Literature Review: A Conceptual Framework for Tourism in Mountains

This literature review delves into a conceptual framework designed to address tourism and recreation in mountainous regions. It begins by outlining six mountain-specific resource characteristics: diversity, marginality, difficulty of access, fragility, niche, and aesthetics, arguing that these unique features significantly impact mountain recreation and tourism development. The review then examines the evolving landscape of recreation and tourism in mountains, particularly the increasing demand from local recreationists, tourists, and amenity migrants, and the implications for planning and management. A three-class system of recreation and tourism land-use settings—nodal center, frontcountry, and backcountry—is proposed to resolve the challenges arising from the diverse needs of these users. The framework emphasizes that effective tourism planning and management in mountainous regions must consider and integrate these mountain-specific resource characteristics. Ultimately, the review posits that this framework not only fosters an integrated perspective on mountain tourism planning and management but also propels research in areas concerning mountain resource characteristics, amenity users, and recreational zoning.

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 AsiaView 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.

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
ABSTRACT 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,

318 S. K. Nepal & R. Chipeniuk
mountain communities have historically been neglected in development priorities, as
they are often located in peripheral regions. Increased dependency, unequal terms of
exchange and gradual loss of autonomy over resource use or decision-making are
common characteristics of many mountain communities (Sharma 2000). The result
is poverty, a characteristic shared by all mountain peoples, even in the Swiss Alps
(Ives 1996). Outsiders often perceive mountain regions as lands where opportunities
for earning a livelihood are marginal (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987). Moreover, many
mountain regions are borderlands between states and between regions and political
units within a state. As such, mountain regions are characterized by economic, po-
litical and cultural uncertainty and instability (Smethurst 2000). The last decade has
seen an increase in incidents of violence and ethnic conflicts in several mountain
communities around the world, most notably in Central and South Asia, making the
poorer communities there even more vulnerable to displacement, poverty and human
rights abuse.
The development of mountain tourism in these contexts implies that decentralized
decision-making processes and reinvestment of tourism-generated revenues at the
local level to diversify the economic base are important considerations when the
goal is to achieve restructuring of mountain economies. Participatory approaches to
mountain tourism planning processes, local level consultations with key stakeholders,
local inputs in the monitoring of key ecological (e.g. waste disposal, wildlife impacts)
and social indicators (e.g. affordable housing, fair wages and jobs, local skills) and
preferential treatment in income and employment opportunities in the local tourism
industry are essential to ensure long-term sustainability of mountain tourism projects.
Difficult Access
Difficult access to and relatively undeveloped infrastructure within mountain regions
have traditionally restricted the external linkages of mountain economies. Where
transport corridors have been established, net outflow of resources from the moun-
tains has occurred (Blaikie et al. 1980). In some cases, emphasis on high-value,
low-bulk products has been the adaptive response of mountain communities. While
difficult access usually means a low volume of tourists, it also provides opportunities
for developing high-value tourism products. For example, many remote mountain
locations in the Canadian Rockies, Interior Ranges, and British Columbia (BC) Coast
Range attract tourists who are willing to pay substantial amounts of money for their
visits. Elsewhere, mountain tourism activities that thrive on relative inaccessibility,
such as trekking, mountaineering and other forms of adventure tourism, can provide
new forms of adaptation to conditions of inaccessibility. Various forms of ecotourism
activities that take advantage of relative isolation and difficult access are constantly
developing in the mountainous regions of the world (Mountain Agenda 1999).
On the other hand, many mountain communities that were previously thought to
be located remotely are now connected to large urban centres due to expanded air

A Conceptual Framework for Mountain Tourism 319
transport networks. Better air connections have enabled many urban residents to buy
homes in scenic mountain environments (e.g. Vail and Aspen), primarily because
residents in such places now have the option and the ability to travel conveniently
to large cities. In some mountain communities the advent of the Internet has made
information vastly easier to obtain, encouraging metropolitan-to-mountain migration.
However, for the vast majority of people in remote communities difficult access
remains a problem.
Fragility
Fragility is a key attribute of ecological processes in the mountains and it refers to
a stress and response condition, i.e. the response of the mountain environment to
natural and human activities. Although the concept is potentially ambiguous, as dif-
ferent activities have different stress–response conditions (Buckley 2000), in general,
mountain resources are characterized by low carrying capacities and they are vul-
nerable to accelerated land degradation. Mountains are fragile mainly due to steep
topography, altitude, geology and climatic extremes. Increased rates of erosion, fre-
quent landslides, avalanches and floods, and loss of flora and fauna are examples
of fragility. The implication is that particular activities can be undertaken only at a
certain scale and at specified locations. However, due to increasing pressure for de-
velopment, issues of fragility have often been overlooked and this is especially true
in the development of tourism-related infrastructure.
Fragility of mountain environments can itself be a tourism asset and thus requires
protection. For example, a rock cliff which is used for climbing needs protection, as do
collection areas above avalanche chutes, which can be opened for recreation activities
only at certain times of the year. Fragility requires that tourism development must
emphasize environmental conservation and regeneration, in the absence of which
irreversible damage to resources can occur (Cole and Sinclair 2002). In the tourism
context, assessment of fragility involves the identification of conservation values of the
environment where development is proposed, selection of key indicators to measure
changes, determination of the types of tourist activity that can be accommodated,
the examination of indicators responding to various intensities of recreation and the
establishment of effective monitoring programmes that can assess the stress–response
relationship reliably (Buckley 2000). However, the reality is that recreation activities
such as hiking, heli-skiing, cat-skiing and snowmobiling are on the rise in backcountry
areas of some mountain ranges, and the control and management of them are more the
exception rather than the rule. Backcountry recreation is an important issue and must
be addressed if managers are to avoid irreversible damage to mountain resources.
Niche
A concomitant of diversity is the relative or absolute comparative advantage or niche
afforded by particular locations and areas for recreation activity specialization. Some

