Determinants of Campground Success: A Review of Research

Determinants of Campground Success: 

A Review of Research 

Vincent P. Magnini, Ph.D. 

Pamplin College of Business 

Virginia Tech 

355 Wallace Hall 

Blacksburg, VA 24061 

E-mail: magnini@vt.edu 

Tel: 540-231-8425 

Page 1 of 24

Contents 

PREFACE 3 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 

SECTION I. THE MEANING OF THE CAMPING EXPERIENCE 

TO THE CAMPER 5 

SECTION II. CRITERIA USED BY CAMPERS TO SELECT A 

CAMPGROUND 8 

SECTION III. PRICE AS A SIGNAL OF QUALITY 13 

SECTION IV. DEMAND GROWTH STIMULATED BY PREVALENCE 

OF OFFERINGS IN THE MARKETPLACE 15 

REFERENCES 19 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR 23 

ABOUT THE PAMPLIN COLLEGE OF BUSINESS 24 


PREFACE 

The Virginia Board of Conservation and Recreation is an advisory body that works with the 

Department of Conservation and Recreation on programs important to Virginians. 

A private campground owner, who is an appointed member of the board, made a presentation to 

the board at its October 18 meeting at Shenandoah River State Park in Warren County. The 

presentation asserted that there is competition between public and private providers of camping 

and that the fees charged for camping in Virginia state parks undercut the private campgrounds. 

The board asked the department to seek a respected third party review of these issues so the 

board and department can better understand the relationship between private and public sector 

providers of camping resources. The department called upon the Virginia Tech Pamplin College 

of Business to study this issue and provide an authoritative report on the subject based on 

available prior research on the topic. 

This report is the result of that call. 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report reviews the research addressing: 1) individuals’ motivations for visiting 

campgrounds; 2) the selection criteria individuals utilize when selecting a campground; 3) the 

use price as an indicator of an offering’s quality; and 4) increased market potential stimulated by 

increased offerings in a geographic area. In reviewing these bodies of research this report 

references dozens of peer-reviewed studies that appear in business, hospitality, psychology, 

recreation, sociology, and tourism research outlets. 

The conclusions are as follows: 

� Because campers possess varying motivations in their camping experiences, particular 

customer segments are prone to be attracted to certain types of campgrounds that best match 

their motivations. In other words, a campground cannot be all things to all people. Instead, 

the motivations of a particular camping occasion cause consumers to gravitate to a particular 

provider to fulfill the wants sought in that occasion. 

� Price is only one of many selection criteria used by campers when selecting a campground. 

Stated differently, campgrounds are not price-based commodities. 

� Lower prices often do not equate to increased demand. Because price can be a signal of 

offering quality, higher (lower) prices sometimes stimulate (reduce) demand. 

� The number of offerings in a marketplace will often be positively correlated with the size of 

the customer base in that market. Specifically, increasing offerings in a given market often 

increases the number of customers drawn to that market. 


SECTION 1. 

THE MEANING OF THE CAMPING EXPERIENCE TO THE CAMPER 

Purpose of Section I. 

The purpose of this section is to summarize the research that has addressed individuals’ 

motivations for visiting campgrounds. 

In a seminal camping study conducted nearly 50 years ago, it was established that the 

camping experience has different meanings to different campers. Specifically, Etzkorn (1964) 

identified what he termed the ‘value syndrome’ in which individuals’ values associated with 

camping can be characterized as primarily focused upon: 1) rest and relaxation, 2) meeting new 

people, or 3) experiencing the outdoors. 

The rest and relaxation motivation identified by Etzkorn’s (1964) research has been 

supported by subsequent studies (Fredrickson and Anderson, 1999; Hannsmann, Hug, and 

Seeland, 2007). Specifically, the main motivation of some individuals is to ‘decompress’ and 

relax during their camping experiences. For example, Fredrickson and Anderson (1999) find 

that some nature users and campers find a spiritual connection with such activities which 

ultimately reduces their stress and enhances their relaxation. Hannsmann, Hug, and Seeland 

(2007) also demonstrate that nature activities including camping can reduce stress and bolster 

relaxation. 

The meeting new people motivation detailed in Etzkorn’s (1964) study has also been 

echoed by numerous studies following Etzkorn’s research. A number of studies conducted over 

the past four decades each find that many campers are motivated by the social interaction 

dimension that can be associated with the activity (Buchanan, Christensen, and Burdge, 1981; 

Burch, 1965; Hendee and Campbell, 1969; Irwin, Gartner, and Phelps, 1990; Lee, 1972; 

Patterson, Williams, and Scherl, 1994; and Shaw, Havitz, and Delamere, 2002). A camping 

study conducted by Hendee and Campbell (1969), for example, found that the campers who 

participated in their research perceived camping primarily as a catalyst to meet new people and 

to socialize. 


