Upload
kutnews
View
99
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Survey of tourists to Austin, conducted by University of Houston researchers.
Citation preview
i
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
Conducted by:
Jason Draper, Ph.D. (Principal Investigator) and
Jiaping (Bailey) Bai
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management
May 2011
Project funded by the Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau and
Austin Convention Center Department
i
i
Acknowledgments
The research team would like to thank the Austin Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and
Austin Convention Center for funding this study. Margo Richards and Jennifer Walker of the
Austin CVB were extremely helpful with providing feedback throughout the study, especially
during questionnaire development. Finally, we would like to thank the more than 600
respondents who took the time to respond to the online questionnaire and provide valuable
feedback to the Austin CVB.
Research team:
Jason Draper, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management
229 C. N. Hilton Hotel & College
Houston, TX 77204-3028
(713) 743-2416
Jiaping “Bailey” Bai
Graduate Student
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management
This research was done by University of Houston in accordance with the guidelines and
standards of the University Standard Research Agreement. The results of this study in no way
express the promotion of the outcome by the University of Houston.
i
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
i
Executive Summary
During the spring of 2011 the University of Houston’s Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant
Management conducted a visitor inquiry study for the Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau
(CVB). The study was conducted online by sending email requests to inquirers of the Austin
CVB who requested the Official Visitors Guide to Austin or signed up to receive the Austin
Insider’s Club: eNews over the past 2 years. A total of 627 questionnaires were completed. Of
the inquirers who completed a questionnaire, 48.5% indicated they visited Austin in the past 2
years, 17.2% had not visited, and 34.3% were local area residents.
Of the respondents who visited Austin in the past 2 years, most visited multiple times. The area
of Austin visitors indicated they most like to visit is the Downtown/Capitol area. The most
popular primary purpose for visiting Austin was pleasure/vacation, but additional interest in
visiting Austin included the live music and culture/history. Most of the visits to Austin were
overnight trips and typically visitors stayed in a hotel/motel. Visitors indicated the Austin CVB
website and Official Visitors Guide to Austin were important sources of information for both
planning and during their trip to Austin. Visitors were highly satisfied with their most recent
visit to Austin and indicated high levels of likelihood to both visit again and recommend their
friends and/or relatives visit Austin.
Respondents who did not visit Austin in the past 2 years also had positive images of Austin as a
travel destination and indicated they are likely to visit in the next 2 years. For respondents who
have not yet visited Austin, some of the important sources of information for them to learn about
Austin as a destination were the Austin CVB website, friends, and the Official Visitors Guide to
Austin. This group of respondents indicated the Downtown/Capitol area of Austin is the area
they would most like to visit in the future.
Visitors, non-visitors, and residents all generally had favorable images of Austin as a travel
destination. However, a series of comparisons on the images of Austin as a travel destination
were conducted between the groups of inquirers to examine any differences that may exist.
There was a consensus between the groups of respondents that Austin is a destination for
entertainment and special events. The groups were significantly different in their level of
agreement with Austin as a destination for a weekend getaway, with residents having the highest
level of agreement, followed by visitors and then respondents who have not visited Austin in the
past 2 years. Similar results were found for the level of agreement with Austin being a day trip
destination.
Although all respondents generally agreed with going to Austin to enjoy live music, residents
had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to both visitors and non-visitors. The
same results were found with Austin being a destination to enjoy nightlife. Inherently, visitors
and residents have better knowledge of what Austin offers travelers compared to non-visitors.
The result for Austin being a destination where visitors can enjoy a wide variety of food reflects
this knowledge with visitors and residents having significantly higher levels of agreement
compared to respondents who have not visited. A similar pattern in the results was revealed for
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
ii
Austin being a destination with great natural scenery/landscape and being a destination that does
not require a lot of pre-planning.
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of adjectives and
phrases to describe Austin as a travel destination. For a number of adjectives and phrases
visitors, non-visitors, and residents had significantly different levels of agreement with residents
having the highest levels of agreement, followed by visitors and then non-visitors. Examples of
adjectives and phrases where all three groups were significantly different with residents having
the highest levels of agreement, followed by visitors and then non-visitors included creative,
eclectic, friendly, outdoorsy, environmentally friendly, intelligent, unlike the rest of Texas,
weird, and family oriented.
Results of this study were compared to a 2003 visitor inquiry study (conducted by Behavior
Research Center, Inc.) and recent qualitative study (conducted by Fire Studios, 2010). In 2003,
75.0% of visitors agreed Austin is a great destination to enjoy live music. The percentage of
visitors that agreed or strongly agreed Austin is a destination to enjoy live music in this study
increased to 94.2%. The recent qualitative study and this study both indicated friends and
editorials were important sources of information in the decision to visit Austin. Both studies also
revealed visitors think Austin is a unique destination. For example, visitors in the qualitative
study used phrases such as “western chic”, “hip”, and “just the right amount of Texas friendly
southern culture” to describe Austin. In this study visitors had very high levels of agreement that
Austin is creative and eclectic.
In sum, visitors, non-visitors, and local residents had favorable images of Austin as a travel
destination, especially regarding the promotion of Austin as the “Live Music Capital of the
World®” and nightlife. Not only did Austin being a live music scene result in a large increase in
terms of agreement by visitors from 2003 to the current study, but was a unique characteristic
that appealed to all groups of inquirers, including respondents who have not visited Austin and
experienced the live music scene. A related characteristic of Austin that appealed to all groups
was the nightlife. Austin appears to have a unique image in the minds of visitors, as well as
inquirers who have not yet visited.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
iii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ i
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... viii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Study Purpose ............................................................................................................... 1
Report Outline ............................................................................................................... 1
Research Design and Methods ............................................................................................ 2
Sample........................................................................................................................... 2
Questionnaire Design .................................................................................................... 3
Online/Email Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 3
Pilot Test ....................................................................................................................... 4
Main Study .................................................................................................................... 4
Results ................................................................................................................................. 7
Type of Inquirer ............................................................................................................ 8
Sample Demographics .................................................................................................. 8
Visitor Inquirers ............................................................................................................ 11
Non-Visitor Inquirers .................................................................................................... 31
Resident Inquirers ......................................................................................................... 41
Comparisons of Inquirers .............................................................................................. 50
Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 65
References ........................................................................................................................... 68
Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 69
Appendix A: Cover Letters ........................................................................................... 70
Appendix B: Questionnaire........................................................................................... 76
Appendix C: Social Media, Mobile Apps, and Other Websites Used to Find
Out About Austin ..................................................................................... 109
Appendix D: Reason for Ranking Area of Austin to Visit as the Number
One Area .................................................................................................. 118
Appendix E: Visitors’ and Residents’ Explanations of Why Travelers Should
Visit Austin .............................................................................................. 156
Appendix F: Non-Visitor Inquirers Explanation for Not Visiting Since Inquiring ...... 175
Appendix G: Other Destinations that Come to Mind When Thinking About
Taking a Trip............................................................................................ 180
Appendix H: Other Thoughts About Austin ................................................................. 192
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Frequency Distribution by Type of Inquirer ......................................................... 8
Table 2: Frequency Distribution for Demographics ........................................................... 9
Table 3: Frequency Distribution for Number of Times Visiting Austin in Past 2 Years ... 11
Table 4: Frequency Distribution for Importance of Sources of Information for Visitors
Deciding to Visit ................................................................................................... 12
Table 5: Frequency Distribution for Visitors Rankings of Top Areas They Like to
Visit in Austin ...................................................................................................... 14
Table 6: Frequency Distribution for Knowledge of Austin Prior to Most Recent Visit ..... 14
Table 7: Frequency Distribution for Approximate Number of Days in Advance for
Trip Decision ....................................................................................................... 15
Table 8: Frequency Distribution for Primary Purpose and Additional Interests or Reasons
for Visiting Austin ................................................................................................ 15
Table 9: Frequency Distribution for Travel Party and Size ................................................ 16
Table 10: Frequency Distribution for Day and Overnight Trip .......................................... 17
Table 11: Frequency Distribution for Overnight Trip Characteristics ................................ 17
Table 12: Frequency Distribution for Transportation To and Around Austin .................... 18
Table 13: Frequency Distribution for Satisfaction with Most Recent Visit ....................... 19
Table 14: Frequency Distribution for Usefulness of Resources While Planning Visit
to Austin ............................................................................................................. 20
Table 15: Frequency Distribution for Usefulness of Resources During Visit to Austin .... 20
Table 16: Comparison of Usefulness of Resources While Planning and During Visit
to Austin ............................................................................................................. 21
Table 17: Frequency Distribution for Overall Satisfaction with Most Recent Visit to
Austin ................................................................................................................ 22
Table 18: Frequency Distribution for Likelihood of Visiting Again and Recommending to
Friends/Relatives ................................................................................................ 22
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
v
Table 19: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin during
Four Seasons ....................................................................................................... 23
Table 20: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for
Various Types of Trips ....................................................................................... 23
Table 21: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for
Various Types of Activities ................................................................................ 24
Table 22: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Various Attributes
of Austin ............................................................................................................. 25
Table 23: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Adjectives to
Describe Austin .................................................................................................. 27
Table 24: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Emotional Solidarity
with Austin Residents ......................................................................................... 28
Table 25: Per Party Per Day Spending by Overnight Visitors............................................ 29
Table 26: Visitors’ Travel Experience in the Past 2 Years ................................................. 29
Table 27: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Tourism Destinations .... 30
Table 28: Non-Visitors’ Likelihood of Visiting Austin in the Next 2 Years...................... 31
Table 29: Frequency Distribution for Importance of Sources of Information for
Non-Visitors Deciding to Visit ........................................................................... 31
Table 30: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors Rankings of Top Areas They
would Like to Visit in Austin in the Future........................................................ 34
Table 31: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin
during Four Seasons ........................................................................................... 34
Table 32: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin
for Various Types of Trips ................................................................................. 35
Table 33: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin
for Various Types of Activities .......................................................................... 36
Table 34: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Various
Attributes of Austin ............................................................................................ 37
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
vi
Table 35: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Adjectives to
Describe Austin .................................................................................................. 38
Table 36: Non-Visitors’ Travel Experience in the Past 2 Years ......................................... 39
Table 37: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Tourism
Destinations ........................................................................................................ 40
Table 38: Frequency Distribution for Top Areas Residents Would Recommend
Visitors Go ......................................................................................................... 42
Table 39: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Visiting Austin
during Four Seasons ........................................................................................... 42
Table 40: Frequency Distribution for Resident’s Agreement with Visiting Austin
for Various Types of Trips ................................................................................. 43
Table 41: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Visiting Austin
for Various Types of Activities .......................................................................... 44
Table 42: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Various Attributes
of Austin ............................................................................................................. 45
Table 43: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Adjectives to
Describe Austin .................................................................................................. 46
Table 44: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Emotional Solidarity
with Austin Visitors ............................................................................................ 48
Table 45: Residents’ Travel Experience in the Past 2 Years .............................................. 49
Table 46: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Tourism
Destinations ....................................................................................................... 49
Table 47: Comparison of Inquirers on Areas to Visit in Austin ......................................... 50
Table 48: Comparison of Inquirers on Seasons to Visit Austin.......................................... 51
Table 49: Comparison of Inquirers on Types of Trips to Austin ........................................ 52
Table 50: Comparison of Inquirers on Types of Activities to do in Austin ....................... 54
Table 51: Comparison of Inquirers on Various Attributes of Austin ................................. 57
Table 52: Comparison of Inquirers on Adjectives to Describe Austin ............................... 60
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
vii
Table 53: Comparison of Inquirers on Destinations to Visit .............................................. 63
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of the Origin of Austin CVB Inquirers ....................................................... 2
Figure 2: Map of the Origin of Austin CVB Inquirers in North America .......................... 3
Figure 3: Map of the Origin of All Respondents ................................................................ 5
Figure 4: Map of the Origin of Respondents Who Visited Austin in the Past 2 Years ...... 6
Figure 5: Map of the Origin of Respondents Who did not Visit Austin in the Past
2 Years ................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 6: Map of Austin for Ranking Top Areas Visitors Like to Visit ............................. 13
Figure 7: Map of Austin for Ranking Top Areas Non-Visitors Would Like to Visit ......... 33
Figure 8: Map of Austin for Ranking Top Areas Residents Would Recommend
Visitors Go ........................................................................................................... 41
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
1
Introduction
A key role of destination marketing organizations (DMOs) such as convention and visitor
bureaus (CVBs) is to market the destination to various segments of travelers. Inherently, to
market and promote a destination effectively DMOs require an understanding of the
characteristics of their visitors and potential visitors, their images or perceptions of the
destination, as well as trip characteristics of actual visitors.
Both visitors and potential visitors’ images or perceptions of a destination are important for
CVBs to assess. As a destination, one of the biggest challenges is to identify how to effectively
position the destination (Echtner & Ritchie, 2003). Molina, Gomez, and Martin-Consuegra
(2010) suggest destination images are a critical component for successful marketing and
management in tourism. The images visitors and non-visitors have of a destination are important
for tourism marketing and management agencies to understand in order to identify if the intended
message is being received. In addition, it is important to determine if visitors and non-visitors
have different images of a destination. Destination images can change over time and it is
important for a destination to have a current assessment of the images both visitors and non-
visitors have of the respective destination. The last visitor inquiry study conducted for the
Austin CVB was in 2003 by the Behavior Research Center, Inc.
Study Purpose
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the images of Austin as a travel destination.
Image items and phrases that reflect what visitor and non-visitor inquirers might think of when
they think of Austin were developed during the questionnaire development phase of the study.
Another important component of this study was to test for differences of the images of Austin as
a destination between different types of inquirers of the Austin CVB (i.e., those who visited,
those who did not, and Austin area residents). In addition to the primary purpose of the study,
inquirers who indicated they visited Austin in the past two years were asked about trip
characteristics of their most recent visit.
Report Outline
The remainder of this report includes three main sections. The research design and methods
section describes the sample used to conduct the study, questionnaire design, pilot test, and how
the main part of the study was conducted. Next, the results of the study are presented, including
demographic information, descriptive statistics for the questions asked of each group, and
comparisons of the three groups for similar questions asked of all three types of inquirers. The
main portion of the report concludes with a discussion of the findings. The appendices include
the cover letters (Appendix A) sent to the sample, the final questionnaire (Appendix B), and
responses to the open ended questions asked in the study (Appendix C thru H).
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
2
Research Design and Methods
Sample
Participants for this study consisted of inquirers of the Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau.
Inquiries were made to receive the Official Visitors Guide to Austin and/or sign up to receive the
Austin Insiders Club: eNews on the Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau website
(www.austintexas.org). The study limited the inquirers included in the sample to those who
made an inquiry in the past two years and provided an email address (n = 4,619). The list did not
provide an indicator of who visited and who did not visit Austin. The list included a sizeable
amount of Austin area residents that were included in the sample. The zip codes provided for
inquirers were mapped to provide an overview of where the inquirers live (Figure 1). As shown,
inquirers lived throughout the world, but most lived in the United States.
Figure 1: Map of the Origin of Austin CVB Inquirers
To generate a better image of inquirers who resided in North America another map was
generated (Figure 2). There was a heavy concentration of inquirers in the east part of Texas, as
well as along the east coast of the United States. California and Florida also appeared to have
large numbers of inquirers of the Austin CVB.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
3
Figure 2: Map of the Origin of Austin CVB Inquirers in North America
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire for this study was developed by the University of Houston research team after
preliminary meetings with the Austin CVB. At several stages during the project the
questionnaire was reviewed by the Austin CVB for feedback to ensure approval of the questions.
The destination image section of the questionnaire was developed by reviewing contents of the
Official Visitors Guide to Austin, the Austin CVB website (www.austintexas.org), Facebook,
Google searches, and informal discussions with people who both visited and did not visit Austin.
A number of questions asked respondents to rate items on a Likert-type scale (e.g., level of
agreement measured by 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). The questionnaire can be
found in Appendix B.
Online/Email Questionnaire
This study used an online data collection method whereby inquirers were sent a series of emails
(explained in more detail later) to recruit participation in the study. Prior to the pilot test and
subsequent main study data collection, the online questionnaire was programmed and tested.
The questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics, an online survey software program. Once
programmed, the research team sent emails to a group of individuals at the Austin CVB and
Austin Convention Center Department, who sponsored the study. The purpose of this phase of
the study was to internally test the online questionnaire and make any necessary modifications
prior to sending to the list of inquirers for the pilot test and main study.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
4
Pilot Test
A pilot test was conducted in order to replicate a portion of the methods used for the full study.
A random sample of 200 email addresses was drawn from the full sample provided by the Austin
CVB to conduct the pilot test. The purpose of the pilot test was to ensure the system was
working properly, estimate a response rate, and determine if any modifications to the
questionnaire and/or data collection process were needed. Pilot testing also helps ensure clarity
of the questions and acceptability (Rea & Parker, 2005). Acceptability includes assessing the
length of the questionnaire by identifying if there are too many participants who do not complete
it in its entirety. In order to encourage completion of the questionnaire two incentives were
included. First, the first 400 respondents who completed the questionnaire and provided an
email address as the last item received free Austin music download cards. Second, a drawing
was included for the Austin Rock Star Weekend. These incentives were included in the pilot test
in order replicate how the main data collection procedures were conducted.
The first email for the pilot test was sent on the afternoon of Friday, April 1, 2011. As of Sunday
in the early afternoon seven people had begun the survey and five completed the online
questionnaire. A reminder was programmed and sent shortly before 1:30pm on Sunday, April 3rd
and remained active through the morning of Monday, April 4, 2011. The pilot test responses
were only used to determine if changes needed to be made to the questionnaire and data
collection procedures. Responses to the pilot test were not included in any data analysis for this
report.
Main Study
A modified Dillman (2009) method that included multiple contacts (n = 3) was used to collect
data for this study. The remaining 4,419 email addresses provided by the Austin CVB were sent
an email introducing the study, its purpose, incentives, rights as participants, and a unique link to
the online questionnaire on Monday, April 4, 2011. The unique link provided a way for follow-
up or reminder emails to be sent to those who had not completed the online questionnaire at the
time of subsequent reminder emails. The first reminder email was sent Thursday, April, 7, 2011.
The final reminder was sent on Monday, April 11, 2011. The cover letters from the body of the
emails sent to the sample can be found in Appendix A.
The final questionnaire (found in Appendix B) was sent to 4,419 inquirers for the main portion
of this study. Twenty email addresses returned a message indicating the email was
undeliverable, the potential respondent was out of the office or no longer with the company, the
person no longer uses the email account, the email account currently is not accepting emails
because the capacity was exceeded, or there was a filter blocking it from reaching the person.
Once these 20 potential respondents were subtracted from the sample size of 4,419, the total of
627 usable questionnaires resulted in a net or effective response rate of 14.25%.
Respondents were asked to provide their zip code at the beginning of the demographics
questions. Figure 3 displays pushpins representing the origin of respondents who provided a zip
code. Figure 4 displays the origin of respondents who visited Austin in the past 2 years. Figure
5 displays the origin of respondents who did not visit Austin in the past 2 years.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
5
Figure 3: Map of the Origin of All Respondents
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
6
Figure 4: Map of the Origin of Respondents Who Visited Austin in the Past 2 Years
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
7
Figure 5: Map of the Origin of Respondents Who did not Visit in the Past 2 Years
Results
This section includes the descriptive results of this study, as well as statistical comparisons of
inquirer groups for the images of Austin as a travel destination. Results are presented by a
summary followed by a table that includes results for each variable included in the study. The
results begin with the branching question that asked what type of inquirer (i.e., visited Austin in
past 2 years, NOT visited Austin in past 2 years, local area resident) best describes the
respondents. Then, the demographic characteristics of the three groups are presented. The
results of the rest of the questions asked of each group are then presented in the following order:
visitors, non-visitors, and residents. The results section concludes with a section that statistically
compares the three groups for items asked of all three groups of inquirers. The following are
definitions of abbreviations and terms found in the results:
Valid cases (n) – the number of respondents that answered the question.
Mean (M) – the mathematical average score.
Standard deviation (SD) – average distance an individual score differs from the mean.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
8
Median (Mdn) – when all observations or measurements for a variable are placed in
ascending order the median is the center point. The median is often used when the mean
is skewed by extreme responses to a question.
Significant difference (e.g., α = 0.05) – scores are statistically different with less than 5%
chance the difference is an error. In other words, there is 95% or more confidence there
is a significant difference. When comparisons are made, asterisks are used to indicate the
alpha (α) level as 0.05 (*), 0.01 (**), or 0.001 (***). For the 0.01 and 0.001 alpha (α)
levels, the confidence levels are 99% and 99.9%, respectively.
Type of Inquirer
The first item of the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate the type of inquirer that best
described them (Table 1). The question served to branch respondents to subsequent sections of
the questionnaire. Close to half (48.5%) of respondents visited Austin in the past 2 years, 17.2%
did not visit, and 34.3% of respondents were local area residents.
Table 1: Frequency Distribution by Type of Inquirer
Frequency Percent
I visited Austin in the past the past 2 years 304 48.5
I have NOT visited Austin in the past 2 years 108 17.2
I am a local area resident 215 34.3
627 100.0
Sample Demographics
The demographic questions were asked of all respondents at the end of the online questionnaire
(Table 2). In all three sub-samples, females more frequently completed the online questionnaire
with 66.6% for visitors and 61.3% non-visitors. For the resident sub-sample, 82.5% of the
completed online questionnaires were completed by females. The average age of visitor and
non-visitor inquirers was nearly 50 years, while residents’ average age was just over 43. All
three groups are well educated with 66.5% of visitors, 58.0% of non-visitors, and 71.2% of
residents having a four-year college degree or higher level of education. Two-thirds or more for
each of the three groups of inquirers was employed full-time with 66.0% for visitors, 67.9% non-
visitors, and 70.1% residents. The most frequent household income interval for each group was
$100,000-149,999 with at least 20% of respondents in each group of inquirers indicating this
interval as their household income. The majority of respondents in each inquirer group indicated
their ethnicity as white, with 85.6% for visitors, 86.4% non-visitors, and 73.7% residents.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
9
Table 2: Frequency Distribution for Demographics
Visitors Non-Visitors Residents
Frequency (Percent) Frequency (Percent) Frequency (Percent)
Gender
Female 199 (66.6) 65 (61.3) 174 (82.5)
Male 100 (33.4) 41 (38.7) 37 (17.5)
299 (100.0) 106 (100.0) 211 (100.0)
Age
18 – 29 24 (8.1) 5 (4.8) 33 (15.9)
30 – 39 41 (13.9) 16 (15.4) 56 (27.1)
40 – 49 70 (23.6) 23 (22.1) 49 (23.7)
50 – 59 105 (35.5) 42 (40.4) 48 (23.2)
60 – 69
70 – 79
51 (17.2)
5 (1.7)
13 (12.5)
5 (4.8)
18 (8.7)
3 (1.4)
296 (100.0) 104 (100.0) 207 (100.0)
M = 49.23;
SD = 11.88
M = 49.94;
SD = 11.60
M = 43.02;
SD = 12.69
Household Makeup
Children (< 18) n = 246;
M = 0.49; SD = 0.89
n = 90;
M = 0.32; SD = 0.68
n = 195;
M = 0.41; SD = 0.82
Adults n = 295;
M = 1.95; SD = 0.80
n = 106;
M = 1.98; SD = 0.81
n = 211;
M = 1.89; SD = 0.82
Highest Education Level
Grade school or some
high school
1 (0.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.5)
High school diploma
or GED
23 (7.7) 4 (3.7) 3 (1.4)
Technical, vocational,
or trade school
11 (3.7) 5 (4.7) 4 (1.9)
Some college
(including junior
college)
65 (21.8) 36 (33.6) 53 (25.0)
Four-year college
(B.A., B.S.,
B.F.A.)
109 (36.6) 41 (38.3) 92 (43.4)
Masters Degree (M.A.,
M.S., M.F.A.,
M.Arch., M.B.A.)
70 (23.5)
16 (15.0)
52 (24.5)
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
10
Table 2 (continued)
Ph.D./Professional
(M.D., J.D.,
D.V.M., D.D.M.)
19 (6.4) 5 (4.7) 7 (3.3)
298 (100.0) 107 (100.0) 212 (100.0)
Employment Status
Employed full-time 196 (66.0) 72 (67.9) 148 (70.1)
Employed part-time 38 (12.8) 7 (6.6) 22 (10.4)
Retired 38 (12.8) 16 (15.1) 14 (6.6)
Homemaker 13 (4.4) 5 (4.7) 9 (4.3)
Student 7 (2.4) 5 (4.7) 13 (6.2)
Unemployed 5 (1.7) 1 (0.9) 5 (2.4)
297 (100.0) 106 (100.0) 211 (100.0)
Household Income
Less than $10,000 4 (1.4) 0 (0.0) 5 (2.5)
$10,000–24,999 9 (3.2) 3 (3.2) 12 (6.0)
$25,000–39,999 25 (9.0) 8 (7.4) 19 (9.5)
$40,000–54,999 34 (12.3) 17 (18.3) 29 (14.6)
$55,000-69,999 28 (10.1) 13 (14.0) 24 (12.1)
$70,000-84,999 34 (12.3) 11 (11.8) 18 (9.0)
$85,000-99,999 30 (10.8) 9 (9.7) 23 (11.6)
$100,000-149,999 65 (23.5) 19 (20.4) 43 (21.6)
$150,000-199,999 25 (9.0) 7 (7.5) 15 (7.5)
$200,000 or greater 23 (8.3) 6 (6.5) 11 (5.5)
277 (100.0) 93 (100.0) 199 (100.0)
Ethnicity
White 250 (85.6) 89 (86.4) 154 (73.7)
Hispanic 22 (7.5) 7 (6.8) 29 (13.9)
African American 8 (2.7) 3 (2.9) 13 (6.2)
Asian 4 (1.4) 0 (0.0) 5 (2.4)
Other 8 (2.7) 4 (3.9) 8 (3.8)
292 (100.0) 103 (100.0) 209 (100.0)
LGBT traveler
Yes 16 (5.8) 4 (4.2) 16 (7.8)
No 258 (94.2) 91 (95.8) 189 (92.2)
274 (100.0) 95 (100.0) 205 (100.0)
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
11
The next three sections provide an overview of the results for the three respective groups
included in this study (i.e., visited in past 2 years, did not visit in past 2 years, and local area
residents). Following the three sections for each of the types of inquirers is a section that
provides a statistical comparison of the three inquirer groups for the destination image questions
that were asked of all three groups.
Visitor Inquirers
Respondents who indicated they visited Austin in the past 2 years were asked a series of
questions about visiting Austin. First, they were asked how many times they visited in the past 2
years (Table 3). Aside from providing just the number of times, a number of respondents typed a
note about having family in Austin who they frequently visit or that they themselves live in a
nearby city, such as San Antonio, and make frequent trips to Austin. The average number of
trips visitors made to Austin in the past 2 years was 4.80.
Table 3: Frequency Distribution for Number of Times Visiting Austin in Past 2 Years
Frequency Percent
1 105 36.0
2 43 14.7
3 33 11.3
4 32 11.0
5 17 5.8
6 18 6.2
7 0 0.0
8 11 3.8
10-19 18 6.2
20-29 10 3.4
30 or more 5 1.7
292 100.0
M = 4.80; SD = 8.63
M = mean; SD = standard deviation
Next, visitor inquirers were asked to rate the importance of various sources of information in the
decision to visit Austin on a scale of 1 = Not at all Important to 5 = Extremely Important (Table
4). Previous trips to Austin were the most important source of information with a mean of 3.66
out of 5.00, which falls between moderately and very important. Other sources of information
that exceeded the moderately important level (3.00) were friends (M = 3.43), the Austin CVB
website (M = 3.20), and relatives (M = 3.10). The Official Visitors Guide to Austin was also
moderately important with a mean 2.98. This series of questions was followed by asking
respondents to list the social media, mobile apps, and other websites they used to find out about
Austin as a travel destination. The responses to the open ended question can be found in
Appendix C.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
12
Table 4: Frequency Distribution for Importance of Sources of Information for Visitors Deciding
to Visit
Not at all
Important
Slightly
Important
Moderately
Important
Very
Important
Extremely
Important
Values given are percentages
Previous trips to Austin
(n = 293; M = 3.66; SD = 1.47)
18.4 3.1 11.3 29.0 38.2
Friends
(n = 290; M = 3.43; SD = 1.41)
15.9 10.0 18.3 26.6 29.3
Austin Convention & Visitors
Bureau Website
(www.austintexas.org)
(n = 292; M = 3.20; SD = 1.34)
16.8 12.3 23.6 28.8 18.5
Relatives
(n = 290; M = 3.10; SD = 1.72)
33.4 7.2 10.0 14.5 34.8
Official Visitors Guide to Austin
(n = 295; M = 2.98; SD = 1.33)
19.3 16.9 24.1 25.4 14.2
Magazines/editorial (e.g., articles
or stories
(n = 287; M = 2.85; SD = 1.29)
23.0 13.2 28.9 25.8 9.1
Online ad
(n = 284; M = 2.56; SD = 1.34)
33.1 14.4 22.2 23.6 6.7
Online booking engine (e.g.,
Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, etc.)
