Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169180

The inuence of push and pull factors at Korean national parks

Samuel Seongseop Kim
a,
*, Choong-Ki Lee
b
, David B. Klenosky
c
a
Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Sejong University, 98, Gunja-dong, Gwangjin-ku, Seoul 143-747, South Korea
b
Department of Tourism Management, Kyunghee University, South Korea
c
Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Leisure Studies, Purdue University, West Lofayette, IN, USA
Received 24 February 2002; accepted 13 June 2002
Abstract
This research examines the inuence of push and pull factors on visitors to the National Parks in Korea. During the summer of
1999, 2720 visitors to six different National Parks in South Korea completed a survey instrument designed to assess their reasons for
visiting the park they selected (push factors) and evaluate how well that park performed on a selected set of attributes (pull factors).
The results of a factor analysis identied four push factor domains and three pull factor domains underlying respondents push and
pull factor ratings. Additional analyses investigated differences in the push and pull factor domains for different socio-demographic
subgroups; and examined the interrelationships among the push and pull factor domains. The study results hold useful implications
for park managers and researchers interested in studying how push and pull factors impact tourist and visitor behaviour.
r 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: Pushpull theory; Tourist/visitor behaviour; Korean National Parks
1. Introduction
National parks around the world have been recog-
nized as important tourism and recreational resources to
local people and out-of-town visitors (Buckley, 2000;
Cho, 1988; Uysal, McDonald, & Martin, 1994). In the
US, ever since Yellowstone was designated as the rst
national park in the world in 1872, about 357 US
National Park Service units (including 50 national
parks) have been established (Nickerson, 1996). Ap-
proximately 270 million visits were reported annually
(Simon & Doerksen, 1996). The US National Parks
provide visitors with scenic, archaeological, historical,
or scientic value (Gunn, 1988). In Australia, the Royal
National Park was established south of Sydney in 1897
and was Australias rst, and the worlds second,
national park. Since then, about 3200 national parks,
conservation parks, reserves, and refuges have been set
aside in Australia and Tasmania. Several national parks
in Australia offer opportunities to experience Aboriginal
culture as well as natural resources. According to recent
statistics, more than 4 million people visit Australias
national parks each year (http://www.gorp.com/horp/
location/australi//park/parks.htm).
Likewise, national parks in Korea are important
recreational and tourism attractions to domestic visitors
and international tourists. The rst Korean national
park was established in 1967 and 19 more parks have
been added since that time. Of the 20 national parks
currently operating in Korea, 16 are located in
mountainous regions, three near ocean/marine or beach
areas, and one among major cultural/historic sites.
Compared to the national parks of other countries,
those in Korea have several unique aspects. Most of the
16 national parks in mountainous regions have specta-
cular scenic beauty of mountains, waterfalls, forests and
orae and especially, ancient Buddhist temples with
numerous Buddhism relics. Since Korea accepted
Buddhism in 527 AD (during Shilla Dynasty: 57 BC
935 AD), countless temples have been established.
Among them, most of the famous temples are located
on mountains away from urban areas. The Buddhist
culture represents an important resource that attracts
visitors to the mountain-based national parks. Inter-
nationally, well known as having the richest historical
and cultural resources in Korea, the Kyungju National
Park is located in Kyungju city which was once
the capital of the Shilla Dynasty (during the dynastys
*Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sskim@sejong.ac.kr (S.S. Kim), cklee@khee.
ac.kr (Choong-Ki Lee), klenosky@purdue.edu (D.B. Klenosky).
0261-5177/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 5 9 - 6
1000-year long reign). According to the Korean
National Parks Authority (1999a,b), this park features
103 national treasures and 72 major historical monu-
ments. In sum, the Korean National Parks system
provides domestic and international visitors with
important opportunities to see and experience unique
natural, historical and cultural resources.
A total of 18 national parks are operated and
managed by the Korean National Parks Authority and
two by city or provincial administrative units. The
Korean National Parks Authority was established in
1987 as a professional organization for park manage-
ment and currently operates under the Ministry of
Environment. The areas covered by the 20 national
parks spread over 1600 acres; with land consisting of
945:4 acres and ocean areas 654:6 acres: Taken together,
the parks occupy 6% of South Korea. About 20 million
visits to the parks were reported in 1999. Given a
Korean population of 52 million, most adult Koreans
are likely to visit a national park once or more in a year.
Despite the importance of the Korean National
Parks, very little is known about the factors that
inuence park visitation behaviour in Korea. This
research attempted to ll this void by examining the
push and pull factors that inuence decisions to visit the
national parks in Korea. More specically, the objec-
tives were to: (1) identify the push and pull factors that
inuence decisions to visit Korean National Parks; (2)
investigate differences in these push and pull factors for
different socio-demographic groups; and (3) examine the
pattern of interrelationships among these push and pull
factors.
2. Literature review
The pushpull framework provides a useful approach
for examining the motivations underlying tourist and
visitation behaviour (Dann, 1977; Klenosky, 2002). In
this framework, push factors refer to the specic forces
that inuence a persons decision to take a vacation (i.e.,
to travel outside of ones everyday environment), while
pull factors refer to the forces that inuence the persons
decision of which specic destination should be selected.
2.1. Push factors
Push factors have been conceptualized as motiva-
tional factors or needs that arise due to a disequilibrium
or tension in the motivational system. That is, as factors
that motivate or create a desire to travel (Crompton,
1979; Dann, 1977, 1981; Iso-Ahola, 1982, 1989; Pearce
& Caltabiano, 1983; Pyo, Mihalik, & Uysal, 1989; Uysal
& Hagan, 1993; Yuan & McDonald, 1990).
Iso-Ahola (1982,1989) suggested that it is a central
basis in tourist behaviour study to identify motivational
factors that are the reasons for and direction of
behaviour. He suggested two basic motivational dimen-
sions of leisure or tourism behaviour, escaping and
seeking, which simultaneously inuence peoples leisure
behaviour. For example, a tourist may want to make a
trip to escape from his/her personal or interpersonal
environment (e.g., escape from routine everyday life)
and to seek out psychological (intrinsic) rewards in the
personal or interpersonal dimensions (e.g., adventure or
friendship building). Thus, these motivational factors
explain why tourists make a trip and what type of
experience, destination or activity they want (Ryan,
1991).
Most tourism motivation studies have been conducted
in the context of a broad tourist region or else one
specic tourism destination (Botha, Crompton, & Kim,
1999; Cha, McCleary, & Uysal, 1995; Fakeye &
Crompton, 1991; Oh, Uysal, & Weaver, 1995; Turnbull
& Uysal, 1995; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994; Yuan &
McDonald, 1990). The common push factors found in
these studies were escape from everyday environment,
novelty, social interaction, and prestige.
However, some studies have focused on motivations
of visitors to national parks (Fielding & Pearce, 1992;
Grafe, 1977; Jeong, 1997; Kim, 1993; Kim, Kim, &
Kong, 1989; Loker-Murphy, 1996; Snepenger, Peterson,
& Bench, 1989; Uysal, McDonald, & Martin, 1994). For
example, Grafe (1977) investigated motivations of
recreationists who participated in a oat trip at Big
Bend National Park in the United States. He found
eight motivational domains such as learning about
nature, stress release/solitude, challenge/adventure/
achievement, self-awareness, status, intra-group
afliation, enjoyment, and autonomy. Enjoyment
was the most important motivation, while the least
important motives were status and self-awareness.
Similarly, Uysal, McDonald, and Martin (1994)
examined Australian visitors to the US National Parks
and natural areas. Results of factor analysis of 30
motivation items produced ve domains: relaxation/
hobbies, novelty, enhancement of kinship relation-
ship, escape, prestige. Novelty was the most im-
portant motivational factor, followed by prestige,
enhancement of kinship relationships, relaxation/
hobbies, and escape. In comparison to relative
importance of motivation factors between park and
non-park visitors, those who had no experience with
visiting the US National Parks showed a higher level on
the novelty and relaxation/hobbies factors than those
who had the experience.
Loker-Murphy (1996) identied a motivation-based
segmentation using domestic and foreign backpackers in
national parks of Australia. Among the motivational
factors examined, the primary factors were excitement/
adventure and meeting local people. Results of a
cluster analysis using the motivational factors produced
S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169180 170
four clusters: achievers, self-developers, social/excite-
ment seekers and escapers/relaxers. The motivation
clusters were signicantly different in age and educa-
tional level, destinations visited, preferred experience or
activity and usage of word of mouth promotion.
Prior research conducted in Korea found the major
motivational factors inuencing visits to Korean
National Parks to be health enhancement, climbing,
friendship building, escaping from everyday life,
nature appreciation or study and learning about ones
religious heritage (Ahn & Kim, 1996; Jeong, 1997; Kim,
1993; Kim et al., 1989; Lee, Kim, & Kwon, 1987). In
several of these studies, the relative importance of the
motivational forces was found to differ across gender,
age, and income groups (Kim, 1993; Jeong, 1997).
In sum, visitors to national parks have been found to
be inuenced by a number of push factors including
challenge or adventure, enjoyment, social interac-
tion (building friendship or family togetherness),
novelty, and religious heritage (especially for Korean
National Park visitors). Further, the relative importance
of these motivational forces has been found to vary as a
function of visitors socio-demographic characteristics.
2.2. Pull factors
Pull factors, in contrast to push factors, have been
conceptualised as relating to the features, attractions, or
attributes of the destination itself, such as beaches and
water/marine-based resources, mountains and beauti-
ful scenery, or historic and cultural resources. Several
investigations of pull factors have been reported in the
travel and tourism literature.
Fakeye and Crompton (1991) identied six pull
factors domains from 32 attribute items using a sample
of visitors to a well-known winter destination in Texas.
The pull factors identied included social opportunities
and attractions, natural and cultural amenities,
accommodations and transportation, infrastructure,
foods, and friendly people, physical amenities and
recreation activities and bars and evening entertain-
ment. In their study, perceived importance on the
attribute domains differed among nonvisitors, rst-
timers and repeaters. Hu and Ritchie (1993) explored
the relative importance of 16 destination attributes in
contributing to the attractiveness of a travel destination.
The relative importance of many of these attributes was
found to vary across groups that differed in terms of
their travel purpose and destination familiarity. Turn-
bull and Uysal (1995) found six pull factors including
heritage/culture, city enclave, comfort-relaxation,
beach resort, outdoor resources and rural and
inexpensive. They identied differences in perceived
importance of the pull factors examined among visitors
from different nationalities. Kim, Crompton, and Botha
(2000) reported four domains of destination attributes,
such as entertainment, infrastructure, physical en-
vironment and high proles entertainment opportu-
nities. Subsequent analyses revealed respondent
subgroups that differed in terms of the importance
attached to each of these pull factor items.
In the context of national parks in Korea, Jeong
(1997) investigated the relative importance of six pull
factors perceived by visitors to a mountain-based
national park. The pull factors included natural
resources, historical and cultural resources, climbing
or good walking facilities and facilities for rest and
recreational activities, information and convenience
facilities and commercial and accommodation facil-
ities. The pull factors are consistent with those of
studies undertaken in setting of Korean National Parks
(Ahn & Kim, 1996; Kim, 1993; Kim et al., 1989; Lee
et al., 1987). In his study, visitors perceived natural
resources and historical and cultural resources to be
the most important attractions at the national park.
Male and lower income visitors perceived higher level of
satisfaction on the commercial and accommodation
facilities than female and higher income groups did.
In sum, pull factors of national parks are likely to be
different between countries or their locations. Never-
theless, the important pull factors associated with most
national parks referred to natural resources and/or
historical or cultural resources. As noted earlier,
Korean National Parks are unique, compared to those
of other countries, in that they often have Buddhist
temples and other cultural and historical resources as
prominent park features. And, as in the case of push
factors, the relative importance of pull factors has been
found to differ for visitors in different socio-demo-
graphic subgroups.
2.3. Relationship between push and pull factors
Push and pull factors have generally been character-
ized as relating to two separate decisions made at two
separate points in timeone focusing on whether to go,
the other on where to go (Klenosky, 2002). Dann (1981)
noted that once the trip has been decided upon, where
to go, what to see or what to do (relating to the specic
destinations) can be tackled. Thus, analytically, and
often both logically and temporally, push factors
precede pull factors (Dann, 1981, p. 207; see also
Dann, 1977, p. 186).
In contrast to this perspective, other researchers have
suggested that push and pull factors should not be
viewed as being entirely independent of each other but
rather as being fundamentally related to each other
(Klenosky, 2002). In particular, it has been noted that
while the internal forces push people to travel, the
external forces of the destination itself simultaneously
pull them to choose that particular destination
(Cha et al., 1995; Uysal & Jurowski, 1994). Similarly,
S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169180 171
Dann (1981) has pointed out, potential tourists in
deciding where to go may also take into consideration
various pull factors which correspond adequately to
their motivational push (Dann, 1981, p. 206).
Research examining the interrelationship between
push and pull forces has only recently been reported in
the travel and tourism literature (Baloglu & Uysal, 1996;
Klenosky, 2002; Oh et al., 1995; Pyo et al., 1989; Uysal
& Jurowski, 1994). Each of these prior efforts has
focused primarily on visitors to international and
overseas tourism destinations. Researchers are yet to
examine the relationship between push and pull factors
in settings that involve more commonplace domestic
travel decisions, such as residents decisions to visit a
nature-based resource such as a national park. Further-
more, researchers are yet to examine how the relation-
ship among these push and pull factors might differ as a
function of socio-demographic variables.
3. Methodology
3.1. Study site and data collection
The data used in this study were collected from
visitors to six national parks located in South Korea.
The national parks selected differed in that some were
located in urban locations, some in the mountain
regions, others near historic or cultural resources, and
others featured key natural resources such as famous
maple trees, beaches, and other marine/water settings.
Twelve motivational items (push factors) and 12
attribute items (pull factors) were generated based on
a review of the tourism and recreation literature. A
pretest, involving a sample of undergraduate students,
was conducted to rene the list of push and pull factor
items.
The primary data collection effort involved an on-site
self-administered questionnaire at six national parks in
South Korea. Study respondents were asked a series of
screening questions to make sure that they were familiar
with the resources available at Korean National Parks
and at least 18 years of age. The questionnaires were
distributed to national park visitors during the summer
vacation season (JulyAugust) in 1999. A total of 2720
usable questionnaires were collected during this period.
3.2. Measurement of push and pull factors
The push factor items were measured by having
respondents indicate their agreementdisagreement with
statements describing their potential reasons for visiting
a given national park. More specically, respondents
were told: Here we are interested in your reasons for
visiting this National Park. For each statement below,
circle the number that best describes your reasons for
visiting here. For example, one push factor item was
to get away from everyday life. Then, respondents
were presented with a 5-point Likert-type scale [strongly
disagree (1), moderately disagree (2), neutral (3),
moderately agree (4), strongly agree (5)]. The pull factor
items were measured using a similar procedure. In this
section respondents were told: Here we are interested in
your view about what makes this National Park
attractive. For each statement below, circle the number
that best describes how you feel about this park on the
following 12 attributes. An example of pull factor item
was appropriate area for childrens study on natural
resources. The same 5-point Likert scale was used to
assess these pull factor items.
3.3. Analysis
Each set of 12 push and pull factor items were
factor analyzed in order to delineate the underlying
dimensions. According to Kaisers (1974) criterion,
only factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were
retained; and only items with factor loadings and
communalities of greater than 0.4 were included in the
nal factor structure. Reliability alphas within each
dimension were computed to conrm the factors
internal consistency.
To examine the overall difference between levels of
socio-demographic variables in push and pull factors, a
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) proce-
dure was conducted. If statistical signicance was found,
follow up one-way ANOVA tests with Bonferroni
multiple comparisons correction or t-tests were subse-
quently undertaken to examine the signicant differences
between socio-demographic subgroups (representing
different levels of age, occupation, gender and income)
on the push and pull factors. When signicant differ-
ences in one-way ANOVA tests were found, Duncans
multiple range test was used to examine the source of
differences across the respondent subgroups. Finally,
Pearsons correlation coefcients were computed to
identify the degree of interrelations among the push
and pull factor dimensions both for the entire sample
and the socio-demographic subgroups.
4. Results
4.1. Demographic prole of respondents
Table 1 summarizes the demographic prole of the
study respondents. Most of the respondents were male
(65.0%), in the less than 29 (37.3%) or 2939 (31.4%)
age groups, worked as a company employee (30%), had
at least a university degree (60.8%), and had a house-
hold income between 10 million and 19.99 million won
(42%).
S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169180 172
4.2. Factor analyses of the push and pull factor scales
To examine the dimensions underlying the push and
pull factor scales, a principal component factor analysis
with varimax rotation was undertaken. The 12 push
factor items yielded four factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1.0 (Table 2). These factors explained 58% of the
variance and were labelled: family togetherness and
study; appreciating natural resources and health;
escaping from everyday routine; and adventure and
building friendship. All 12 items had factor loadings of
over 0.46. The reliability alphas, which are designed to
check the internal consistency of items within each
dimension, were greater than 0.68. These coefcients
were higher than or close to the standard of 0.70
recommended by Nunnally (1978).
A similar principal component factor analysis for the
12 pull items resulted in four pull factors which had
eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Table 3). The factors
accounted for 56% of the variance and were termed:
key tourist resources, information and convenience of
facilities and accessibility and transportation. Factor
loadings for the 12 items ranged from 0.42 to 0.88. The
reliability alphas for the three dimensions were greater
than 0.70, indicating that Nunnallys (1978) criterion
was met.
