Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hazel Tucker
University of Otago, New Zealand
abstract Definitions of adventure tourism and the supposed motivators for the
experience of adventure tourism focus on the concepts of risk, danger and
adrenaline. Risk and danger relate to a potential for injury and loss. Tourism on the
other hand indicates fun, exciting events and safe experience. The focus of this
article is to explore the relationship between participants’ emic experiences and the
adventure tourism theories prominent in current literature. This exploration is based
on observation of participation, conversations and in-depth interviews with nine
tourists on a 14-day white-water kayaking tour of the South Island of New Zealand in
February 2002. The interpretation of these tourists’ experiences, their understandings,
and the response to these stories expand the scope and importance of concepts
prominent in adventure tourism. Participants play with the reality of their experience
through stories of freedom, identity and status.
Introduction
With a few strokes I was an oar’s length – a spear’s length – from the panicked ani-
mals [migrating Caribou on the coast of northern Canada]. I could see moisture on
their noses, watch the muscles in their shoulders, feel the splash of saltwater as they
ran past. In my imagination I was a Sioux riding bareback among stampeding bison;
I was chasing mammoth toward a cliff with flaming torches; I was in my sealskin
kayak, hunting caribou. But in reality I was a tourist, so I backed away to keep my
camera dry and took pictures. (Turk, 1998: 104)
This short extract demonstrates some of the ways an adventure experience can
be lived, remembered, and storied. Jon Turk’s concluding ‘reality’ that he ‘was a
tourist’ is an anomaly considering that this passage appears in an autobiography 217
218 tourist studies 4:3
focused on his life as an adventurer. Attempting to kayak round Cape Horn,
rowing the Canadian Arctic’s Northwest Passage, dog sledding or sea kayaking
across Baffin Bay between Canada and Greenland, would be considered by most
as the experiences of an adventurer, not a tourist. Turk highlights the ambigu-
ous relationship between the individual’s experiences of touristic adventure, and
how others understand the stories they present of these experiences. Influential
in others’ understandings is the risk element of adventure, which is central to
definitions and marketed presentations of adventure tourism.
The focus of this article is the exploration of the relationship between the
lived experience of adventure tourists and the ideas of adventure tourism
prominent in current literature.Walle (1997) has already suggested that the defi-
nitions of adventure tourism, derived from risk-centred recreational models, are
inadequate in describing the experience of adventure tourism.This is a reason-
able critique given that risk is defined as the potential to lose something of
value, while tourism is correlated to achieving a safe experience (Martin and
Priest, 1986; Bauman, 1996).Would tourists pay for an adventure experience of
risk if the potential to lose were the only or dominant feature?
The purpose of this article is to address these issues by focusing on the emic
experience of participants on a two-week white-water kayaking tour of the
South Island of New Zealand.The marketed highlight of the tour was two days
of experiencing the prestigious, helicopter-accessed kayaking (heli-kayaking) on
the West Coast, a kayaking environment usually reserved for the professional or
expert amateur kayakers due to the remote access and kayaking difficulty. The
nine tourist participants were all citizens of the United States of America, well-
educated, high-earning professionals with considerable package adventure travel
experience. An interpretation of the participants’ ‘lived experience and stories’
will be presented, and as Jon Turk did at the beginning of this introduction, it
will demonstrate how they negotiate the experience of simultaneously ‘being’
adventurers and tourists.The interpretation will explore their freedom and con-
straints in playing with their ‘experience stories’.The storied images of the tour
participants influenced how others would perceive this experience, how adven-
ture tourism is perceived, and how the participants wish to be perceived in
the future.
Before moving on to the case itself, it is useful to situate this adventure tour,
albeit briefly, within the historical context of adventure travel and tourism.
ruling elite on their Grand Tours. By 1800, participants in this formulaic travel
were of the new genus: the ‘tourist’ (Black, 1985; Hibbert, 1987).
