WHY DO PEOPLE VISIT WATER PARKS? AN IMPLICATION FROM TURKEY

Year 2007, Volume: 2 Issue: 6, 525 - 535, 01.06.2007

Assoc.Prof.Dr.Cengiz  DEMİR  Prof.Dr.Ber Taner

Abstract

Keywords

-

WHY DO PEOPLE VISIT WATER PARKS? AN IMPLICATION FROM TURKEY

Abstract

Leisure literatures show that many factors influence people’s choices to participate in various leisure activities. Gender roles were discussed with the highest overall frequency among studies. As a variable, gender has been important in helping to document differences between the social conditions of women and men. Because, the social and personal issues facing men and women are different There are many types of leisure constraints classified by authors such as internal/external, motivational/physical, intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural. The purpose of this study was to identify the profile and demographic characteristics of the water park visitors, and what types of factors affected their decisions to visit water parks. Respondents were water park visitors (n= 287) in one of the water parks in a resort area (Kuşadası) in Turkey who completed a questionnaire. Two hundred and eightyseven visitors were selected and the data was collected from a cluster random sampling of visitors in the water park. From a cross-cultural perspective, there are many factors affecting the leisure participation of water park visitors and the results showed that each of 17 variables given in this study had different levels of significance by gender

Keywords

Leisure participation, water parks, factors, influence

References

• Auld, C.J.; Case, A.J. (1997). Social exchange processes in leisure and non-leisur e settings: A review and exploratory investiga tion. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(2), 183- 200.
• Coleman, D. (1993). Leisure based social support, leisure dispositions and health. Journal of Leisure, 25, 350-361. Costa, D.L. (1997).The evolution of r etir ement. NBER Reporter. 7-9.
• Demir, C. (2003). Impacts of demographic variables on the preference of sport activities done by undergraduate students: An implication from Turkey, Journal of Sport Tourism, 8(3), 227-237.
• Edgell, D.L & Dalton, S.J. (1993). Home on the road: Exploring rural America is a comma nding business a sset. Business America, 114(24), 18-20.
• Gençay, S., Gençay, Ö.A., Marangoz, İ., and Tekerek. M. (2003). A Research on the factors tha t influencing student participa tion in recr eationa l activity programs at Sütçü İma m Univer sity. The Symposium of youthfulness, leisure and nature sports at Gazi University, Turkey, The symposium proceeding abstracts, (May, 21-22), p.25.
• Goeldner, C.R. (1997). The 1998 travel outlook. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), 58-62.
• Gratton, C., & Kokolakadis, T. (1997).The leisur e r evolution. Leisure Management, 17(6), 37-39.
• İlban, M.O., & Özcan. K. (2003). A survey on the preference of recreation according to demographic features: Nevşehir sa mple, The Symposium of youthfulness, leisure and nature sports at Gazi University, Turkey, The symposium proceeding abstracts, (May, 21-22), p.47.
• Kroll, Karen M. (2000). The graying of the baby boomers bodes well for the leisur e industry. Investment Dealers' Digest, 66(12), 14-15.
• Moccia, F. D. (2000). Pla nning time: An emergent European practice. European Planning Studies, 8(3), 367-375.
• Molitor, G.T. T. (1999). The next 1000 years: The `Big five' engines of economic growth. executive speeches, 14(1), 10-18.
• Molitor, G.T. T. (2000). The dawn of the leisure era. Association Management, 52(2), 76-81.
• Molitor, G.T.T. (1998). Anticipating change: Socio-political global trends and issues. Executive Speeches, 12(4), 24-29.
• Patterson, I. & Carpenter, G. (1994). Participa tion in Leisure Activities after the Death of a Spouse.Leisure Sciences, 16, 105-117.
• Pearson, I.D. (2000). The Next 20 Years in Technology: Timeline a nd Commentary, Futurist, 34(1).