4.3. Comparison of push and pull factors for different age
groups
The differences in the importance of the push and
pull factors for the four age groups were rst examined
using a MANOVA procedure. In this analysis, the four
push factors and three pull factors were dependent
variables (i.e., multivariate) and age was used as the
independent variable. The results indicated that age had
a signicant effect on both the push po0:001 and pull
factors po0:001: Based on this result, follow-up
univariate analyses, using the Bonferroni multiple
comparisons correction, were then conducted. The mean
scores in the four age groups on the dependent variables
are given in Table 4 along with the outcome of the
univariate tests.
Signicant differences were observed for the age
groups on all the push and pull factors. Two of the
age groups (2939 and 4049), most of which were either
newly married or had young children, showed the
highest mean scores on the family togetherness push
factor. In contrast, those in age group 1 o29; who
tended to be single people, had the lowest mean score on
this factor. Those in Group 4 (age 50 or above) rated
appreciating natural resources and health an inuential
factor that leads them to travel to the national parks.
Thus, they seem to have leisure time to appreciate
natural resources of the national parks and have deep
concern about their health status. Conversely, the push
factor of appreciating natural resources and health was
the lowest strength/importance for the youngest visitor
group (those under 29).
Groups 1 and 2 rated escaping from everyday
routine as a more important push factor in visiting
National Parks than did other older groups. Members
of these groups appeared to dissipate high stress
from their workplace, family life, and study through
travelling to national parks. Group 1 regarded adven-
ture and building friendship as a more important
factor for visiting the National Parks than older
groups did. This is understandable as young people
are likely to prefer adventure, and try to build
friendships by sharing experiences during their
travelling schedule (Korean National Parks Authority,
2000).
On the three pull factors, the two older respondent
groups generally viewed the key tourist resources,
information and convenience of facilities and accessi-
bility and transportation factors as more important
compared to the two younger respondent groups.
Table 1
Description of survey respondents N 2235
Socio-demographic variables Percent (%)
Gender
Male 65.0
Female 35.0
Age
Less than 29 37.3
2939 31.4
4049 20.0
50 and above 11.4
Occupation
Company employee 30.0
Businessman 16.8
Civil servant 8.5
Professional 10.3
Housewife 12.8
Student 21.4
Educational level
Primary school 1.2
Junior high school 5.5
Senior high school 32.1
University or above 60.8
Household income
Less than 10 million won 18.4
(less than US $8333)
10 million won19,99 million won 42.0
(US $833416,666)
20 million won29.99 million won 24.2
(US $16,66724,999)
30 million won or more 15.4
(US $25,000 or more)
S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169180 173
Table 2
Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation for push factors
Push factor domains and items Factor loadings Communalities Item means
1 2 3 4
Family togetherness and study
To have a time for natural study for children 0.79 0.64 2.39
To have enjoyable time with family 0.69 0.63 3.27
To observe rare wildlife 0.67 0.59 2.38
To appreciate historic/cultural resources 0.61 0.52 2.72
Grand mean 2.81
Appreciating natural resources and health
To enjoy natural resources 0.80 0.66 3.19
To enhance health 0.80 0.67 3.12
To appreciate beautiful natural resources 0.51 0.40 2.71
Grand mean 3.10
Escaping from everyday routine
To take a rest 0.77 0.67 3.80
To get away from everyday life 0.75 0.59 3.56
To avoid hot weather 0.46 0.40 2.74
Grand mean 2.77
Adventure and building friendship
To enjoy adventure 0.78 0.66 2.30
To build friendship 0.72 0.57 2.33
Grand mean 2.95
Eigenvalue 2.26 1.75 1.54 1.43
Variance explained 18.8 14.6 12.8 11.9
Reliability coefcient 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.68
Table 3
Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation for pull factors
Pull factor domains and items Factor loadings Communalities Item means
1 2 3
Key tourist resources
Appropriate area for childrens study on natural resources 0.81 0.66 3.08
Rare fauna and ora (or aquatic plants/animals) 0.75 0.57 2.59
Beautiful natural resources 0.70 0.54 3.79
Tranquil rest areas 0.58 0.46 3.11
Cultural and historic resources 0.51 0.45 2.74
Well-conserved environment 0.42 0.45 2.21
Grand mean 2.68
Information and convenience of facilities
Well-organized tourist information system 0.72 0.56 2.81
Convenient facilities (e.g., restroom, drinking stand) 0.70 0.55 2.87
Convenient parking lots 0.65 0.44 2.78
Clean and comfortable accommodations 0.61 0.48 2.63
Grand mean 3.32
Accessibility and transportation
Easy accessibility 0.88 0.79 2.83
Convenient transportation 0.85 0.75 2.09
Grand mean 3.43
Eigenvalue 2.62 2.41 1.64
Variance explained 21.84 20.1 13.7
Reliability coefcient 0.78 0.70 0.73
S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169180 174
4.4. Comparison of push and pull factors for different
occupation groups
The results of a similar MANOVA analysis con-
ducted to examine differences in the push and pull
factors among the six occupation groups, indicated
a signicant overall effect on the push po0:001 and
pull factors po0:001: Subsequent univariate analyses
were then conducted. These results are reported in
Table 5.
All push and pull factors were signicantly different
across the six occupation groups at either the 0.001 level
or 0.1 level of signicance. On the push factor of family
togetherness and study, Group 5 showed the highest
mean score, indicating housewives tended to pursue
travelling to the national parks for promoting family
harmony and study for their children. However,
compared to other groups, Group 4 (the professionals)
did not perceive family togetherness and study to be an
important motive pushing them to visit the national
parks. For this group, escaping the daily routine had
the highest mean score. The appreciating natural
resources and health factor appeared to be a strong
motive to all except the students. This indicates that
student groups do not recognize this push factor as
inuential in motivating them to travel to parks.
Although the escaping from everyday routine factor
has high mean scores for all age groups, Groups 4 and 1,
in particular, considered this factor to be a more
important push factor than any other group. The result
shows that company employees and professionals are
likely to prefer a trip to the national parks to avoid
everyday routine life, to get refreshed and to renew their
energy. Group 6 indicated that the adventure and
building friendship factor as being more important for
visiting the national parks compared to those in any of
the other groups. This result is similar to those reported
previously, in that young students tend to be most
strongly motivated to pursue adventure experiences and
relationships.
Table 4
ANOVA for comparison of push and pull factors by age group
Push and pull factor domains Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 F-value p-value
n 760 n 640 n 410 n 227
Push factors
(1) Family togetherness and study 2.40a 2.96c 2.96c 2.70b 64.20 0.000
(2) Appreciating natural resources and health 3.14a 3.36b 3.57c 3.84d 50.27 0.000
(3) Escaping from everyday routine 3.47b 3.50b 3.35a 3.30a 6.46 0.000
(4) Adventure and building friendship 3.06b 2.57a 2.62a 2.59a 40.41 0.000
Pull factors
(1) Key tourist resources 2.97a 3.15b 3.25c 3.26c 19.72 0.000
(2) Information and convenience of facilities 2.71a 2.77ab 2.85b 2.84b 4.06 0.007
(3) Accessibility and transportation 2.75a 2.96b 3.17c 3.38d 28.00 0.000
Note: For the push factors, statistically signicant at po0:013 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a 0:05=4).
For the pull factors, statistically signicant at po0:017 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a 0:05=3). a, b, c,
and d indicate the source of signicant differences. Group 1: under 29 years old, Group 2: 2939 years old, Group 3: 4049 years old, Group 4: 50
years old or above.
Table 5
ANOVA for comparison of push and pull factors by occupation group
Push and pull factor domains Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 F-value p-value
n 583 n 326 n 163 n 204 n 249 n 416
Push factors
(1) Family togetherness and study 2.76bc 2.77bc 2.87c 2.32a 3.15d 2.68b 33.64 0.000
(2) Appreciating natural resources and health 3.32b 3.39bc 3.50c 3.40bc 3.43bc 3.07a 10.61 0.000
(3) Escaping from everyday routine 3.49bc 3.37ab 3.35a 3.60c 3.39ab 3.39ab 4.45 0.000
(4) Adventure and building friendship 2.71ab 2.70ab 2.57a 2.84b 2.55a 3.25c 25.59 0.000
Pull factors
(1) Key tourist resources 3.14bcd 3.05ab 3.23cd 3.11bc 3.24d 2.97a 6.78 0.000
(2) Information and convenience of facilities 2.77ab 2.72a 2.80ab 2.71a 2.88b 2.76ab 1.95 0.083
(3) Accessibility and transportation 2.97b 2.96b 3.10b 2.94ab 3.02b 2.78a 3.45 0.004
Note: For the push factors, statistically signicant at po0:013 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a 0:05=4).
For the pull factors, statistically signicant at po0:017 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a 0:05=3). a, b, c,
and d indicate the source of signicant differences. Group 1: company employee, Group 2: businessman, Group 3: civil servant, Group 4:
professional, Group 5: housewife, Group 6: student.
S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169180 175
An examination of the pull factors across the six
occupation groups indicated that Group 3 (civil
servants) and Group 5 (housewives) had the highest
mean scores for the three pull factors. These groups gave
the highest mean score to key tourist resources while
student group had the lowest mean score. Compared to
other groups, the student group had low mean scores on
accessibility and transportation to the national parks,
suggesting that for this group transportation may be
costly and difcult to arrange.
4.5. Comparison of push and pull factors for different
gender groups
As before, the results of a MANOVA indicated a
signicant overall effect for gender on the push
po0:001 and pull factors po0:001: The univariate
analyses conducted to explore these differences are
shown in Table 6.
As the table shows, signicant differences (po0:05)
between males and females were found for three of the
push factors and one of the pull factors. Female
respondents placed more importance on the push factor
of family togetherness and study, whereas male
respondents emphasized factors of appreciating natural
resources and health, and adventure and building
friendships. On the pull factor of key tourist resources,
those in the female group tended to perceive the key
tourist resources at the national parks to be more
important compared to those in the male group.
4.6. Comparison of push and pull factors for different
income groups
A nal MANOVA procedure indicated a signicant
effect due to income on the push po0:001 and pull
factors po0:001: The results of the univariate analyses
conducted to explore this effect are provided in Table 7.
Table 6
T-test for comparison of push and pull factors by gender group
Push and pull factor domains Male Female T-value p-value
n 1439 n 771
Push factors
(1) Family togetherness and study 2.63 2.78 3.78 0.000
(2) Appreciating natural resources and health 3.34 3.26 2.07 0.039
(3) Escaping from everyday routine 3.43 3.42 0.07 0.945
(4) Adventure and building friendship 2.90 2.76 3.20 0.001
Pull factors
(1) Key tourist resources 3.08 3.15 2.49 0.013
(2) Information and convenience of facilities 2.76 2.80 1.43 0.150
(3) Accessibility and transportation 2.96 2.95 0.25 0.806
Note: For the push factors, statistically signicant at po0:013 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a 0:05=4).
For the pull factors, statistically signicant at po0:017 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a 0:05=3).
Table 7
ANOVA for comparison of push and pull factors by income group
Push and pull factor domains Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 F-value p-value
n 387 n 877 n 506 n 322
Push factors
(1) Family togetherness and study 2.42a 2.67b 2.86c 2.83c 21.75 0.000
(2) Appreciating natural resources and health 3.23a 3.27a 3.42b 3.42b 6.06 0.000
(3) Escaping from everyday routine 3.39 3.43 3.44 3.48 0.89 0.444
(4) Adventure and building friendship 2.98b 2.78a 2.69a 2.69a 7.40 0.000
Pull factors
(1) Key tourist resources 3.02a 3.10ab 3.16b 3.12ab 2.52 0.053
(2) Information and convenience of facilities 2.75 2.76 2.78 2.78 0.26 0.855
(3) Accessibility and transportation 2.91 2.96 3.01 2.94 0.67 0.572
Note: For the push factors, statistically signicant at po0:013 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a 0:05=4).
For the pull factors, statistically signicant at po0:017 (Bonferroni procedure was used to correct for multiple comparisons at a 0:05=3). a, b, and c
indicate the source of signicant differences. Group 1: under 10 million won (under US $8333), Group 2: 1019.99 million won (US $833416,666),
Group 3: 2029.99 million won (US $16,66724,999), Group 4: 30 million won or more (US $25,000 or more).
S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169180 176
An inspection of the mean scores indicates that three
of the four push factors were found to be signicantly
different at the 0.001 level of signicance, while one of
the pull factors was signicant at the 0.1 level of
signicance. Respondents with higher incomes reported
that family togetherness and study, and appreciating
natural resources and health were more important push
factors in travelling to the national parks than
respondents with lower incomes. Group 1 (the lowest
income group) reported the highest mean score on the
adventure and building friendship factor compared to
the other income groups.
4.7. Relationship between push factors and pull factors
Table 8 shows the results of the Pearson bivariate
correlation analysis conducted to examine the relation-
ship among the push and pull factor domains identied
in this research. The results indicated that the pull
factors, key tourist resources and information and
convenience of facilities both, had signicant positive
correlations with all four of the push factors, although it
should be noted that in some cases these correlations
were extremely low. For instance, while the correlation
involving the pull factor key tourist resources and the
push factor family togetherness and study were
relatively high (0.44), the correlation with this pull
factor and the push factor adventure and building
friendships was signicant but close to zero (0.05).
The pull factor information and convenience of
facilities was correlated with the push factors family
togetherness and study (0.23), appreciating natural
resources and health (0.19), and escaping from every-
day routine, but not to adventure and building
friendships. Interestingly, the pull factor accessibility
and transportation was signicantly correlated to only
one push factor, appreciating natural resources and
health, resulting in a correlation coefcient of 0.23. This
suggests that the desire to experience nature and
enhance ones health may be facilitated by the avail-
ability of accessibility and transportation options at a
particular national park. This is clearly an important
issue for future research.
In order to examine whether the relationships
observed among the push and pull factors were affected
or moderated by the socio-demographic variables,
correlations were computed for each pair of push and
pull factors for each socio-demographic subgroup.
These results are summarized in Table 9.
As can be seen in the table, although there were some
exceptions, the correlations involving the rst two push
factors, family togetherness and study and appreciat-
ing natural resources and health, and the rst two pull
factors, key tourist resources and information and
convenience of facilities, remained consistent across the
different respondent subgroups. In contrast, the correla-
tions involving the other push and pull factors varied
somewhat depending on the subgroup involved. Look-
ing at the correlations for the age subgroups, it is
notable that whereas the correlations involving the rst
three groups were relatively strong, the correlations for
those in the 50 or above group, were generally lower.
One exception that stands out, i.e., that was highest
for those in the 50 or above group compared to the
other groups, was the correlation between the push
factor adventure and building friendship and the pull
factor key tourist resources. This nding suggests that
the resources at the national parks may be particularly
valuable for helping the older members of the popula-
tion build and maintain friendships. For the occupation
subgroups, the correlations involving the third push
factor escaping from everyday routine and the rst two
pull factors key tourist resources and information and
convenience of facilities were signicant for the rst
subgroup company employees and the last subgroup
students but not for the other four subgroups. Also
notable were the correlations for the housewife sub-
group involving the pull factor accessibility and
transportation and the rst and third push factors.
These ndings demonstrate that different pull factors
may attract different park visitors for the same under-
lying reasonin this case to escape ones daily routine.
In terms of gender, while the pattern of correlations was
generally similar, there were a few across-gender
differences. In particular, males were more likely to
relate the pull factor information and convenience of
Table 8
Correlation analysis of push and pull factors
Pull factor domain Pull factor domain
(1) Family
togetherness and
study
(2) Appreciating
natural resources
and health
(3) Escaping from
everyday routine
(4) Adventure and
building friendship
(1) Key tourist resources 0.44
nn
0.35
nn
0.14
nn
0.05
n
(2) Information and convenience of facilities 0.23
nn
0.19
nn
0.07
nn
0.04
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.01 0.23
nn
0.01 0.03
n
Signicant at the 0.05 level.
nn
Signicant at the 0.001 level.
S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169180 177
Table 9
Correlation analysis of push and pull factors by age, occupation, and income
Pull factor domain Push factor domain
(1) Family (2) Appreciating (3) Escaping (4) Adventure
togetherness natural resources from everyday and building
and study and health routine friendship
Age group
(1) Less than 29 (1) Key tourist resources 0.43
nn
0:40
nn
0.08
n
0.04
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:24
nn
0:25
nn
0.05 0:09
nn
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.05 0:14
nn
0.03 0.01
(2) 2939 (1) Key tourist resources 46
nn
0:30
nn
0:18
nn
0:09
n
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:22
nn
0:19
nn
0:09
n
0.02
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.04 0:19
nn
0.04 0.04
(3) 4049 (1) Key tourist resources 0:49
nn
0:34
nn
0:17
nn
0:14
nn
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:20
nn
0:10
n
0.07 0.07
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0:13
nn
0:29
nn
0:11
n
0.03
(4) 50 or above (1) Key tourist resources 0:28
nn
0:14
nn
0:10
n
0:16
nn
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:19
nn
0.02 0.05 0.07
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.05 0:21
nn
0.03 0.03
Occupation group
(1) Company employee (1) Key tourist resources 0:44
nn
0:39
nn
0:16
nn
0:10
n
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:20
nn
0:14
nn
0:12
nn
0:09
n
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.7 0:25
nn
0.01 0.05
(2) Businessman (1) Key tourist resources 0:39
nn
0:32
nn
0.09 0.06
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:21
nn
0:19
nn
0.09 0.05
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.01 0:24
nn
0.00 0.06
(3) Civil servant (1) Key tourist resources 0:54
nn
0:33
nn
0.07 0.05
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:31
nn
0:18
nn
0.03 0.07
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.08 0:21
nn
0.07 0.04
(4) Professional (1) Key tourist resources 0:48
nn
0:37
nn
0.07 0.06
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:26
nn
0:22
nn
0.06 0.08
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.08 0:19
nn
0.02 0.04
(5) Housewife (1) Key tourist resources 0:37
nn
0:33
nn
0.06 0.08
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:17
nn
0:18
nn
0.01 0.01
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0:17
nn
0:22
nn
0:16
nn
0.04
(6) Student (1) Key tourist resources 0:43
nn
0:32
nn
0:12
nn
0.04
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:23
nn
0:31
nn
0:13
nn
0.06
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.04 0:12
nn
0.00 0.06
Gender group
(1) Male (1) Key tourist resources 0:49
nn
0:38
nn
0:14
nn
0.01
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:23
nn
0:17
nn
0:09
n
0:07
n
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.03 0:28
nn
0.03 0.02
(2) Female (1) Key tourist resources 0:38
nn
0:34
nn
0:08
n
0.05
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:22
nn
0:24
nn
0.02 0.00
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.03 0:15
nn
0:08
n
0.06
Income group
(1) Less than 10 million won (1) Key tourist resources 0:32
nn
0:27
nn
0:11
n
0.09
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:13
n
0.09 0:20
nn
0:12
n
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0:12
n
0:26
nn
0.03 0.09
(2) 1019.99 million won (1) Key tourist resources 0:49
nn
0:39
nn
0:14
nn
0.05
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:24
nn
0:23
nn
0:09
nn
0.04
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.04 0:22
nn
0.03 0.01
(3) 2029.99 million won (1) Key tourist resources 0:49
nn
0:37
nn
0:23
nn
0.04
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:26
nn
0:14
nn
0:14
nn
0.04
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.04 0:28
nn
0.06 0.00
(4) 30 million won or above (1) Key tourist resources 0:39
nn
0:31
nn
0:16
nn
0.09
(2) Information & convenience of facilities 0:27
nn
0:18
nn
0:11
n
0.05
(3) Accessibility and transportation 0.03 0:24
nn
0.02 0.08
n
Signicant at the 0.05 level.
nn
Signicant at the 0.001 level.
S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169180 178
facilities to the push factors escape the everyday
routine and adventure and building friendships.
Meanwhile, females were more likely to relate the pull
factor accessibility and transportation to the escape
push factor. Finally, looking at income, one observation
that sticks out is that, compared to the other subgroups,
those in the rst subgroup less than 10 million won,
were more likely to relate the pull factor information
and convenience of facilities to the push factors
escaping from everyday routine and adventure and
building friendships and family togetherness and
study and less likely to relate the same pull factor to
the push factor appreciating natural resources and
health. This suggests that this aspect of the Korean
National Parks appeal to those with lower incomes in
different ways compared to those with higher incomes.
Taken together these results provide evidence of the
moderating effect of socio-demographic variables on
the interrelationship between the push factors that
motivate travel decisions and the pull factors that
inuence destination selection.
5. Implications and conclusions
The purpose of this study was to (1) identify the push
factors and pull factors that inuence decisions to visit
Korean National Parks; (2) investigate differences in
these push and pull factors for different socio-demo-
graphic groups; and (3) examine the pattern of inter-
relationships among these push and pull factors. A
factor analysis of the 12 push factor items resulted in
four underlying domains: family togetherness and
study, appreciating natural resources and health,
escaping from everyday routine and adventure and
building friendship. The most important push factors
were appreciating natural resources and health
mean 3:10; and adventure and building friendship
mean 2:95; family togetherness and study mean
2:81; and escaping from everyday routine mean
2:77 were followed. These results suggest that visitors to
national parks in Korea are likely to consider the parks
to be valuable recreational resources that provide
important opportunities to appreciate natural resources
or enhance health or build friendship, which is
consistent with results of 1999 Report of Korean
National Travel.
A factor analysis of the 12 pull factor items produced
three domains: key tourist resources, information and
convenience of facilities, and accessibility and trans-
portation. Visitors to national parks relatively highly
rated on accessibility and transportation mean 3:43
and information and convenience of facilities mean
3:32: This nding reects the fact that the national
parks in Korea are relatively accessible and located close
to most residential and work areas.
The analysis of the differences in these push and pull
factor domains for different socio-demographic sub-
groups indicated a number of important differences.
Park managers need to understand these differences in
order to enhance visitor satisfaction and encourage
repeat visitation. For example, the results of this
research suggest that for student groups, there is a need
to develop facilities or routes where they can enjoy
adventure and share their friendship. Additionally, they
might need inexpensive accommodation such as a
camping site or youth hostel. In contrast, for older
people (50 years of age or above) park administrators
should consider developing a walking trail that helps
them appreciate the natural resources of the parks, and
provide and operate health enhancement facilities.
The study results indicated that respondents who were
aged 40 or above, female, and with 2029 million won
income, perceived national parks to have attractive
resources, while those who were 29 years of age or
below, students, male, and low income earners (under 10
million won) showed more disagreement on this item.
This suggests the need to promote the quality of
national park resources to young people and students.
For example, national parks may consider providing
programmes that would promote a better understanding
of natural resources, perhaps by using an adopt-a-
facility program that would match those in youth
groups with a particular park.
Although several studies have examined the relation-
ship between push and pull factors, these prior
investigations have all focused on doing so in the
context of travel to international and overseas destina-
tions. This research instead examined the relationship
between push and pull factors for a domestic sample of
park visitors. In this analysis, signicant correlations
were observed among the majority of push and pull
factor dimensions. The results supported the ndings of
the study by Uysal and Jurowski (1994) who identied a
relationship between push and pull factors, even though
the values of correlation coefcients between push and
pull factors in this study were lower than those reported
in their study. Additional analyses conducted to
examine how push and pull factor correlations were
impacted by key socio-demographic characteristics
yielded useful insight into the moderating role of these
characteristics on push and pull factors relationships.
The ndings of the study conrmed that push or pull
factors were different in socio-demographic variables as
reported by other researchers (Loker-Murphy, 1996;
Ahn & Kim, 1996; Jeong, 1998; Kim, 1993; Lee et al.,
1987).