The 1800s saw the commercialization and packaging of travel with tourists
not only including the ruling elite, but also intellectuals and even manual
workers. Role distinction was demanded; those not wishing to be of the genus
‘tourist’ sought to be associated with the original genus ‘travellers’. Travellers
went further, to more exotic places, for longer, and to participate in some
activity (Buzard, 1993). From these initial stages tour operators sought to pro-
vide the environment and experience their clients desired.These early pleasure
tourists (or adventure travellers) followed Burton and Livingston to Africa, as
today’s adventure tourists follow Hillary and Tenzing to the top of Mt Everest
and Admunsen, Scott and Peary to the Poles. The saturation of information
about the previously distant unknown, coupled with technologies to react to
and manage the uncertainties of nature have mitigated the scope of the chal-
lenge and adventure inherent in travel.Technological advances in transportation
have reduced time spent in the act of travelling and increased the comfort levels.
The physical act of travelling, especially in long-haul air travel, has become
commonplace tourism experience while adventure is associated with destina-
tion experiences, the activities or events at the destination.With the travel aspect
now relatively safe the challenge has become to control the risk and discomforts
in adventure activities. As Bauman (1996) suggests: ‘In the tourist world the
strange is tame, domesticated and no longer frightens; shocks come in a pack-
age deal with safety’ (p. 29). The management of these ‘safe shocks’ requires
the operators of package adventure tours to restrict and guide the activities
and tourist.
Comparatively, adventure tourism as an academic focus attracted little atten-
tion until the early 1990s. The early tourism theorists, such as Boorstin
(1961/1964) and MacCannell (1976/1999) focused on the mass tourist and
structural meta-themes, be it the experience of a pseudo-event or the search for
authenticity in modern life.A theoretical focus and differentiation developed in
research between the ‘contrived’ experience of the mass ‘tourist’ and the more
‘authentic’ experience of the ‘traveller’ (adventure tourist). There have since
been a plethora of conceptual models, mostly focused on the ‘traveller’ (the
adventure tourist who goes further, to more exotic places for a purpose) pursu-
ing an experience quest for the sacred, the other centre, meaning, values, roman-
tic gaze, pre-commodity whole or serendipity (Cohen, 1979; Meyersohn, 1981;
Graburn, 1983; Przeclawski, 1985; Urry, 1990; Selwyn, 1996; Tucker, 2003).
These theorists, however, did not provide the tourism field with a definition of
the adventure tourist or adventure tourism. The most prominent definitions
were derived from research in the field of recreation.
Within the field of recreation, especially in the 1980s, recreational models
were developed where recreation experience involving adventure was corre-
lated to the experience of risk (Meier et al., 1980; Ewert, 1985, 1989; Martin
and Priest, 1986; Ewert and Hollenhurst, 1989). The ‘positive valuation of risk
220 tourist studies 4:3
and danger’, in effect the potential to lose something of value, was seen as what
differentiated adventure recreation from other leisure experiences (Brannan et
al., 1992). The influence of adventure recreation theory is indicated in Hall’s
(1992: 143) statement that adventure tourism was a commercial activity ‘cate-
gorized by the deliberate seeking of risk and danger’. He defined adventure
tourism as:
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 partici-
pant, setting, and management of the touristic experience. (p. 143)
focus of heli-kayaking dominated the middle of the tour and is themed to par-
ticipants’ understandings of adventure.The latter period of the tour experience
is focused on participants’ storied images reflecting an ‘adventure difference’. In
the following sections the direct statements of participants will be presented
in the text in inverted commas.
Kayakers like to sit around and talk about ‘where have you been? What rapids have
you done? What, you know, near escape from the jaws of death have you encoun-
tered?’ It’s part of the experience!
cameras and the stories they were already telling perpetuated the destination’s
prestigious images. Interestingly, Eric, Shane and Bruce, who were more expe-
rienced and already had kayaking status, did not so freely compare their
experience to the prestige myth.The heli-kayaking rivers were at very low flows
and the sections kayaked only required a moderate skill level, they were not the
river sections that had provided the West Coast with such kayaking status.Yet
Shane indicated how novelty also differentiated them in the kayaking culture:‘I
mean “Helicopter Kayaking”, I’ve never had a helicopter pick me up and drop
me off on a creek run before’.
The relationship between novelty and kayaking knowledge provided an
increased freedom for the stories to be presented to the general public. In con-
templating how their stories would be perceived by non-kayakers, participants
concurred with Robert’s comments that ‘people can’t grasp why I do what I do
. . . just can’t understand it’. This lack of understanding was displayed in how the
participants thought they were viewed by non-kayakers:
Oh they think I’m insane. (Phil)
They . . . like, think I’m crazy. (Rachel)
Oh my work peers think I’m as nutty as a fruitcake. (Eric)
I think they view it as a very dangerous sport and some wild streak in me. (Shane)
Non-kayaking peers see it as risk and a danger. (Cara)
Play provided the ability to imagine, playing with their tour experience, the
roles played and the images presented. Feifer (1986: 270) had described this
aspect of the late-20th century tourist, the ‘post-tourist’, as ‘playful’ behaviour.
The aspect of play was further theorized by Urry (1990) as behaviour within
‘tourism [as] a game, or rather a whole series of games with multiple texts and
no single, authentic tourist experience’ (p. 100).
This idea of a playful game did not have all the freedom Robert suggests. For
a tourist, like a child at play, there are constraints, rules and notions of a suc-
cessful game. It was an experience played out within the context of the game
of tourism where fun, excitement and safety are the foundations of success.
These are expected experiences in tourism, the creativity of the type of game
or style of play differentiate this tourist success. This was a game of adventure
tourism where the creative playfulness of the participants was in playing adven-
ture roles.As travelling adventure kayakers, within the insulation structure of the
package tour, differentiated themselves from other tourists.This playful game of
differentiating, yet retaining the foundations of tourist experience, is at the core
of niche tourism products such as this tour. Participants’ sought multiple expe-
riences; package tourist, kayaker, adventurer and traveller, in the roles they
played.The playing of these roles facilitated a freedom in the storied images to
be presented in the future.
In the storied images of this tour the participants’ freedom was in what was
told and what was left untold. In the roles they had played they could not re-
live the authentic experience of their heroes, the elite kayakers. They were
always within the context of a package tour, although playing the roles of travel-
ling adventure kayakers. Their freedom came in discounting the packaged
nature of their tour experience, the controlled routine and limiting social inter-
action. Their stories instead were emphasizing the participation, challenge and
control of kayaking. It was a freedom that differentiated them from the ordinary
and routine of tourist experience. It even differentiated them from the tourists
who adventured through bungee jumping or rafting. Through kayaking the
participants portrayed themselves as active, purposeful, in control and free
adventurers.
Yet this portrayal could be misunderstood as crazy, insane, [and] extremely
dangerous by non-kayakers. It was mainly in their kayaking social world that the
Kane and Tucker Adventure tourism 231
kayakers’ freedom in storying their experience around the sport was valued and
appreciated. The prestigious heli-kayaking of the West Coast enhanced their
kayaking identity, their commitment to its ethos and their status as kayakers.The
participants’ freedom came in being Feifer’s (1986) resolutely realistic tourists.
They understood the game of tourism and in playing gained the freedom to
promote the aspects of their tour experience that enhanced their social stand-
ing.The structure of the package tour experience is not important if the differ-
entiating adventure image or prestigious heli-kayaking are dominant in stories
of the tour experience.The participants had negotiated the tourist role, freeing
their stories of experience from the theoretical realities that contrast package
and adventure experience.
In the combination of package adventure tourism the theoretically in-
terpreted potential of adventure and package tourism experience contrast.
Adventure implies valued, authentic, uncertain experience, while package
tourism implies a controlled, insulated, ordinary experience.The experience was
lived, a ‘real’ experience of adventure tourism for the participants. It was an
experience lived within a package tour, directed and controlled by the guides,
yet they strived to diminish the appearance of this structure. The participants’
storied realities authenticated the destination and their kayaking adventure
heroes, yet they did not claim to be authentic adventurers. Each participant had
a different ‘real’ lived experience and multiple storied images of its reality which
will change and develop with additional experience and each re-telling. The
reality of their tour experience was in comparison to others’ experience, what
was strange and familiar, the known and unknown. The audience of these
storied images will authorize and authenticate the reality of the participants’
tour experience.The importance of this peer-authorized reality will reflect the
participants’ commitment to the social world in which it is authorized.
The participants’ experience of this package adventure tour was a negotiation
of the playful game of tourism, in which there is a freedom to story the expe-
rience of reality in comparison to others’ tourist experience.
Conclusion
Adventure tourism is now, as it possibly was in the initial expansive growth of
modern tourism, a signifier of who you are, who you would like to be and who
you are not. The package adventure tour provides the opportunity to be, or
appear to be, adventurous within the packaged safety of being a guided tourist.
At its core the experience allows for the construction or importantly in this
case, reaffirmation of identity, through presenting stories of experience. The
audience of these stories will see them as ‘tourist stories’ in contrast to normal
life; ‘differentiating tourist stories’ in contrast to others’ tourist experiences or
‘kayaking stories’ of belonging that affirm status in the kayaking social world.
The interpretation of this article is that participants in package adventure
tours are ‘free’ within a touristic discourse to ‘playfully’ construct experience
232 tourist studies 4:3
stories of ‘reality’. Indeed in contemporary adventure tourism the niche pack-
age adventure provides participants with experience journeys in which there is
potential to choose identity, or in other words, a freedom to play with reality.
re f e re nc e s
Bauman, Z. (1996) ‘From Pilgrim to Tourist: Or a Short History of Identity’, pp.
18–36 in S. Hall and P. du Gay (eds) Questions of Cultural Identity. London: SAGE
Publications.
Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann (1967) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge. London: Allen Lane/The Penguin Press.
Berno,T., K. Moore, D. Simmons and V. Hart (1996) ‘The Nature of Adventure
Tourism Experience in Queenstown, New Zealand’, Australian Leisure 7(2): 21–5.
Black, J. (1985) The British and the Grand Tour. Dover: Croom Helm.
Boorstin, D. J. (1961/1964) The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America. New York:
Harper & Row.
Brannan, L., C. Condello, N. Struckum, N.Vissers and S. Priest (1992) ‘Public
Perception of Risk in Recreational Activities’, Journal of Applied Recreation Research
17(2): 144–57.
Buzard, J. (1993) The Beaten Track: European Tourism, Literature and the Ways to Culture:
1800–1918. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canard, H. (2001) ‘Tourism, Conservation and Recreation’, pp. 15–21 in K. Lloyd
Managing New Zealand’s Wildlands. Rotoiti: Federation of Mountain Clubs of New
Zealand.
Celsi, R. L., L. R. Rose and T.W. Leigh (1993) ‘An Exploration of High-risk Leisure
Consumption through Skydiving’, Journal of Consumer Research 20: 1–23.
Cloke, P. and H. C. Perkins (1998) ‘“Craking the Canyon with the Awesome
Foursome”: Representations of Adventure Tourism in New Zealand’, Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 16: 185–218.
Coffey, A. (1999) The Ethnographic Self: Fieldwork and the Representation of Identity.
London: SAGE Publications.
Cohen, E. (1979) ‘A Phenomenology of Tourist Experience’, The Journal of the British
Sociological Association 13(1): 179–201.
Crotty, M. (1998) The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the
Research Process. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
Donnelly, P. and K.Young (1988) ‘The Construction and Confirmation of Identity in
Sport Subcultures’, Sociology of Sport Journal 5: 223–40.
Elsrud,T. (2001) ‘Risk Creation in Travelling’, Annals of Tourism Research 28(3):
597–617.
Ewert, A.W. (1985) ‘Why People Climb:The Relationship of Participant Motives and
Experience Level to Mountaineering’, Journal of Leisure Research 17(3): 241–50.
Ewert, A.W. (1989) Outdoor Adventure Pursuits: Foundations, Models and Theories.
Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons.
Ewert, A.W. (1994) ‘Playing the Edge: Motivation and Risk Taking in a High Altitude
Wilderness-like Environment’, Environment and Behaviour 26(1): 3–24.
Ewert, A.W. and S. Hollenhurst (1989) ‘Testing the Adventure Model: Empirical
Support for a Model of Risk Recreation Participation’, Journal of Leisure Research
21: 124–39.
Feifer, M. (1986) Tourism in History: From Imperial Rome to the Present. New York: Stein
& Day.
Kane and Tucker Adventure tourism 233
haz e l tuc ke r , also at the University of Otago, is a senior lecturer in the Department
of Tourism. Her research interests include tourism and social change, representation and
experience, and heritage interpretation. Her latest publications include ‘Living with
Tourism: Negotiating Identities in a Turkish Village’ (2003) and ‘Tourism and Post-
Colonialism’ (2004). Address: Department of Tourism, University of Otago, P. O. Box 56,
Dunedin, New Zealand. [email: htucker@business.otago.ac.nz]