(n = 287; M = 2.49; SD = 1.42)
37.6 14.6 20.2 16.4 11.1
Other websites
(n = 283; M = 2.49; SD = 1.33)
36.0 12.0 24.4 21.6 6.0
Austin eNEWS
(n = 287; M = 2.41; SD = 1.37)
40.4 10.5 24.4 16.7 8.0
Print ad
(n = 287; M = 2.08; SD = 1.24)
48.8 14.6 20.9 11.1 4.5
Social media (e.g., Facebook,
Twitter)
(n = 288; M = 1.98; SD = 1.24)
54.2 12.8 19.1 9.0 4.9
Mobile apps
(n = 285; M = 1.72; SD = 1.13)
64.6 13.3 11.6 7.0 3.5
Travel agent/tour operator
(n = 287; M = 1.39; SD = 0.90)
80.1 7.7 7.7 2.1 2.4
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
13
Next, visitors were shown the map in Figure 6. The instructions for the question asked
respondents to rank up to the top five areas of Austin they like to visit. Respondents were
shown the names of the five areas on the map and dragged their responses to a “Top Areas” box
on the screen. Respondents could also click and drag the options in the “Top Areas” box to
reorder their rankings.
Figure 6: Map of Austin for Ranking Top Areas Visitors Like to Visit
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
14
Visitors’ responses to ranking the top areas they like to visit in Austin are presented in Table 5.
With the lower mean representing the area visitors ranked as the top area, it is easily the
Downtown/Capitol area with a mean of 1.40 and almost three-fourths (71.4%) of visitors
indicating it as the number one area they like to visit in Austin. The area that resulted with the
second lowest mean was South at 2.84, followed by University at 2.90 as the third ranked area
visitors like to visit in Austin. Respondents were asked to explain why they selected the
respective area of Austin as the top area they like to visit. Responses to the open ended question
can be found in Appendix D.
Table 5: Frequency Distribution for Visitors Rankings of Top Areas They Like to Visit in Austin
Ranking
Downtown/
Capitol
University
South
East
West
Frequency (Percentage)
1 195 (71.4) 23 (10.1) 32 (13.9) 15 (7.2) 11 (5.2)
2 53 (19.4) 79 (34.8) 76 (33.0) 22 (10.6) 32 (15.2)
3 19 (7.0) 58 (25.6) 49 (21.3) 36 (17.3) 60 (28.6)
4 5 (1.8) 32 (14.1) 43 (18.7) 59 (28.4) 60 (28.6)
5 1 (0.4) 35 (15.4) 30 (13.0) 76 (36.5) 47 (22.4)
273 (100.0) 227 (100.0) 230 (100.0) 208 (100.0) 210 (100.0)
M = 1.40;
SD = 0.73
M = 2.90;
SD = 1.23
M = 2.84;
SD = 1.26
M = 3.76;
SD = 1.25
M = 3.48;
SD = 1.15
M = mean; SD = standard deviation
The next question asked Austin visitors how knowledgeable they were about Austin prior to their
most recent visit on a scale of 1 = Not at all Knowledgeable to 5 = Extremely Knowledgeable
(Table 6). About one-fourth (26.0%) were very or extremely knowledgeable prior to visiting
Austin on their most recent visit.
Table 6: Frequency Distribution for Knowledge of Austin Prior to Most Recent Visit
Frequency Percent
Not at all Knowledgeable 23 7.6
Slightly Knowledgeable 102 33.6
Moderately Knowledgeable 100 32.9
Very Knowledgeable 60 19.7
Extremely Knowledgeable 19 6.3
304 100.0
M = 2.84; SD = 1.03
M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
15
On average, inquirers who visited Austin in the past 2 years made the decision to visit Austin
63.42 days prior to their actual trip (Table 7). Almost one-third (31.4%) made the decision
between 50 and 99 days prior to visiting.
Table 7: Frequency Distribution for Approximate Number of Days in Advance for Trip Decision
Frequency Percent
0 3 1.0
1-9 50 17.4
10-19 23 8.0
20-29 13 4.5
30-39 48 16.7
40-49 9 3.1
50-99 90 31.4
100-199 41 14.3
200 or more 10 3.5
287 100.0
M = 63.42; SD = 68.57
M = mean; SD = standard deviation
Two questions were asked of visitor inquirers about their primary purpose and additional reasons
for visiting Austin on their most recent visit (Table 8). Over one-third (34.9%) of visitors
indicated their primary purpose for visiting Austin was pleasure/vacation, followed by 24.0% to
visit relatives, and 15.1% a weekend getaway. The second item asked respondents to check all
that apply for additional interests or reasons for visiting Austin. Over half (59.5%) indicated live
music as an additional reason for visiting Austin and 47.7% for the culture/history. Two
additional interests or reasons that more than one-third of visitors selected were special event(s)
(39.8%) and outdoor recreation (37.2%).
Table 8: Frequency Distribution for Primary Purpose and Additional Interests or Reasons for
Visiting Austin
Frequency Percent
Primary Purpose
Pleasure/vacation 106 34.9
Visit relatives 73 24.0
Weekend getaway 46 15.1
Visit friends 20 6.6
Business travel 19 6.3
Group meeting/convention 9 3.0
Other 31 10.2
304 100.0
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
16
Table 8 (continued)
Additional Interests or Reasons*
Live music 181 59.5
Culture/history 145 47.7
Special event (e.g., festival) 121 39.8
Outdoor recreation 113 37.2
Sporting event(s) 30 9.9
Golf 20 6.6
*Check all that apply (the percentage is based on n = 304 of inquirers who indicated they visited
in past 2 years)
Just over half (52.0%) of the visitors indicated they traveled with a spouse/partner on their most
recent visit to Austin (Table 9). One fifth of visitors indicated they traveled by themselves
(20.1%) or with friends (20.1%). The average travel party included 2.45 adults.
Table 9: Frequency Distribution for Travel Party and Size
Frequency Percent
Travel Party*
Spouse/partner 158 52.0
By yourself 61 20.1
Friends 61 20.1
With kids 60 15.4
Other family 32 14.8
Work colleagues 15 4.9
Club 2 0.7
Group tour 0 0.0
Other 4 1.3
Number of Adults n = 293; M = 2.45; SD = 2.01
Number of Children (under 18) n = 127; M = 0.76; SD = 1.96
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
*Check all that apply (the percentage is based on n = 304 who indicated they visited in past 2
years)
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
17
The majority (85.0%) of visitor inquirers’ most recent visit to Austin was an overnight trip
(Table 10). Overnight visitors were asked a few subsequent questions regarding the type of
accommodations and number of nights they spent in Austin on their most recent visit.
Table 10: Frequency Distribution for Day and Overnight Trip
Frequency Percent
A day trip 44 15.0
An overnight trip 249 85.0
293 100.0
Over half (64.5%) of the overnight visitors to Austin stayed in a hotel/motel on their most recent
visit (Table 11). Another 26.6% of overnight visitors to Austin indicated they stayed with
friends/relatives (Table 11). The average length of stay for overnight visitors was over four
(4.31) nights. However, some respondents had an extended length of stay. Therefore, the
median of 3.00 is a more accurate measure of the average length of stay. An adjusted length of
stay was measured by excluding cases where respondents indicated extended lengths of stay.
Most of the lengths of stay ranged from one to 11 nights. Then, there was a jump in the number
of nights and responses such as 14, 20, 21, and higher were reported for the number of nights
overnight visitors stayed in Austin. As a result an adjusted length of stay was calculated
excluding responses above 11 nights as the length of stay. The adjusted length of stay that
excluded the extended stays (i.e., greater than 11 nights) was 3.61 for the mean and 3.00 for the
median. The average length of stay for overnight visitors who reported staying in a hotel/motel
was 3.48 nights. The median for hotel/motel overnight stays was also 3.00 nights.
Table 11: Frequency Distribution for Overnight Trip Characteristics
Frequency Percent
Accommodations
Hotel/motel 160 64.5
Friends/relatives 66 26.6
Rental home/condo 13 5.2
Campground/RV park 2 0.8
Other 7 2.8
248 100.0
Number of nights n = 246; M = 4.31; SD = 7.89; Mdn = 3.00
Adjusted number of nights n = 241; M = 3.61; SD = 2.04; Mdn = 3.00
Hotel/motel number of nights n = 159; M = 3.48; SD = 1.80; Mdn = 3.00
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Mdn = median
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
18
The most frequent type of transportation used to get to Austin was a personal car (48.7%),
followed by airplane (44.4%) (Table 12). A personal car (57.9%) was also the most common
type of transportation to get around Austin while visiting. Rental cars were used by over one-
fourth (29.3%) and walking by almost one-fourth (24.0%) of visitors to get around Austin while
visiting.
Table 12: Frequency Distribution for Transportation To and Around Austin
Frequency Percent
To Austin
Personal car 148 48.7
Airplane 135 44.4
Rental car 15 4.9
Recreational vehicle 2 0.7
Tour bus 0 0.0
Other 4 1.3
304 100.0
Get Around Austin*
Personal car 176 57.9
Rental car 89 29.3
Walk 73 24.0
Taxi 34 11.2
Metro Bus Transit 19 6.3
Bicycle 13 4.3
Pedicab 5 1.6
*Check all that apply (the percentage is based on n = 304 who indicated they visited in past 2
years)
Visitors were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with a series of items about their most
recent visit on a scale of 1 = Not at all Satisfied to 5 = Extremely Satisfied (Table 13). A “Not
Applicable” option was offered in case an item(s) (e.g., accommodations for day visitors) was
not used or experienced by visitors. Only two items resulted in a mean score below very
satisfied (4). Those items were public transportation (M = 3.61) and directional signage (M =
3.89). The top five items with which visitors were most satisfied included the local cuisine (M =
4.46), recreational activities (M = 4.45), nightlife (M = 4.42), special events (M = 4.39), and
historical/cultural attractions (M = 4.35). The next two items with the highest means were
information on the Austin CVB website (M = 4.28), and information in the Official Visitors
Guide to Austin (M = 4.25).
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
19
Table13: Frequency Distribution for Satisfaction with Most Recent Visit
Not at all
Satisfied
Slightly
Satisfied
Moderately
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Values given are percentages
Local cuisine
(n = 296; M = 4.46; SD = 0.64)
0.0 0.7 5.7 40.2 53.4
Recreational activities
(n = 225; M = 4.45; SD = 0.69)
0.0 1.3 7.1 36.9 54.7
Nightlife
(n = 236; M = 4.42; SD = 0.78)
0.8 2.1 6.4 35.2 55.5
Special events
(n = 194; M = 4.39; SD = 0.82)
0.5 2.6 10.3 30.4 56.2
Historical/cultural attractions
(n = 254; M = 4.35; SD = 0.68)
0.0 1.6 7.1 45.7 45.7
Information on the Austin CVB
Website (www.austintexas.org)
(n = 230; M = 4.28; SD = 0.81)
0.0 3.0 13.5 36.1 47.4
Information in the Official
Visitors Guide to Austin
(n = 217; M = 4.25; SD = 0.80)
0.0 3.2 12.9 39.2 44.7
Accommodations
(n = 235; M = 4.23; SD = 0.77)
0.4 2.1 11.9 45.1 40.4
Shopping
(n = 246; M = 4.22; SD = 0.87)
1.2 2.0 15.9 35.0 45.9
Austin visitor center
(n = 111; M = 4.20; SD = 1.00)
0.9 8.1 11.7 28.8 50.5
Information about Austin’s live
music
(n = 210; M = 4.18; SD = 0.90)
1.0 4.8 12.9 38.1 43.3
Safety
(n = 272; M = 4.11; SD = 0.84)
0.7 3.7 14.3 46.0 35.3
Affordability of Austin as a
destination
(n = 286; M = 4.02; SD = 0.82)
0.7 2.1 22.0 45.1 30.1
City tours
(n = 86; M = 4.00; SD = 0.95)
0.0 10.5 12.8 43.0 33.7
Directional signage
(n = 256; M = 3.89; SD = 0.97)
3.1 3.1 25.4 38.7 29.7
Public transportation
(n = 102; M = 3.61; SD = 1.13)
4.9 9.8 31.4 27.5 26.5
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
20
On a scale of 1 = Not at all Useful to 5 = Extremely Useful, visitors indicated that the Austin
CVB website (M = 4.00) and Official Visitors Guide to Austin (M = 3.97) were the most useful
resources while planning their most recent visit to Austin (Table 14). The least useful resource
was Twitter (M = 2.29). The two most useful resources were the only two created and
distributed by the Austin CVB. The rest of the items in the list are social media.
