the social acceptability of the destination among their peer groups. In contrast, the Germans perceive the Algarve as the ideal place to rest (release stress and escape from the routine).
The hypothesis 2 is also accepted in some cases and rejected in others, since the pull factors are sometimes statistically significant whilst they are insignificant at other times, even at the 10 % level of significance. This is also in accordance with previous research by Kozak (2001,2003).
The hypothesis 3 is accepted, although the conclusion is mixed, since the socio- demographic characteristics produce mixed findings. These findings are in accor- dance with previous studies that argue that the determinants of tourism choice is specific to the contextual life settings of the individual more than on age cohorts or level of education (March and Woodside2005). This is also in accordance with Gibson and Jordan (1998) who found that gender does not explain the diversity of travel styles. In this case, the likelihood of returning decreases for British women, whereas it increases for German men. In this case, the likelihood of returning to the Algarve decreases with age for British tourists and increases for German tourists.
The hypothesis 4 is accepted. The conclusion is that frequency of travelling abroad influences negatively the decision to return, meaning that those who travel more are more unlikely to return to the Algarve. This result is in accordance with Pearce (1996) who argues that the more experienced tourist tends to seek novel destinations, attempting to fulfil the desire to learn more and experience other destinations, consequently perceiving less the risk of travelling to new destinations.
This is the case of British tourists since the standardised coefficient is negative and statistically significant; however, it is not the case with Germans.
The hypothesis 5 is accepted. The conclusion is that length of stay has a mixed influence on the intentions to return. The coefficient is negative and statistically significant for British tourists. This signifies that non-returning tourists opt for extended lengths of stay. In fact, Hughes (1995) proves that recent customers tend to repurchase but that the strength of their repurchasing intentions will decrease over time. However, this is not the case of German tourists, who demon- strate that the longer they spend at a chosen destination increases the likelihood of returning.
Comparison with previous results for both sub-samples allows us to accept the hypothesis 6, due to the different findings for the two nationalities analysed. Taking into consideration the statistically significant variables, it is verified that some are positive for British tourists and negative for Germans, which, on the contrary, signifies that different nationalities react differently to different variables.
Algarve has some tourism potential. The British want, in addition, social recogni- tion from their peers and they intend to return because of the nightlife, climate and the beach. Germans intend to return to escape from routine and release their stress.
In addition to the landscape, they appreciate the cultural attractions. Findings suggest that the profile and motivations of Germans and British are quite different (Kozak2002), the former enjoy active holidays, whereas the latter seek tranquillity.
These results conform to the widely accepted profiles of British and German tourists, showing that, in fact, the tourists’ behaviour and motivations differ across individuals, according to their nationalities (Geertz1973; Hofstede1994), particu- larly in relation to return intentions. These findings are of paramount importance for the development of the commercial and political approaches to tourism, in which a clear understanding of tourists’ behaviour from a social perspective is crucial.
In relation to the literature analysing return intentions, this paper cannot be directly compared with the papers referred to, since it uses an innovative approach that enables the identification of heterogeneous variables in the data permitting the statistical definition of clusters, in addition to the fact that it focuses on low-cost travel tourism. However, the paper is somewhat comparable with Correia et al. (2007b), since it adopts the same model. On the other hand, while this paper analyses different nationalities, the paper mentioned analysed a single nationality, thus focusing on individual heterogeneity. The present research focuses on two types of heterogeneity: nationality and individual, which represents a positive contribution to this research field.
With regard to the managerial implications, it calls for specific tourism strategies in respect of different nationalities, taking into account the heterogeneity that exists within each nationality. Moreover, age and education are random, signifying that they vary in each nationality. In other words, British and German tourists on vacations in the Algarve comprise a mixture of age and education levels. This signifies that the development of an effective tourism strategy that targets individual tourists is a complex issue, since it must take into account role differences identified within nationalities, combined with individual preferences specific to each individual (Jafari and Way1994). Further these findings suggest the competitive attributes of the region for both nationalities. The competitive attributes of the destination are those pull motives that have a positive and significant standardised coefficient in the mixed logit model, which, due to this positive influence, represents the capacity of the destination to retain the tourists’ loyalty. Inversely, the negative coefficients are the perceived disadvantages of the region. Accordingly landscape, nightlife, lodging, climate, beach and relaxing environment are the main attributes that drive the British intention to return, where cultural attraction and gastronomy may lead to the intention of not return. On the other hand German intention to return is driven by relaxing environment and cultural attraction where nature, transports and beach may lead to the intention of not return.
This paper has two main limitations related to the data set. Firstly, the data span is relatively short. Secondly, the sample procedure adopted was restricted to tourists visiting one single destination, thus the conclusions are limited. Rather, it calls
attention to the value of identifying heterogeneity in their client base, considering different nationalities as a crucial variable in order to explain intentions to return.