320 S. K. Nepal & R. Chipeniuk
types of outdoor recreation activities, such as paragliding, rock climbing, moun-
taineering, trekking, heli-ski and heli-hike, glacier walking, ice climbing, downhill
ski and mountain biking, are possible only in the mountains. The tourism industry has
exploited this niche with the constant invention, promotion and effective marketing
of new trends, sporting equipment and types of activity in the mountains. However,
consideration should be given to the exploitation of this niche within the limits of
carrying capacities, which are a function of the fragility and diversity of mountain
resources. By focusing development on the unique natural and cultural resources of
the mountains, communities may successfully increase income, enhance their ability
to adjust to change and achieve important community-level objectives (McCool and
Lachapelle 2000).
Aesthetics
Mountain landscapes typically strike people as being of exceptional aesthetic quality.
Why this should be so is unclear. For some reason landscape preference studies have
not examined preferences for mountain landscapes in the same fashion as preferences
for scenes with water or savanna (cf. for example the landmark research of Kaplan
and Kaplan (1989)). At one time, history-of-ideas explanations (e.g. Nicolson 1997;
Glacken 1967; Nash 1982) were considered adequate when they appealed to the
Romantic artistic and literary tradition, but today they do not measure up against
the new standards of evolutionary psychology or cross-cultural research (e.g. Orians
1980; Balling and Falk 1982; Cosmides et al. 1992; Orians and Heerwagen 1992).
Across a wide range of cultures, people regard mountain landscapes as superior
in their dramatic quality and their ability to evoke a sense of the numinous. People
in many cultures also regard mountains as superior in the quality and range of op-
portunities they offer for recreation, partly because mountains tend to be in a more
natural condition than flatter lands which offer less resistance to human modification.
Finally, mountains often strike visitors as highly desirable as residential locations,
sometimes for the same reasons as those which attracted them as tourists, sometimes
for amenities (such as a high proportion of amenity migrants already settled in the
area) that they do not demand in the destinations to which they travel as tourists.
The above-mentioned mountain resource characteristics have significant implica-
tions for planning mountain tourism, especially when one considers the diverse needs
and activities of various users. Diversity, in turn, implies that sustainable tourism man-
agement in the mountains must consider resolution of potential conflicts between the
recreation needs of these users and between the needs of these users and the needs of
residents and amenity migrants.
Mountains as Amenity Landscapes
Many popular mountain destinations in North America (e.g. Whistler, Aspen, Vail)
have evolved as local attractions for outdoor recreation, only to be discovered later

A Conceptual Framework for Mountain Tourism 321
by tourists, to emerge, with time and development pressure, as major international
tourism destinations. Mountain tourism destinations have quickly become locations
of seasonal residences for many tourists and, in some cases, they have attracted people
who want to settle permanently in and around areas with significant amenity values
– amenity migrants. Gill (1998) has classified residents of mountain resorts into four
categories: permanent residents, second-home owners, seasonal workers and tourists.
In the context of this paper, three primary groups of recreation users are identified.
First are the locals who pursue a variety of outdoor recreation activities. Gill refers to
these people as permanent residents; however, it should be acknowledged that not all
permanent residents may be local recreationists. The second group includes amenity
migrants by some definitions, in which second-home owners and seasonal workers
are included (e.g. Glorioso 2000). Most authors consider amenity migration to en-
tail permanent residence, although some do include second-home owners within the
meaning of the term (Moss 1994; Glorioso 2000; Moss and Godde 2000). Amenity
migrants are referred to here as those who have moved to a place and became per-
manent residents not because of a job or other economic reasons but for the natural
or social amenities found at that place (Chipeniuk 2005). Amenity migration is fast
becoming an interesting area of research within the larger context of leisure, recre-
ation, tourism and planning, as indicated by the recent publication of a book on this
subject (Hall and M¨uller 2004). The third category of users comprises the tourists. In
short, outdoor recreation, amenity migration and tourism are essential characteristics
of many established and evolving mountain tourism destinations. This association,
in turn, gives rise to conflict and co-existence among outdoor recreation, amenity
migration and tourism.
Five potential kinds of conflict exist: (1) conflicts between local residents (who use
mountain amenities for their recreation) and tourists; (2) conflicts between amenity
migrants (those who settle permanently) and local residents; (3) conflicts between
amenity migrants and tourists; (4) conflicts within each category of recreationists;
and (5) conflicts involving all three groups of recreationists. Additionally, conflicts
may exist between people engaged in recreational pursuits in the mountains and local
residents not engaged in mountain-based recreation due to differences in perspectives,
values, traditions and beliefs about local mountains (Jurowski 1994; Jurowski et al.
1997; Lankford et al. 1997). For example, mountains are often regarded as ‘sacred’
grounds by local residents who prefer not to climb them, while visitors may perceive
them as ‘pleasure’ grounds, to be attacked, assaulted or commercialized (Ortner 2001).
The present discussion is limited to the conflicts between users of mountain recreation
resources. This complexity affords enormous challenges to tourism planners when
dealing with mountain tourism issues.
While current research on tourism is focused overwhelmingly on conflicts between
local residents and tourists (Smith 1989; Smith and Brent 2001; Lankford et al. 2003)
or between urban and rural residents who use the same resources (Saremba and Gill
1991), outdoor recreation literature is focused on conflicts between various types of

