim of contributing to the emerging humanist perspective on tourism.

Specifically, the study served two objectives: The first was to assess the dimensions of camping experience by adopting Kim et al.’s (2012) framework. In doing so, the study provides a better understanding of camping experiences and, more specifically, those dimensions that could render tourists’ experiences at campsites as extraordinary and unforgettable. The second objective was to understand which experiential dimensions may lead to campers’ positive responses in terms of satisfaction, positive word of mouth, and likelihood of repeating the experience in the future. Figure 13.1 summarizes the theoretical framework that underlies these objectives and the empirical study that follows.

• 6. Methodology
• 6.1 Sample Description

The study was conducted at a campsite in Apulia, South of Italy (Figure 13.2), which is among the top regions in Italy in terms of tourist campsite visits (ISTAT, 2016). The examined campsite is located on the

Figure 13.2 Apulia region, Italy Source: Authors’ own elaboration

west coast of Apulia and offers different services and accommodation solutions at differentiated price levels.

The data were collected by administering an online questionnaire to an initial sample of 589 campers, who were randomly selected from a list of campers who spent at least one vacation at the studied campsite. Among the 589 campers who received the questionnaire via e-mail, 438 (65% males, 35% females; M_Agc = 49.23, SD_Age = 11.25) participated in the survey (response rate = 74.36%). These 438 campers constituted the final sample, although 15 were subsequently removed from some statistical analyses because of skipping at least one question regarding the constructs of interest. The sample included campers with a different number of prior experiences with the campsite: 38% of respondents reported that they had only stayed one time in that campsite before, 14% reported that they had stayed two times, 14% three or four times, 18% five to ten times, and 16% more than ten times. Most respondents (67%) reported that they had stayed there with family (or their partner), 29% stayed with both family and friends, 3% with friends, and 1% stayed alone. Regarding the area of residence, 86% of respondents were Italian, and 14% were international tourists. Among the Italian respondents, 63% lived in Northern Italy, 13% lived in Central Italy, and 24% in Southern Italy. Among the international respondents, 74% came from EU countries and 26% from non-EU countries.

6.2 The Questionnaire

The questionnaire featured four sections. The first section comprised a set of introductory questions asking respondents to indicate: how often they had previously stayed at that campsite for holiday reasons, using a five-point scale (1 = one time, 2 = two times, 3 = three or four times, 4 = five to ten times, 5 = more than ten times); and with whom they usually stayed there, using a four-point nominal scale (1 = 1 stayed alone, 2 = with my family, 3 = with friends, 4 = with both family and friends).

The second section of the questionnaire included an adapted version of the memorable tourism experience scale (Kim et al., 2012), which comprised 25 statements regarding the respondents’ experience with the campsite. Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with each of those statements on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). Table 13.1 reports the list of those statements, associated with the seven dimensions of the assessed construct, along with descriptive statistics computed for each item. For each dimension, Table 13.1 also reports the Cronbach’s a index, which is a measure of the degree of consistency among the respective items. Cronbach’s a indices were all higher than 0.8; thus, the items assessing each of the seven dimensions could be averaged to obtain a composite measure of that dimension.

The third section of the questionnaire included one question regarding respondents’ overall satisfaction with their camping experience, which was adapted from Magi (2003) and assessed on an 11-point scale (i.e., “How satisfied are you with your whole experience during your stay at that campsite?”; 0 = not at all satisfied, 10 = completely satisfied). Three questions assessed the respondents’ tendency to share positive information about their camping experiences. The first question was derived from Reichheld (2003) and assessed recommendation likelihood on an 11-point scale (i.e., “How likely is it that you will recommend a holiday at that campsite to your friends, relatives, and/or colleagues?”; 0 = very unlikely, 10 = very likely). Two additional questions, assessed on an 11-point scale, supplemented the former by measuring respondents’

Table 13.1 Adapted version of the memorable tourism experience scale

N = 438.

Source: Authors’ own elaboration

propensity to share electronic word of mouth (i.e., “How often have you shared digital contents, such as photos or video, regarding your stay at that campsite on social media like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or Whatsapp?”; “How often have you written reviews regarding your stay at that campsite on the Internet?”; 0 = never, 10 = very often). As these three items reached an acceptable level of internal consistency (a = 0.70), their scores were aggregated to obtain a composite measure of respondents’ propensity to share positive word of mouth. This section of the questionnaire also included a question adapted from Morgan and Rego (2006), which asked respondents to indicate, on an 11-point scale, their degree of loyalty toward the campsite, in terms of their likelihood of spending another holiday at the campsite (i.e., “How likely is it that you will spend another holiday at that campsite during the next two years?”; 0 = very unlikely, 10 = very likely). The fourth section concluded the questionnaire with socio-demographic questions regarding respondents’ age, gender, and area of residence.

6.3 Statistical Analysis

We began the statistical analysis by generating descriptive statistics for the assessed variables. First, we averaged the items assessing each of the seven dimensions characterizing the memorable tourism experience construct to obtain a composite measure of that dimension. The descriptive statistics computed at a dimensional level indicated that refreshment (M = 5.93, SD = 1.34) and local culture (M = 5.48, SD = 1.30) were the most relevant dimensions. Hedonism (M = 5.12, SD = 1.27), involvement {M = 4.88, SD = 1.51), novelty (M = 4.72, SD = 1.46), and meaningfulness (M = 4.64, SD = 1.49) were moderately relevant. Knowledge was the least relevant (M = 4.21, SD = 1.59). These preliminary findings suggest that respondents perceived their camping experience as an opportunity to feel a sense of freedom or revitalization, as well as to immerse themselves in local cultures and traditions.

We also computed descriptive statistics regarding respondents’ degree of satisfaction, propensity to share positive word of mouth, and likelihood of spending another holiday at the campsite. The results indicated that, on average, respondents were very satisfied with their camping experiences (M = 9.31; SD = 1.85), moderately inclined to share positive word of mouth (M = 6.76; SD = 2.19), and likely to spend another holiday at the campsite over the subsequent two years (M = 8.95; SD = 2.61).

As a second step of the statistical analysis, we computed bivariate correlations among all variables. The results summarized in Table 13.2 show that all correlation coefficients were positive and significant {ps < 0.001). Thus, we adopted a regression-based analytical approach to understand which of the seven dimensions characterizing memorable tourism experience were critical to determining respondents’ reactions.

Specifically, we estimated the linear relationship among each of the seven dimensions of memorable tourism experience, on one hand, and each of three measures (respondents’ satisfaction, positive word of mouth, and likelihood to revisit), on the other hand. In total, we conducted three multiple regression analyses using the seven memorable tourism experience dimensions as independent variables. Each of the three analyses was accompanied by one dependent variable—respectively, respondents’ satisfaction, propensity to share positive word of mouth, and likelihood of revisiting. Table 13.3 summarizes the results of the three regression analyses.

In the first analysis, we regressed respondents’ degree of satisfaction on the seven memorable tourism experience dimensions. The results showed that hedonism (b = 0.40, p < 0.001), local culture (b = 0.14,

Table 13.2 Bivariate correlations among relevant variables

N = 438.^a N = 423 (15 cases were removed from the sample of 438 respondents because of missing values on the corresponding variables). HED = Hedonism; NOV = Novely; LC = Local culture; REF = Refreshment; MEA = Meaningfulness; INV = Involvement; KNO = Knowledge; SOD = Satisfaction; PWOM = Propensity to share positive word of mouth (WOM); LIK = Likelihood of spending another holiday at the campsite. All correlations are significant at a 0.001 level.

Source: Authors’ own elaboration

Table 13.3 Results of the regression analyses

» A total of 15 cases were removed from the sample of 438 respondents because of missing values on the corresponding variables. * significance at a 0.05 level; ** significance at a 0.01 level; *** significance at a 0.001 level.

Source: Authors’ own elaboration p < 0.05), and refreshment (b = 0.71, p < 0.001) were positively related to satisfaction. In the second analysis, we regressed respondents’ propensity to share positive word of mouth on those dimensions, showing that hedonism (b = 0.36, p < 0.01) and local culture (b = 0.25, p < 0.05) were positively related to positive word of mouth. In the third analysis, we regressed respondents’ likelihood of spending another holiday at the campsite on the seven memorable tourism experience dimensions, showing that local culture (b = 0.23, p = 0.05) and refreshment (b = 0.69, p < 0.001) were positively related to that dependent variable.

