Demand for Trails and Routes - Tourism and Trails: Cultural, Ecological and Management Issues - page 121

wine estates, good information and brochures about the wineries, staff service
at wineries, and good signage along the way (Tassiopoulos et al. , 2004: 58).
Tourists who use ecotrails, heritage trails, food or wine routes are often
motivated by a desire to learn about, and become immersed in, an ecosys-
tem, a cultural area or a viticulture practice (Timothy, 2011a; Timothy &
Boyd, 2006). The ecotourist who undertakes the vast network of trails and
routes through the Monteverde Cloud Forest, Costa Rica, does so to learn
about the unique flora and fauna. The previous discussion on heritage Route
66 identified that the motivation behind touring this route extends beyond
that of nostalgia to become a meaningful personal journey. Sims (2009),
argues that food trails appeal to visitors' desires for authenticity. Based on
comparative case studies of the Lake District and Exmoor in Britain, Sims
argues that local food has the potential to enhance the visitor experience by
connecting consumers to the region and its perceived culture and heritage;
using food to establish the local story, a notion noted earlier by Mason and
O'Mahony (2007).
Spiritual growth, healing, repentance, fulfilling a religious obligation and
drawing nearer to a deity are among the most common motives for walking
a pilgrim route (Santos, 2002; Olsen & Timothy, 2006). Walking, and crawl-
ing in some extreme cases, denotes humility and makes a devotee penitent.
Barriers to Use
For every trail user, there are hundreds more who do not use them.
Although the popularity of routes, trails and footpaths is increasing, a sig-
nificant portion of the population does not use them for recreational, tour-
ism or transportation purposes. A growing body of literature explains
why people elect not to use trails, even when they exist within reasonable
proximity to home. This plays into the long-established subfield of leisure
constraints. Researchers have amassed a vast literature on leisure constraints,
with a multitude of ways of seeing barriers to leisure participation (Jackson,
2005; Jackson & Scott, 1999; Mannell & Kleiber, 1997).
One of the most common classifications of leisure constraints was pro-
posed by Crawford and Godbey (1987) and later refined by Crawford et al.
(1991). According to their analysis, barriers to leisure usually manifest in one
of three forms: intrapersonal, interpersonal or structural. Intrapersonal con-
straints are psychological in nature and are internal to the individual.
Attitudes, moods and personality features are part of the intrapersonal type.
Interpersonal constraints derive from one's interaction with other people,
including co-workers, friends and family members. Lack of common inter-
ests and familial conflicts are two examples of interpersonal barriers. Finally,
structural impediments are external variables that keep people from parti-
cipating. These are sometimes related to the recreational environment and