International Perceptions of Risk in Adventure Tourism Experiences
By
Trevor D. Jones
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standards:
_________________________________________
Jon Heshka (Ph.D.), Thesis Supervisor, Dept. Adventure Studies
_________________________________________
Anne Terwiel, (Ph.D.), Dept. of Tourism Management
__________________________________________
Paul Clark, (Ph.D.), Dept. of Economics
__________________________________________
Kellee Caton, (Ph.D.), Dept. of Tourism Management
__________________________________________

Annette Dominik (Ph.D.), Co-ordinator, Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Studies

Dated this 22rd day of April 2020, in Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada

Acknowledgements
Thank you to my parents Malcolm and Beth for giving me the opportunity to pursue a postsecondary education I am passionate about. Thank you to my supervisor Jon Heshka for your
guidance and expertise in helping me accomplish this project. I would also like to thank my
readers Anne Terwiel, Kellee Caton and Paul Clark whom all provided the right support and
direction when necessary. Lastly, I would like to thank David Hill and Shane Rollans, for your
wisdom and time volunteered to help interpret the findings of this project.

ii

Abstract
As globalization continues to grow, the supply and demand of the adventure tourism industry has
continued to grow with it, meaning greater intersectionality between adventure tourism activities
and the impacts of culture. As a result of this trend, this study sought to answer the question
“how does nationality influence perceptions of risk in adventure tourism activities”? While risk
perception and adventure tourism research has been quite extensive, there is an existing gap in
the literature which remains to account for the impact of national culture in this relationship. This
study analyzed participants from 30 different countries around the world in a mixed methods
approach to the research question. This was delivered via surveys to 192 participants and 3
interviews conducted with participants of various nationalities at Thompson Rivers University in
Kamloops, British Columbia. Eight adventure activities were used within the scope of the study
including ice climbing, ocean surfing, and whitewater kayaking to determine risk perceptions of
international and domestic participants. The results of this study indicate that experiencing risk is
valued higher by international adventure tourists than domestic adventure tourists, drawing a link
between culture and risk perceptions in adventure tourism. These findings help contribute to the
growing literature surrounding culture and adventure tourism.

iii

Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Perceiving Risk ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 The Adventure Experience ................................................................................................................ 6
2.3.1 Risk Frameworks ............................................................................................................................ 8
2.4 Risk Motivation & Satisfaction ........................................................................................................ 11
2.5 National Culture & Adventure ......................................................................................................... 15
2.5.1 Cultural Theory Models ................................................................................................................ 16
2.5.2 Cultural Perception ....................................................................................................................... 17
2.6 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 3: HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 20
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2 Hypothesis ........................................................................................................................................ 20
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 21
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 21
4.2 Research Design ............................................................................................................................... 21
4.2.1 Adventure Tourism Activities ....................................................................................................... 22
4.2.2 Survey Design ............................................................................................................................... 23
4.2.3 Interview Design ........................................................................................................................... 23
4.3 Data Collection.................................................................................................................................. 24
4.3.1 Sample ........................................................................................................................................... 24
4.3.2 Survey Delivery ............................................................................................................................. 26
4.3.3 Interview Delivery ......................................................................................................................... 26
4.4 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 27
4.4.1 Chi square Test ............................................................................................................................... 27
4.4.2 Kruskal Wallis Test ........................................................................................................................ 27
4.4.3 Mann Whitney Test ........................................................................................................................ 28
4.4.4 Qualitative Approach ..................................................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 29
5.1 Testing the Hypothesis ...................................................................................................................... 29
5.1.1 Quantitative Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 29
5.1.2 Qualitative Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 32

CHAPTER 6: LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................. 50
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 52
CHAPTER 8: RECOMMENDATIONS & FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................. 54
8.1 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 54
8.2 Further Research ............................................................................................................................. 54
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 55
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix A: Survey ............................................................................................................................. 58
Appendix B: Interview Guide ............................................................................................................... 63

Chapter 1: Introduction
Since the beginning of the 21st century, the global economy has seen a large expansion of the
tourism industry and increasingly more people engaging with the adventure tourism industry
(Adventure Travel Trade Association, 2016). The rapid global economic growth that has
accompanied this adventure tourism boom has also resulted in emerging markets supplying and
demanding adventure tourism products/services all over the world, such as China, India,
Indonesia, Nepal and Slovenia (ATTA, 2016). Based on a 1998 USA census, the NEAT (Nature,
Eco, Adventure Tourism) industry accounted for close to half of the entire tourism industry GDP
(Mallet, 1998 in Buckley, 2000). Additionally, that same year, a census was taken in Australia
which looked at a similar industry structure and found NEAT businesses accounted for
somewhere between 25-33% of the industry share (Buckley, 2000). In more recent years, the
adventure tourism industry had an estimated growth of 65% between 2009 and 2012 (ATTA,
2016). This global growth of the adventure tourism industry has come in both supply and
demand across a variety of cultures and nationalities as emerging markets have found economic
prosperity and strong community development in the adventure tourism industry (World
Tourism Organization, 2014). As the industry grows and more countries begin to interact with
adventure tourism services, it will be of the utmost importance to develop adventure tourism
services accordingly. However, while there has been proven industry growth in adventure
tourism over recent years, the literature surrounding this industry does not show the same
evidence of growth in all areas. In order for adventure tourism industries to best continue this
growth, marketing and development must adapt to the growing needs of the adventure tourism
market. To help achieve this, it is important that research continues to progress, to better
understand how this growing market demand and various cultures interact with adventure
tourism services.
Within the scope of this study, I am seeking to develop a better understanding as to how tourism
services can better develop and market within the adventure tourism industry. Adventure tourism
is unique to other tourism industries by the complex emotional value offered to the participant
from the nature of the environment in which it operates. A defining feature of the adventure
tourism industry itself is that it encompasses uncertainty and risk within the outdoor setting

1

(Roehl and Fesenmaier, 1992; Haddock, 1993 in Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004; Jones and Ellis,
1996; Weber, 2001; Beedie and Hudson 2003; Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004; Robinson, 1992;
Ewert 1985; Priest and Carpenter 1986 in Priest and Gass 2005; Muller and Cleaver, 2000;
Weiler and Hall, 1992 in Kane and Tucker, 2004).
The nature of risk perception is where this study aims to focus in an attempt to discern what role
risk plays in the adventure tourism experience and where adventure tourism services can better
account for this. In better understanding the role of perceived risk by various nationalities in
adventure tourism services, this study hopes to develop recommendations for future
product/service development and better targeted marketing. Therefore, the study asks the
question:
“How does nationality influence perceptions of risk in adventure tourism experiences?”
This study was carried out by first conducting an in-depth review of the literature relevant to the
research question. Upon the review of the literature and understanding where previous research
has gone with respect to perceived risk in adventure tourism, the study discusses the hypothesis
development and methodology, relative to the research question. The primary research
conducted for the study has consisted of a mixed methods approach encompassing both
quantitative and qualitative research. These findings have been discussed and traced back to
existing literature to then draw recommendations for future research on the subject and possible
implications for existing operations within the global adventure tourism industry.

2

2. Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This review analyzes literature regarding risk over three areas encompassed within the scope of
this study: the adventure experience, adventure psychology/motivation, and cultural perception.
This topic has been most extensively studied by Martin Fluker, professor and researcher at
Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia. Perhaps his most relevant work with respect to this
subject comes from his PhD thesis researching perceptions of risk in adventure tourism and their
marketing implications (Fluker, 2005). More specifically, his work targets consumer psychology
in an attempt to distinguish the role of risk in various activities and how that influences
motivation, satisfaction, and decision making amongst participants (Fluker, 2005).
Additionally, many authors have studied this subject in a variety of segments. The area of
adventure psychology and adventure recreation has received much attention (Robinson, 1992 in
Fluker, 2005; Ewert 1985; Martin and Priest, 1986 in Priest and Gass, 2005; Csikszentmihalyi,
1975 in Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Weiler and Hall, 1992 in Kane and Tucker, 2004) and has
provided the large basis for more recent publications to be discussed in depth in the areas of
adventure risk psychology, tourism motivation and decision making processes (Roehl and
Fesenmaier, 1992; Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004; Jones and Ellis, 1996; Weber, 2001; Beedie and
Hudson 2003; Mason, Gos, Moretti, 2016; Ewert, 1985). A review of the literature contrasts the
works of adventure experience/psychology with that from a more cultural perspective.
Researchers have more recently begun looking into adventure and risk on cultural grounds
(Crotts and Huang, 2019; Lynch, Moore and Michington, 2012; Kim, Schroeder and PenningtonGray, 2016; Gardiner and Kwek, 2016).
Concluding the literature review, previous research will inform the study in an attempt to answer
the question, “How does nationality influence perceptions of risk in adventure tourism
experiences?”
This literature will now be discussed in its respective areas.

3

2.2 Perceiving Risk
Before discussing adventure tourism and the role of risk within adventure tourism experiences, it
must be understood how individuals interpret these experiences and the cognitive process behind
it. This process is discussed below.
Perception is defined as “the process through which we select, organise and interpret information
gathered by our senses in order to understand the world around us” (Greenberg et al. in Fluker
2005, pg. 22). This process is closely related to cognitive learning and decision making.
Perceptual information guides our decisions, actions, and beliefs. Simultaneously knowledge
gathered from these experiences changes the way individuals perceive things in the future
(Brewer and Lambert, 2001 in Tacca, 2011). In other words, “Cognitive information influences
perceptual processes, but, at the same time, cognitive processes depend on perceptual
information.” (Goldstone and Barsalou, 1998 in Tacca, 2011, pg. 1). This perceptual process
may be influenced by the society in which individuals operate and the factors which influence
day to day decision making such as wealth, demographics, technology and the media (Slovic,
1990 in Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004).

To understand how this cognitive process applies to the adventure tourism environment, it must
be understood how this process applies to risk. Perceived risk is described as “an emotional and
cognitive response elicited by exposure to a perceived probability of loss of some magnitude”
(Jones and Ellis 1996, pg. 278). More specifically, with respect to the perceptions of risk formed
in adventure tourism, scholars suggest risk perception is determined by “experience in the
situation, personality, age, gender and culture” (Morgan, Moore and Mansell, 1997 in Fluker,
2005, pg. 22). This has been extensively studied as an inherent part of the adventure experience
and motivation for participation in adventure sports (Ewert 1985; Martin and Priest, 1986 in
Priest and Gass, 2005; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975 in Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Weiler and Hall,
1992; Roehl and Fesenmaier, 1992; Jones and Ellis, 1996; Weber, 2001; Beedie and Hudson
2003; Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004, Mason et al. 2016). These findings will now be discussed.

4

As described by Sonmez and Graefe, there are ten types of risk associated with international
travel. These risks include:
1. Equipment/functional: mechanical, equipment and/or organisational problems
2. Financial: experience will not provide value for money
3. Health: possibility of becoming sick
4. Physical: physical danger or injury
5. Political instability: being caught up in political turmoil
6. Psychological: disappointment with the travel experience
7. Satisfaction: not being satisfied with the experience
8. Social: risk of disapproval from others of the destination choice
9. Terrorism: being caught in a terrorist act
10. Time: travel experience was a waste of time
(Sonmez and Graefe, 1998 in Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004, pg. 8)
These risks exist as they are in three categories: absolute, real and perceived. The absolute risk of
any of the ten risks above represents the level of risk presented in a situation without any
mitigation strategies present. The real risk represents the level of risk which faces an individual
after any mitigation strategies have been implemented in the situation. What remains is the
perceived risk which will be explored further within the scope of this study. As discussed, this
perception of risk is the individual’s subjective assessment of risk and is therefore determined
solely by each individual, based on the experience, culture, age, gender, personality (Haddock,
1993 in Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004; Morgan et al. 1997 in Fluker, 2005)
In short, while there may be different risks present at any time within a given environment, the
perceived risk and real risk may vary drastically depending on the cognition of the individual.
Another way of looking at it is that perceived risk is subjective and real risk is objective. As
subjectivity can vary greatly within individuals based on the factors discussed above, it is crucial
for operators to use this to their advantage in an industry where risk is inherent (Haddock 1993 in
Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004). Without consideration for the market interpretation of an
adventure activity, more specifically the activity’s risk, operators fail to manage the market’s

5

response to this risk. For example, if a whitewater rafting business operates on rivers with
moderate levels of real risk but knows that their main market for rafting is attracted to the
challenge and notoriety associated with high risk rafting, they may choose to market the river as
high risk. By doing so the business is able to capitalize on the perceptions of risk which their
market has about the activity.
To further illustrate, many studies sought to analyze relationships with risk perception after the
terrorist attacks which occurred on September 11, 2001. It has been recorded that there was a
large spike in travel by car due to the high perceptions of terrorism risk associated with air travel
shortly after the events, despite the statistics suggesting the real risk of driving a car is much
more dangerous than flying in general and a terrorist attack in particular (Gigerenzer, 2006 in
Ayton, Murray and Hampton, 2019). This relationship between subjectivity and risk behaviour is
the root of this study and will be discussed in detail further on.
What must be noted is that while these types of risk listed above by Sonmez and Graefe may
have some relationship with adventure tourism, they may not all be relevant to this study
(Sonmez and Graefe, 1998 in Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004). This is because physical risk is what
separates adventure tourism from other forms of tourism and is of utmost importance in the mind
of the tourist when choosing to participate or not (Fluker, 2005). In order to appropriately
conduct an accurate study of risk perception in adventure tourism, and relative to no other forms
of tourism, physical risk must be the focus. These concepts will now be discussed within the
context of adventure.
2.3 The Adventure Experience
“Adventure tourism is characterised by its ability to provide the tourist with relatively high
levels of sensory stimulation, usually achieved by including physically challenging
experiential components within the touristic experience. The experience itself is perceived as
physically bracing, `adrenalin-driven', somewhat risky, with moments of exhilaration
punctuated by many opportunities to assess and reassess what has just been done or
accomplished.” - (Muller and Cleaver, 2000, pg. 2)

6

A more formal definition of adventure tourism has been defined below:
“A broad spectrum of outdoor touristic activities, often commercialized and involving an
interaction with the natural environment away from the participant’s home range and containing
elements of risk; in which the outcome is influenced by the participant, setting, and management
of the touristic experience.” - (Weiler and Hall, 1992 in Kane and Tucker, 2004, pg. 220)

Fluker (2005) discusses this definition and the differences in adventure as a commercial offering
“adventure tourism” and as a recreational activity. The commercial nature offers the consumer
the ability to participate without the investment of time, logistics, resources and knowledge
required to participate in an adventure experience as one would require on a recreational basis.
This is a crucial separation between adventure tourism and adventure recreation, which creates
different expectations and connotations surrounding the whole experience and is an important
distinction to be mindful of within the study (Fluker, 2005). However, it must be noted that while
there are distinct differences between adventure tourism and adventure recreation, the industry
that has been built has been born out of roots in adventure recreation, and therefore, still shares
many significant similarities (Weber, 2001).

While not all literature accepts a single definition of adventure tourism, the overwhelming
majority agree on the element of risk. In an attempt to build contextual reference for the study,
the discussion will begin analyzing many of these recreational frameworks and their application,
to better understand the role of risk in the adventure experience.

7

2.3.1

Risk Frameworks

Figure 1, Risk Recreation Model
(Robinson, 1992)

Perhaps one of the most fundamental models with respect to the adventure experience and to the
research question is the Risk Recreation Model (Figure 1, Robinson, 1992). This model has
provided much support for understanding the cognition associated with individuals engaging in
adventure activities. While the nature of this model is for recreational purposes, the processes
associated with risk perceptions for the participant are still active and accurate for discussing
elements of adventure tourism (Fluker, 2005).

The process begins with the attraction to the activity. The average adventurer seeks some level of
stimulation outside of the normalities of their day-to-day life. This attraction will lead the
individual to engaging with the possibility of participation in activities that encompass these
external stimulants sought after, including risk and or challenge (Robinson, 1992;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1975 in Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). The second phase is the cognitive appraisal
of the situation and the risk present. This is the process leading to decisions being made. The
individual will judge the activity based on his or her own experiences and perceptions. Robinson
(1992) offers a few key suggestions how this shapes the process with respect to risk in the
adventure setting. These are the objective/subjective risk, perceived risk, perceived competence
8

and anticipation of outcome. Other scholars suggest that this process may be influenced by
demographic factors, information/media and past experiences (Morgan et al. 1997 in Fluker
2005; Slovic, 1990 in Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004). Upon completion of this second stage, the
individual lands at the decision-making phase where there are ultimately two options, either
engage or withdraw (Robinson, 1992).

Upon completion of the activity, the individual will reflect on their performance in the activity.
Based on the individual’s background, they may see this activity as too intense, too involved, too
risky, or – conversely – too dull, too easy and too relaxed. The reflection discussed (phase 5) will
also influence the cognitive appraisal (phase 2) when assessing whether or not to engage in
future activities (Robinson, 1992). This is apparent in the relationship between risk perception
and experience and will be discussed further in the study around experience and motive.

Additionally, this process touches on a number of other models which have been developed
around the adventure experience. Most notable are the Model of Flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975
in Csikszentmihalyi, 2014) and the Adventure Experience Paradigm (Martin and Priest, 1986 in
Priest and Gass. 2005) which fit well into phase four of Robinson’s model. These will now be
discussed with respect to the participation/performance aspect of the adventure experience.

Figure 2, Flow Diagram

Figure 3, Adventure Experience Paradigm

(Csikszentmihalyi 1990 in Weber, 2001)

(Priest and Carpenter, 1993 in Fluker, 2005)

9

The model of flow was developed to better understand the relationship between challenge, skill
level and the individual. Evidence suggests that when an individual is taking part in any activity,
their experience and engagement may be positively or negatively affected by the levels of
challenge present and the level of skill within the individual (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975 in
Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). If the individual is not highly skilled but faces high levels of challenge,
they will face anxiety and stress due to the overwhelming nature of the situation. However, if the
individual is more skilled than the level of challenge present in the situation, there may be
feelings of boredom and a lack of stimulation. The ideal spot in between is called the flow
channel. This is the result of a perfect match between the individual’s skill and the challenge
presented. Csikszentmihalyi describes the state of flow as “action follows upon action according
to an internal logic that seems to need no conscious intervention by the actor. He experiences it
as a unified flowing from one moment to the next in which he is in control of his actions, and in
which there is little distinction between self and environment, between stimulus and response or
between past present and future” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990 in Fluker, 2005, pg. 42). The findings
from the literature suggest that the ‘flow experience’ has an impact on happiness, self-awareness
and self-control (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975 in Csikszentmihalyi, 2014).
With respect to the Adventure Environment, a similar concept has been applied by Simon Priest
in his model ‘The Adventure Experience Paradigm’ (Martin and Priest, 1986 in Priest and Gass,
2005). This model applies the level of risk on one axis and level of competency on the opposite
axis, defining the former as “potential to lose something of value” and the latter as “capability of
individuals to deal with demands placed on them by their environment” (Martin and Priest, 1986
in Priest and Gass, 2005, pg. 201). Importantly, it should be understood that this concept is
applicable to both the perceptions of the individual or the reality of the environment. To further
illustrate, the paradigm suggests that as the competency of an individual increases, an individual
may actively seek out increasing levels of risk to find the peak adventure available within the
experience. This concept also applies to the individual’s perception of self and their competence
level. If an individual perceives their competency to be greater than reality, they may seek out
greater levels of risk to match their perceived competency. By this logic, one might suggest that
risk is a motivating factor for individuals to participate in adventure, especially as they gain more
experience in the activity. This is important to note when tracing participant motives and

10

experience levels to the role of risk within the realm of adventure. However, what must be noted
with this model is that the domains outside of the peak adventure are elaborated as opposed to
the model of flow. Rather than simply three domains of anxiety, flow and boredom in the flow
model (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975 from Csikszentmihalyi, 2014), Martin and Priest (1986) build
these experiences into five domains based on the risk competency relationship. This builds past
the concept that individuals must simply be engaging with risk in attempts to reach ‘flow’ or
‘peak adventure’ (Martin and Priest, 1986 in Priest and Gass, 2005). A number of studies have
been consistent in suggesting risk to be the motivating factor for adventure, as it finds its unique
quality relative to other tourism categories in the ‘deliberate seeking or acceptance of physical
risk’ (Fluker, 2005). However, while it remains true that the uniqueness lies in the ‘deliberate
seeking or acceptance of physical risk’, the motivation for participation may not always be risk
(Weber, 2001). Goal achievement, social motivation, escape from boredom, connecting with the
natural environment, testing personal abilities and overcoming fear have been found to serve as
primary motivation rather than risk taking (Kerr and Houge Mackenzie, 2012). Lastly, it must be
recognized that despite the in-depth analysis of these recreational models, the element of cultural
difference remains to be accounted for.
The motivation of individuals, and what factors are responsible for that motivation, will now be
explored.
2.4 Risk Motivation and Satisfaction
While the majority of literature suggests that risk is the motivation to participate in adventure
activities is within the risk presented, not all studies seem to agree. Some studies suggest that
depending on the activity itself and participant’s experience level, individuals might have
different motivations to participate in adventure activities (Weber, 2001; Fluker, 2005; Ewert,
1985; Mason et al. 2016; Kerr and Houge Mackenzie, 2012).
A hypothesis tested in Martin Fluker’s PhD thesis pitted three different adventure activities of
various risk levels (low, medium, high) against one another in an attempt to test the hypothesis
that clients of all adventure activities will share similar motivations to participate. Fluker was
able to reject this hypothesis by finding the motives differed depending on the activity. The three

11

activities tested were bungee jumping (high risk), rafting (medium risk), and sailing (low risk).
Assessment of 612 participants over these three activities revealed different participant
motivations.