322 S. K. Nepal & R. Chipeniuk
recreationists, for example, between hikers and mountain bikers (Ramthun 1995) or
between skiers and snowmobilers (Wilson and Seney 1994; Vittersø et al. 2004).
There is very little research on conflicts between tourists and amenity migrants, even
though they compete for and share the same space and facilities and they may attach
different sets of values to tourism and amenity resources. Examples of such conflicts
are already found in the mountains of BC, Canada where many local backcountry
skiers and snowmobilers resent heli-ski tourism because it excludes them from certain
areas. Indeed, similar conflicts between cross-country skiers and snowmobilers have
been well documented in Alberta, Canada (Jackson and Wong 1982). Saremba and
Gill (1991) have documented value conflicts between rural and urban residents in the
context of a mountain park setting near Whistler, Canada, and similar examples can
be found elsewhere. One source of the current resistance to development at Jumbo
in southern BC (a proposed downhill ski development) is this kind of conflict, and
the same is true of opposition to heli-ski operations in the Bulkley Valley in north-
western BC. Local residents, especially those who live there to earn a living or whose
families have been there for generations, often have mixed feelings about tourists and
amenity migrants because they drive up property values (of course, this has its good
side too) and compete with locals for recreational space. Concerns such as these were
expressed openly at a community hall meeting in Valemount, a mountain commu-
nity west of Jasper National Park, where a substantial resort complex was proposed
and recently approved after very little consultation with local residents (Nepal 2004).
Other concerns may include increased environmental pollution, increased costs of
recreation and resistance to foreign cultures or sub-cultures. In Smithers, a small
town in the Bulkley Valley, some residents speaking at public meetings opposed the
proposed expansion of a downhill ski resort meant to attract more tourists because it
would increase the cost of lift tickets greatly and increase the amount of time spent
waiting in lift lines. Similarly, conflicts between different sorts of local recreation-
ists are common, for example between skiers and snowmobilers. Conflicts between
commercially guided canoeists and non-guided canoeists on high-quality wilderness
rivers, such as the Nahanni in the Northwest Territories of Canada, represent a type
of conflict between groups of tourists (Shelby and Heberlein 1986). There is also
the potential for conflict between rich amenity migrants and low- or middle-income
amenity migrants, because the rich may outbid the less well off for desirable rural
property. Conflicts among the three categories of amenity users may also be common,
although research examining such multi-dimensional conflicts does not exist. Such
conflicts arise primarily due to differences in personal values, lifestyle choice, attitude
towards nature and people or community and other intrinsic and extrinsic character-
istics of the users (Jacob and Schreyer 1980; Saremba and Gill 1991; Williams 2000).
A generic descriptor of the three types of amenity users –local recreationists, tourists
and amenity migrants – is shown in Table 2.
Based on Table 2, some hypotheses about the characteristics of local economic
residents, tourists and amenity migrants are proposed in the following sections. Local

A Conceptual Framework for Mountain Tourism 323
Table 2. Characteristics of amenity users in the mountains
Outdoor
recreationists (local) Tourists Amenity migrants
Sense of place and place
attachment
Images of place Sense of place; strong sense
of place as self-expression
High degree of familiarity
with local customs and
environments
Low degree of familiarity
with local cultures and
environments; exploration
and discovery
Moderate degree of
familiarity with local
cultures and environments
Unrestricted use of space Restricted and regulated
access to recreational space
Regulated access
Easy access Escapism Pioneers of new forms and
styles of recreation
Well-defined pattern of
recreation frequency and
intensity
Intensive use of facilities, but
at unpredictable
frequencies
Strong ties to other places
May exhibit the NIMBY
syndrome; strongly
territorial
Less territorial Moderate territoriality and
resistance to change
High degree of participation
in civic life
No participation in civic life High degree of participation
in civic life
High quality environments
important
High quality environments
desired
Demand for high-quality
environments
Likely to be displaced by
tourists
Some will be repeat visitors,
most will likely not return
Likely to be displaced by
tourists but minimal
susceptibility to economic
conditions
residents in many mountain communities have a strong sense of place and are rooted
firmly in their community (Jordon 1980). Recent literature on sense of place and place
attachment supports this hypothesis (Kyle et al. 2004). Residents are highly familiar
with their recreational environments and are knowledgeable about access and restric-
tions on access to certain areas (e.g. sacred burial grounds). Patterns of recreational
preferences, including the type of recreation, duration of recreation, frequency and
utilization of space, are fairly predictable and well defined. Residents exhibit symp-
toms of territoriality and the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) syndrome. They are not
supportive of tourism development if the development diminishes opportunities for
outdoor recreation for local residents (Lankford et al. 2003).
Tourists, on the other hand, visit the mountains with acquired (through media
and tour promotional packages) images of a place and its inhabitants. Although not
discussed in the context of mountains, Herbert (2001) has found that perceived images
of a place are an important determinant of a visitor’s satisfaction. This satisfaction
may be achieved through exploration and discovery at a superficial level. Thus, real
immersion into local cultures and environments may not be required to attain complete

