Visitor perceptions of the role of tour guides in natural areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the potential of tour guides to contribute to the protection of natural areas by educating their customers through interpretation and modeling environmentally appropriate behaviors. Applying Cohen's (1985) model of the guides' role, modified by Weiler and Davis (1993) Weiler, B. and Davis, D. 1993. An exploratory investigation into the roles of the nature-based tour leader. Tourism Management, 14(2): 91–98. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], as a framework, it examines the potential role that kayak tour guides can play in shaping the experience of visitors to one marine area, the Pacific Rim National Park. It uses two approaches to explore the perceptions of clients about the role of kayak guides using: (1) a pre- and post-trip questionnaire and (2) participant observation. Results indicate that five of the six roles were rated high in importance, but one role, the communication role, was not as important. Comparing performance with importance attached to each role revealed congruence with five roles, but lower levels of performance in relation to importance with the role of “motivator of responsible behavior”. Variability within all of the importance and performance measures suggest that for some individuals, performance did not match importance, highlighting the need to consider market segmentation in future studies. These findings are discussed within the ecotourism paradigm, and their implications for protected area management and for visitor behavior modification are considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".