More specifically, the most frequent motives for bungee jumping were to do something
adventurous, to have exciting experiences, and to experience risk. The top motives for sailing
participation were, to see the natural beauty of the site visited, to have an opportunity to rest and
relax, and to have a chance of seeing or experiencing something new. The following graph
shows the 15 different motivating factors and their rankings with respect to each activity as
expressed by participants in the study. From the graph below, it is evident that motivation to
participate was not only different between activities but that motivation changes drastically
depending on the activity and participants. Perhaps most interesting is the desire to experience
risk variable (#8 in the graph). For the sailing participants risk was not a shared motivation to
participate (Fluker, 2005).

Figure 4, Motivations by Activity
(Fluker, 2005)

12

Additionally, in a second hypothesis tested by Fluker, the risk motivation was isolated with
respect to the three adventure activities in question. It was found that motivation to experience
risk varied dramatically with respect to the three activities and was correlated directly to the
nature of the activity itself. The average results per activity when asked about risk ranked as
follows on a Likert scale from 1-7.

Figure 5, Mean Rank for Risk Motivation by Activity
(Fluker, 2005)

This suggests that the individual activity itself is grounds for different motives to participate and
therefore attracts different individuals with different interests. However, as discussed with the
psychological models above, there are other factors embedded in a participant’s level of
experience with a given activity which may influence these motivations to participate within the
sport itself (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975 in Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Martin and Priest, 1986 in Priest
and Gass, 2005).

A study on recreational mountain climber motivations found that there are intrinsic motivating
factors and extrinsic motivating factors. With lower experience levels, it was the extrinsic
motivating factors (recognition, escape, social activity) which more often influenced climbers’
reason to participate. As experience levels increased, evidence from the study suggested that the
intrinsic motivating factors (exhilaration, challenge, personal test, decision making, control)
became more dominant (Ewert, 1985).

13

The same methodology was applied in a study of whitewater rafting in 2000 analysing the
relationship between experience and motivation. This study found that 6 of the 12 motivating
variables given between groups of rafters with experience and rafters without experience were
‘significantly different’. This suggests that the motivation to participate is heavily influenced by
experience with the activity (Fluker and Turner, 2000).

Despite the strong case for the risk-experience correlation, there remain studies to suggest there
may be more to this relationship. For example, a study of rafting and ocean kayaking tourists
tested their perceptions of risk with the respective activities despite the groups different
experience levels. The findings suggested that although experience levels were inconsistent, the
perceptions of risk remained consistent across participants (Morgan, 1998 in Fluker, 2005).

In another study, the research targeted Italian adventure tourists seeking harder adventure
(adventure which requires some level of skill from the participant). This research involved 317
adventure tourists in Friuli Dolomiti Alps Natural Park in Italy. The motivational factors were
categorized into four domains: nature, risk, socialization, and contemplation. Findings of the
study determined participants mean rankings of the four motivational factors were nature=5.5,
risk=3.7, socialization=4.5, and contemplation=5.3 when asked to rank their motivation to
participate on a Likert scale from 1-7. This suggests that nature was the primary motivation to
participate rather than risk. Additionally, with respect to levels of perceived risk, they found that
lower risk perceptions of the activities generated higher participation rates or motivation to
participate in the activities (Mason et al. 2016).

To summarize, it is evident that perceptions and motivating factors with respect to different
activities are dynamic and influenced by a multitude of different factors. In conducting future
research, it is important to recognize these factors and account for them accordingly. Thus far, a
gap is illuminated in the literature relative to cultural considerations for risk and adventure. As
described by previous literature, perception and perceived risk are influenced most heavily by
wealth, information/media (Kim et al. 2016; Slovic, 1990 in Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004), age,
gender, experience, personality, and culture (Morgan et al. 1997 in Fluker, 2005). As the

14

question itself lies in this specific variable of culture, the broader studies associated with culture
and how these can be related back to the question of the study will now be discussed.
2.5 National Culture and Adventure
“Culture is an important interpersonal factor that tourism marketers and managers must
understand because cultural orientations can affect tourists’ motivations, perceptions, lifestyle,
personality, and ultimately their travel-related decisions and behaviors.” (Morrison, 2010 in Kim,
et al. 2016, pg. 12). In the tourism industry, few researchers have conducted any studies seeking
answers to cultural risk perception despite its large role in the decision-making process for the
tourist (Kim et al. 2016), and even fewer have been conducted with respect to adventure. To best
address this, the review will begin outlining culture, fundamental cultural models and their
application to the study.
What is culture?
Culture has been described as “the socially transmitted knowledge and behavior shared by some
group of people” (Peoples and Bailey, 1998 in Birukou, Blanzieri, Giorgini, and Giunchiglia,
2009, pg. 3). More specific to cultural models, Hofstede (2011) refers to culture as the collective
mental programming that distinguishes members of one group or peoples from others. If it is
accepted that culture by definition is collectively programmed, learned and shared by a group
then it is acceptable to assume a group of people may be categorized by their own cultural
identity. Additionally, these definitions offer an understanding of culture as a mental
programming. As a mental programming, culture may impact one’s perception and experiences
which are fundamental in decision making and interpretation (Robinson, 1992; Goldstone and
Barsalou, 1998 in Tacca 2011; Morgan et al. 1997 in Fluker, 2005). Therefore, it is important to
weigh culture in understanding how individuals contend with risk and adventure tourism
activities. This will now be discussed within a model of cultural framework.

15

2.5.1 Cultural Theory Models
In discussing culture, it is important to start with the fundamental models of cultural
measurement. The first of these models is the Values Orientation Theory developed by
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck in 1961. Kluckhohn defines a value as “a conception, explicit or
implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, which influences the selection
from available modes, means and ends of action." (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1951 in Hills,
2002, pg. 4). This definition is then applied across four primary measurements of value on three
assumptions. The first assumption for the theory is that “there is a limited number of common
human problems for which all peoples must at all times find some solution”. The second
assumption is that “while there is variability in solutions of all the problems, it is neither limitless
nor random but is definitely variable within a range of possible solutions”. The third assumption
of the theory is that “all alternatives of all solutions are present in all societies at all times but are
differentially preferred” (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1951 in Hills, 2002, pg. 4). These
assumptions are then applied to the Values Orientation Theory as four relationships/values which
groups must determine a response to. “On what aspect of time should we primarily focus?
Groups may choose to orient themselves and their values towards past, present or future. What is
the relationship between humanity and its natural environment? Groups may see their
relationship with nature as one of mastery, submission or harmony. How should individuals
relate with others? Groups may value hierarchical, equivocal or individual merit as a means of
structure and relation. What is the prime motivation for behaviour? Groups may choose to
behave primarily based on expression, growth or achievement.” (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck
1961 in Hills, 2002, pg. 4)
More recently, Geert Hofstede has added his own cultural dimensions theory building new ideas
into cultural theory discussion (Hofstede, 2009). Hofstede’s model developed five dimensions
for ways of measuring cultural values by nationality. These dimensions consisted of Power
Distance (the degree to which class differences are accepted in society), Individualism (the
degree to which the welfare of the group is valued more than that of the individual), Masculinity
(motivation to achieve, value in competition and materialism), Uncertainty Avoidance (tolerance
for risk and uncertainty), Long-term Orientation (the preference for stability, frugality, respect
for tradition, and future orientation) (Hofstede, 2009).

16

Both of these models suggest reason for cultural values impacting decision making based on the
way different groups choose to value different aspects of life. More importantly, many of these
cultural measurements suggest a correlation between adventure motivation, risk and culture. For
this study, it is important to consider factors such as time, uncertainty, masculinity, and nature
when considering risk as a motivation to participate in adventure tourism activities as these
dimensions encompass cultural values which are also available within the adventure experience
(Hofstede, 2009; Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1961 in Hills, 2002). As an industry that carries
inherent risks which is conducted in the natural environment, in pursuit of some emotional value,
and often with other individuals, these measurements may help outline the perception and
cognition of cultures when interacting with adventure tourism experiences (Muller and Cleaver,
2000; Weiler and Hall, 1992 from Kane and Tucker, 2004; Fluker, 2005). While uncertainty
avoidance has been common in literature assessing cultural risk behavior, other factors such as
time orientation, masculinity and relationships to nature may be important to consider when
assessing participants motivation. As previous studies have shown (Weber, 2001; Kerr and
Houge Mackenzie, 2012), risk may not serve as the primary motivation for all adventure
participants. Other reasons for participation have included nature, personal challenge, and social
value. For this purpose, the cultural models should be considered in their entirety.
Since the development of these models, there have been studies conducted using their structure
with relevance to the tourism industry (Kim et al. 2016; Crotts and Huang, 2019), amongst other
notable cultural studies without the models described (Gardiner and Kwek, 2016; Fluker, 2005).
These studies will now be discussed.
2.5.2 Cultural Perception
When assessing perceptions of risk, Fluker sought to understand the relationship between a
tourist’s country of origin and how much risk they’re willing to take. The study was carried out
with 612 respondents participating in bungee jumping, whitewater rafting and sailing. While the
findings did indicate a significant difference between cultures, it was determined that the groups
significance was a result of demographic differences rather than cultural difference. Therefore,
Fluker’s findings indicated that there was no correlation between risk motivation and country of
origin. However, what is important to note within the scope of his study is that only English-

17

speaking participants were used for the purposes of this study. It is known that language
influences cultural values heavily and may serve as a barrier to engagement with certain
activities (Jiang, 2000). Therefore, if it is to be concluded that nationality and risk motivation are
unrelated, further testing of this relationship across ESL (English second language) participants
should be conducted. Interestingly, before concluding the hypothesis, Fluker does note that he
believes there may be value in future research targeting further cultural separation such as an
East-West approach to the question, further stressing the importance of more analysis (Fluker,
2005).
To elaborate on cultural difference in general adventure tourism perception, another study sought
to understand Chinese millennials’ motivations for participating in adventure tourism activities.
It was conducted via separate focus groups of up to eight individuals in each group testing the
individuals’ perceptions of adventure tourism activities. The groups discussed four water-based
adventure tourism activities based on photos of the activity and which may be more appealing
than others. Not surprisingly, conclusion of the research shows that while there are similarities in
this growing market to that of western markets, the different sociocultural upbringing of the
growing Chinese market warrants different marketing and development. While Chinese
millennials are embracing independence and freedom more and more, leading them to
experience adventure tours, it is evident that they still require much more reassurance than
western millennials (Gardiner and Kwek, 2016). These findings indicate a strong example of
how cultural differences have proven impactful on perceptions of adventure tourism. This
suggests traditional approaches to adventure marketing and programming may require a new
outlook if western businesses are to adapt to new markets.

Outside of adventure, the tourism industry as a whole has seen similar findings in cultural
differences to those discussed above. Kim et al. (2016) analyzed how different cultures perceive
risk in tourism. The study was measured through three lenses including Hofstede’s Uncertainty
Avoidance Index (as discussed above), past experience in the tested destination, and
sociodemographics. The study determined perceptions of risk with regards to three aspects of
travel. Risk perception associated with travel in general, risk perception associated with a
destination, and perceptions of safety associated with destinations. This study was conducted

18

over a variety of cultures all ranking differently on Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance Index,
from United Arab Emirates to Canada to Ireland. The research found that all the measurements
used did in fact influence the participant’s risk perceptions, but differently based on the factor
tested. For example, Hofestede’s Uncertainty Avoidance Index measurement seemingly
influenced the “risk perceptions of general travel” and “risk perceptions of the destination” but
not “perceptions of safety” as much as sociodemographic measurement did (Kim et al. 2016).
This shows that culture does indeed influence risk perception associated with tourism, however
its influence may vary depending on the aspect of travel in question.
2.6 Summary
It is apparent that the role of risk in adventure tourism experiences is significant. Unique to
adventure tourism, it is the inherent physical risk which separates this specific tourism industry
sector from that of its neighbors. While it is important that operators are aware of the role risk
plays in the activity itself, what previous literature tells us is that the perceived risk is of utmost
concern. This is because perceptions of risk are subject to each individual participant and may
influence the participants motivation to participate or experience itself. Furthermore, this
relationship shows evidence that risk may be desirable for the participant, but ultimately its role
will be determined by many factors such as media, wealth, age, gender, personality, experience
and culture. While this relationship between perceived risk and adventure has been studied
extensively on the recreational level and minimally on the commercial level, a lack of cultural
consideration remains. From the cultural studies already conducted both inside and outside of the
tourism industry, it is clear that culture is influential in this risk relationship. This gap in cultural
research is the basis of this study which seeks to answer the question, “How does nationality
influence perceptions of risk in adventure tourism experiences?”.

19

Chapter 3: Hypothesis Development
3.1 Introduction
There is a gap in understanding the role risk plays among various nationalities when engaging
with adventure activities. This study has been designed to fill this gap and further understand if
and how nationality influences perceptions of risk in adventure tourism experiences. This
question will be assessed through the testing of a hypothesis. The hypothesis has been developed
to test the primary component risk perception assumes within the adventure tourism experience,
risk as motivation to participate.
3.2 Hypothesis
The hypothesis tested the independence between nationality and participants desire to experience
risk in adventure tourism activities. Perceptions of risk are subjective and therefore subject to an
individual’s culture. For some, risk perceptions may result in fear or negativity which
overwhelms the experience. For others, this risk perception may incentivize individuals to
participate knowing that there is thrill and excitement attached to risk which they would not find
elsewhere in day to day experiences. Importantly, while many scholars agree that the uniqueness
of adventure lies in the physical risk, the role of this risk may not always be the primary
incentive to participate, if at all. As a result of the challenges presented by the role of risk in
adventure tourism, along with the globalizing nature of the industry, it is important that this
question remains under focus.
With these components of risk in mind, further investigation into the relationship between these
components has drawn the following hypothesis for the study:
H1 – The participant’s country of origin influences their motivation to experience risk in
adventure tourism activities.
The methods of data collection and analysis will now be discussed.

20

Chapter 4: Research Methodology
4.1 Introduction
This section will discuss the approach, design, and methodology of the study from data
collection to analysis of the data.
4.2 Research Design
This study utilizes a mixed methods approach to answering the research question. The mixed
method approach to research is best used when the topic is an area deserving of both a
quantitative and qualitative perspective (Creswell, 2003). For the scope of the study, risk
perception is the primary focus. As risk perception is completely subjective, and is determined
differently depending on the individual, a qualitative approach was first considered (Brewer and
Lambert, 2001 from Tacca, 2011; Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004; Fluker, 2005). The qualitative
approach provides insight into the lived experience of the individual and in this case the lived
influence of the participant’s national culture. However, the purpose of the project extends
beyond a select number of individuals and therefore a quantitative approach has also been
employed. It has been suggested that a quantitative approach is best applied if the question seeks
to identify factors that influence outcome or to determine the utility of variables in question
(Lowhorn, 2007). An additional purpose of this research is to provide useful insight for
adventure tourism organizations which may begin reaching out to international markets or
perhaps further develop/market their adventure tours to different nationalities. Together, the
mixed method approach offers a well-rounded perspective of the larger scale findings in addition
to achieving a deeper meaning of risk perception for participants (Creswell, 2003).

Further insight into the application of this methodology is explored throughout the chapter.

21

4.2.1 Adventure Tourism Activities
Eight adventure tourism activities were selected for the project: mountaineering, ocean surfing,
rock climbing, whitewater kayaking, trekking, ice climbing, ocean kayaking, and ski touring.
These activities were selected based on three overarching factors inherent within the scope of the
study.
The study was carried out primarily at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC. As the
majority of participants in the study were international students, it was important to select
activities which the target population would be familiar with. All of these activities are offered at
Thompson Rivers University through the adventure guide diploma program and many are
additionally offered to participants of the university’s AdventureU club which engages the
student community in adventure tourism activities throughout British Columbia. By choosing
activities which are consistently marketed and sold across the campus community, rather than a
random selection of activities, the reliability of the study is strengthened considerably.
Second, the eight adventure tourism activities are offered on a commercial basis throughout
western Canada and much of the adventure industry where conditions (such as economic and
geographic) permit them. By selecting adventure activities which are not only common within
the TRU community but growing more common in the entire industry itself, the familiarity and
understanding for participants is once again reinforced.
Lastly, the activities selected all encompass various degrees of risk and hazards. As the study
itself is actively seeking to understand the relationship between nationality and perceptions of
risk, it is important that the participants are engaging with activities which not only have inherent
risks, but also offer unique environments, hazards, decisions and skill sets to navigate these risks
appropriately, whether commercially or recreationally.

22

4.2.2 Survey Design
Survey design and variables throughout have been implemented based on the proposed
hypothesis and literature discussed. Additionally, questions have been adapted to the scope of the
project and the mixed methods approach. Surveys were designed to be concise, taking
approximately 10 minutes to complete. This was designed to keep the participants engaged and
find the critical information for the study but not lose the respondent in a survey too long and
tedious to complete, risking incomplete responses or lack of interest. Lastly, the surveys were
incentivized by a draw to win a free camping trip, courtesy of the Thompson Rivers University
AdventureU club (see Appendix A).
4.2.3 Interview Design
Prior to participation in the interviews, participants were instructed to sign a consent form. No
interviews involved additional incentive beyond those accompanying the survey participation.
Interviews were designed to further investigate the individual’s perceptions of risk based on
nationality. Interview questions were open-ended to give the participants room to freely discuss
their experiences and perceptions of adventure tourism activities. The interview was conducted
in two parts. First the interviewee was asked four questions all focused on the adventure
experience described in the literature. These first part questions targeted interest/motivation,
experiences, risk and the participants home environment (see Appendix B). The second part of
the interview was conducted as a video exercise showcasing all eight activities in the study in
action. These questions were asked in response to the video to further gauge the emotional
response of participants when assessing the risk, thrills, nature and group setting which are
associated with the adventure experience (Thompson Rivers University, 2017).

23

4.3 Data Collection
4.3.1 Sample
The sample selection for the study was primarily drawn from the Thompson Rivers University
campus as this location was ideal for a large number of participants with a wide range of
nationalities. There was a total of 192 participants in the study spanning 30 different countries.
The breakdown of nationality, gender and age is presented in the figures below.

Sociodemographic Overview of Participants (N=192)
Gender

Percentage

Total Number

Male

47.4%

91

Female

52.6%

101

18-21

20.3%

39

22-25

55.2%

106

26-29

13.0%

25

30-32

3.1%

6

33-35

0.5%

1

36+

7.8%

15

Age

Figure 6, Sociodemographic Overview of Participants

24

Nationality of Participants (N=192)
Nationality

Percentage

Number

Canada

47.4%

91

India

22.4%

43

China

5.2%

10

Japan

2.6%

5

France

2.1%

4

Bangladesh

2.1%

4

Nigeria

1.5%

3

Kenya

1.5%

3

Russia

1%

2

Sri Lanka

1%

2

South Korea

1%

2

UAE

1%

2

Uganda

1%

2

South Africa

1%

2

Australia

1%

2

Hungary

0.5%

1

Sweden

0.5%

1

Germany

0.5%

1

Hungary

0.5%

1

Ukraine

0.5%

1

Pakistan

0.5%

1

Nepal

0.5%

1

Iran

0.5%

1

Philippines

0.5%

1

Jordan

0.5%

1

Zimbabwe

0.5%

1

United States

0.5%

1

Mexico

0.5%

1

El Salvador

0.5%

1

Panama

0.5%

1

Colombia

0.5%

1

Figure 7, Nationality of Participants

25

4.3.2 Survey Delivery
Surveys were delivered both online and in person, with roughly 50% of responses coming from
each distribution channel. Surveys were administered over a period of two weeks from January
7, 2020 to January 21, 2020.
Hard copies were distributed both in and out of classes at TRU over the course of two weeks.
Areas of high concentration and mingling such as coffee shops and common areas were targeted
for random selection. TRU professors who teach within the Faculty of Adventure, Culinary Arts
and Tourism and the School of Business and Economics were the source of distribution through
TRU courses.
Online surveys were distributed over the course of two weeks primarily through TRU
AdventureU club distribution channels including the club email list, Facebook and Instagram. In
addition to these channels the researchers personal Facebook page was used.
4.3.3 Interview Delivery
Three interviews were conducted over the course of one week.
Three participants were selected based on their responses to survey questions #6 & #11-14,
which categorized the participants by their demographics including gender, age, experience and
cultural distance (how much the participant identifies with their national culture). This selection
was done for the purpose of remaining consistent with the literature and hypothesis for the study.
As the literature discusses, there are seven influencing factors which determine the individuals
risk perception (Morgan et al. 1997 in Fluker, 2005; Slovic, 1990 in Dickson and Dolnicair,
2004). This filtering process allowed for greater accuracy and context within the interview
process when determining the influence of nationality in risk perception and adventure tourism
activities.

26

4.4 Data Analysis
This study has encompassed both quantitative and qualitative methods in a mixed methods
strategy to approaching the research question. The chi square test, Kruskal Wallis test, and Mann
Whitney test have all been applied as part of the quantitative analysis to determine if the null
hypothesis may be rejected. A qualitative analysis will then be conducted to further support or
refute the quantitative findings. This process of analysis will now be described in detail.
4.4.1 Chi square Test
A chi square test provides the ability to determine whether or not two groups are associated. If
the calculated value of chi square is less than the table value at a certain level of significance (in
this case 5% significance) for given degrees of freedom, it may be concluded that the null
hypothesis cannot be rejected, which suggests that the two attributes are independent. However,
if the calculated value of chi square is greater than its table value, the evidence suggests that the
null hypothesis may be rejected suggesting a dependency between the two groups. Importantly, it
must be noted that chi square is not a measure of the degree of relationship or the form of
relationship between two groups but is simply a technique of judging the significance of such
association or relationship between two groups (Kothari, 2004). The test will be used to evaluate
whether a relationship exists between participants’ nationality and desire to experience risk.
4.4.2 Kruskal Wallis Test
In this test, the data is ranked from low to high as if it constitutes a single sample. If there is no
difference between the mean of the samples then the sampling distribution of H can be
approximated with a chi square distribution. The null hypothesis can be rejected at a given level
of significance (5%), if the H value calculated exceeds a threshold table value of chi-square
(Kothari, 2004). This test has been applied to determine if there is difference in desire to
experience risk between different demographic groups.

27

4.4.3 Mann Whitney Test
To apply the Mann Whitney test, the data must first be ranked in the same manner as the Kruskal
Wallis test and then ranked according to the sample group. If there is no difference between the
two groups, then the mean ranks assigned to the values of the two samples should be similar.
Rejection of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two groups suggests that
a difference between groups is more likely (Kothari, 2004). This test has been applied to confirm
if there is a difference in desire to experience risk between two demographic groups.
4.4.4 Qualitative Approach
The integration of the qualitative data has been done via an inductive/deductive approach. While
it has been discussed that qualitative data analysis has no firm structure which works for every
experiment, many scholars have agreed on the inductive/deductive process (Patton, 2002). This
analysis has been described as discovering patterns and themes out of the data observed, then
creating meaning out of the patterns and themes discovered via contrast with the existing
literature (Patton, 2002). This process has been applied to the interview analysis and will be
contrasted with the quantitative findings and literature review.
For the hypothesis tested within the scope of this study, the mixed methods above have been
used. The analysis of these respective hypothesis will be discussed in the next chapter.

28

Chapter 5: Analysis
5.1 Testing the Hypothesis
H0 – There is no difference in desire to experience risk between Canadian and non-Canadian
adventure tourism participants.
H1 - There is a difference in desire to experience risk between Canadian and non-Canadian
adventure tourism participants.
5.1.1 Quantitative Analysis
In determining the influence of nationality on perceptions of risk, a chi square test was run to
determine if a significant relationship exists between different nationalities when determining
participants desire to experience risk in adventure tourism activities. This was tested over two
groups, one consisting of only Canadian participants, and the second consisting of only
international participants. This distinction was determined by the participant themselves when
asked question 14 on the survey “where are you from? (please specify which country)” (see
Appendix A).
For the chi square test, the two groups responses were assessed from 1-4 (strongly disagreestrongly agree) when asked to rate their interest in experiencing risk during adventure activities
(question #2 on survey). The chi square test revealed a dependence between participants’
nationality and response to the question.
International and Domestic Participants Response to Q2 Factor “Experience Risk”
Observed Values
Desire to Experience Risk

International

Domestic

TOTAL

(Strongly Disagree)1

11

10

21

(Somewhat Disagree) 2

15

29

44

(Somewhat Agree) 3

46

41

87

(Strongly Agree) 4

27

10

37

Total

99

90

189

Figure 8, Observation of Responses
29

The figure below shows the chi square test results between international participants and
domestic participants when asked to rate their interest in experiencing risk during the adventure
tourism activities listed.
Chi Square Test Results
Observed Values
Desire to Experience Risk

International

Domestic

Total

(Strongly Disagree)1

11

10

21

(Somewhat Disagree) 2

15

29

44

(Somewhat Agree) 3

46

41

87

(Strongly Agree) 4

27

10

37

Total

99

90

189

Desire to Experience Risk

International

Domestic

TOTAL

(Strongly Disagree)1

11

10

21

(Somewhat Disagree) 2

23.047619

20.952381

44

(Somewhat Agree) 3

45.5714286

41.4285714

87

(Strongly Agree) 4

19.3809524

17.6190476

37

Total

99

90

189

P=

**0.00673033

Expected Values

Figure 9, Chi square Test Results

From the chi square test results presented, the test suggests that there is a relationship between
nationality and desire for risk. What must be noted however is that this test has a number of
assumptions made between the groups which are not accounted for. Many studies have described
multiple factors such as gender, age, experience, media, and wealth as informing risk perception
(Slovic, 1990 in Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004; Morgan et al. 1997 in Fluker, 2005), therefore
further testing should be performed. For further analysis, a Kruskal Wallis test was conducted to
further investigate these factors’ influence on desire for risk in adventure activities.
The second test analyzed the factors of nationality and gender on risk perception in adventure
tourism activities. This was done by conducting a Kruskal Wallis test. For this test, four

30

groupings were composed of nationalities tested (international, domestic) and gender (male,
female). The four groups were categorized as international males, international females,
domestic males, and domestic females. By this approach, the test was able to evaluate whether
the survey data supported the hypothesis that there was no difference between how the four
groups answered the question from the Likert scale provided. The table below illustrates the test
results.
Kruskal Wallis Test Results
Sample Groups

Total Participants (N=189)

Median Value

International Males

59

2.95

International Females

40

2.86

Domestic Males

32

2.65

Domestic Females

58

2.51

H Value

P Value

7.4965

0.05765

Figure 10, Kruskal Wallis Test Results

This result suggests that there is no significant difference between how these 4 groups answered
this question.
The final analysis was conducted using a Mann Whitney test, which can be used to determine if
there is a significant difference in distribution between two groups (in this case international
participants and domestic participants). The test revealed the two groups responded differently to
this question, specifically that international participants rated “experiencing risk” as a higher
value than that of the domestic participants in the study (International Median=2.9, Domestic
Median=2.5). These results are presented below.
As a result of the three tests conducted, the evidence suggests that the participants’ country of
origin influences their desire to experience risk in adventure tourism activities.

31

Mann Whitney Test Results
Sample Groups

Total Participants (N=189)

Mean of Ranks

Median Value

U Value

International Group

99

95

2.9

3455.5

Domestic Group

90

83.89

2.5

5454.5

Z - Score

P Value

2.65975

**0.00391

Figure 11, Mann Whitney Test Results

5.1.2 Qualitative Analysis
As discussed in the interview design section, the format of the interview guide was left relatively
open in order to allow the participants room to explore and discuss their own perceptions of the
adventure tourism experience. As a result of this, some of the questions and answers were unique
to each participant. However, the interview remained guided by the topic and is discussed in
terms of the defined patterns or trends with relevance to the literature and hypothesis. The first
part of the interview was designed to shed light on the participant’s motivation to participate in
adventure and role of risk in adventure activities. For the second part of the interview, each
participant was then instructed to watch a short 1:20 video showcasing the eight activities of the
study in practice (TRU Adventure Studies, 2018), and then answer the following questions in
response.
These questions have been ordered and discussed by each participant’s response. All participants
study at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC, Canada. The first participant was from
India studying in the second year of his MBA (Master of Business Administration) at TRU.
Participant 1 was relatively new to adventure activities since coming to Kamloops in 2018. The
second participant was from United Arab Emirates (UAE) studying in the fourth year of the
computer science program at TRU. Participant 2 was also new to adventure since arriving to
Kamloops in 2016. The last participant was a local from Kamloops studying in the third year of
the geography program at TRU. Participant 3 had relatively average experience in adventure
activities.

32

1. Tell me how you became interested in adventure tourism? Why did these particular
events mentioned spark your interest in adventure tourism?

In responses to question one, all three participants described accessibility as an important factor
for getting involved and interested in adventure tourism. This issue of accessibility seems to
manifest itself in three main areas described by each of the participants as natural
resources/geography, physical resources/equipment, and human resources/expertise. More
specific to nationality or national culture and the influence on adventure tourism, each participant
expressed different opinions of their relationship between these variables. Participant 1 discussed
how the adventure culture and outdoor community present in Kamloops is much different than
that in India. This difference between the two countries has in part influenced the engagement
with adventure and the feeling of achievement experienced by participant 1 when developing
their downhill skiing skills. Participant 2 discussed that growing up in the desert did not provide
much of a culture for adventure in Abu Dhabi. The isolation from this culture influenced the
participant to engage much further with the adventure through media and motivated the
participant to explore adventure opportunities when the opportunity arrived. However, the
participant also mentions that this upbringing resulted in further fear of some activities.
Participant 3 held similar perspectives to both 1 and 2 with respect to accessibility and building
interest through community. However, different from the first two participants, participant 3 was
raised in a location where the culture for adventure was very much present and influential.
According to the participant, this exposure to an outdoor community allowed for easier access to
adventure activities.
Participant 1
“There was hiking and camping available in the area growing up. However, there was generally
less interest for engaging with adventure in India. Going out with friends when young helped
influence me to engage with adventure sports. Since coming to Kamloops, the resources and
geography available has created more opportunity. The TRU AdventureU club is a very
important resource, offering cheap prices, community and different adventure sports to try.”