324 S. K. Nepal & R. Chipeniuk
satisfaction. Tourists, by nature, are short-term residents and fit the description of
‘marginal actors’, the majority of whom tend not to become involved in community
issues (Williamson 1991, cited in Gill 1998). Due to their transient nature, tourists
tend to be less territorial than local residents. For the majority of tourists, access to
their destinations is a function of time, distance and cost of travel and hospitality
services.
Amenity migrants’ characteristics fall somewhere in between those of local eco-
nomic residents and tourists. Of particular importance is the fact that amenity migrants
are local residents too, but are there not for economic reasons but primarily for local
natural attractions and amenities. Amenity migrants most often would have visited
the place as tourists before moving there and, through experience, they develop a
sense of place, which may or may not be similar to that of local residents. Sense
of community attachment may be less strong among the amenity migrants, as they
are likely to be displaced easily in the event of a high level of tourism development
(Rademan 1987). It could also be argued that sense of community attachment tends
to be stronger among amenity migrants, at least those who are true residents. Af-
ter all, these are people who are drawn to these areas not due to economic reasons
but more because of their leisure-orientated lifestyle, on account of which they have
vested interests in participating in community planning events and in introducing
and advancing their ideas to the community (Gill 1998). Amenity migrants may thus
exhibit a higher degree of participation in civic life. It is generally believed that
amenity migrants demand high-quality environments. Although it is difficult to say
if older amenity migrants are attracted to mountain resorts more than the young (e.g.
in the Bulkley Valley, one of the largest contingents of amenity migrants is com-
posed of young people), it could be speculated that, on average, amenity migrants
are older and more educated than the locals and some of them may have a higher
income level if amenity migrants’ incomes are bimodally distributed. They are less
susceptible to the vagaries of economic conditions and they tend to spend a large frac-
tion of their income locally. They exhibit a moderate level of territoriality. Amenity
migrants bring with them a new sense of recreational values and styles and they
may introduce new forms of recreation to the local residents (Girard and Gartner
1993).
The presence of local recreationists, tourists and amenity migrants poses significant
challenges for tourism planners and service providers. While the different timing of
use of recreation facilities in mountain resorts might help address issues of crowding
and congestion to a certain extent, often users from the three categories may converge
at the same place at the same time. Not only do the types of impacts vary among these
three users, but their expectations of recreational satisfaction differ too. This reality
becomes even more problematic when one considers the above-mentioned mountain-
specific characteristics. Resolution of these issues could be approached through a
three-class recreational zoning concept, which consists of a principal node or centre
(e.g. a resort town or municipality), surrounded by a frontcountry recreational area,

A Conceptual Framework for Mountain Tourism 325
which, in turn, is surrounded by a backcountry recreation area. Visitor impact mitiga-
tion and user conflict resolution might be approached best from this land management
perspective, especially in the context of emerging mountain tourism destinations in
the rural periphery.
Mountain Recreational Zones
Observations of mountain tourism destinations, particularly remote destinations, indi-
cate there is a distinct pattern of recreational use and facility development in space and
time. Many mountain tourism destinations are characterized by an intensively devel-
oped nodal centre, usually located along a major transport corridor and surrounded by
a frontcountry recreational space, which serves as a gateway to surrounding backcoun-
try areas. Although similar to the concepts of the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum
(ROS), which is more concerned with imposing zones based on recreation opportu-
nity classes (Clark and Stankey 1979), this three-class system of recreational zoning
is more orientated towards planning for the recreation and tourism pursuits of local
residents, tourists and amenity migrants.
It should be noted that the frontcountry/backcountry recreational zoning concept
has been applied in several countries, including Canada (British Columbia 1988,
cited in Saremba and Gill 1991) and New Zealand (Kearsley 1998). The concept
has been discussed mainly in the context of wilderness zoning. In New Zealand, the
Department of Conservation manages all visitor sites in World Heritage areas based
on seven user groups, ranging from short-stop travellers through overnighters, day
visitors, backcountry comfort-seekers and backcountry adventurers, to remoteness-
seekers (Molloy and Reedy 2000). The discussion here focuses on how the recreational
zonation concept can be adapted to meet the different needs of local recreationists,
tourists and amenity migrants.
Tourism attractions at the nodal centre are geared toward mass tourists. The diversity
and quality of tourist facilities are usually wide ranging. Pleasure, amusement and
fun, escape and relaxation are the primary motivations of tourists staying in these
places. These are places to visit for all-purpose vacation seekers, but typically ski
resorts, health- and spa-driven tourist resorts and other forms of cultural attractions
may be found at such locations. The resort towns of Whistler in BC and Vail and
Aspen in Colorado may fall into this category. Some potential destinations in BC
may include small towns such as Golden, Fernie and Valemount, all located in the
Canadian Rockies. This zone is most preferred by tourists, while local residents tend
to avoid these places for their recreational pursuits, as is the case in several established
resort towns (Girard and Gartner 1993; Gill 1998). Amenity migrants may remain
indifferent to tourists’ activities but may utilize some of the services and facilities
that are available at such locations. The duration of a visit may range from overnight
to several days.

326 S. K. Nepal & R. Chipeniuk
The frontcountry setting provides more nature-orientated activities, ranging from
camping and hiking to experiencing native/ethnic culture, wildlife viewing and nature
photography. Activities are less intense but the average time spent in specific activities
may be longer. These are venues desired by local recreationists, especially those
travelling with family. Independent tourists may utilize this space too, but overall
their use is limited to more accessible (vehicular) areas within this zone. Amenity
migrants may also use these spaces periodically. The duration of the visit is short.
The public and non-profit sectors are involved in the provision of services, which
may be contracted out to the private sector. Examples of such frontcountry settings
include the many campsites and trailheads located close to provincial, state or national
parks in Canada and the USA. Typically, such locations are gateways to more remote
backcountry recreational settings.
The backcountry settings offer more specialized forms of activities and are typified
by commercial and amateur adventure recreation, for example heli-hike and heli-
ski, backcountry ski, trekking and mountaineering. These are places preferred by
the amenity migrants, independent tourists and local recreationists. Time and space
use in this zone are very extensive. Conservation of recreational resources is one of the
primary goals in such areas. A schematic diagram of the spectrum of activities possible
in each zone is illustrated in Figure 2. While a strict demarcation of lines between
activities conducted within the three zones is difficult, it is suggested that certain
forms of recreational pursuits are more appropriate in specific zones, e.g. whereas
hiking can be conducted both in front- and backcountry settings, mountaineering is
generally pursued in remote, backcountry settings.
Examination of mountain tourism and recreation activities based on the concept
of a nodal centre surrounded by frontcountry and backcountry recreational zones is
useful in making strategic decisions on sustainability criteria for the development of
tourism. For example, the types of use in the three different settings are expected
Figure 2. Spectrum of activities in mountain recreational zones

A Conceptual Framework for Mountain Tourism 327
Table 3. Some indicators of distinctions between a tourist centre,
a frontcountry and a backcountry recreational setting
Indicators
Distance (near/far) and time (short/long haul) required to travel.
Availability of recreation resources (limited vs. unlimited).
Resource consumption levels (low, moderate, high).
Degree of familiarity (familiar vs. unanticipated).
Level of local involvement (local vs. outside labour).
Level of access (limited, regulated, controlled, restricted).
Degree of potential user conflicts (low, moderate, high).
Use levels (low, moderate, high, very high).
Diversity of activities (highly diverse to highly specialized).
Duration of local contact (short term, long term).
Intensity of local contact (none to highly intense).
Resource fragility (low, moderate, high).
Level of solitude (crowded to isolated).
to be very different. The levels of use and resource consumption, and the frequency
and intensity of contacts between hosts and guests are different (Table 3). Levels of
provision of government services such as search and rescue may be much less in the
backcountry. Human-modified changes are expected at a higher level within the nodal
centre than in the frontcountry and backcountry settings.
Each of these settings is different in terms of the mountain-specific characteristics
discussed above. For example, the nodal centre may be in the best situation to take
advantage of the diversity of the surrounding mountain environment and increase its
aesthetic quality. It will have relatively low levels of concern about difficult access and
marginality, although in the absence of a strong regulatory system, job opportunities
for local residents may be lost easily due to a large number of job seekers from outside
the region. Stress–response rates will be specific to the types of activity and facilities
developed.
In frontcountry settings, issues of fragility and diversity are more prominent. The
focus on nature-orientated recreation means use levels, intensity of use and timing of
use are important considerations when one examines issues of fragility and diversity.
The spectrum of activities that are possible in frontcountry settings is a function of the
diversity of landscape, flora and fauna, and regulatory measures. Niche is an important
concept that is relevant in these settings. The issue of marginality is less important
as fewer stakeholders are involved; usually residents from surrounding communities
are the service providers in frontcountry settings.
In backcountry settings, concepts of diversity, fragility, niche and difficult access
are very important. Research on recreation impacts demonstrates that both biophysical
and social impacts initially grow disproportionately to use levels (Cole 1987; Leung
and Marion 2000). Therefore, backcountry managers must strive to achieve a balance
between the desired level of changes in resource characteristics and user satisfaction.

328 S. K. Nepal & R. Chipeniuk
From a planning perspective, the node (centre), frontcountry and backcountry recre-
ation zones tend to be associated with very different kinds of political jurisdictions,
at least in some countries. In Canadian mountainous regions, the node is likely to be
within a municipal jurisdiction, the frontcountry within a regional district, county,
provincial or territorial jurisdiction, and the backcountry within provincial, territorial
or federal jurisdiction. For example, in the Rocky Mountains of southeastern BC, the
node is likely to be a town such as Fernie, Golden or Revelstoke. Elsewhere, resorts
such as Keystone in Colorado are privately owned corporate entities (Gill 1998). In
southern BC, some of the frontcountry is likely to be private land within a regional
district and the rest will be provincially owned Crown land subject to logging or
grazing or both; and the backcountry is likely to be a provincial or national park
or de facto wilderness. The planning agencies will differ correspondingly, being the
town or regional district in the first case, the region and the provincial Ministry of
Sustainable Resource Development and Ministry of Forests in the second, and the
provincial parks branch or federal Parks Canada agency in the third. The public groups
are different too: nodal planning will engage mostly the local public; frontcountry
planning will engage a local and province-wide public, with emphasis possibly on the
province-wide; backcountry planning will engage all three public groups, but with
the emphasis often shifted to wider scales, even to a national one. For example, any
planning involving the Alberta East Slope will attract the attention of Albertans as a
whole; any planning involving the backcountry in Banff National Park will concern
national park organizations and the national public.
Conclusions
The attraction of mountains for recreation has long been recognized. Except for studies
conducted in the context of mass tourism in mountain destinations, there has been no
real effort to advance the knowledge of the diversity of mountain tourism attractions
and how these are influenced by the characteristics of mountain resources. For more
than a decade, international forums, such as The Mountain Forum and the Banff-based
Mountain Centre, have attempted to increase public awareness of mountain-related
development issues; however, mountain tourism has become a topic of interest only
very recently. Many mountain communities are looking for opportunities to develop
their tourism industry and, given global trends in tourism and recreation, it will not
be surprising if new mountain destinations are explored and developed. People are
continually searching for new forms of recreation and settings for it, and mountains
have often provided the ‘pleasure grounds’. Mountain destinations have commonly
evolved as local recreation grounds and have become a magnet for all types of tourist
and amenity migrant. In their continuous search for high quality amenities, more and
more tourists may eventually decide to become permanent settlers in the mountains.
If so, resolution of potential user conflicts will be one of the most important future
requirements for sustainable mountain tourism development.

A Conceptual Framework for Mountain Tourism 329
There has not been any coherent approach to examining mountain-related tourism
development issues, even though this is a topic of high importance to people in moun-
tain areas. This paper presents a framework within which mountain tourism issues may
be examined from a resource management perspective. Integral to that perspective is
the idea that the nature of tourism in the mountains is changing fast and that mountain
resorts are slowly emerging as a good place to study the tourism–amenity migration
continuum. Mountains also offer circumscribed opportunities to examine the conflicts
and competition between local recreationists, tourists and amenity migrants. Finally,
mountain tourism destinations can be conceived from a land management perspec-
tive. For this, the concept of node, frontcountry and backcountry recreational zones,
in which conflict, contention and co-existence are played out, is relevant.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the three anonymous reviewers whose com-
ments greatly helped in improving this paper.
References
Allan, N. J. R. (1995) Mountains at Risk: Current Issues in Environmental Studies (New Delhi: Manohar
Publishers).
Allan, N. J. R., Knapp, G. W. & Stadel, C. (1988) Human Impact on Mountains (Totowa, NJ: Roman &
Littlefield).
Balling, J. & Falk, J. (1982) Development of visual preference for natural landscapes, Environment and
Behavior, 14, pp. 5–28.
Beedie, P. & Hudson, S. (2003) Emergence of mountain-based adventure tourism, Annals of Tourism
Research, 30(3), pp. 625–643.
Blaikie, P. & Brookfield, H. (1987) Land Degradation and Society (London and New York: Methuen).
Blaikie, P. M., Cameron, J. & Seddon, J. D. (1980) Nepal in Crisis: Growth and Stagnation at the Periphery
(London: Methuen).
British Columbia (1988) Wildlife viewing in British Columbia: The tourism potential (British Columbia
Ministry of Tourism, Vicotoria, BC: Queen’s Printer).
Buckley, R. (2000) Tourism in the most fragile environments, Tourism Recreation Research, 25(1),
pp. 31–40.
Chipeniuk, R. (2005) Planning for rural amenity migration. Plan Canada, 45(1), pp. 15–17.
Clark, R. N. & Stankey, G. H. (1979) The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning,
Management, and Research. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-98 (Portland, OR: US Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station).
Cole, D. N. (1987) Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness: A state-of-knowledge review, in: Pro-
ceedings – National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowedge, Future Directions,
pp. 135–177 (Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research
Station, General Technical Report INT-220).
Cole, V. & Sinclair, A. J. (2002) Measuring the ecological footprint of a Himalayan tourist center, Mountain
Research and Development, 22(2), pp. 132–141.
Cosmides, L., Tooby, J. & Barkow, J. H. (1992) Introduction: Evolutionary psychology and conceptual inte-
gration, in: F. Barkow, J. L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (Eds) The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology
and the Generation of Culture, pp. 3–15 (New York: Oxford University Press).

330 S. K. Nepal & R. Chipeniuk
Etter, A. & Villa, L. A. (2000) Andean forests and farming systems in part of the eastern Cordillera,
Colombia, Mountain Research and Development, 20(3), pp. 236–245.
Funnell, D. & Parish, R. (2001) Mountain Environments and Communities (London: Routledge).
Gill, A. (1998) Local and resort development, in: R. Butler, C. M. Hall & J. Jenkins (Eds) Tourism and
Recreation in Rural Areas, pp. 97–111 (Chichester: John Wiley).
Girard, T. C. & Gartner, W. C. (1993) Second home second view – Host community perceptions, Annals
of Tourism Research, 20, pp. 685–700.
Glacken, C. (1967) Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient
Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Glorioso, R. S. (2000) Amenity migration in the Sumava Bioregion, Czech Republic: Implications for eco-
logical integrity, in: P. M. Godde, M. F. Price & F. M. Zimmermann (Eds) Tourism and Development
in Mountain Regions, pp. 275–295 (Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing).
Godde P. M., Price, M. F. & Zimmermann, F. M. (2000) Tourism and Development in Mountain Regions
(Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing).
Hall, C. M. & M¨uller, D. K. (2004) Tourism, Mobility and Second Homes. Between Elite Landscape and
Common Ground (Clevedon: Channel View).
Herbert, D. (2001) Literary places, tourism and the heritage experience, Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2),
pp. 312–333.
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) (2004) Mountain watersheds:
An introduction. Available at http://www.icimod.org/focus/watershed/wshedintro.htm (accessed 15
November 2004).
Ives, J. (1996) Children and Poverty in Mountains (New York: UNICEF Environment Section).
Jackson, E. L. & Wong, R. A. (1982) Perceived conflict between urban cross-country skiers and snowmo-
bilers in Alberta, Journal of Leisure Research, 14(2), pp. 47–62.
Jacob, C. R. & Schreyer, R. (1980) Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective, Journal of
Leisure Research, 12, pp. 368–380.
Jafari, J. (Ed.) (2003) The Encylopedia of Tourism (London: Routledge).
Jodha, N. S. (1991) Mountain perspective and sustainability: A framework for development strategies,
in: M. Banskota, N. S. Jodha & U. Pratap (Eds)Sustainable Mountain Agriculture: Perspectives and
Issues, Vol. 1, pp. 41–82 (New Delhi: Oxford IBH).
Jordon, J. W. (1980) The summer people and the natives: Some effects of tourism in a Vermont vacation
village, Annals of Tourism Research, 7, pp. 34–55.
Jurowski, C. (1994) The interplay of elements affecting host community resident attitudes toward tourism:
A path analytical approach, PhD Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Jurowski, C., Uysal, M. & Williams, R. (1997) A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions
to tourism, Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), pp. 3–11.
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989) The Experience of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Kapos, V., Rhind, J., Edwards, M., Price. M. F. & Ravilious, C. (2002) Developing a map of the world’s
mountain forests, in: M. F. Price & N. Butt (Eds) Forests in Sustainable Mountain Development – A
State of Knowledge Report for 2000, pp. 4–9 (Oxon: CABI Publishing and IUFRO).
Kearsley, G. (1998) Rural tourism in Otago and Southland, New Zealand, in: R. Butler, C. M. Hall & J.
Jenkins (Eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas, pp. 81–95 (Chichester: John Wiley).
Kyle, G. T., Graefe, A., Manning, R. E. & Bacon, J. (2004) The effect of place attachment on users’ percep-
tion of social and environmental conditions encountered in a natural setting, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, pp. 213–225.
Lankford, S., Williams, A. & Lankford, J. (1997) Perceptions of outdoor recreation opportunities and
support for tourism development, Journal of Travel Research, 35(3), pp. 60–65.
Lankford, S. V., Pfister, R. E., Knowles, J. & Williams, A. (2003) An exploratory study of the impacts of
tourism on resident outdoor recreation experiences, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
21, pp. 30–49.

A Conceptual Framework for Mountain Tourism 331
Leung, Y. & Marion, J. L. (2000) Recreation Impacts and Management in Wilderness: A State of Knowl-
edge Review, in: D. N. Cole, S. F. McCool, W. T. Borrie & J. O’Laughlin (Compilers) Wilderness
Science in a Time of Change Conference. Volume 4. Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Manage-
ment, Proceedings, RMRS-P-15, May 23–27, 1999, Missoula, MT, pp. 53–60 (Ogden: USDA Forest
Service).
McCool, S. & Lachapelle, P. R. (2000) Recreational uses of mountain forests, in: M. F. Price & N. Butt
(Eds) Forests in Sustainable Mountain Development – A State of Knowledge Report for 2000, pp.
330–337 (Oxon: CABI Publishing and IUFRO).
Messerli B. & Ives, J. D. (1997) Mountains of the World: A Global Priority (Carnforth: Parthenon).
Molloy, L. & Reedy, M. (2000) Wilderness within World heritage: Te Wahipounamu, New Zealand, in:
A.E. Watson, G.H. Aplet and J.C. Hendee (Compilers)Personal, Societal, and Ecological Values of
Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress Proceedings on Research, Management, and Alloca-
tion, Volume II, pp. 162–167 (Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service).
Moss, L. A. (1994) Beyond tourism: The amenity migrants, in: M. Mannermaa, S. Inayatullah & R.
Slaughter (Eds) Coherence and Chaos in Our Uncommon Futures: Visions, Means, Actions, pp. 121–
127 (Turku, Finland: Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics and Business
Administration).
Moss, L. A. & Godde, P. M. (2000) Strategy for future mountain tourism, in: P. M. Godde, M. F. Price
& F. M. Zimmermann (Eds) Tourism and Development in Mountain Regions, pp. 323–338 (Oxford:
CABI Publishing).
Mountain Agenda (1999) Mountains of the World – Tourism and Mountains (Berne: Mountain Agenda).
Nash, R. (1982) Wilderness and the American Mind (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Nepal, S. K. (2000) Tourism in protected areas: The Nepalese Himalaya, Annals of Tourism Research,
27(3), pp. 661–681.
Nepal, S. K. (2002) Mountain ecotourism, Mountain Research and Development, 22(2), pp. 104–109.
Nepal, S. K. (2003) Strategies for mountain ecotourism development, in: M. Ranga and D. Chandra (Eds)
Tourism and Hospitality in the 21st Century, pp. 135–154 (New Delhi: Discovery Publishing).
Nepal, S. K. (2004) Sustaining mountain communities: Residents’ responses to tourism development in
Valemount, British Columbia. Report submitted to the Northern Land Use Institute, University of
Northern British Columbia, Canada.
Nicolson, M. H. (1997) Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory: The Development of the Aesthetics of the
Infinite (Seattle: University of Washington Press).
Orams, M. (1998) Marine Tourism: Development, Impacts and Management (London: Routledge).
Orians, G. H. (1980) Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior, in: J. S. Lockard
(Ed.) The Evolution of Human Social Behavior, pp. 49–66 (New York: Elsevier).
Orians, G. G. & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992) Evolved responses to landscapes, in: J. Barkow, L. Cosmides
& J. Tooby (Eds) The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, pp.
555–579 (New York: Oxford University Press).
Ortner, S. (2001) Life and Death on Mt. Everest: Sherpas and Himalayan Mountaineering (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press).
Pohle, P. (1992) Studies of man and the environment in the Nepal Himalaya. Examples from Gorkha and
Manang area, in: B. Kolver (Ed.) Aspects of Nepalese Traditions, pp. 33–51 (Stuttgart: Granz Steiner
Verlag).
Price, M. F. & Neville, G. R. (2003) Designing strategies to increase the resilience of alpine montane
systems to climate change, in: L. J. Hansen, J. L. Biringer and J. R. Hoffman (Eds) Buying Time:
A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems,
pp. 73–94 (Gland: WWF).
Price, M. F., Moss, L. A. G. & Williams, P. W. (1997) Tourism and amenity migration, in: B. Messerli and
J. D. Ives (Eds) Mountains of the World: A Global Priority, pp. 249–280 (Carnforth: Parthenon).
Rademan, M. C. (1987) Ski town predictions: Obstacles ahead, Planning, 53(2), pp. 17–21.

