Section 3: The Tourist
2. Considering the trip of your dreams, discuss your choice of tourism destination and activities,
taking into account the following motivational fac- tors: physical, cultural, interpersonal, status/pres- tige, emotional and personal development.
References
Alén, E., Nicolau, J.L., Losada, N. and Domínguez, T.
(2014) Determinant factors of senior tourists’ length of stay. Annals of Tourism Research 49, 19–32.
Chen, G., Bao, J. and Huang, S.S. (2014) Segmenting Chinese backpackers by travel motivations. International Journal of Tourism Research 16, 355–367.
Cuervo, R. (1967) El Turismo como Medio de Comunicación Humana. [Travel as a medium of human communi- cation]. Departamento de Turismo do Governo do México, Mexico City.
Huang, F.Y. (2008) Western and Asian backpackers in Taiwan: behaviour, motivation and cultural diversity.
In: Cochrane, J. (ed.) Asian Tourism: Growth and Change. Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp. 171–181.
Masiero, L. and Nicolau, J.L. (2012) Price sensitivity to tourism activities: looking for determinant factors.
Tourism Economics 18, 675–689.
Determinant and Motivational Factors 149 Swarbrooke, J. and Horner, S. (2007) Consumer Behaviour in
Tourism, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
Zhang, Y. and Peng, Y. (2014) Understanding travel moti- vations of Chinese tourists visiting Cairns, Australia.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 21, 44–53.
Further Reading
Ashwell, J. (2015) Going bush? Factors which influence international tourists’ decisions to travel to remote Australian destinations. Tourism Management 46, 80–83.
Han, S., Ham, S.S., Yang, I. and Baek, S. (2012) Passengers’
perceptions of airline lounges: importance of attrib- utes that determine usage and service quality meas- urement. Tourism Management 33, 1103–1111.
Hung, K., and Petrick, J.F. (2011) Why do you cruise?
Exploring the motivations for taking cruise holidays, and the construction of a cruising motivation scale.
Tourism Management 32, 386–393.
Petrick, J.F. and Durko, A.M. (2015) Segmenting luxury cruise tourists based on their motivations. Tourism in Marine Environments 10, 149–157.
Swarbrooke, J. and Horner, S. (2007) Consumer Behaviour in Tourism, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford: Chapters 4 and 5 of this book provide a detailed explanation of the motivational and determi- nant factors in order to better understand consumer behaviour in tourism.
Yousefi, M. and Marzuki, A. (2015) An analysis of push and pull motivational factors of international tourists to Penang, Malaysia. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration 16, 40–56.
150 © G. Lohmann and A. Panosso Netto 2017. Tourism Theory (G. Lohmann and A. Panosso Netto) Numerous models for consumer choices and per-
ceptions of products and services have been created to illustrate the mental process of making a pur- chase decision and categorizing available products and services. In many cases, this mental categoriza- tion process establishes a compartmentalization of these products and services based on consumer experience, advertising and comments from other consumers or complete ignorance of existing brands. For example, Woodside and Lysonski (1989) presented an empirical model for choosing tourism destinations in which they described how factors such as knowledge, preferences and choices are considered by consumers of leisure tourism destinations. Other models have also been pro- posed, including one by Goodrich (1978), on the relationships between preferences and perceptions.
Um and Crompton (1990) examined the contribu- tion of inhibiting and facilitating factors; Eymann and Ronning (1997) analysed the microeconomet- rics of spatial choice; and Seddighi and Theocharous (2002) adapted Koppelman’s model of the trans- port-system consumer to measure the perception and feeling of tourists visiting the island of Cyprus.
Subsequently, Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) con- ducted a comprehensive analysis of different travel- ler decision-making models.
Crompton (1992) proposed a model that reflected rational decision-making in which tourists had a high degree of involvement in choosing the tourism destinations to be visited. This model includes a process of narrowing down the sets of tourism destinations; it begins with all of the potential destinations for a trip and continues until the destinations are finally selected (see Fig. 40). In this model, internal (prior knowledge of destina- tions or previous experiences) and external forces (information from friends, advertising, cultural pro- grammes) influence the decision-making process.
The principle of Crompton’s (1992) model is based on different theoretical considerations. The first is that there are two types of tourism destinations:
those of which the tourist is aware and those of which the tourist is unaware. Because no one can choose an unknown destination, this second group of destinations is automatically excluded. Therefore, it is important to promote tourism destinations through marketing campaigns or excellent tourist experiences that will lead to word-of-mouth pub- licity (Jalilvand and Samiei, 2012). Within the tour- ism destinations of which the tourist is aware, the model indicated two large groups: those that the tourist thinks they might want to visit (initial con- sideration set) and those that will be discarded for different reasons (excluded set). The set of known tourism destinations that are not considered for a particular trip includes the following subgroups (Fig. 40): ‘foggy’ (destinations that potential con- sumers do not have enough information about to have a positive or negative opinion), ‘hold’ (desti- nations the individual is considering, but not at this time), ‘unpleasant personal experience’ and ‘nega- tive external feedback’. In the first two cases, the tourist either is uncertain or does not have enough information about the destinations, causing them to be excluded from the decision process. Both can be collectively classified as a set of ‘inert’ destina- tions. The other two subgroups include destina- tions about which there is a negative impression, either from their own experience, from other peo- ple or from the media. Collectively, these destina- tions are called the ‘inept’ or ‘reject’ set.
Returning to the set of destinations about which the tourist will make initial considerations (Fig. 40, Stage 1), the model proposes a second set of desti- nations (Stage 2), called the ‘late consideration’ set, from which some of the initial destinations are excluded for reasons described in the ‘inert’ and
‘inept/reject’ sets. The primary difference between the initial and late consideration sets is that there is a period of time between them whereby individuals can evaluate and reduce the list of destinations from a large, vast group to a smaller, reduced number.
3.4 Crompton’s Destination-choice
Model
Crompton’s Destination-choice Model 151 Stage 3 is achieved when the objective of the
decision-making process is to select the final desti- nation based on the options in the late considera- tion set. The ‘inaction set’ comprises all the destinations for which no information has been obtained. The ‘action set’ includes all of the tourism destinations whose promoters or representatives (e.g. travel agencies) may be contacted by the tour- ist. These actions require an investment of effort and resources. The greater this effort, the more likely the individual is to commit to a destination.
The interaction set is a subset of the action set. It includes all of the destinations whose representa- tives the potential tourists communicate with so that those representatives can personally persuade them to visit a particular destination. Destinations about which additional information is sought with- out any personal interaction with a representative of the destination are in the ‘quiet’ set.
The dashed lines in Fig. 40 indicate that indi- viduals reduce the number of alternatives and move
from one choice set to the next, with many destina- tions being rejected. When they move from the initial consideration set to the late consideration set, the discarded destinations can become part of the rejected destinations set, if comments were negative, or the hold set, if comments led to ambiv- alent feelings. In the more advanced search and decision-making process that characterizes the transition from late consideration to final consid- eration, the destinations can be sent to the hold or rejected sets at the three transition points. This may occur when the tourist’s evaluation of destinations in the late consideration, action or interaction sets changes from a positive opinion to a negative or ambivalent one.
Operationalizing
Decrop (2010), based on a study with 25 Belgian travellers in which data were collected over the course of the 3 months prior to a summer vacation All potential destinations
Unawareness set Awareness
set
Excluded set Initial
consideration set Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Foggy set
Hold set
Inert set Late
consideration (evoked) set Action
set Interaction
set Final selected destination
Quiet set
Inaction set
Inept or reject
set Unpleasant
personal experience
set
Negative external feedback
set
Fig. 40. Structure of choice sets for tourism destinations. (From Crompton, 1992, p. 421.)
152 Chapter 3.4 trip, obtained a typology of seven destination
choice sets. These seven sets were identified as follows:
1. Awareness set: destinations of which the trav- eller is aware but in which they show no interest.
2. Evoked set: destinations that the traveller spon- taneously mentions as a possibility for vacations in the future but not for the upcoming trip.
3. Surrogate set: destinations that are not prior- itized by the traveller but are kept for a possible trip (‘Maybe one day…’).
4. Exclusion set: destinations definitively excluded by the traveller (‘I’ll never go there’).
5. Dream set: destinations that are considered ideal places to travel or visit but that are permanently unavailable because of inhibiting factors.
6. Unavailable set: destinations that are temporar- ily unavailable because of a particular restrictive factor.
7. Available set: destinations that are evoked and viable for visiting after considering the restrictive factors.
Decrop (2010) demonstrated that the number of destinations in the evoked set was quite stable over time, ranging from none to four, with an average of 1.5 destinations per trip. This result is similar to other studies that have identified the number of evoked destinations as small, ranging from three to six, depending on the type of prod- uct considered. The travellers’ final decision, according to Decrop (2010), takes place in three stages. Once the destinations have been consid- ered and evaluated, situational and restrictive fac- tors are taken into consideration, reducing the number of evoked destinations to the set of avail- able destinations, which includes only the viable alternatives.
Exercise
Ask someone you know to imagine that they have won a 2-week trip to any destination in the world. Propose ten possible international desti- nations to that person and ask them to evaluate their decision-making process for each destina- tion based on the structure proposed by Crompton (1992).
References
Crompton, J. (1992) Structure of vacation destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism Research 19, 420–434.
Decrop, A. (2010) Destination choice sets: an inductive longitudinal approach. Annals of Tourism Research 37, 93–115.
Eymann, A. and Ronning, G. (1997) Microeconometric models of tourists’ destination choice. Regional Science and Urban Economics 27, 735–761.
Goodrich, J.N. (1978) The relationship between prefer- ences for and perceptions of vacation destinations:
application of a choice model. Journal of Travel Research 17, 8–13.
Jalilvand, M.R. and Samiei, N. (2012) The impact of elec- tronic word of mouth on a tourism destination choice:
testing the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 22, 591–612.
Seddighi, H. and Theocharous, A. (2002) A model of tourism destination choice: a theoretical and empiri- cal analysis. Tourism Management 23, 475–487.
Sirakaya, E. and Woodside, A.G. (2005) Building and testing theories of decision making by travellers.
Tourism Management 26, 815–832.
Um, S. and Crompton, J.L. (1990) Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research 17, 432–448.
Woodside, A.G. and Lysonski, S. (1989) A general model of traveler destination choice. Journal of Travel Research 27, 8–14.
Further Reading
Hsu, T.K., Tsai, Y.F. and Wu, H.H. (2009) The preference analysis for tourist choice of destination: a case study of Taiwan. Tourism Management 30, 288–297.
Karl, M., Reintinger, C. and Schmude, J. (2015) Reject or select: mapping destination choice. Annals of Tourism Research 54, 48–64.
Lee, G. and Tussyadiah, I.P. (2012). Exploring familiarity and destination choice in international tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 17, 133–145.
Mlozi, S. and Pesämaa, O. (2013) Adventure tourist des- tination choice in Tanzania. Current Issues in Tourism 16, 63–95.
Oppewal, H., Huybers, T. and Crouch, G.I. (2015) Tourist destination and experience choice: a choice experi- mental analysis of decision sequence effects. Tourism Management 48, 467–476.
Petrick, J.F. (2014) A portrait of John Crompton’s career:
running a marathon at quarter mile pace. Anatolia 25, 499–505.
153
© G. Lohmann and A. Panosso Netto 2017. Tourism Theory (G. Lohmann and A. Panosso Netto) Many studies have been conducted on tourism con-
sumer choice, particularly for recreational travel.
Mayo and Jarvis (1981) argued that the decision to travel takes social and psychological factors into account, emphasizing the role of family, groups of friends and travellers in the decision-making pro- cess. Mathieson and Wall (1982) reinforced the role of psychological factors and added economic and sociological factors, recognizing the importance of the destination’s characteristics not only in forming the image of the tourism destination but also in the subsequent decision-making process. These two studies have developed general theories of consump- tion associated with the tourism context. McIntosh et al. (1995) proposed four motivational factors, including interpersonal factors, that would signifi- cantly contribute to understanding tourism consum- ers and their motivations. Mazursky (1989) noted the importance of the tourist’s past experience. For a more detailed analysis of the main consumer choice models in tourism, the work of Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) is particularly relevant.
One of the first models to consider this topic was proposed by Schmöll (1977). It presented four aspects that explain the motivations, desires, needs and expectations of the social and personal deter- minants of travel choice behaviour, including the destination visited and the type of accommodation chosen. These aspects include the following: stimu- lus to travel (promotional communication and personal and trade recommendations), personal and social determinants (consumer’s reasons for travel, including their desires, needs and expecta- tions), external variables (confidence in the service provided, image of the destination, learned experi- ences, time and money restrictions) and the desti- nations’ characteristics, as shown in Fig. 41.
Operationalizing
Hudson (1999) critiqued the difficulty of opera- tionalizing Schmöll’s model because it is merely
descriptive; it emphasizes the relevant variables in tourism consumer choice and the interrelationships of these variables but does not provide a way to quantify them. The model is also criticized because it does not offer a way to predict tourism con- sumer behaviour for a particular destination or a specific type of tourism service or product. The model’s benefits, as noted by Schmöll himself, include the following: