Mountain Tourism: Toward a Conceptual Framework

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235953348
Mountain Tourism: Toward a Conceptual Framework
Data
in Tourism Geographies · August 2005
DOI: 10.1080/14616680500164849
CITATIONS
79
READS
1,712
2 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Cultural and Social Capital, and Natural Disasters in Tourism-dependent Communities in Asia View project
Sanjay Nepal
University of Waterloo
75 PUBLICATIONS 2,283 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Sanjay Nepal on 31 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tourism Geographies
Vol. 7, No. 3, 313–333, 2005
Mountain Tourism: Toward a Conceptual
Framework
SANJAY K. NEPAL∗ & RAYMOND CHIPENIUK∗∗
∗Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, USA
∗∗School of Environmental Planning, University of Northern British Columbia, Canada
A BSTRACT A conceptual framework is proposed to examine tourism and recreation issues
in mountainous regions. First, six mountain-specific resource characteristics are discussed,
which include diversity, marginality, difficulty of access, fragility, niche and aesthetics. It is
argued that these characteristics are unique to mountainous regions and, as such, have specific
implications for mountain recreation and tourism development. The paper then examines the
changing nature of recreation and tourism use in the mountains, especially increasing levels of
recreation and tourism activities sought by local recreationists, tourists and amenity migrants,
and the implications of these activities for mountain tourism planning and management. A
three-class system of recreation and tourism land-use settings is proposed to resolve planning
and management challenges associated with increasingly diverse needs of these users. Tourism
planning and management in mountainous regions should consider and incorporate mountain-
specific resource characteristics. It is argued that the proposed framework not only assists in
developing an integrated perspective on mountain tourism planning and management but also
advances research fronts in areas of mountain resource characteristics, mountain amenity users
and mountain recreational zoning.
KEY WORDS : Mountain tourism, mountain resource characteristics, outdoor recreation,
tourism, amenity migration, recreation and tourism land use
Introduction
There has been a slow but steady effort towards increasing global awareness concern-
ing mountain issues. In recent years, mountain issues have come to the forefront in the
policy agenda of many national and international agencies and governments (Godde
et al. 2000). As a unified response to increasing global awareness of mountains and
tourism issues, the year 2002 was declared the International Year of the Mountains
and also the International Year of Ecotourism.
Mountains, with their spectacular scenery, majestic beauty and unique amenity val-
ues, are one of the most popular destinations for tourists. The development of tourism
Correspondence Address: Sanjay K. Nepal, Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas
A&M University, 2261 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2261, USA. Fax: [phone]; Tel.: +979
862 4080; Email: [e-mail]
ISSN 1461-6688 Print/1470-1340 Online /05/03/00313–21 C© 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/14616680500164849

314 S. K. Nepal & R. Chipeniuk
in the mountains can be a key factor in the focal concern for overall improvement
in people’s quality of life through sustainable economic development initiatives and
environmental conservation. In socio-economic and environmental terms, tourism in
mountain regions is a mixed blessing: it can be a source of problems, but it also offers
many opportunities.
Mountain regions, in most cases, are inaccessible, fragile, marginal to political
and economic decision-making and home to some of the poorest people in the world
(Messerli and Ives 1997). While steepness, fragility and marginality are often con-
straints, exposing mountains to pervasive degradation, some of these attributes may
also attract the ‘adventure tourists’. Tourism development is an obvious means for
achieving sustainable mountain development, particularly where other economic re-
sources necessary for development are limited.
Until very recently, tourism studies concerned with mountain landscapes were
mainly limited to physical, ecological and environmental processes (Smethurst 2000).
Recent discussions on The Mountain Forum – an online forum which facilitates the
discussion of mountain-specific development issues at an international level, more
recent issues of the Mountain Research and Development – an international journal
devoted to mountain-specific issues, and recent publications with a mountain theme
(see Allan et al. 1988; Allan 1995; Messerli and Ives 1997; Funnell and Parish 2001)
all indicate a gradual shift in emphasis from the physical to the policy and devel-
opment arenas. A tourism perspective on mountain development policies, within the
broader framework of human–nature interactions in mountain environments, is now
essential. However, although mountains have often been places to visit for recreation
and tourism, and although interest in the development of mountain tourism has in-
tensified in many countries, hardly any attempts have been made to conceptualize
mountain tourism, unlike seaside or coastal tourism (Wong 1993; Orams 1998). It is
somewhat perplexing that even The Encyclopedia of Tourism (Jafari 2003) does not
make any reference to mountain tourism, mentioning only ‘mountaineering’. How-
ever, this situation is gradually improving, as more researchers become interested in
mountain tourism issues (Price et al. 1997; Godde et al. 2000; Beedie and Hudson
2003; Nepal 2000, 2003).
This paper proposes a conceptual framework to examine recreation and tourism is-
sues in mountainous regions. This framework views the planning and management of
mountain amenity landscapes as essentially issues about supply, demand and manage-
ment (Figure 1). Within this framework, the supply of recreational opportunities in a
mountainous region is seen as influenced by its six resource characteristics: diversity,
marginality, difficult access, fragility, niche and aesthetics. The demand for recre-
ational activities is conceived as an outcome of the combined influences of the three
principal users: the local recreationists, the tourists and the amenity migrants. The
management of the supply and demand of mountain recreational opportunities can be
achieved best through a land-use zonation concept, which divides mountain amenity
landscapes into a nodal centre, a ‘frontcountry’ and a ‘backcountry’. It is argued that

A Conceptual Framework for Mountain Tourism 315
Figure 1. Mountain tourism: a conceptual framework
this framework is useful in identifying zones of conflicts and contentions involving
the three users, and minimizing the vulnerability of mountain amenity resources to
degradation.
Discussion of the three main aspects of the conceptual framework is the focus of
this paper. First, the paper highlights the major resource characteristics that are unique
to mountains. Secondly, it examines the changing nature of recreation and tourism
use in the mountains, especially increasing levels of recreation and tourism activities
sought by local recreationists, tourists and amenity migrants. From the perspective
of these users, mountain regions can be described as amenity landscapes. Finally,
the paper proposes a three-class system of recreation and tourism land-use settings
that are relevant to the specific characteristics of the mountains. These three areas –
mountain characteristics, mountain amenity users and mountain recreational zoning
– are identified as worthy of additional research.
Mountain Resource Characteristics
Definitions of what characterizes mountains are unclear. Questions have been raised
about the suitability of elevation, volume, relief and steepness as the most commonly
applied criteria (Kapos et al. 2002). It is arguable that such a deterministic approach
looks at mountains as parts rather than as a whole, as it ignores the essential at-
tributes of mountain regions as landscapes including valleys, which give mountains
their distinct character. From a tourism perspective, a mountain defined by elevation
alone is inadequate. The watershed or ecosystem approach to the conceptualization
of mountains makes much more sense, as it attempts to define mountain areas based
on watershed or ecological boundaries, but, of course, the borders may mean nothing