332 S. K. Nepal & R. Chipeniuk
Ramthun, R. (1995) Factors in user group conflict between hikers and mountain bikers, Leisure Sciences,
17, pp. 159–169.
Saremba, J. & Gill, A. (1991) Value conflicts in mountain park settings, Annals of Tourism Research, 18,
pp. 455–472.
Sharma, P. (2000) Tourism as Development: Case Studies from the Himalaya (Kathmandu and Innsbruck:
Himal Books and STUDIEN Verlag).
Shelby, B. & Heberlein, T. A. (1986) Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings (Corvallis, OR: Oregon
State University Press).
Smethurst, D. (2000) Mountain geography, The Geographical Review, 90(1), pp. 35–56.
Smith, V. (Ed.) (1989) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, 2nd edn (Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press).
Smith, V. & Brent, M. (Eds) (2001) Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century (New
York: Cognizant Communication Corporation).
Stepp, J. R. (2000) Mountain ethnobiology and development in highland Chiapas, Mexico: Lessons in
biodiversity and health, Mountain Research and Development, 20(3), pp. 218–219.
Vittersø, Joar, Chipeniuk, R., Sk˚ar, M. & Vistad, O. I. (2004) Recreational conflict is affective: The case
of cross-country skiers and snowmobiles, Leisure Sciences, 26, pp. 227–243.
Williams, D. R. (2000) Personal and social meanings of wilderness: Constructing and contesting places
in a global village, in: A. E. Watson, G. H. Aplet & J. C. Hendee (Compilers) Personal, Societal,
and Ecological Values of Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress Proceedings on Research,
Management, and Allocation, Volume II, pp. 77–82 (Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service).
Williamson, D. (1991) Which came first, the community or the resort?, in: A. Gill & R. Hartmann (Eds)
Mountain Resort Development: Proceedings of the Vail Conference, pp. 22–26 (Burnaby, BC: Centre
for Tourism Policy and Research, Simon Fraser University).
Wilson, J. P. & Seney, J. (1994) Erosional impact of hikers, horses, motorcycles, and off-road bicycles on
mountain trails in Montana, Mountain Research and Development, 14(1), pp. 77–88.
Wong, M. (Ed.) (1993) Tourism vs. Environment: The Case for Coastal Areas (Amsterdam: Kluwer).
Notes on Contributor
Sanjay K. Nepal has a PhD in geography and is currently an Assistant Professor at
the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M University.
He is interested in tourism and change in mountain communities and international
conservation and local peoples.
Ray Chipeniuk has a PhD in regional planning and resource development from the
University of Waterloo, Canada. He is currently an Associate Professor at the Univer-
sity of Northern British Columbia. He is interested in amenity migration, mountain
community planning and Internet-based public consultation in sustainable develop-
ment planning.
R´esum´e: Le tourisme de montagne: vers un cadre conceptuel
On propose un cadre conceptuel pour examiner les probl`emes du tourisme et des
loisirs dans les r´ egions montagneuses. On aborde en premier lieu six ressources
sp´ecifiques aux montagnes: la diversit´e, la marginalit´e, la difficult´e d’acc`es, la
fragilit´e, la sp´ecificit´e et l’esth´etique. On affirme que ces caract´eristiques sont propres
aux r´egions montagneuses et qu’elles ont donc des cons´ equences sp´ecifiques pour

A Conceptual Framework for Mountain Tourism 333
le d´eveloppement des loisirs et du tourisme `a la montagne. On examine ensuite la
nature changeante de l’utilization des loisirs et du tourisme `a la montagne, surtout les
niveaux de plus en plus ´elev´es des activit´es de loisirs et de tourisme que recherchent
les r´esidents, les touristes et les migrants en quˆete d’agr´ements et les cons´equences
de ces activit´es pour la planification et la gestion du tourisme de montagne. On pro-
pose un syst`eme de distribution sur le terrain de loisirs et de tourisme de trois classes
pour r´esoudre les probl`emes de planification et de gestion associ´es aux besoins de
plus en plus divers de leurs utilizateurs. La planification et la gestion du tourisme
en zones montagneuses devraient tenir compte et incorporer les caract´eristiques des
ressources propres aux montagnes. Nous soutenons que le cadre que nous proposons
aide non seulement `a d´evelopper une perspective int´egrante de la planification et de
la gestion du tourisme en montagne mais permet aussi d’avancer la recherche au sujet
des caract´eristiques des ressources en montagnes, des utilizateurs des agr´ements des
montagnes et de d´ecoupage de l’espace des loisirs en montagne.
Mots-cl´es: Tourisme de montagne, caract´eristiques des ressources en montagne, loisirs de plein air,
tourisme, migration d’agr´ement, utilization du sol pour les loisirs et le tourisme
Zusammenfassung: Gebirgstourismus: Zu einem konzeptionellen Ger ¨ust
Ein konzeptionelles Ger¨ust wird zur Untersuchung von Fragen des Tourismus und
der Erholung in gebirgigen Regionen vorgeschlagen. Dabei werden zun¨achst sechs
gebirgsspezifische Ressourcencharakteristiken besprochen, die Verschiedenartigkeit,
Marginalit¨at, Schwierigkeit der Erreichbarkeit, Fragilit¨at, Nischenqualit¨at und die
¨Asthetik einschließen. Dabei wird die Ansicht vertreten, dass diese Charakteris-
tiken einzigartig f ¨ur gebirgige R¨aume sind und als solche spezifische Auswirkungen
f ¨ur die Gebirgserholung und die Tourismusentwicklung haben. Danach untersucht
dieser Beitrag den Wandel in der Natur der Erholung und touristischen Nutzung der
Gebirge, insbesondere das zunehmende Ausmaß der Erholungssuche und touristis-
chen Aktivit¨aten durch lokale Erholungsbesucher, Touristen und Wohllebenssuchen-
den sowie die Auswirkungen dieser Aktivit¨aten auf das Management und die
Tourismusplanung im Gebirge. Dabei wird ein Rahmensystem der Erholungs- und
Tourismuslandnutzung in drei Klassen vorgeschlagen, um die Planungs- und Man-
agementherausforderungen zu meistern, die mit den wachsenden verschiedenartigen
Anforderungen dieser Nutzer verbunden sind. Planung und Management von Touris-
mus in Gebirgsr¨aumen sollte die gebirgsspezifischen Ressourcencharakteristiken
ber ¨ucksichtigen und integrieren. Es wird der Schluss gezogen, dass das vorgeschla-
gene konzeptionelle Ger¨ust nicht nur die Entwicklung eines integrierten Ansatzes f¨ur
die Planung und das Management des Gebirgstourismus unterst¨ utzt, sondern auch
Forschungsfronten in den Bereichen der Ressourcencharakteristik der Gebirge, der
Nutzer der Gebirgsannehmlichkeiten und der Gebirgserholungsfl¨achen voranschiebt.
Stichw¨orter: Gebirgstourismus, Gebirgsressourcencharakteristik, Freilufterholung, Tourismus,
Wohllebenswanderung, Landnutzung durch Erholung und Tourismus
View publication statsView publication stats