33

“Growing up in India there were usually two camping trips each year with the school. Mountains
and lakes could be visited by hiking in the area and the school had a British influence, so the
hiking was cool to see old sites. The hiking around old British artifacts added a cultural incentive
to the participating in the experience. Since coming to Canada, the Canadian adventure culture
has influenced me to participate more.”
Interviewer: “Has incentive to participate changed since coming to Canada?”
“The incentive to participate starts as exploration, then moves to sense of achievement when you
begin to repeat the process. For example, learning ski skills has provided me a great sense of
accomplishment which is significant to someone from India, because we generally do not grow
up skiing.”
“The incentive starts with a curiosity for exploration and with more experience the sense of
accomplishment increases as a reason to participate.”
Participant 2
“In Abu Dhabi, the only adventure tours are things like desert safaris, but I made friends with
people who were interested in adventure when I came to Kamloops. Watching media definitely
helped inspire sense of adventure. There was a show called ‘Yes Theory’ which was about
discomfort seekers who live life to the fullest and defy normal life doing things such as jumping
out of helicopters.”
“I engaged with ‘Yes Theory’ because of a more sheltered upbringing I had in Abu Dhabi but
fear of the sports is also present in determining interest. For example, if I see a friend break a
bone while snowboarding, I might not do the activity, or thinking about what parents would say
if I hurt myself doing this activity.”
Interviewer: Does fear motivate you or deter you from the activity?
“Fear stops me more than motivates me. However, I think my fear seems to be more perceived
than real sometimes.”

34

Participant 3
“Interest for adventure started in high school with friends who started climbing and hiking on
weekends. The interest for me might fade after the activity until boredom hits and then either
friends or recalling the experience brings you back to it. The knowledge I developed through
doing this stuff in the community led to an opportunity to work at summer camp doing adventure
stuff.”
Interviewer: How did you get connected to adventure in the community?
“Through friends with greater experience inviting me out to try different adventure activities.
Climbing, skiing, hiking, river boating and other Kamloops-based activities were the primary
focus. Whatever was accessible was what determined the exposure for the most part depending
on geography available and human/physical resources.”
Interviewer: Why do you come back to adventure?
“I am not a huge adventurer myself, but it is a fun activity with a group of people. I like the
social aspect of doing these activities more than other factors.”

2. Do you have any experience in Adventure Tourism? Tell me about these experiences.

In responses to question two, all three participants provided further depth to their relationships
with adventure tourism, and some responses began to address the role of risk within the
adventure tourism experience.

Participant 1 discussed how their experiences and perceptions of adventure is likely different
than others from Canada or those with greater experience. The participant then described how
this perception created much more value out of activities such as hiking and downhill skiing in
the snow because it was something new and exciting for the participant. More specific to risk,
the participant then went on to discuss why downhill skiing was preferable to other adventure

35

tourism activities. The participant responded by first discussing the shift to greater rewards from
the skill development and progression challenge before diving further into the root of this
challenge and excitement which he ultimately reflected on as overcoming fear of the risk present
in downhill skiing. Once again, these findings from participant 1 confirm some of the same ideas
shared by previous studies (Fluker, 2005; Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004; Martin and Priest, 1986
in Priest and Gass, 2005; Csikszentmihalyi, 1975 in Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Ewert, 1985).

Interestingly, when participant 2 responded to the same question, the response differed from
those of participant 1 and some of the literature which has been discussed. While the participant
certainly reiterates an influence from their upbringing on the attitude and interest toward
adventure, the incentive for participation is more consistent with nature than other themes. This
same finding was found in Mason et al. (2016), however this study seemed to focus on more
experienced individuals. Additionally, the participant reiterates how the challenge of hiking
always resonates with memories of the experience but did not specify in detail on the role of this
challenge throughout the experience.

When discussing memorable experiences, participant 3 discussed the commercial multi-day
trekking experiences he had in the Nepalese Himalaya mountains, bouldering recreationally in
India, and working commercially as a guide and facilitator at a summer camp offering adventure
activities. With respect to motivation for adventuring, the participant mentioned the social value
created out of these experiences which held the greatest value in adventure experiences. This
confirms another motivation for adventure participation (Ewert, 1985; Kerr and Houge
Mackenzie, 2012). However, Ewert’s (1985) claims found that lower experience individuals
were more likely socially motivated than more experienced adventurers. While participant 3 may
not be seen as a well experienced adventurer by most standards, they are certainly beyond the
discovery phases in adventure activities described (Martin and Priest, 1986 in Priest and Gass,
2005). Additionally, participant 3 discusses the notable differences between commercial
participation, recreational participation, and commercial facilitation/guiding which helps
confirming the differences as described by Fluker (2005).

36

Participant 1
“I think my interpretation of adventure is different than others based on my level of experience.
My most memorable experience would be a winter hike near Kamloops when I saw snow for the
first time and reached the summit of the small mountain. I also find great excitement in downhill
skiing because it is not something many people in India get to experience. I have tried cross
country skiing and I am not as interested in it because it seems less exciting.”

Interviewer: Why is downhill more exciting?
“There is a challenge presented and it gets more enjoyable with time and increased skill
development. There is also a sense of accomplishment after repeated visits when you see
improvement.”

Interviewer: Can you elaborate on speed and excitement? How does that feel in the experience?
“There is a sense of fear and risk present in downhill skiing. Overcoming the fear of speed and
finding control is where the challenge lies and what I enjoy in the experience.”

Interviewer: Fear is vital part of the experience?
“Yes definitely.”

Participant 2
“Out of all my experiences, kayaking and hiking trips resonate with me the most. What is most
memorable is the challenge of getting to the top of the mountain. The view is always the great
reward at the summit. I would say the thrill and nature are top incentives to participate and have
remained constant as a motivation to participate. Back home these chances never existed so I
hope to take advantage of that opportunity as much as possible.”

37

Participant 3
“My most memorable adventure experiences happened in Nepal. I spent some time there multiday trekking through the Himalayas. I also spent some time bouldering, which is similar to rock
climbing, on the same trip while in India with a group of friends. Additionally, summer camp
work has been very rewarding.”

Interviewer: Are the motivations and expectations in these different experiences similar?
“On a commercial basis the expectation is higher to create more value out of transaction. It is
hard to pinpoint the added value of commercial adventure, but it still offers social value and
excitement. On a recreational basis the environment is much more relaxed due to a lack of
financial commitment. Climbing and bouldering is always exciting and taking greater risk is
optional on a non-professional basis. When guiding or facilitating you bear much more
responsibility/liability and the purpose is different than experiencing the adventure as a
participant.”

3. How much does risk influence your willingness to participate and your experience?
Where do you draw the line and why? What do you think has shaped this decisionmaking process for you?

The third question targeted risk. Each of the three participants described the role of risk for them
in adventure tourism activities and the ways they manage it. While all three participants agreed
that the risk assessment process is shaped by life experience and self-reflection of one’s
competency, the role that risk played was differentiated. The first participant noted two sides of
risk, that it is initially perceived as danger but may serve a positive influence in adventure
tourism. The participant then goes on to describe the approach to risk taking as an ongoing
cost/benefit analysis. According to participant 1, it is depending on the stage of life and what you
have to lose that will determine the value of risk taking in adventure activities. This claim
supports the influence of personality as a determinant of risk perception (Morgan et al. 1997 in

38

Fluker, 2005). However, it may be argued that what one determines as a value worth risking may
be determined by culture (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1961 in Hills, 2002).

When asked the same question, participant 2 shared much more of a mitigation approach to risk
in adventure tourism activities. The participant’s response centered around an awareness of
human factors such as ego and group size which the participant associated with risk level present
in the activity. When asked about the commercially guided setting, the participant remained
consistent that risk level would not necessarily change because the participant trusted intuition
over other factors such as knowledge. This response challenges the notion that the approach to
commercial adventure tourism changes from a recreational basis (Fluker, 2005).

Participant 3 shared similar thoughts about the role of risk with that of participant 1 in that the
risk is what in many ways offers the thrills associated with the activity itself which may serve as
a motivation to participate. However, when asked about the commercial basis of adventure and
how things change from a recreational basis, the participant reiterated that the guide offers a
sense of security and ease which helps the participant contend with the activity more easily than
a self-guided approach might.

Participant 1
“My first thought on risk is danger. Although I feel that there is positivity in risk, and it can serve
as a motivation. I have a calculated approach to assessing risk. Have others done it? Is there any
difference between others and me? If not, I can try it. Building up the competency needed leads
to greater comfort in taking more risk.”
“There is also a personal evaluation on your stage of life. What are you risking for this
experience? This may be family, income, personal injury etc. The cost/benefit has to pay off.”
“The assessment is shaped by life experiences from the time you are a kid. Remaining reflective
of your own experiences allows you to grow and make better decisions regarding risk.”

39

Participant 2
“Risk tolerance decreases with more people. If there is professionalism and sound decision
making, then the risk becomes much more acceptable.”

Interviewer: If a commercial setting is applied is the risk tolerance different?
“Still the same process, the risk may decrease but I am very reliant on intuition. Does it feel right
or not.”
“My assessment process has been shaped by watching peers’ experiences and judging my own
competency/experience. Being self-aware of ego, the group and other factors influence my risk
tolerance.”

Participant 3
“Risk is important to think about when making decisions because so much of the risk must be
accepted in order to participate with some of these activities. Knowledge is available through
guides and I am willing to try almost anything if I am there with a guide and I am aware of the
risks. Risk is what offers the thrill to the experience.”

Interviewer: Does risk ever serve as an incentive?
“Yes. Since something could happen it creates a challenge and thrill associated to the actions of
the activity. While I am not a super risky person, I know the importance of that risk to the
activity.”

Interviewer: How does commercial guidance influence your risk tolerance?
“Guidance offers more security and ease with the decision making of the activity. However, I do
think that risk tolerance does increase with guidance.”

40

“My risk assessment is shaped by my experiences around adventure tourism and personal
competency.”

4. Where is home for you? How has your home influenced your relationship with Adventure
Tourism?

When asked about the role of their homes in the relationship with adventure tourism, themes of
‘adventure culture’ presence (meaning societal norm to participate in adventure tourism
activities) or lack thereof, and its impact were constant amongst all three participants. Perhaps
the biggest differences arose with respect to family relationships and this influence on
perceptions of adventure. Participant 1 began discussing how their experiences growing up were
far removed from that of most of the Indian population. This was due to a much more
individualist approach from the participant’s family than most of India which has a collectivist
nature, according to the interviewee. This individualist approach allowed the participant to
experience adventure easily without approval from family.

This experience is different than that of participant 2. The second participant discussed the role
of family and place as isolating from experiencing adventure tourism. The participant mentions
how the awareness about adventure tourism was present through different media sources
growing up, however due to lack of adventure available and family perceptions of the activities,
he was not able to participate in adventure activities. When asked about this family culture, the
participant perceived it as stemming from a mix of both Indian heritage and UAE culture. In
addition to the perceived cultural barriers, the participant also made note of age as a possibility
for being withheld from adventurous opportunities.

Participant 3 reiterated an outdoor culture rooted in the community of Kamloops. The participant
described how this culture created an expectation or norm to participate in adventure tourism
related activities around the community.

41

Participant 1
“Tamil Nadu, India is my home. India culture is collectivist and opposite to North America.
Indian families generally live together and support one another throughout their entire lives;
however, my upbringing was much different. I was at boarding school since I was eight years old
and only saw my parents in the summer. After school I went abroad for my bachelors and then
continued here to Kamloops for the MBA. I think that my individualist style upbringing allowed
me to be more independent with my decisions to engage with adventure.”
“My expectation is that had I not had the experiences through school and instead stayed with my
family I would not have had the same outdoor experiences at a young age and therefore might
not have had the same relationship with adventure.”

Participant 2
“I am from Abu Dhabi but my parents are from India. Abu Dhabi is strange to say home due to
the permanent residency requirements, which mean I can no longer hold residency without
committing to study there. Since coming to Canada, I have done much more adventuring.
Although my awareness of adventure was present when growing up, the knowledge and
resources required have only been present since coming to Canada. Isolation from camping trips
and other things have incentivized me to engage with adventure when the opportunity arose.”
“Parental influence has also served as a deterrent from adventure, I think the fear aspect comes
from them. I actually went skydiving in BC but I cannot tell my parents or they would freak out.”

Interviewer: Does the family influence resemble UAE or India culture?
“A mix of both I think. Due to the minimal amount of adventure present in the area growing up it
didn’t give way for those conversations as easy as other places might. Age difference could
influence this as well. The younger generation seems to engage with adventure much more than
the older population.”

42

Interviewer: But the fear and thrill and risk all remain part of the adventure experience for you?
“For me, yes.”

Participant 3
“Kamloops offers lots of adventure tourism in the immediate area. Outdoor activities are very
central to the Kamloops culture and certainly influence your upbringing as they become the norm
amongst the community.”

INTERVIEWER PLAYS VIDEO FROM 0:20 – 2:00
(TRU, 2017)

5. Did the activities portrayed in the video match your expectations?
In responses to question five, all three participants described a familiarity with most of the
adventure tourism activities portrayed.
Participant 1
“Yeah. They all looked local and I have seen all these before, but I have not done all of them
yet.”
Participant 2
“Oh yeah, mountaineering looked as expected with the ropes and snow gear. The whitewater
kayaking was faster than I had expected though.”
Participant 3
“Pretty much yeah, I’ve had exposure to all of them except ice climbing. So, I haven’t done all of
them, but I have seen them being done, with the exception of ice climbing.”

43

6. What emotions did you feel during the video? Why? Were there any moments in
particular that resonate with you? Why?
In responses to question six, all three participants provided further depth to their relationships
with adventure tourism, with each response giving an interesting and unique take on the
participants perceptions with various adventure tourism activities described.

Interestingly, participant 1 went on to describe their interest in surfing particularly and the
perceptions that they carry about the adventure sport. Participant 1 described how they perceive
the risks of sharks and wildlife to be a great concern and inherent in the sport of surfing. Upon
further probing to the root of this perception, participant 1 described media and inexperience as
two critical factors framing this perception, further supporting the literature (Morgan et al. 1997
in Fluker, 2005; Slovic, 1990 in Dickson and Dolnicair, 2004). Further describing the role of
nationality in this perception, participant 1 described India as a place without surfing and
therefore nowhere to understand surfing on any level beyond what is available through media.

Participant 2 shared similar ideas of experience and exposure when discussing their perceptions
of various adventure activities. Most notably, when participant 2 made mention of
mountaineering as seen in the video, the participant described the activity as seemingly
“annoying” due to their experiences or lack thereof with snow and snow related adventure
tourism activities, suggesting a correlation to geography as another influential factor in
perceptions.

Participant 3 discussed both surfing and ice climbing but shared very different perceptions of
both as stemming from experience, exposure, and media, similar ideas shared by the other
participants. When describing surfing, which participant 3 has some experience doing, feelings
of excitement were felt during the video due to recollections of the participant’s own
experiences. However, when the participant discussed ice climbing, which the participant has
never seen done or experienced first-hand, it was feelings of fear which were invoked rather than
excitement as felt in the former. This relationship between experience and exposure as seen from
all the participants seems to confirm the findings of Martin and Priest (1986) as mentioned in the
literature.

44

Participant 1
“It looked like my bucket list video. I would like to try all of these.”
“I have been researching lots about the ocean recently because I am hoping to try surfing this
summer, so I was looking up shark attacks and such.”
Interviewer: You associate sharks and surfing?
“Yeah. I have seen this in movies, and I don’t know any surfers so I thought I should research.
The research I saw showed sharks off California so I thought it might be possible in Canada. “
“In other sports, you have much more control, but in surfing it is possible for a wild animal to
attack you. For this reason, I think surfing is the highest risk of all the activities.”
Interviewer: Where is this perception formed from? Why do you think surfing is high risk?
“Most of these sports are not done in India. Trekking and camping might be done but the others
not as much. I have never seen anyone surfing. So, between lack of exposure and media this has
become a fear.”
Interviewer: Is that a common perception in India?
“Well, there are so many movies about sharks attacking people, and all I knew about North
America before coming here was from the movies.”
Participant 2
“Ice climbing stood out because it looks dangerous. Trekking resonated because I have done it
the most.”
“Mountaineering would annoy me I think. Seeing as I am not used to having snow, I know
getting it everywhere in your gloves and such would suck.”

45

Participant 3
“All of them get me stoked and look like fun, except I am not sure about ice climbing because I
haven’t done it”
“Take surfing for example, its super challenging when you are learning, but if you get up once
you won the day. So, recalling the feelings of these activities triggers that excitement or emotion
for me.”
“When seeing the ice climbing, I could feel a sense of fear. But obviously I haven’t done it and
other people do it regularly and are fine. So, I think that is a result of my inexperience to it.”

7. After watching the video, which activities attract you the most/least? Why?
When describing which activities looked the most attractive as opposed to the least, each
participant offered different perspectives on how they determined their respective responses.

Participant 1 described their interest in various activities as a result of scarcity/accessibility
associated with the adventure tourism activity. Participant 1 describes themselves as existing in
the exploration realm of adventure, where the primary incentive exists in trying new things
above other sources of value in adventure tourism. This phase has once again been described
throughout the adventure experience paradigm (Martin and Priest, 1986 in Priest and Gass,
2005). The participant describes this explorer mentality as the incentive to engage with what is
not easily accessible over what is. The most attractive were both white water kayaking and ocean
kayaking, with ice climbing close behind.

Participant 2 described the sports which offered more instant gratification such as thrill and
excitement as opposed to those which are slower and more long term oriented. This was
suggested from the most attractive activities being white water kayaking and rock climbing,
whereas the least attractive were ice climbing and mountaineering which the participant
described as “tiring and cumbersome”.

46

Participant 3 suggested that the interest in participation has a direct correlation with experience.
This was described by the participants activity value placed on competency rather than other
aspects such as exploration which was described by the first participant. This competency value
suggested by participant 3 also confirms the literature discussed that incentive to participate may
change as a result of competency (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975 in Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Ewert,
1985).

Participant 1
“Kayaking on both river and ocean, and perhaps ice climbing would be cool because I have
never seen an ice cave or things like that in person.”
Interviewer: How does experience in an activity relate to your motivation to participate in an
activity?
“I am mainly motivated by exploration. Since I have accomplished so much in skiing, I am
getting more interest in learning new things. That does not decrease my interest in skiing, but it
does increase my interest in others.”
Interviewer: Does the exploration aspect take priority over the challenge with the activity?
“For me I think so. If you know you won’t have the ability to go repeatedly then you may as well
try new things rather than the same.”
“I think a lot of things influence this though. It comes down to opportunity. For surfing, I will
only have few opportunities because I don’t live near the ocean. However, I do live near a ski hill
so I know the possibility of skiing will exist while here.”
Participant 2
“The least attractive would have to be ice climbing and mountaineering. They just look tiring and
cumbersome.”

47

“I think the most attractive would be, white water kayaking and rock climbing, for the quick
thrill and excitement factor.”
Participant 3
“Mostly surfing, climbing, trekking, and mountaineering. I have done these the most and have
really connected with the activities., whereas the others I have less experience, so I don’t connect
with them as much. It’s not that I wouldn’t be interested in them, but I have much easier
accessibility and competency in the ones I listed.”
Interviewer: On that note, do you think that competency creates value?
“Yeah definitely. For example, in rock climbing if I view it with no experience it just looks like
someone climbing a wall but if I have done it then I can understand and resonate with the
challenges of certain routes or moves.”
Interviewer: Does that competency value still exist on a commercial basis?
“Yeah. There is always value in going back to adventure, however that is.”

8. After watching the video, which activities appear the most/least risky?’
When discussing the which adventure activities appeared to be risky or not, each participant
offered similarity and contrast in their response. This was most evident in the sport of surfing
which participant 1 deemed as perhaps the riskiest of the eight, whereas participant 3 deemed it
as perhaps the least risky. From the three participants, it is clear that this perception of risk bears
a significant relationship to experience based on the responses. This further validates the
legitimacy of past studies discussed (Ewert, 1985; Martin and Priest, 1986 in Priest and Gass,
2005; Fluker, 2005; Mason et al. 2016; Robinson, 1992).
Participant 1
“Surfing and Mountaineering are the riskiest, I guess trekking is the least.”

48

Participant 2
“Whitewater kayaking and ice climbing would be the riskiest. As for least risky, I think rock
climbing and trekking. Most treks are done on more common routes, so you know people have
been there.”
Participant 3
“Ice climbing would be the riskiest. Least would be trekking or maybe surfing based on my
experiences.”