The limitations of the paper suggest directions for new research. Firstly, additional research is needed to confirm the findings of this paper, as well as to clarify the above-related issues, such as, the impact of nationality on attitudinal measures of the tourists’ affective attachment to the destination. Secondly, research concerning different nationalities’ return intentions must be expanded to consider other destinations, including newly-emerging regions and resorts. It is also neces- sary to consider motivations and learning processes within the set of determinants of the tourists’ decisions. In order to acquire more generalised knowledge, a larger data set would be necessary, particularly from qualitative (Tribe2004,2006) or mixed methodologies and alternative theoretical traditions (Jafari2003).
References
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211 Baker D, Crompton J (2000) Quality satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Ann Tour Res
27:785–804
Baloglu S (1997) The relationship between destination images and socio-demographic and trip characteristics of international travelers. J Vacation Mark 3:221–233
Barros CP, Butler R, Correia A (2010) The length of stay of golf tourism: a survival analysis. Tour Manage 31(1):13–21
Bigne´ JE, Andreu L (2004) Emotions in segmentation: an empirical study. Ann Tour Res 31(3):682–696
Bigne´ JE, Sa´nchez MI, Sa´nchez J (2001) Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour: inter-relationship. Tour Manage 22(6):607–616
Calantone R, Benedetto A, Bojanic D (1988) Multimethod forecasts for tourism analysis.
Ann Tour Res 15(3):387–406
Chen J, Gursoy D (2001) An investigation of tourists’ destination loyalty and preferences. Int J Contemp Hospitality Manage 13(2):79–85
Chen P, Kerstetter D (1999) International students’ image of rural Pennsylvania as a travel destination. J Travel Res 37:256–266
Chesher A, Santos-Silva J (2002) Taste variation in discrete choice models. Rev Econ Stud 69:147–168
Correia A, Barros C, Silvestre A (2007a) Golf tourism repeat choice behavior in the Algarve:
a mixed logit approach. Tour Econ 13(1):111–127
Correia A, Santos CM, Barros CP (2007b) Tourism in Latin America a choice analysis. Ann Tour Res 34(3):610–629
Correia A, Valle P, Moc¸o C (2007c) Modelling motivations and perceptions of Portuguese tourists.
J Bus Res 60(1):76–80
Court B, Lupton RA (1997) Customer portfolio development: modeling destination adopters, inactive, and rejecters. J Travel Res 35(1):35–43
Crompton J (1979) Motivations for pleasure vacations. Ann Tour Res 6:408–424
Crotts J, Reisinger Y (2010) Applying Hofstede’s national culture measures in tourism research:
illuminating issues of divergence and convergence. J Travel Res 49(2):153–164
Dann G (1996) Tourists’images of a destination – an alternative analysis. Recent Adv Tour Mark Res 5:41–55
Dann G (1993) Limitation in the use of “Nationality” and “Country of Residence” variables.
In: Pearce D, Butler R (eds) Tourism research: critiques and challenges. Routledge, London, pp 88–112
Dick A, Basu K (1994) Customer loyalty: towards an integrated framework. J Acad Mark Sci 22(2):99–113
Dillman D (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley, New York Fodness D (1994) Measuring tourist motivation. Ann Tour Res 21(3):555–581
Gartner W (1993) Image formation process. In: Uysal M, Fesenmaier D (eds) Communication and channel systems in tourism marketing. Haworth Press, New York, pp 191–215
Geertz C (1973) The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books, New York
Gibson H, Jordan F (1998) Shirley Valentine lives! The experiences of solo women travelers.
Paper presented at the fifth congress of the World Leisure and Recreation Association, Sa˜o Paulo
Gokovali U, Bahar O, Kozak M (2007) Determinants of length of stay: a practical use of survival analysis. Tour Manage 28(3):736–746
Goodall B, Ashworth G (1988) Marketing in the tourism industry. The promotion of destination regions. Routledge, London
Hajivassiliou V, Ruud P (1994) Classical estimation methods for LDV models using simulation.
In: Engle R, McFadden D (eds) Handbook of econometrics. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 2384–2438
Hensher D, Greene W (2003) The mixed logit model. Transportation 30:133–176
Hofstede G (1994) Value survey module 1994 manual. Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation, Maastricht
Holden A (2006) Tourism studies and the social sciences. Routledge, Oxon
Hughes A (1995) Making a database pay off using recency, frequency, and monetary analysis.
J Database Mark 3(1):77–89
Jafari J, Way W (1994) Multicultural strategies in tourism. Cornell Hotel Restaur Adm Q 35(6):72–79
Jafari J (2003) Research and scholarship: the basis of tourism education. J Tour Stud 14(1):6–16 Jang S, Feng R (2007) Temporal destination revisit intention: the effects of novelty seeking and
satisfaction. Tour Manage 28:580–590
Kozak M (2001) Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations. Ann Tour Res 28:784–807 Kozak M (2002) Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations. Tour
Manage 23(3):221–232
Kozak M (2003) Measuring tourist satisfaction with multiple destination attributes. Tour Anal 7:229–240
Lam T, Hsu C (2006) Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tour Manage 27(4):589–599
Mannell RC, Iso-Ahola S (1987) Psychological nature of leisure and tourism experience. Ann Tour Res 14:314–331
March R, Woodside A (2005) Testing theory of planned versus realized tourism behavior. Ann Tour Res 32(4):905–924
Mazursky D (1989) Past experience and future tourism decisions. Ann Tour Res 16(3):333–344 McCabe A (2000) Tourism motivation process. Ann Tour Res 27(4):1049–1052
Mieczkowski Z (1990) World trends in tourism and recreation. In: American University studies series XXV geography, no 3, New York
Money R, Crotts J (2003) The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information search, planning and purchases of international travel vacations. Tour Manage 24:191–202
Mykletun RJ, Crotts JC, Mykletun A (2001) Positioning an island destination in the peripheral area of the Baltics: a flexible approach to market segmentation. Tour Manage 22(5):493–500 Nicolau J, Ma´s F (2005) Stochastic modelling: a three-stage tourist choice process. Ann Tour Res
32:49–69
Nicolau J, Ma´s F (2006) The influence of distance and prices on the choice of tourist destinations:
the moderating role of motivations. Tour Manage 27(5):982–996 Oliver R (1999) Whence consumer loyalty? J Mark 63:33–44
Oppermann M (1996) Convention destination images: analysis of association meeting planners’
perceptions. Tour Manage 17(3):175–182
Pearce P (1996) Recent research in tourist behavior. Asia-Pacific. J Tour Res 1:7–17 Petrick JF (2004) Are loyal visitors desired visitors? Tour Manage 25(4):463–470
Petrick J, Morais D, Norman W (2001) An examination of the determinants of entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit. J Travel Res 40:41–48
Pizam A, Sussmann S (1995) Does nationality affect tourist behavior? Ann Tour Res 22(4):901–917
Reisinger Y, Turner L (1998) Cross-cultural differences in tourism: a strategy for tourism marketers. J Travel Tour Mark 7(4):79–106
Richardson L, Crompton J (1988) Cultural variations in perceptions of vacation attributes. Tour Manage 9(2):128–136
Ross D, Iso-Ahola S (1991) Sightseeing tourists’ motivation and satisfaction. Ann Tour Res 18:226–237
Ross G (1993) Ideal and actual images of backpacker visitors to Northern Australia. J Travel Res 32(2):54–57
Severt D, Wang Y, Chen P, Breiter D (2007) Examining the motivation perceived performance, and behavioral intentions of convention attendees: evidence from a regional conference. Tour Manage 28:399–408
Silvestre A, Correia A (2005) A second-order factor analysis model for measuring tourist’s overall image of Algarve (Portugal). Tour Econ 11(4):539–554
So¨nmez S, Graefe A (1998) Influence of tourism risk on foreign tourism decisions. Ann Tour Res 25(1):112–144
Sparks B (2007) Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict tourist behavioural intentions. Tour Manage 28(5):1180–1192
Train K (1998) Recreational demand models with taste variation. Land Econ 74:230–239 Trauer B, Ryan C (2005) Destination image, romance and place experience – an application of
intimacy theory in tourism. Tour Manage 26(4):481–491
Tribe J (2004) Knowing about tourism: epistemological issues. In: Phillimore J, Goodson L (eds) Qualitative research in tourism: ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. Routledge, London, pp 46–62
Tribe J (2006) The truth about tourism. Ann Tour Res 33(2):360–381
Um S, Cho K, Ro Y (2006) Antecedents of revisit intention. Ann Tour Res 33(4):1141–1158 Weaver P, McCleary K, Lepisto L, Damonte L (1994) The relationship of destination selection
attributes to psychological behavioral and demographic variables. J Hospitality Leisure Mark 2:93–109
Williams P, Soutar GN (2009) Value satisfaction and behavioral intentions in an adventure context. Ann Tour Res 36:413–438
Woodside A, Lysonski S (1989) A general model of travel destination choice. J Travel Res 27(4):8–14
Yoon Y, Uysal M (2005) An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tour Manage 26(1):45–56
Yu¨ksel A, Yu¨ksel F (2007) Shopping risk perceptions: effects on tourists’ emotions, satisfaction and expressed loyalty intentions. Tour Manage 28(3):703–713
Yu¨ksel A (2001) Managing customer satisfaction and retention: a case of tourist destinations, Turkey. J Vacation Mark 7(2):153–168
Zimmer Z, Brayley R, Searle M (1995) Whether to go and where to go: identification of important influences on seniors’ decisions to travel. J Travel Res 33(3):3–10