Since this study was conducted in the setting of
Korean National parks using sample of domestic
visitors, it will be helpful to understand tourism
resources offered by Korean National Parks and what
national parks mean to Koreans. Especially, it would be
S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169180 179
interesting to compare results of this study with those of
studies conducted in national parks in other countries.
As the number of outbound Korean tourists is becom-
ing greater due to their increasing disposable income,
more Koreans are expected to make trips to national
parks in other countries. Thus, results of this study
provide management of national parks in other
countries with valuable information in understanding
Koreans motivation to visit national parks. Future
research is needed to explore the role of other
moderating factors on pushpull relationships. For
example, it might be interesting to examine differences
in push and pull factors among rst-time versus repeat
visitors or among domestic and international visitors.
References
Ahn, K., & Kim, S. (1996). A study on visitors behaviour in Korean
National Park. Journal of Korean Landscape, 24(1), 32.
Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments of push and
pull motivations: A canonical correlation approach.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
8(3), 3238.
Botha, C., Crompton, J. L., & Kim, S. (1999). Developing a revised
competitive position for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Journal of
Travel Research, 37, 341352.
Buckley, R. (2000). Neat trends: Current issues in nature, eco- and
adventure tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2,
437444.
Cha, S., McCleary, K. W., & Uysal, M. (1995). Travel motivations of
Japanese overseas travellers: A factor-cluster segmentation ap-
proach. Journal of Travel Research, 34(2), 3339.
Cho, G. (1988). Conservation and management in Jervis Bay
Australia. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosys-
tems, 8, 701717.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacations. Annals of
Tourism Research, 6(4), 408424.
Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research, 4, 184194.
Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourism motivation: An appraisal. Annals of
Tourism Research, 8(2), 187219.
Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Image differences between
prospective, rst time, and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande
Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30, 1016.
Fielding, K.-A., & Pearce, P. L. (1992). Climbing Ayres Rock:
Relating visitors motivation, time perception and enjoyment.
Journal of Tourism Studies, 3(2), 110120.
Grafe, A. (1977). Elements of motivation and satisfaction in the oat trip
experience in Big Bend National Park. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Gunn, C. A. (1988). Tourism planning (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor &
Francis.
Hu, Y., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). Measuring destination attractive-
ness: A context approach. Journal of Travel Research, 32, 2534.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of
tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 12,
256262.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1989). Motivation for leisure. In E. L. Jackson, &
T. L. Burton (Eds.), Understanding leisure and recreation:
Mapping the past charting the future (pp. 247279). State College:
R. A. Venture Publishing.
Jeong, I. (1997). A study on attributes of attractions of the Bukhansan
National Park and visitors attitudes. Thesis, Hanyang University,
Seoul.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrics,
39, 3136.
Kim, S., Crompton, J. L., & Botha, C. (2000). Responding to
competition: A strategy for Sun/Lost City, South Africa. Tourism
Management, 21, 3341.
Kim, S., Kim, Y., & Kong, Y. (1989). Studies on the use characteristics
and satisfaction in Kayasan National Park, Korea. Applied
Ecosystem Studies in Korea, 3(1), 107113.
Kim, Y. (1993). The analysis of visitors behaviour in Sobaeksan
National Park. Applied Ecosystem Studies in Korea, 6(2), 218228.
Klenosky, D. B. (2002). The pull of tourism destinations: A means-end
investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 40(4), 385395.
Korean National Parks Authority (1999a). 1999 report of Korean
National Parks. Seoul: Korean National Parks Authority.
Korean National Parks Authority (1999b). National Parks of Korea.
Seoul: Korean National Parks Authority.
Korean National Parks Authority (2000). 2000 Survey report of
Korean National Parks. Seoul: Korean National Parks Authority.
Lee, M., Kim, Y., & Kwon, Y. (1987). Visitors use patterns and
characteristics in a Bukhansan National Park of Korea. Applied
Ecosystem Studies in Korea, 1(1), 6667.
Loker-Murphy, L. (1996). Backpackers in Australia: A motivation-
based segmentation study. Journal of Travel and Tourism Market-
ing, 5(4), 2345.
Nickerson, N. P. (1996). Foundations of tourism. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometeric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hall.
Oh, H. C., Uysal, M., & Weaver, P. A. (1995). Product bundles and
market segments based on travel motivations: A canonical
correlation approach. International Journal Hospitality Manage-
ment, 14(2), 123137.
Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. (1983). Inferring travel motivations
from travellers experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 22(2),
1620.
Pyo, S., Mihalik, B. J., & Uysal, M. (1989). Attraction attributes and
motivations: A canonical correlation analysis. Annals of Tourism
Research, 16(2), 277282.
Ryan, C. (1991). Recreational tourism: A social science perspective.
New York: Routledge.
Simon, B. M., & Doerksen, H. (1996). Entry fees in the National
Parks. In A. L. Lundgren (Ed.), Recreation fees in the National
Park Service: Issues, policies, and guidelines for future action (pp.
1526). Minnesota Extension Service Pub. No. BU6767. St. Paul,
MN: Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Department of Forest
Resources, University of Minnesota.
Snepenger, D. J., Peterson, D. L., & Bench, J. L. (1989). Projecting
visitation to Yellowstone National Park after the re of 1988.
Journal of Travel Research, 28(1), 3940.
Turnbull, D. R., & Uysal, M. (1995). An exploratory study of German
visitors to the Caribbean: Push and pull motivations. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 4(2), 8592.
Uysal, M., & Hagan, L. A. R. (1993). Motivation of pleasure travel
and tourism. In M. Khan, M. Olsen, & T. Var (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of Hospitality and Tourism (pp. 798810). New York: VNR.
Uysal, M., & Jurowski, C. (1994). Testing the push and pull factors.
Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 844846.
Uysal, M., McDonald, M., & Martin (1994). Australian visitors to US
national parks and national area. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 6(3), 1824.
Yuan, S., & McDonald, C. (1990). Motivational determinants
of international pleasure time. Journal of Travel Research, 24(1),
4244.
S.S. Kim et al. / Tourism Management 24 (2003) 169180 180