7. General Discussion and Conclusion

This chapter presented an empirical study that investigated the factors that transform campers’ holidays into memorable tourism experiences. To this end, we adopted Kim et al.’s (2012) model to assess the critical dimensions and then estimated the relationship between each dimension and campers’ reaction in terms of satisfaction, positive word of mouth, and likelihood of repeating the experience. According to the results, the main aspects that render a camping experience as memorable are a sense of refreshment in campers, a strict interaction with local people and culture, and a general feeling of enjoyment. These three dimensions are also critical to increasing campers’ satisfaction, propensity for sharing positive word of mouth, and likelihood of revisiting the campsite during a future holiday.

7.1 Implications

From a theoretical perspective, this work is the first to look at camping from a humanistic perspective—that is, as a common form of slow tourism that has the potential to promote human development. Camping does indeed allow tourists to experience time and space at a decelerated pace and in strict connection with the natural environment and local people, away from the fast and stressful pace of daily routine. Camping experiences can sometimes be unforgettable and extraordinary (Arnould & Price, 1993; Bhattacharjee & Mogilner, 2013), which can then activate internal transformative processes that lead individual campers to change themselves for the better. The results support the idea that camping experiences are memorable, especially when they convey a sense of refreshment, allow campers to interact with local people and culture, and promote enjoyment.

From an operational perspective, this study has implications for managers and policy-makers. Campsite managers could leverage our findings to deliver unique and unforgettable camping experiences. For instance, campsite managers should convey in campers a sense of refreshment and freedom; give them the opportunity to interact with local people, traditions, and culture; and try to ensure their enjoyment and excitement. Operationally, managers could organize their campsites and differentiate their services in accordance with the aforementioned goals. Meanwhile, policy-makers might leverage our results in redesigning and repositioning tourist destinations. Camping tourism has clear sustainability and humanistic connotations, insofar as campers can live in destinations at a slow pace and in close connection with the natural environment, the local culture, and the self. Therefore, policy-makers interested in fostering a sustainable and humanistic development of tourist destinations could invest resources into camping promotions. Of course, this does not mean that policy-makers should allow campsites to proliferate without control; rather, they should do their best to create good conditions—in terms of infrastructures and regulations—that preserve the inherent connotations and humanistic nature of camping.

7.2 Limitations and Future Research Directions

The study presented in this chapter has some limitations that offer opportunities for future research. First, the data were collected from a single campsite in Apulia (Southern Italy). Therefore, notwithstanding their statistical significance, the results should be generalized with caution. Future studies could replicate the study in other campsites in other geographical areas; they could also verify whether the findings obtained in this study are gener- alizable to other forms of slow tourism (e.g., summer homes or cottages).

Second, the study did not analyze the role of individual differences among campers, which might moderate the relationship between the experiential dimensions of camping and campers’ reactions. Future studies could do this by assessing personality traits, values, cultural background, and the like, and then using such measures as moderators in the statistical analysis. They could also collect data from multiple campsites to examine the potential moderating effects of campsite-related differences such as geographical location, type of services offered, and so on.

Finally, future studies could combine quantitative methods with qualitative research techniques (e.g., in-depth interviews) to gain a deeper understanding of campers’ experiences. Such research might produce new insights about how people actually connect camping to the values of freedom, happiness, nature, sociality, and culture.

References

Addis, M. (2005). L’esperienza di consumo: Analisi e prospettive di marketing. Milan: Pearson.

Arnould, E. J., 5c Price, L. L. (1993). River magic: Extraordinary experience and the extended service encounter. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 24-45. Bhattacharjee, A., 5c Mogilner, C. (2013). Happiness from ordinary and extraordinary experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 1-17.

Blichfeldt, B. S., 5c Mikkelsen, M. V. (2015). Camping tourism. In J. Jafari 5c H.

Xiao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of tourism (pp. 1-2). New York: Springer.

Botterill, D. T. (1989). Humanistic tourism? Personal construction of a tourist: Sam visits Japan. Leisure Studies, 8(3), 281-293. doi: 10.1080/02614368900390281

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, J. H., 5c Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52-68.

Breiby, M. A. (2014). Exploring aesthetic dimensions in a nature-based tourism context. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 20(2), 163-173.

Brooker, E., 5c Joppe, M. (2013). Trends in camping and outdoor hospitality— An international review. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 3, 1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2013.04.005

Brooker, E., &c Joppe, M. (2014). A critical review of camping research and direction for future studies. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 20(4), 335-351.

