A central area of research on adventure tourism has been to examine the motives of people taking part in adventurous activities. The findings reveal that motives vary according to the activity in question and the experience levels of the participants. The variety of motives reflects the variety of practices within a broad understanding of adventure tourism.
Arnould and Price (1993) refer to some concepts that repeatedly appear in research on adventure tourism motivation. The concepts of peak experience (Maslow, 1968), peak performance (Klausner, 1968), flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) and extraordinary experiences (Abrahams, 1986) are often used in relation to different types of adventure tourism experiences. These concepts have been used both to describe people’s involvement in highly specialized non-commercial activities (see
e.g. Langseth on surfing, 2012; Mykletun and Gyimόthy on base jumping, 2007) and in the more general commercial adventure activities such as rafting (see e.g. Arnould and Price, 1993). They cover intense and enjoyable experiences characterized, according to Arnould and Price (1993:25), by “the merging of action and awareness, attention or clear focus, personal integration, personal control, awareness of power, joy and valuing, and a spontaneous (uninhibited) letting-be of process”. Such experiences seem to be a common aim for people taking part in adventurous experiences, again shaping their motives for future participation. Literature emphasizing the risk element of adventure tourism (see e.g. Mykletun and Gyimόthy, 2007) also argues for the relevance of psychological research on personality differences to understand participation in adventure activities. Mykletun and Gyimόthy refer to Eysenck (1967) and Zuckerman (1979) when relating personality traits such as extroversion and sensation seeking to people with a high tolerance for tension or excitement. The relationship between personality and practice is still contested. Recent research (Langseth, 2012) on the sociology of risk-subcultures instead emphasizes how individuals are being socialized into practices involving risk. Langseth’s study looks at participants being engaged in an activity over a prolonged period of time, meaning that they will have qualified perceptions of the real risk inherent in the activity. People participating in a commercial adventure tourism activity rarely have the knowledge necessary to judge risk levels.
A valuable addition to the discussion of why people take part in adventure tourism activities is provided by Mykletun and Gyimόthy (2004). With empirical material from a multi-day dog sledging trip in the Arctic, they emphasize the role of play in adventure tourism. Play is seen as an important part of the activity and as a central part of the participants’ motivation. The adventure tourism framework provides room for the construction of an illusionary world, where one can engage in non- purposive and playful activities (Ibid.).
Based on research from a two-week river kayaking package trip to the West- Coast of New Zealand, Kane and Tucker (2004) also emphasise play as an important part of the adventure tourism experience. For Kane and Tucker though, the play-concept seems to have quite a different meaning. They describe how play for their participants is seen in relation to the roles of being both skilled kayakers and partaking in a commercial package tour. For the participants, play “provided the ability to imagine, playing with their tourist experience, the roles played and the images presented” (Ibid: 230).
Research on motives in adventure tourism has to a large degree centred on the more extreme activities, while soft adventure activities have received less attention. Studies from the field of outdoor recreation in Norway have looked into people’s motives for basic outdoor recreation activities (Wergeland, 2009, Vaagbø, 1992). These studies find that the main motives are related to the experience of contemplation, silence and harmony with nature, socializing with friends and family
and physical exercise. The study by Wergeland (2009) is a follow up of Vaagbø’s (1992) study and while the findings concerning the main contemplative motives have not changed over the years, physical exercise has become a stronger motivational factor in the follow-up study. As the real, large group of adventure tourists participates in ‘softer’ activities, perhaps more attention should be given to this type of product development?
A quantitative study by Tangeland (2011) looks specifically at the purchase motivation of adventure tourists. He surveyed participants in organized mountain hiking, organized glacier hiking, rafting and bicycle touring in a nature area and organized fishing trips, and identified four purchase motivation factors. These were quality improvement (different aspects of how the commercial organizer ensures quality improvement of the experience in comparison to trying to organize it on your own), skill development, new activity and social (meeting and being with people). His study shows how people who join a commercial activity believe this will improve the quality of the experience as compared to trying it out on their own, it will provide an opportunity try something new and to learn new skills, and an opportunity to socialize and meet new people.
Tangeland’s study highlights that people who buy commercial adventure tourism products are a diverse group with several different motives for purchasing the activity product. His study further identifies five different market segments. Mehmetoglu’s book on Nature based tourism (2007) provides a thorough review of different attempts to segment the nature based tourism market and illustrates well the complexity in this field of research. Together with the qualitative approaches described above, the consumer research perspective gives a more nuanced perspective on the motives for taking part in adventure tourism activities.