The experiencing the outdoors motivation identified by Etzkorn’s (1964) research has 

also been supported by many subsequent studies. Chronologically listed here, research 

conducted by Burch (1965), Bem (1972), Schlenker (1986), and Haggard and Williams (1991) 

each support the contention that some campers are primarily motivated by a desire to connect 

with the outdoors. For instance, the Burch (1965) article describes how campers often display 

their resourcefulness and connection to nature by engaging in activities such as gathering wood 

for a campfire. Campers also demonstrate their connection to nature by displaying their ability 

to cook a meal using the campfire. 

It is prudent to note that family bonding is a frequently cited motivation for camping 

(Orther and Mancini, 1980; Zabrinskie et al., 1998). With regard to the three categories of 

motivations described in the previous paragraphs, family bonding could either be considered as a 

dimension of the rest and relaxation and/or the experience the outdoors category. This family 

bonding motivation, however, is in direct contrast with the meeting new people motivation which 

helps illustrate the point that different campers are attracted to the act of camping by various 

motivations. It is, therefore, unwise to assume that a single type of campground could appeal to 

each of these motivations. 

It is also important to recognize that the same individual might possess a different 

motivation for each of his/her camping excursions. S/he might take a solo trip for the purpose of 

rest and relaxation and a subsequent trip with his/her family so that s/he can teach the children 

how to appreciate and experience the outdoors. Essentially, when a leisure traveler sets a goal or 

motivation for a particular venture, his/her quality of life is enhanced through the attainment of 

that goal or motivation (Sirgy, 2010). In fact, research goes further to indicate that frequent and 

less intense attainment of goals [e.g. through brief camping trips] might be more beneficial to 

one’s quality of life than less frequent and more intense attainment (Diener, Sandvik, and Pavot, 

1991). 

Because motivation to participate in a camping experience varies by individual, and can 

even vary according to circumstance, a campground marketer that understands these motivations 

can design integrated marketing communications accordingly. Such integrated marketing 

communication efforts might include, for example, advertising, social media, public relations, 

and website messages blended together in a reinforcing manner to communicate the given 

campground’s uniqueness and brand identity. In other words, messages can communicate how 

the campground can fulfill the goals and motivations of the targeted customer segments. 

Kampgrounds of America (KOA) appears to understand the need for campers to seek 

specific experiences with each outing. That is, in November, 2012 the company announced a 

plan in which each KOA location will be designated as one of the following (Gerber, 2012): 

� KOA Journey Campgrounds – designed to accommodate traveling campers; 


� KOA Holiday Campgrounds – intended to serve as an accommodation for those 

visiting attractions in the local area; and 

� KOA Resorts – designed to offer a complete vacation experience. 

In this new program, specific criteria are designed for each of the three categories and 

campground owners will decide which market they wish to pursue. When describing this new 

branding strategy, KOA Chairman, Jim Rogers, stated the following: 

“A one-size fits all strategy no longer fits in this market…People 

today have a shortage of time. When they take time off, they want 

to ‘know before they go’ what they are going to be able to do and 

what they can expect when they get there. Our brand positions will 

help convey that message” (Gerber, 2012). 

To summarize this section, motivations for camping vary by individual and by occasion; 

therefore, campground operators and marketers must tailor marketing efforts accordingly. Based 

upon this logic, the following conclusion is offered: 

Fundamental Conclusion from Section I. 

Because campers possess varying motivations in their camping experiences, particular 

customer segments are prone to be attracted to certain types of campgrounds that best 

match their motivations. In other words, a campground cannot be all things to all people. 

Instead, the motivations of a particular camping occasion cause consumers to gravitate to a 

particular provider to fulfill the wants sought in that occasion. 


SECTION II. 

CRITERIA USED BY CAMPERS TO SELECT A CAMPGROUND 

Purpose of Section II. 

The purpose of this section is to detail the research that has examined the selection criteria 

that individuals employ when selecting a campground. 

Campground selection studies date back more than 40 years. In 1970 researchers 

representing the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Forest Service published a report that 

examined the role of shading as a campground selection criterion (James and Cordell, 1970). 

The report indicated that nearly all campers prefer shade to some extent in their respective 

camping areas. Of these, two-thirds prefer heavy shade and one-third prefer moderate shade. 

This research highlights the role of tree canopy cover in campground selection. 

In 1971, David Lime, a researcher also representing the U.S. Department of Agriculture – 

Forest Service published a report that detailed factors that influence campground selection in the 

Superior National Forest of Minnesota. As a component of this study, the researcher interviewed 

campers and discussed how they selected a camping location. Near the end of the interview, he 

then asked: “Among all the reasons you mentioned, what are the three most important reasons 

you chose this campground?” The results of this question are summarized in Table 1. 

Table 1: “Among all the reasons you mentioned, what are the three most 

important reasons you chose this campground?” 

Locational Factors: 

Campers 

N=248 

Accessibility (either remoteness or proximity to roads or 

travel route) 

16% 

Nearness to services 8% 


Nearness to primary residence 7% 

Nearness to recreation attractions 20% 

Natural Environment Factors: 

Tree cover 1% 

Fishing quality 42% 

Wildlife 2% 

Geography of surroundings (terrain, water body) 14% 

General scenery 4% 

Cultural Environment: 

Facilities – comfort-based (drinking water, toilets) 6% 

Facilities – activity-based (swimming beach, nature trail) 9% 

Absence of fee 2% 

Campsite design (view of water) 13% 

Campsite quality (privacy, size) 14% 

Number of campsites 8% 

Human-related: 

Type of atmosphere sought (wilderness and/or 

uncrowdedness) 

29% 

Interpersonal communication 19% 

Unplanned circumstances 9% 

Nearness to persons visiting in area 4% 

Habit 8% 

Lack of awareness of other campgrounds 7% 

All other 1% 


There are a number of key conclusions that can be drawn from the data in Table 1 as well 

as from other key findings not listed in the Table, but reported by Lime (1971). First, the 

frequency of ‘nearness to recreation attractions’ was largely driven by desires to be close to 

water sources for fishing and boating. Second, although contradictory, the ‘accessibility’ 

response was equally motivated by desire for remoteness and easy access. Third, fishing was the 

activity most frequently discussed by campers. Fourth, campsites with water views and wellscreened 

from neighbors were highly valued. Fifth, the lack of price as a selection priority is a 

notable outcome of this study. 

In an effort to extend this body of campground selection research, nearly 20 years later, 

Bumgardner, Waring Legg, and Goetz (1988) conducted a series of studies to determine the 

relative importance of campsite selection factors at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lakes in the 

southern region of the United States. Selected results are listed in Table 2. 

Table 2: Visitor-Stated Preferences 

Factor Absolute 

Frequency 

Distance to lake 1047 66.4% 

Site convenient to lake 882 55.9% 

Site shady 813 51.9% 

Can watch boat from site 736 46.7% 

Scenic views of lake from site 651 41.3% 

Site flat or gently sloping 635 40.3% 

Spacing of sites and apparent privacy 629 39.9% 

Site located right on lake 562 35.6% 

Additional parking for other cars and trailers 551 34.9% 

Distance to restroom 459 29.1% 

Site easy to get into and out of 459 29.1% 

Site convenient to restroom 358 22.7% 

Percentage of 

Relative 

Frequency 


What are some noteworthy aspects of the Bumgardner, Waring Legg, and Goetz (1988) 

results reported in Table 2? First, the importance of water and water-based activities emerged as 

it had in the Lime (1971) study. Second, the importance of shading manifested itself as it did in 

the James and Cordell (1970) study. Third, as stated by the researchers, fees “do not appear to 

play a role in recreation area selection” (Bumgardner, Waring Legg, and Goetz, 1988, pp. 69- 

70). 

Because campsite preference can vary depending upon context, Brunson and Shelby 

(1990) conducted empirical research in which they developed a hierarchy of campsite selection 

attributes that can be applied to diverse camping settings. According to this research, most 

important to campers are necessity attributes such as level ground, distance to water, and 

shade/shelter. Once necessity attributes have been evaluated, campers then turn their attention to 

experience attributes. According to Brunson and Shelby (1990), experience attributes reflect the 

desired outcome/motivation for a particular camping trip. Experience attributes may include 

items such as tree screening for those motivated by rest and relaxation (Stankey, 1973; Shelby 

and Heberlein, 1986) or firewood availability for those desiring to experience the outdoors 

(Lucas, 1985). After necessity attributes and experience attributes have been evaluated, campers 

then consider amenity attributes which do not carry much psychological weight, but can serve as 

a tie breaker between two camping locations (Brunson and Shelby, 1990). An example of an 

amenity attribute might include distance from railroad noise. It is important to recognize that the 

same item can be categorized as an experience attribute or an amenity attribute based upon the 

motivation of a given trip. 

It is also important to recognize that a camper’s past experiences and memories at a 

particular location can serve as a selection criterion for upcoming trips. That is, research 

indicates that meanings and emotional attachments to particular places are often developed as a 

function of the memories and family traditions of visiting those places (Stokols and Shumaker, 

1981; Tuan, 1974). The memories associated with certain camping venues can actually be quite 

powerful in shaping future intentions (Low and Altman, 1992). 

Like any research, the studies detailed in this section each have their limitations. For 

example, the prevalence of water and water-based activities as a result in the Bumgardner, 

Waring Legg, and Goetz (1988) is likely driven by the context of the study [data collected in lake 

settings]. Nevertheless, a common theme that emerged from each of the studies reviewed in this 

section is the lack of price as a key criterion when selecting a campground to patronize. That is, 

the research presented here strongly indicates that when individuals decide between location 

alternatives for a particular camping experience they seek to answer the following question: 

“Which campground suits the motivations and characteristics of this experience the best?” rather 

than asking: “Which campground is cheapest?” 


Because campground selection is not driven by price, campground marketers should 

possess knowledge of the criteria that have the most influence on the selection decision. In fact, 

in each of the studies reviewed here, price played an extremely minor role in the selection 

process. Based upon this review, the following conclusion is offered: 

Fundamental Conclusion from Section II. 

Price is only one of many selection criteria used by campers when selecting a campground. 

Stated differently, campgrounds are not price-based commodities. 


SECTION III. 

Purpose of Section III. 

PRICE AS A SIGNAL OF QUALITY 

The purpose of this section is to review the research that suggests that an offering’s price 

can serve as a signal of quality to the consumer. 

Empirical research addressing the relationship between price and quality of consumer 

products and services dates back more than 60 years. Early studies covering this topic include 

work conducted by Oxenfeldt (1950), Morris and Bronson (1969), Sproles (1977), Riesz (1978), 

and Geistfeld (1982). Each of these seminal studies found that the relationship between price 

and quality is specific for particular types of offerings, but is generally weak across most 

offerings. Because the relationship between price and quality is often weak, this suggests that 

many firms establish high prices [relative to competitors] with the hope that consumers will infer 

that the high price is an indication that offering is of high quality. In other words, for many 

consumers who are considering purchase alternatives, low prices suggest low quality and high 

prices suggest high quality. 

Examples of this quality signaling through price might include private school A that 

charges $5,200 tuition per year versus private school B that charges $11,700 tuition per year. Or, 

sports car A that costs $41,650 vs. sports car B that costs $54,780. Or, mattress A that costs 

$610 versus mattress B that costs $870. Or, hotel A that charges $310 for a given night versus 

hotel B that charges $550 for the same night. In each of these examples most consumers would 

conclude that offering B is of higher quality. 

This quality signaling effect of price has been demonstrated a number of times in various 

research studies (Erdem, Keane, and Sun, 2008; Farrell, 1980; Gabor and Granger, 1966; Leavitt, 

1954; Spence, 1974). Quality can also be signaled through advertising messages, advertising 

frequency, and through brand popularity, but the signaling effect of price is well-established in 

the research. In a recent study, for instance, Erdem, Keane, and Sun (2008) found that lowering 

prices can actually reduce demand. 


It is prudent to note that price is a stronger signal of quality for novice users of an 

offering than for expert/experienced users (Erdem, Keane, and Sun, 2008). That is, experienced 

users have more knowledge about offerings and do not need to rely solely on price to assess the 

potential quality of an offering. Nevertheless, even the most experienced consumers use price to 

update their perceptions of an offering. Specifically, when the price increases, even experienced 

consumers may infer that the offering is of good quality and that the price has increased because 

other consumers are demanding the offering (Wathieu and Bertini, 2007). For example, if a 

campground increases its prices, even a frequent camper might rationalize that the campground 

increased prices because of strong demand stimulated by solid past performance, positive wordof-mouth, 

and heavy repurchase loyalty. 

It is erroneous for campground operators to focus on price in their marketing 

communications. To summarize the previous paragraphs, lowering a price might increase 

demand, but might very well decrease demand instead by communicating a lack of quality. 

Likewise, increasing a price might trigger various demand reactions. Rather than focusing solely 

on price, campground operators should possess a working understanding of their customers’ 

camping motivations (addressed in Section I of this report) and of their customers’ campground 

selection criteria (addressed in Section II of this report). Based upon the research reviewed here, 

the following conclusion is offered: 

Fundamental Conclusion from Section III. 

Lower prices often do not equate to increased demand. Because price can be a signal of 

offering quality, higher (lower) prices sometimes stimulate (reduce) demand. 


SECTION IV. 

DEMAND GROWTH STIMULATED BY PREVALENCE OF OFFERINGS 

Purpose of Section IV. 

IN THE MARKETPLACE 

The purpose of this section is to summarize the research that discusses increased market 

potential stimulated by increased offerings in a geographic area. 

Would Las Vegas, Nevada attract 39 million tourists annually if the destination consisted 

of only a group of 3-4 hotels in the Mojave Desert where it is located? Would the 

Charlottesville, Virginia area attract tens of thousands of winery tourists per year if there were 

only 2-3 wineries in that area? Quite evidently, the correct answer to both of these questions is 

“no.” 

The principle of cumulative attraction posits that similar businesses will often attract 

more customers if they are clustered together geographically than if they are dispersed (Litz and 

Rajaguru, 2008; Nelson, 1958; Prayag, Landre, and Ryan, 2012). In other words, proximity to 

similar businesses often enhances performance (Litz and Rajaguru, 2008). This principle of 

cumulative attraction finds its theoretical anchoring in Hotelling’s (1929) law of economics. 

The basic premise is that the complementary nature of two businesses often outweighs their 

substitutability. 

Many restaurateurs have long understood the principle of cumulative attraction and have 

frequently clustered together in close proximity (Prayag, Landre, and Ryan, 2012). The 

principle of cumulative attraction is sometimes termed ‘affinity’ in the hospitality literature 

(Schaefer, Luke, and Green, 1996). If a restaurant is isolated, then a consumer would need to 

think: “I’m hungry so I will drive to restaurant X.” Conversely, if the restaurant X is clustered 

with others, then the consumer would only need to have the following thought: “I’m hungry so I 

will go get something to eat” [and drive to the restaurant cluster]. 


The principle of cumulative attraction is demonstrated in the retailing sector (Karande 

and Lombard, 2005). That is, stores with similar offerings commonly cluster together with the 

hope of drawing customer traffic. In fact, such a retail strategy is seen in numerous locations 

throughout Virginia [e.g. car dealerships clustered together in one section of Virginia Beach 

Boulevard in Virginia Beach; furniture stores clustered together in one section of Virginia Beach 

Boulevard in Virginia Beach; art studios clustered in Old Town, Alexandria]. Interestingly, 

clusters of retail stores often experience double the profits of independent locations (Ghosh, 

1986). 

The principle of cumulative attraction can also apply to camping in the State of Virginia. 

Certain states become magnets for camper activity and traffic. A quick Internet search using the 

search phrase “best state for camping” reveals that two websites rate Missouri, Montana, 

Colorado, New Mexico, and New York as being the top five best states for camping 

(http://camping.about.com/od/campingdestinations/ss/Top-5-US-States-For-Camping.htm). To 

summarize, a well-developed campground network in a given state appealing to numerous 

camper segments will stimulate word-of-mouth and recognition, ultimately drawing additional 

campers to the state. In other words, according to the principle of cumulative attraction, the 

quality and quantity of campground offerings in a state is positively correlated with the number 

of campers attracted to the state. 

With regard to the quality of campground offerings in Virginia, every year approximately 

7,000 visitors to Virginia State Parks are surveyed as part of the Your Comments Count 

surveying program administered jointly through the Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation and Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business (Magnini, 2011, 2010). Each year, 

results reveal that Virginia State Park’s campgrounds provide very satisfying experiences for 

campers. Results from 2010 and 2011 are listed in Table 3 below. 

Table 3: Virginia State Parks 

Your Comments Count 

Camping Results 

2011 

% Good & 

Excellent* 

Campsites 93% 92% 

Bathhouse(s) 81% 81% 

Hookups 91% 91% 

Check in/Check out 94% 95% 

Reservations 94% 92% 

*Response categories offered to campers range from 

‘unacceptable (1)’ to ‘excellent (5)’ 

2010 

% Good & 

Excellent 


With regard to the quantity of campground offerings in Virginia, in tandem with the 

principle of cumulative attraction, research indicates that Virginians appear to desire public 

campground development. That is, the 2011 Virginia Outdoors Demand Survey (Ellis, Rexrode, 

Furia, Lee, and Shreve, 2011) administered by the University of Virginia’s Center for Survey 

Research asked a stratified sampling of Virginians the following question: 

“Although privately owned campgrounds may be available in 

the vicinity, should public campgrounds be developed in 

Virginia’s state parks?” 