Card, A., Sc Cova, B. (2006). How to facilitate immersion in a consumption experience: Appropriation operations and service elements. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 5(1), 4-14.

Caton, K. (2016). A humanist paradigm for tourism studies? Envisioning a collective alternative to epistemic literalism. In A. M. Munar 5c T. Jamal (Eds.), Tourism research paradigms: Critical and emergent knowledges (Vol. 22, pp. 35-56). Bingley: Emerald.

Coghlan, A. (2007). Towards an integrated image-based typology of volunteer tourism organizations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(3), 267-287.

Coghlan, A., Sc Buckley, R. C. (2012). Nature-based tourism. In A. Holden 5c D. Fennell (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of tourism and the environment (pp. 334-344). London: Routledge.

Dickinson, J. E., 5c Lumsdon, L. M. (2010). Slow travel and tourism. London: Earthscan.

Dickinson, J. E., Lumsdon, L. M., 5c Robbins, D. (2011). Slow travel: Issues for tourism and climate change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(3), 281-300.

Dwyer, L., 5c Edwards, D. (2000). Nature-based tourism on the edge of urban development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8(4), 267-287.

Eurostat. (2019). Thinking of going camping this summer? Retrieved July 16, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN- 20190613-1

Frey, N., 5c George, R. (2010). Responsible tourism management: The missing link between business owners’ attitudes and behaviour in the cape town tourism industry. Tourism Management, 31(5), 621-628.

Fullagar, S., Markwell, K., 5c Wilson, E. (2012). Slow tourism: Experiences and mobilities. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Garst, B. A., Williams, D. R., Sc Roggenbuck, J. W. (2010). Exploring early twenty-first century developed forest camping experiences and meanings. Leisure Sciences, 32(1), 90-107.

Grzinic, J., Zarkovic, A., 5c Zanketic, P. (2010). Positioning of tourism in central Dalmatia through the development of camping tourism. International Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(3), 525-535.

Guido, G. (1992). What U.S. marketers should consider in planning a pan- European approach. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 9(2), 29-33.

Guido, G. (1998). Consumers as products: An alternative approach to the customer-orientation concept. In D. Kantarelis (Ed.), Business and economics for the 21th century (Vol. 2, pp. 39-45). Worcester: Business 5c Economics Society International.

Guido, G. (2014). Customer satisfaction. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of management, Marketing (Vol. 9, pp. 139-147). New York: Wiley.

Guido, G., Bassi, E, & Peluso, A. M. (2010). La soddisfazione del consuma- tore: la misura della customer satisfaction nelle esperienze di consume. Milan: Franco Angeli.

Hall, С. M. (2009). Degrowing tourism: Decroissance, sustainable consumption and steady-state tourism. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(1), 46-61.

Hardy, T., Ogunmokun, G., Sc Winter, C. (2005). An exploratory study of factors influencing campers, level of loyalty to camping sites in the tourism industry. In Proceedings of the 19tb Australian and New Zealand academy of management conference (pp. 1-11). Canberra, Australia: Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management.

Haupt, T. (2017). Italy to focus more on slow tourism. Tourism Review News. Retrieved July 16, 2019, from www.tourism-review.com/slow-tourism-is-the- trend-in-italy-news 103 72

Heitmann, S., Robinson, R, Sc Povey, G. (2011). Slow food, slow cities, and slow tourism. In P. Robinson, S. Heitmann, Sc P. Dieke (Eds.), Research themes for tourism (pp. 114-127). London: MPG Books Group.

Holbrook, M. B., Sc Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140.

Horlings, L. G. (2015). The inner dimension of sustainability: Personal and cultural values. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 163-169. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.006

Howard, C. (2012). Speeding up and slowing down: Pilgrimage and slow travel through time. In S. Fullagar, K. Markwell, &: E. Wilson (Eds.), Slow tourism: Experiences and mobilities (pp. 11-24). Bristol: Channel View Publications.

II Sole 24 Ore. (2017). Campeggi al top in Italia. Le strutture premiate per sport, ristorazione, wellness. Retrieved July 16, 2019, from www.ilsole24ore. com/art/campeggi-top-italia-strutture-premiate-sport-ristorazione-wellness- AE5W6c3B?refresh_ce=l

ISTAT. (2016). Presenze nei campeggi e villaggi turistici in Italia per regione. Retrieved July 16, 2019, from www.datiopen.it/it/opendata/Presenze_nei_ campeggi_e_villaggi_turistici_in_italia_per_regione

Jullien, F. (2018). Living off landscape, or the un-thought of in reason. Lanham, MD: Rowman Sc Littlefield International.

Kim, J. H., Ritchie, J. B., Sc McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 12-25.

Lindberg, E, Sc Ostergaard, P. (2015). Extraordinary consumer experiences: Why immersion and transformation cause trouble. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(4), 248-260.

Lumsdon, L. M., Sc McGrath, P. (2011). Developing a conceptual framework for slow travel: A grounded theory approach, journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(3), 265-279.

Magi, A. W. (2003). Share of wallet in retailing: The effects of customer satisfaction, loyalty cards and shopper characteristics. Journal of Retailing, 79, 97-106. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00008-3

Mele, D. (2003). The challenge of humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 77-88. doi:10.1023/A:1023298710412

Mikulic, J., Prebezac, D., Seric, M., 5c Kresic, D. (2017). Campsite choice and the camping tourism experience: Investigating decisive campsite attributes using relevance-determinance analysis. Tourism Management, 59, 226-233. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.07.020

Moira, P., Mylonopoulos, D., 5c Kondoudaki, A. (2017). The application of slow movement to tourism: Is slow tourism a new paradigm? Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies, 2(2), 1-10.

Moore, K. (2012). On the periphery of pleasure: Hedonics, eudaimonics, and slow travel. In S. Fullagar, K. Markwell, 5c E. Wilson (Eds.), Slow tourism: Experiences and mobilities (pp. 25-35). Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Morgan, N. A., 5c Rego, L. L. (2006). The value of different customer satisfaction and loyalty metrics in predicting business performance. Marketing Science, 25(5), 426-439.

Newsome, D., Moore, S. A., 5c Dowling, R. K. (2002). Natural area tourism: Ecology, impacts and management. Clevedon and Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Oh, H., Assaf, A. G., 5c Baloglu, S. (2016). Motivations and goals of slow tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 55(2), 205-219.

Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., 5c Jeong, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: Tourism applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119-132.

O’Neill, M., Riscinto, K., 5c Hyfte, M. (2010). Defining visitor satisfaction in the context of camping oriented nature based tourism—The driving force of quality. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16(2), 141-156.

O’Regan, M. (2012). Alternative mobility cultures and the resurgence of hitch— hiking. In S. Fullagar, K. Markwell, 5c E. Wilson (Eds.), Slow tourism: Experiences and mobilities (pp. 128-142). Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Park, J., Ellis, G. D., Kim, S. S., 5c Prideaux, B. (2010). An investigation of perceptions of social equity and price acceptability judgments for campers in the U.S. national forest. Tourism Management, 31(2), 202-212.

Parkins, W. (2004). Out of time: Fast subjects and slow living. Time and Society, 13(2-3), 363-382.

Parkins, W., 5c Craig, G. (2006). Slow living. Oxford: Berg Publishers.

Peluso, A. M. (2011). Consumer satisfaction: Advancements in theory, modeling, and empirical findings. Bern: Peter Lang.

Petrini, C. (2001). Slow food: The case for taste. New York: Columbia University Press.

Pietrykowski, B. (2004). You are what you eat: The social economy of the slow food movement. Review of Social Economy, 62(3), 307-321.

Pine, B. J., 5c Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 46-55.

Schmitt, B. (1999). Experiential marketing. New York: Free Press.

Schmitt, B. (2011). Experience marketing: Concepts, frameworks and consumer insights. Foundations and Trends in Marketing, 5(2), 55-112.

Sthapit, E., 5c Coudounaris, D. N. (2018). Memorable tourism experiences: Antecedents and outcomes. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 18(1), 72-94.

Tung, V. W. S., 5c Ritchie, J. R. B. (2011). Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 35(4), 1367-1386.

Van Heerden, С. H. (2010). An exploratory analysis of leisure caravanning in the Kruger national park in South Africa. Innovative Marketing, 6(1), 66-72. Weber, K. (2001). Outdoor adventure tourism: A review of research approaches. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2), 360-377.