316 S. K. Nepal & R. Chipeniuk
from a human perspective (ICIMOD 2004). Consider a community that is located in
the valley but uses its mountain backdrop to promote tourism inasmuch as the moun-
tain provides ideal recreation opportunities and other types of amenities, and other
primary resources (e.g. forests and minerals) that are important to local residents as
well as outsiders. The community could be located on adjacent plains and may not be
characterized as a mountain community if the elevation criterion is followed strictly.
The watershed or ecosystem approach could make sense, as the community may be
dependent on resources that are located in the mountains, while being physically
located on the plains; this approach implies that human–nature interactions are not
bounded by the physical transitions imposed by certain natural features.
Jodha (1991) has argued that mountain areas are quite distinct from other phys-
iographic units and that ‘specificities’ such as diversity, marginality, inaccessibility,
fragility and niche have influenced the level of development of the mountains. Sharma
(2000) has applied these concepts to tourism development issues in mountainous re-
gions. To this one can add a further characteristic, namely the superior aesthetic
quality of mountain landscapes. Discussed primarily in the context of mountainous
regions in the developing economies, this concept of mountain specificities is relevant
to the developed economies as well, especially in terms of its potential application
to mountain ecotourism (Nepal 2002). Mountain diversity, marginality, inaccessibil-
ity, fragility, niche and aesthetics are interrelated and are dynamic concepts, as these
characteristics are influenced by one another and change over time and space depend-
ing on the level of tourism development (Table 1). Each of these issues is discussed
below.
Diversity
Mountain regions have high levels of both ecological and cultural diversity (Stepp
2000). The compression of life zones into a small horizontal distance has produced
a high level of diversity in landscapes, flora and fauna (Price and Neville 2003).
Ecological diversity has influenced the cultural diversity of the mountains, as people
have adapted to or changed their natural environments to ensure their survival (Pohle
1992). Many factors combine to create high levels of natural and cultural diversity at
the regional scale. The combination of steep altitudinal gradient, topographic variation
and range of aspects provides a rich variety of habitats at all scales (Etter and Villa
2000). As mountain ranges have risen over millions of years, many species have been
able to migrate along new pathways, exploiting new ecological niches. Geological
upheavals and climatic changes have repeatedly isolated populations, with the effect
that many mountain regions have high levels of endemic species. Various levels of
restrictions on human activities posed by physical challenges have produced a wide
spectrum of virtually unmodified to significantly altered landscapes. Regardless of
the degree of modification, mountain regions often have a higher level of diversity
than do the lowlands.

A Conceptual Framework for Mountain Tourism 317
Table 1. Characteristics of mountain resources and implications for tourism
Main
characteristics Attributes Implications for tourism
Diversity Micro-variations in physical and
biological attributes.
Interdependence of production
bases.
Use of specific comparative advantage.
Linkage with local production systems.
Small-scale technological innovation.
Revival of traditional activities.
Marginality Limited local resources.
Marginal concern to
decision-makers.
Unfavourable terms of trade.
Optimal/judicious use of tourism resources.
Local-level, participatory decision-making.
Mandatory reinvestment of tourism
revenues.
Institutional capacity and human resources
development.
Monitoring mechanism.
Difficult
access
Remoteness.
Isolation from markets.
Insular economy and culture.
High value.
Activities that take advantage of relative
inaccessibility.
Fragility Resources vulnerable to rapid
degradation.
Niche tourism.
Employment in environmental
conservation.
Restricted use in biological hotspots.
Carrying capacity considerations.
Niche Location-specific attractions.
Endemic flora and fauna.
Area-specific resources/
production activities.
Special interest tourism.
Niche marketing.
Skill-based or culturally-specific crafts.
Area-specific tourist goods and services.
Aesthetics Superior dramatic quality.
Superior recreational quality.
Superior spiritual quality.
Superior resistance to human
modification.
Superior quality as habitat.
Attraction for the young and vigorous.
Attraction for the venturesome.
Attraction for the spiritually exhausted.
Attraction for the exhibitionist.
Attraction for potential amenity migrants.
Source: Adapted from Sharma (2000: 6), with the addition of aesthetics as an important characteristic.
Mountain tourism can capitalize on the diverse ecological and cultural charac-
teristics of the mountains. Mountainous regions have been exploited as places for
amusement and attractions geared toward mass tourists, at one end of the spectrum,
to theatres for highly specialized activities that cater to specified target groups inter-
ested in activities ranging from heli-hiking to heli-skiing, mountaineering and other
forms of extreme sport. This diversity also evokes innovations and technological
developments in mountain sports and recreation.
Marginality
Many mountain communities have economic structures closely linked to subsis-
tence resource use and processing of natural resource-based commodities. However,