(1) Background: The study aims to highlight the impact of educational, recreational, motric and satisfaction of adventure education activities in the urban tourism environment; (2) Methods: The study included 48 students with specialization in physical education. The adventure education program included two specific activities and the evaluation focused on: the students’ choice in choosing and crossing the routes from the Adventure Park in Brasov according to their difficulty; the distance covered within the Photo Trip Brasov Adventure. At the end of program a questionnaire contained 20 items divided into two parts of 10 items for each of the two activities: Adventure Park Brasov Challenge and Photo Trip Brasov Adventure, was used to assess the educational, recreational and satisfaction impact of the urban adventure tourism activities. The results were processed using SPPS 20; (3) Results: At the Adventure Park Brasov Challenge the girls have accumulated 118 points (29.7%), and the boys 280 points (70.3%). For Photo Trip Brasov Adventure, the average distance covered by the 12 teams was 5.516 ± 0.240. The results are statistically significant for p
< 0.05. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for the whole questionnaire was α = 0.933; for the Adventure Park Brasov Challenge was α = 0.811; for Photo Trip Brasov Adventure was α = 0.924, suggesting that the items had a very high internal consistency; (4) Conclusions: Participation in the Education program through adventure in urban tourism environment highlighted the expansion and improvement of the physical, technical, educational, recreational potential and participation of the students. The analysis of the results of the questionnaire revealed that the students mostly appreciate the satisfaction and recreational parameters and in the lower the educational and motoric parameters.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited