Nature parks are frequented for both recreation and tourism purposes. Even more, some of my findings suggest, that nature sites are also visited by (domestic or international) tourists with recreation purposes (either active of passive).
In other words, the question is not the place of recreational activities in tourism, but the distinction (or not) between tourism and recreational activities at protected nature sites.
So you mean that the only differentiating factor between tourism and recreation activities is the distance between the residence and the venue of the activity?
What’s about the other factors? Expenditure for example? The experiences visitors seek? Motivations? Other activities and the length of the stay? etc.
What I’m looking for is a definition, but also a reasoning if we should, or should not differentiate between these activities..
Mandela says that sport can change the world. If it’s true, the question is how to manage change and how to define the direction. Any ideas?