49

Chapter 6: Limitations
There are limitations to the research.
The first major limitation to the study was the sample size. From the methodology section it is
clear that the sample size was limited due to the timeline and environment with which the
research was conducted, therefore influencing test possibilities as well. From the literature
discussed, seven factors influencing risk perception are evident: gender, age, experience, media,
personality, wealth and lastly culture. As culture was the prime variable in question for the study,
it is important that the tests can appropriately be conducted without influence from the other
variables which notably effect risk perception. The Kruskal Wallis tests conducted were
implemented for this specific purpose, which in this case, tested the relationship between gender
and nationality. However, once again, due to limited numbers with the sample size, the same
tests could not be conducted accurately to account for the other factors mentioned.
To better illustrate, of the sample surveyed, approximately 75% of participants consisted of
individuals under the age of 25 and only 11% over the age of 30. As a result of this young
demographic of participants, the results may not be representative of all ages. Additionally, the
majority of international participants surveyed were international expatriates/students. Once
again, this demographic of participants may not be representative of those who remain within
their respective country of origin. As international expatriates/students are predisposed to many
types of risk within their journey abroad, there may be a separation in risk tolerance between
individuals in their home country, and those having already travelled abroad. These challenges
presented to the research are discussed further in chapter 8 regarding recommendations and
opportunity for further research.
The second major limitation to the study was the degree to which activity perception is
uninformed. For the majority of the study (with the exception of the video exercise), the research
does not inform the subject on the activities in question. Rather, the study jumps to interpreting
perceptions of the participant and the reasoning behind perceptions, primarily, risk perception.
This leaves experience factors as greatly influential rather than controlled to better isolate for the
cultural variable. As a result of this, the potential implications of the study are limited.

50

Lastly, the study assumed cultural influence was determined by the participants nationality. In
the fast paced global world which adventure tourism now operates within, culture is not limited
to one’s nationality. This cultural measurement may be misrepresentative of adventure tourism
participants and the participant’s own culture influencing their risk perceptions.

51

Chapter 7: Conclusions
The research question sought to further understand how nationality influences perceptions of risk
in adventure tourism activities. Throughout the study, this question was investigated via a mixed
method approach involving both quantitative and qualitative analysis.
The quantitative analysis was conducted via the testing of the hypothesis “the participants
country of origin will impact their motivation to experience risk in adventure tourism activities”.
This hypothesis was tested via three quantitative tests which rejected the null hypothesis that the
participants country of origin will not have an impact their motivation to experience risk in
adventure tourism activities. The study found that of both the international and domestic
participants surveyed, there was a significant difference under 5% between each groups
motivation to experience risk. Both groups rated the value of experiencing risk from 1-4 where
1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree. The finding was that the international group median
value of 2.9, was significantly greater than domestic group median value of 2.5 when asked to
value “experience risk” as a motivation to participate. This suggests that international
participants may have a higher motivation to experience risk than that of domestic participants in
adventure tourism activities.
To further validate the findings, this study applied a qualitative approach to the research
question. These findings were compared to the qualitative interviews conducted with three
individuals of different nationalities.
Interviews were conducted with three different participants from three different countries, India,
United Arab Emirates, and Canada. All three participants were selected based on similar
demographics and experience to best investigate the cultural influence on each individual’s
perception. The interviews found consistency and challenges to some of the literature discussed
but could not draw any major conclusions with respect to the hypothesis. However, differences
were observed with respect to perceptions of risk and adventure between the participant’s
interviewed. This was most notable in the sport of ocean surfing which the participants from
India and Canada shared greatly different views on regarding risk perception. When asked about
their motivation to experience risk in adventure tourism activities, none of the participants

52

showed attraction to risk itself but did accept the value of risk in adventure activities. While all
the participants shared the value of risk in adventure activities, this was not the primary factor
influencing their participation. Furthermore, the qualitative data observed there is a clear
relationship between culture and the participants relationship to adventure tourism. This
relationship was suggested by all three participants when asked about interest, experience, risk
and their nationality in the context of adventure. However, while it may be suggested that the
relationship between culture and adventure exists, it cannot be concluded as to how exactly
culture influences the perceptions of adventure and risk, as responses varied from participant to
participant. Additionally, there appears to be a great correlation between participants’ experience
and risk perception, which was accounted for but had limited analysis due to the nature of the
study.
From a mixed methods interpretation it may be suggested that there is a higher value of
motivation placed on risk by international participants than that of domestic participants.
However, the study also suggests that risk may not serve as the primary motivation for either
international or domestic participants. This further supports the findings from Weber (2001),
Mason et al. (2014), and Kerr and Houge Mackenzie, (2012) which found that factors such as
nature, socializing, and personal challenge may exist as the primary motivation for participation,
all of which were mentioned as motives from participants within this study. Lastly, there is a
clear discrepancy between nationality and the culture associated with the participant. The nature
of the participants culture is clearly influential, further supporting the literature discussed by
Morgan et al. (1997), but the development of this influence is not limited to nationality of the
participant. This confirms criticism and limitations noted within the study by Kim et al. (2016)
which measured risk perception via a national measurement.
To interpret the findings from these relationships between culture, risk and adventure further,
more research is required.
I recommend that future research be conducted on this topic before any in depth
recommendations can be appropriately implemented. These recommendations are discussed
further in the following chapter.

53

Chapter 8: Recommendations & Further Research
8.1 Recommendations
From the conclusions of the study it is clear that culture is influential in participants’ perceptions
of risk surrounding adventure tourism activities. More specifically, there is a greater motivation
to experience risk amongst international participants over domestic participants. Considering
these findings from the study, adventure tourism businesses operating with both international and
domestic markets should evaluate marketing strategies differently between the two groups. By
successfully implementing an approach which considers differences in motivation between the
two groups, businesses may achieve growth into the global market.
As to how this recommendation can be implemented requires further research.
8.2 Further Research
Future research should consider further analysis of the relationship between culture and other
influential variables in the formation of individual risk perception. While this analysis has been
conducted between nationality and gender for the purposes of this study, there seems to be great
influence placed onto the variable of experience. Based on the sample taken, this study is also
unable to determine the applicability of the study to older demographics which may be
influential in the relationship between nationality and risk perception.
Another area of recommended research would be further defining cultural influence in the
context of adventure. It is evident that this remains influential in perceptions of adventure/risk,
but as to how and why remains an area worth exploring.

54

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adventure Travel Trade Association (2016). Adventure Tourism Development Index 2016
Report. Retrieved from https://www.adventuretravel.biz/research/2016-adventure-tourismdevelopment-index/
Ayton, P., Murray, S., Hampton, J.A. (2019). Terrorism, Dread Risk and Bicycle Accidents.
Judgment and Decision Making, 14, 3, 280–287.
Beedie, P. Hudson, S. (2003). Emergence of Mountain Based Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research. 30, 3, 625–643.
Birukou, A., Blanzieri, E., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F. (2009). A Formal Definition of Culture.
University of Trento.
Buckley, R. (2000). NEAT: Trends in Nature, Eco, and Adventure Tourism. International
Journal of Tourism Research. 437-444.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). A framework for design. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches, 9-11.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. Springer.
Dickson, T. J., Dolnicair, S. (2004). No risk, no fun: The role of perceived risk in adventure
tourism. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/246
Ewert, A. (1985). Why People Climb: The Relationship of Participant Motives and Experience
Level to Mountaineering. Journal of Leisure Research. 17, 3, 241.
Fluker, M.R. (2005). Perceived Risk in Adventure Tourism. Victoria University.
Fluker, M. R., Turner, L. W. (2000). Needs, motivations, and expectations of a commercial
whitewater rafting experience. Journal of travel research. 38, 4, 380-389.
Gardiner, S., Kwek, A. (2016). Chinese Participation in Adventure Tourism: A Study of
Generation Y International Students’ Perceptions. Journal of Travel Research. 56, 4, 496–506.
Hills, M. D. (2002). Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's Values Orientation Theory. Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture. 4, 4, 3. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1040
Hofstede, G. (2009). Geert Hofstede cultural dimensions. Retrieved from
http://taylortraining.com/clients/mcc/Hofstede_Cultural_Dimension_Explained(external).pdf

55

Hofstede, G. (2011). National cultures, organizational cultures, and the role of management.
Values and Ethics for the 21st Century. 385-403.
Huang, S.S., Crotts, J. (2019). Relationships between Hofstede's cultural dimensions and tourist
satisfaction: A cross-country cross-sample examination. Tourism Management. 72, 232–241.
Jiang, W. (2000). The relationship between culture and language. ELT Journal. 54, 4.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational researcher. 33, 7, 14-26.
Jones, R.A., Ellis, G.D. (1996). Effect of variation in perceived risk on secretion of B-Endorphin.
Leisure Sciences. 18, 277-291.
Kane, M. J., Tucker, H. (2004). Adventure tourism: The freedom to play with reality. Tourist
Studies. 4, 3, 217-234.
Kerr, J., Houge Mackenzie, S. (2012). Multiple Motives for Participating in Adventure Sports.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 13, 649–657.
Kim, H., Schroeder, A., Pennington-Gray, L. (2016). Does Culture Influence Risk Perceptions?.
Tourism Review International. 20, 11-28.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Age International.
Lowhorn, G. L. (2007). Qualitative and quantitative research: How to choose the best design.
Regent University.
Lynch, P., Moore, K., Minchington, L. (2012). Adventure cultures: An international comparison.
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 12, 237-260.
Mason, M.C. Gos, L. Moretti, A. (2016). Motivations, perceived risk and behavioural intentions
in hard adventure tourism: A natural park case study. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management.
34, 181-199.
Muller, T. E., Cleaver, M. (2000). Targeting the CANZUS baby boomer explorer and adventurer
segments. Journal of Vacation Marketing. 6, 2, 154-169.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative social work. 1, 3, 261-283.

56

Priest, S. and Gass, M. (2005). Effective leadership in adventure programming. Human Kinetics
Publishing 2nd edition.
Robinson, D. (1992). A Descriptive Model of Enduring Risk Recreation Involvement. Journal of
Leisure Research. 24, 52-63.

Roehl, W.S., Fesenmaier, D.R. (1992). Risk Perceptions and Pleasure Travel: An Exploratory
Analysis. Journal of Travel Research. 30, 4, 17-26.
Tacca, M. (2011). Commonalities between perception and cognition. Frontiers in Psychology. 2,
358.
Thompson Rivers University (2017). 9 to 5 will never be the same. (Video). Youtube. Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYOutBb7fZE

Weber, K. (2001). Outdoor Adventure Tourism: A Review of Research Approaches. Annals of
Tourism Research. 28, 2, 360–377.
World Tourism Organization (2014). Global Report on Adventure Tourism. AM Reports. 9.
Retrieved from http://uaeta.org/files/file/UNWTO-global-report-on-adventure-tourism-web1415263344.pdf

57

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Survey

58

59

60

61

62

Appendix B: Interview Guide

63