In response to this question, over two-thirds (67.6%) indicated that they were in favor of 

developing campgrounds in Virginia State Parks. Of the remainder, 12.3% were not in favor and 

26.6 % did not know or had no preference. 

Also on the 2011 Virginia Outdoors Demand Survey (Ellis, Rexrode, Furia, Lee, and 

Shreve, 2011), Virginians were asked the following question: 

“Do you prefer to camp in a publicly-owned campground (such as 

in a state or national park or forest), in a privately owned campground, 

or have no preference between publicly and privately owned 

campgrounds?” 

In response to this item, 39.6% preferred publicly-owned, 50.7% had no preference, and 9.7% 

preferred private campgrounds. Interestingly, although 39.6% report to prefer publicly-owned 

campgrounds, only approximately 10% of the locations listed in the 2012 Virginia Campground 

Directory produced by the Virginia Campground Association are public facilities; about 90% are 

private enterprises. Thus, public camping facilities might actually be underdeveloped in the 

State of Virginia. The strong demand for public campgrounds is fueled, in part, by campers 

using the act of ‘camping’ as a gateway to other activities. According to the 2012 American 

Camper Report, 84% of U.S. campers partake in multiple outdoor activities in a given trip. For 

instance, 76% of U.S. campers report incorporating hiking into their camping excursions (The 

Outdoor Foundation, 2012). Settings such as State Parks, therefore, offer suitable venues for 

combining camping with such activities. 

To summarize this section, the principle of cumulative attraction supports the notion that 

a large number of options available to consumers actually attract more consumers to the 

marketplace resulting in increased demand. Results of surveying conducted within Virginia 

indicate that Virginians are in favor of further campground development. Because motivations 

and selection criteria for campgrounds vary by consumer and by purchase situation [Sections I 

and II of this report], there appears to be ample opportunity for the development of both public 

and private campground facilities. Based on the logic contained in this section, the following 

conclusion is offered: 


Fundamental Conclusion from Section IV. 

The number of offerings in a marketplace will often be positively correlated with the size of 

the customer base in that market. Specifically, increasing offerings in a given market often 

increases the number of customers drawn to that market. 


REFERENCES 

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental 

Social Psychology, (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press. 

Brunson, M. and Shelby, B. (1990). “A Hierarchy of Campsite Attributes in Dispersed 

Recreation Settings.” Leisure Sciences, Vol. 12 (2), pp. 197-209. 

Buchanan. T., Christensen, J., and Burdge, R. (1981). “Social Groups and the Meaning of 

Outdoor Recreation Activities.” Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 13, pp. 254-266. 

Bumgardner, W., Waring, M., Legg, M., and Goetz, L. (1988). “Key Indicators of Campsite 

Selection at Corps of Engineers Lakes.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 6 

(2), pp. 62-81. 

Burch, W. (1965). “The Play World of Camping: Research into the Social Meaning of Outdoor 

Recreation.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 70, pp. 604-612. 

Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W. (1991). “Happiness is the Frequency, Not the Intensity, of 

Positive Versus Negative Affect. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwartz (Eds.) Subjective Well- 

Being (pp. 119-139). Oxford: Pergamon. 

Erdem, T., Keane, M., and Sun, B. (2008). “A Dynamic Model of Brand Choice When Price and 

Advertising Signal Product Quality.” Marketing Science, Vol. 27 (6), pp. 1111-1125. 

Ellis, J., Rexrode, D., Furia, P., Lee, J., and Shreve, D. (2011). 2011 Virginia Outdoors Demand 

Survey, University of Virginia Center for Survey Research: Charlottesville, Virginia. 

Etzkorn, P. (1964). “Leisure and Camping: The Social Meaning of a Form of Public Recreation.” 

Sociology and Social Research, Vol. 49, pp. 76-89. 

Farrell, J. (1980). “Prices as Signals of Quality.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford. 

Fredrickson, L. and Anderson, D. (1999). “A Qualitative Exploration of the Wilderness 

Experience as a Source of Spiritual Inspiration.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 19, 

pp. 21-39. 

Gabor, A. and Granger, C. (1966). “Price as an Indicator of Quality: Report on an Inquiry.” 

Economica, Vol. 33, pp. 43-70. 

Geistfeld, L. (1982). “The Price-Quality Relationship – Revisited.” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 

Vol. 16 (Winter), pp. 334-335. 


Gerber, G. (2012). “KOA Launches Major Branding Initiative.” RV Daily Report (11/19/12). 

Ghosh, A. (1986). “The Value of a Mall and Other Insights From a Revised Central Plan 

Model.” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 62, pp. 79-97. 

Haggard, L. and Williams, D. (1991). “Self-Identity Benefits of Leisure Activities.” In B. Driver, 

P. Brown, and G. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of Leisure (pp. 91-102). State College, PA: Venture 

Publishing, Inc. 

Hansmann, R., Hug, S., and Seeland, K. (2007). “Restoration and Stress Relief through Physical 

Activities in Forests and Parks.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, Vol. 6, pp. 213-225. 

Hendee, J. and Campbell, F. (1969). “Social Aspects of Outdoor Recreation – The Developed 

Campground.” Trends in Parks and Recreation, Vol. 10, pp. 13-16. 

Hotelling, H. (1929). “Stability in Competition.” Economic Journal, Vol. 39 (153), pp. 41-57. 

http://camping.about.com/od/campingdestinations/ss/Top-5-US-States-For-Camping.htm 

(accessed October 30, 2012). 

Irwin, P., Gartner, W., and Phelps, C. (1990). “Mexican-American/Anglo Cultural Differences as 

Recreation Style Determinants.” Leisure Science, Vol. 12 (4), pp. 335-348. 

James, G. and Cordell, H. (1970). “Importance of Shading to Visitors Selecting a Campsite at 

Indian Boundary Campground in Tennessee.” USDA Forest Service Research Note SE – 130. 

Karande, K. and Lombard, J. (2005). “Location Strategies of Broad-Line Retailers: An Empirical 

Investigation.” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 687-695. 

Leavitt, H. (1954). “A Note on Some Experimental Findings About the Meaning of Price.” 

Journal of Business, Vol. 27 (July), pp. 205-210. 

Lee, R. (1972). “The Social Definition of Outdoor Recreation Places.” In W. Burch, N. Cheek, 

and L. Taylor (Eds.), Social Behavior, Natural Resources and the Environment. New York, NY: 

Harper and Row. 

Lime, D. (1971). “Factors Influencing Campground Use in the Superior National Forest of 

Minnesota.” USDA Forest Service Research Paper NC-60. 

Litz, R. and Rajaguru, G. (2008). “Does Small Store Location Matter? A Test of Three Classic 

Theories of Retail Location.” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 21 (4), pp. 

477-492. 


Low, S. and Altman, I. (1992). “Place Attachment: A Conceptual Inquiry.” In I. Altman and 

S.M. Low (Eds.) Human Behavior and Environment, Advances in Theory and Research: Place 

Attachment. New York: Plenum Press. 

Lucas, R. (1985). Visitor Characteristics, Attitudes and Use Patterns in the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness Complex, 1970-1982. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-345. Ogden, UT: 

Intermountain Forest Experiment Station. 

Magnini, V. (2011). Virginia State Parks Your Comments Count Survey Results: Annual Report 

for 2011, Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business: Blacksburg, Virginia. 

Magnini, V. (2010). Virginia State Parks Your Comments Count Survey Results: Annual Report 

for 2010, Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business: Blacksburg, Virginia. 

Morris, R. and Bronson, C. (1969). “The Chaos of Competition Indicated by Consumer 

Reports.” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 (July), 26-43. 

Nelson, R. (1958). The Selection of Retail Locations, Dodge: New York, NY. 

Orthner, D. and Mancini, J. (1991). “Benefits of Leisure for Family Bonding. In B.L. Driver, P.J. 

Brown, and G.L. Peterson (Eds.) Benefits of Leisure (pp. 215-247). State College, PA: Venture 

Publishing. 

Outdoor Foundation (2012). 2012 American Camper Report. Boulder, Colorado. 

Oxenfeldt, A. (1950). “Consumer Knowledge: Its Measurement and Extent.” Review of 

Economics and Statistics, Vol. 32, pp. 300-314. 

Patterson, M., Williams, D., and Scherl, L. (1994). “Identity and the Experience of the 

Wilderness: Analysis of Experience Narratives from Australia and the United States.” 

Proceedings of the Symposium of International Wilderness Allocation, Management, and 

Research. Fifth World Wilderness Conference, September – October, 1993. Tromso, Norway. 

