TOURISTS’ MOTIVATIONS AND OBSTACLES FOR CHOOSING GLAMPING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

Although still little-known, glamping has become a nature-based tourism option for people who want a higher level of comfort. The offer of this type of accommodation is growing, namely in Portugal, but there are still few studies that address the motivations and other relevant factors explaining its adoption or refusal by consumers. The present study applied a qualitative approach aimed at exploring consumers’ motivations or obstacles for choosing glamping, and their perceptions as tourists on the differences between glamping and camping. Data were collected through the conduction of focus groups held in 2017 and content analysis techniques for contextualized interpretations were used. The most important motivational driver to go glamping is the direct contact with nature. Glamour, comfort, privacy and a different experience are also important aspects that consumers appreciate. Inversely, the main obstacles are the cost, the limited offer, the lack of knowledge, and the non-authenticity, compared to camping, of the offer. JEL Classification Numbers: M31; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12955/cbup.v6.1142


Introduction
, an increasing number of tourists are now preferring natural environments for their recreational pursuits, perhaps disillusioned by an ever-growing urban sprawl, driven by a desire to escape the daily routine, and also a desire to contact with green spaces and/or pristine environments. Despite the increasing popularity of NBT in general, not all consumers are motivated to participate in this type of tourism and leisure activities. Pennington-Gray and Kerstetter (2002) recognized money and time as the main structural constraints on NBT participation, followed by intrapersonal and interpersonal ones. Nyaupane et al. (2004) used this three-dimensional leisure constraints model to analyze the behavior of consumers who showed an interest in NBT but did not participate in nature activities for two years and found that the importance of leisure constraints varied among the participants of the same group. Portugal is a prime destination for NBT, comprising an enormous variety of landscapes and a high diversity of natural habitats, with 21% of the national territory being constituted as a Classified Area (Turismo de Portugal, 2015). The mild climate all year round allows for the practice of a large number of NBT activities (e.g. hiking, speleology, climbing, mountain bike, paragliding, bird watching, camping, diving, rafting, bodyboard, surf, canyoning). These NBT options may vary according to the intensity and proximity tourists wish to have from nature (Shafer & Choi, 2006). Actually, NBT can range from mass tourism, adventure tourism to small-scale ecotourism (Margaryan & Fredman, 2017). Camping as an NBT option is quite familiar to the majority of the population, but the concept of glamping is relatively new. The expression glamping results from the combination of two English words "glamour" and "camping". Glamping accommodation types can be divided into yurts, tipis, wigwams, tree houses, safari tents, caravans and other unusual accommodation options with strong innovative design components (Robbins, 2011). It is a luxury way of camping that combines the comfort of a hotel with the privileged contact with nature (Horáková & Boscoboinik, 2012;Robinson et al., 2011) in which people search for authenticity, customized service, and closer attention to the client, along with genuine interaction with the local community, a rare thing in urban environments. The concept of luxury is widely associated by academic literature with quality (e.g. Husic & Cicic, 2009), prestige (e.g. Vigneron & Johnson, 2004), exclusivity (e.g. Berthon et al., 2009), affordability (e.g. Truong et al., 2009), individual meaning (e.g. Tynan et al., 2010) and social meaning (e.g. Berthon et al., 2009;Kapferer & Bastien, 2009). Thus, glamping has the ability to attract consumers who search for an alternative accommodation and lifestyle (Brooker & Joppe, 2013), and for whom tangible assets are an essential part of the experience (Brochado & Pereira, 2017). In-depth studies on the motivational drivers of tourists to do glamping are still missing, and the constraints or obstacles that may prevent them from embracing this option are mostly unknown. Therefore, this study aims (i) to identify the motivational drivers of consumers behind glamping tourism; (ii) to identify the obstacles for choosing this tourism alternative; and (iii) to explore consumers' perceptions as tourists on the differences between glamping and camping. Data and methodology From the contributions collected in this literature review and the objectives defined for this study, a qualitative exploratory approach was adopted through the conduction of focus groups. Focus groups are a social research method widely applied in scientific and academic work with the aim of generating information and knowledge (e.g. Morgan, 1996;Sagoe, 2012;Stewart & Shamdasani, 2014), and were considered the best option for this study. Originally from the social sciences' field, their application has been spread by different areas, namely those concerned with the study of consumer behavior, and at different levels of usage (Silva et al., 2014). Stewart and Shamdasani (2014) mentioned a myriad of applications of focus groups as a research tool, including the generation of research hypotheses, new ideas and creative concepts, data collection, interpretation of previously obtained quantitative results, and deeper understanding on participants' perceptions with the aim of facilitating the usage of further quantitative-related research tools, among other possible applications. For this study, focus groups were organized within a structured discussion outline involving progressive sharing of ideas and clarification of participants' insights. With this purpose in mind, 7 focus groups were conducted with a sample that comprised a total of 54 participants between 19 and 73 years old. Participants included male and female adults with diversified professional paths and qualifications. In line with relevant literature (Morgan, 2010;Sagoe, 2012;Stewart & Shamdasani, 2014), there was an attempt to avoid inconstancy and a maximum number of 10 participants per group was established. Although the study used a convenience sampling method, participants (see Table 1) were organized in order to meet a balanced homogeneity and heterogeneity in terms of age, gender, professional occupation and education level. FG1, FG6 and FG7 had only graduate participants. FG2 was composed of the youngest participants in this study. FG4 and FG5 comprised only participants that had glamping experience, FG1 included only participants that didn't have glamping experience, while the other groups (FG2, FG3, FG6 and FG7) had both participants with and without glamping experience. Consequently, according to the participants' narratives, glamping is still markedly associated with hidden places, very different cultural settings, and faraway destinations, and in fact more traditional glamping offers (e.g., in the African desert or savannah territories). Hence, it proves to be particularly challenging for glamping sites closer to urban areas to adequately position themselves as a captivating lodging alternative. It seems that glamour and luxury will work better when combined with an exclusive and quite different location, namely in undeveloped countries where high-quality accommodation offers are scarce and natural attractions are particularly relevant. Participants were not so keen to consider glamping in their home countriesdespite this being exactly how most of the experienced participants have had contact with glamping. Obstacles to glamping tourism In respect to the tourists' obstacles to go glamping, participants mentioned primarily the cost: The only reason I didn't go it's because it was very expensive. But, on a special date, yes. Celebrate a special occasion, yes (FG2). I already knew about it, I've searched on glamping, but the prices kept me away definitely. It's very expensive (FG4). Glamping would make part of my preferences if it were not expensive. Glamping accommodation should be more affordable (FG5). In line with Pennington-Gray and Kerstetter (2002) concerning NBT, it appears that the structural constraint of money is more important than intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints on glamping tourism. Moreover, another constraint to go glamping is the lack of knowledge. Actually, some participants recognized that only recently had they heard about these offers: I'd never heard about it, I checked because I was curious (FG1). The limited offer is indicated as another obstacle for this tourism option: There's a shortage of offers, the price is high. And it's always fully booked. I searched everywhere. Couldn't make it (FG2). In this specific case, the participant provides an interesting clue for practitioners in this sector, by underlining the need to create more similar offers to attend tourists' demand. Besides this, participants questioned the authenticity of contact with nature and commented on the fact that it may undermine socializing with other people: We wanted to experiment but we think it's expensive and there's no communion with nature, people, next-door neighbors (FG4). Obviously, this is one very clear difference from camping, as explained in one of the conversations: For me, glamping cuts off all that camping is about, we lose contact with nature (FG7). In fact, this aspect generated a lot of controversy in some groups. Some of the tourists most experienced with glamping devaluated socializing when doing glamping, while others questioned glamping's authenticity in providing a nature immersion experience, as noted by one of the participants: I believe the advantage of socializing has nothing to do with glamping... for me, glamping is a gourmet camping... it's like beer without alcohol or tobacco without nicotine. It's a fashion. Camping is camping, it's going back in time (FG4). Therefore, for some consumers, the main constraints on glamping tourism are intrapersonal and interpersonal. These results are according to Nyaupane et al. (2004) and reinforce the idea that the importance of each constraint depends on the person.

Consumers' perceptions on the differences between camping and glamping
The distinction between camping and glamping was stressed in several focus groups, particularly by participants without glamping experience that emphasized the lack of social contact: In camping sometimes there's interaction with several families, we even create friendship bonds, and perhaps glamping is not like that... (FG2). Experienced glampers asserted that campers and glampers have very different needs and wants, despite the common enjoyment of being in contact with natural settings, as explained during FG4: In my opinion, we can only compare glamping to a hotel, not with camping... the atmosphere is totally different. I cannot imagine someone going to this type of accommodation and have the interaction a camper has. Camping means contact with nature, relate with others and talk to your next-door neighbor. A glamper wants to be isolated, with privacy (FG4).
Two distinct groups, one of campers and another of glampers, emerged from the focus group data: (i) the absolute devotees of camping who consider glamping a quite divergent tourism option, even questioning its authenticity; (ii) those who have no experience in camping and clearly prefer glamping.
In the first group, participants state assuredly that camping means to accept and overcome challenges that are not compatible with glamping offers. Take for instance the explanation provided by FG3 participants: Camping is about what you have to overcome (...) I think that people who really do camping, enjoy it because... it also has those disadvantages and they like to deal with that, it is part of the experience. In my opinion, [glamping] is not for the same type of people. Glampers are not campers. They are completely apart, really. Whoever likes to camp, is not a glamper. Glampers agreed with this view, looking at campers as very different tourists as compared to themselves. They did not see camping as glamping competitors. In fact, they considered glamping an alternative to hotels, not to other forms of NBT, as explained in detail by FG5 participants: Glamping  Kim et al. (2003) were also present in focus groups' discussions.

Conclusion
From the results, it was possible to identify interesting clues for managers of this type of tourism businesses, both for product development and for increasing communication effectiveness.
The direct contact with nature is apparently consumers' most important motivational driver to go glamping, and thus makes this type of accommodation very different from other luxury resorts and hotels. The comfort and privacy are considered important aspects of the practice of glamping, but a different experience is an extra motivational factor. Glamping is still markedly associated with hidden places, very different cultural settings, and faraway destinations. It seems that glamour and luxury will work better when combined with an exclusive and unique location. Inversely, the main obstacles for this tourism option by consumers are the cost, the limited offer, the lack of knowledge, and the perception of non-authenticity of the offer. Indeed, the expensive price established for glamping options is expectable, once this type of accommodation has a high-end target market. In short, one of the main contributions of this study is the evidence provided that despite the common aspects with camping, glamping is positioned very differently, and was understood by all participants in this study (both campers and glampers) as a very distinct offer, for clearly different consumer groups. Hence, past experiences with camping do not act as facilitators for trying a glamping facility. On the contrary, it creates negative images and resistance to glamping. Thus, future research opportunities include the further exploration of the lack of synergies between the two forms of NBT that were evidenced in this study.