Prayag, G., Landre, M., and Ryan, C. (2012). “Restaurant Location in Hamilton, New Zealand: 

Clustering Patterns from 1996 to 2008. 

Riesz, P. (1978). “Price Versus Quality in the Marketplace, 1961-1975.” Journal of Retailing, 

Vol. 54 (Winter), 15-28. 

Schaefer, A., Luke, R., and Green, J. (1996). “Attitudes of Restaurant Site Selection Executives 

Towards Various People Magnets.” Journal of Restaurant and Foodservice Marketing, Vol. 1 

(3/4), pp. 1-14. 


Schlenker, B. R. (1986). Self-identification: Toward an integration of the private and public self. 

In R. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 21-62). New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Shaw, S., Havitz, M., and Delamore, F. (2002). “Creating Memories, Creating Families: Family 

Vacations and the Social Construction of the Family.” Paper presented at the Leisure Research 

Symposium, NRPA, October, 2002. Miami, Florida. 

Shelby, B. and Heberlein, T. (1986). Carrying Capacity in Recreation Settings. Corvallis: 

Oregon State University Press. 

Sirgy, M. (2010). “Toward a Quality-Of-Life Theory for Leisure Travel Satisfaction.” Journal of 

Travel Research.” Vol. 46 (2), pp. 246-260. 

Spence, M. (1974). Market Signaling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Sproles, G. (1977). “New Evidence on Price and Product Quality.” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 

Vol. 11 (summer), pp. 63-77. 

Stankey, G. (1973). Visitor Perception of Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity. Forest 

Service Research Paper INT-142. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Forest Experiment Station. 

Stokols, D. and Shumaker, S. (1981). “People in Places: A Transactional View of Settings.” In 

J.H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, Social Behavior, and the Environment (pp. 441-488). Hillsdale, 

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Tuan, Y. (1974). Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perceptions, Attitudes, and Values. 

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Wathieu, L. and Bertini, M. (2007). “Price As a Stimulus to Think: The Case of Willful 

Overpricing.” Marketing Science, Vol. 26 (1), pp. 118-129. 

Zabrinskie, R., Potter, T., and Duenkel, N. (1998). “The Role of Outdoor Recreation in Family 

Enrichment: Is it Globally Relevant?” Paper presented at the 5 th World Leisure Congress, Sao 

Paulo, Brazil. 


ABOUT THE AUTHOR 

Dr. Vincent Magnini is a tenured Associate Professor and Undergraduate Program Coordinator 

in Virginia Tech’s Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management housed within the 

Pamplin College of Business. He is currently ranked as one of the top 12 most prolific 

hospitality researchers worldwide 1 and holds editorial board appointments on nearly all of the 

top-ranked research journals in the field. Further, he is a U.S. Fulbright Scholar (Bucharest, 

Romania, 2012). His unique interaction-based approach to customer service led him to co-author 

a book titled Tourist Customer Service Satisfaction: An Encounter Approach published by 

Routledge in 2010. His research has also been featured twice on National Public Radio’s With 

Good Reason (December, 2006; December, 2007) and cited in the New York Times (December, 

2011). 

1 Way, K., Harrington, R., and Ottenbacher, M. (2012). “Hospitality Author and University 

Productivity in the 21 st Century.” Journal of Culinary Science and Technology, Vol. 10, pp. 239- 

258. 


ABOUT THE PAMPLIN COLLEGE OF BUSINESS 

Virginia Tech’s Pamplin College of Business offers majors in accounting and information 

systems, business information technology, finance, hospitality and tourism management, 

management and marketing. It also offers a number of master’s and doctoral programs. There 

are approximately 3,600 undergraduate students and 300 graduate students enrolled in the 

Pamplin College. 

U.S. News and World Report ranks Pamplin as the #46 business school in the nation and 26 th 

among public institutions. Some of the individual programs within the College are ranked even 

higher. The Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, for example, is currently 

ranked #6 worldwide. 2 

The hospitality and tourism management department actively collaborates with the hospitality 

industry. There is an endowed Marriott Professorship within the department; funded research is 

being conducted with the Virginia Tourism Corporation; and, the faculty regularly consults for 

hotel companies such as Crestline and Hilton. Further, the department’s Corporate Advisory 

Board is comprised of representatives from nearly all the major North American-based hotel 

corporations. 

2 Way, K., Harrington, R., and Ottenbacher, M. (2012). “Hospitality Author and University 

Productivity in the 21 st Century.” Journal of Culinary Science and Technology, Vol. 10, pp. 239- 

258.

Determinants of Campground Success: A Review of Research

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?