Table 14: Frequency Distribution for Usefulness of Resources While Planning Visit to Austin
Not at all
Useful
Slightly
Useful
Moderately
Useful
Very
Useful
Extremely
Useful
Values given are percentages
Austin CVB Website
(www.austintexas.org)
(n = 229; M = 4.00; SD = 0.94)
0.9 4.8 24.5 33.2 36.7
Official Visitors Guide to Austin
(n = 215; M = 3.97; SD = 0.97)
1.9 4.2 25.1 33.0 35.8
Yelp
(n = 74; M = 3.12; SD = 1.39)
21.6 9.5 20.3 32.4 16.2
(n = 81; M = 3.06; SD = 1.53)
25.9 11.1 17.3 22.2 23.5
Urbanspoon
(n = 74; M = 3.05; SD = 1.33)
23.0 6.8 21.6 39.2 9.5
Austin Way
(n = 53; M = 2.85; SD = 1.61)
35.8 7.5 13.2 22.6 20.8
(n = 51; M = 2.29; SD = 1.47)
45.1 19.6 7.8 15.7 11.8
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
Visitors were also asked how useful resources were during their most recent visit to Austin on a
scale of 1 = Not at all Useful to 5 = Extremely Useful (Table 15). The Official Visitors Guide to
Austin (M = 4.09) was the most useful, followed by the Austin CVB website (M = 4.00). The top
two resources that were useful during visitors’ most recent visit to Austin were created by the
Austin CVB, while the rest are social media.
Table 15: Frequency Distribution for Usefulness of Resources During Visit to Austin
Not at all
Useful
Slightly
Useful
Moderately
Useful
Very
Useful
Extremely
Useful
Values given are percentages
Official Visitors Guide to Austin
(n = 170; M = 4.09; SD = 1.00)
2.4 4.1 19.4 30.6 43.5
Austin CVB Website
(www.austintexas.org)
(n = 150; M = 4.00; SD = 1.12)
4.7 5.3 18.0 29.3 42.7
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
21
Table 15 (continued)
Urbanspoon
(n = 66; M = 3.23; SD = 1.59)
27.3 4.5 15.2 24.2 28.8
Yelp
(n = 62; M = 3.18; SD = 1.55)
25.8 9.7 9.7 30.6 24.2
(n = 65; M = 2.91; SD = 1.55)
29.2 12.3 20.0 15.4 23.1
Austin Way
(n = 42; M = 2.86; SD = 1.66)
38.1 4.8 14.3 19.0 23.8
(n = 39; M = 2.21; SD = 1.45)
51.3 12.8 7.7 20.5 7.7
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
There was a noticeable change in the percent of respondents that indicated Extremely Useful for
resources while planning visitors’ most recent visit and during their most recent visit. Table 16
provides a comparison of the percent of respondents that indicated Extremely Useful for
resources while planning and during their most recent visit to Austin for the resources asked
about in the study. The order of the resources is descending by the percent of visitors that
indicated Extremely Useful for the resources during their most recent visit to Austin. The most
notable increase is for Urbanspoon as a resource. Almost one out of ten (9.5%) visitors indicated
Urbanspoon was Extremely Useful while planning their most recent visit, but over one-fourth
(28.8%) indicated Urbanspoon was Extremely Useful during their most recent visit to Austin.
The Official Visitors Guide to Austin and the Austin CVB website were the number one and two
resources both while planning the trip and during the trip to Austin when ranked by percent of
visitors rating them as Extremely Useful.
Table 16: Comparison of Usefulness of Resources While Planning and During Visit to Austin
Extremely Useful While
Planning
Extremely Useful During
Trip
Values given are percentages
Official Visitors Guide to Austin 35.8 43.5
Austin CVB Website
(www.austintexas.org)
36.7 42.7
Urbanspoon 9.5 28.8
Yelp 16.2 24.2
Austin Way 20.8 23.8
Facebook 23.5 23.1
Twitter 11.8 7.7
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
22
The majority (93.4%) of visitors were Very or Extremely Satisfied with their most recent visit to
Austin (Table 17). On a scale of 1 = Not at all Satisfied to 5 = Extremely Satisfied, the mean of
4.38 indicates visitors had a high level of overall satisfaction with their most recent visit to
Austin.
Table 17: Frequency Distribution for Overall Satisfaction with Most Recent Visit to Austin
Frequency Percent
Not at all Satisfied 0 0.0
Slightly Satisfied 3 1.0
Moderately Satisfied 17 5.6
Very Satisfied 144 47.5
Extremely Satisfied 139 45.9
304 100.0
M = 4.38; SD = 0.64
M = mean; SD = standard deviation
On a scale of 1 = Not at all Likely to 5 = Extremely Likely, visitors were asked how likely they
are to visit Austin again within the next 2 years, as well as to recommend their friends and/or
relatives visit (Table 18). Visitors were Very to Extremely Likely (M = 4.56) to visit again and
even more likely to recommend their friends and/or relatives visit Austin (M = 4.65).
Table 18: Frequency Distribution for Likelihood of Visiting Again and Recommending to
Friends/Relatives
How likely are you to...
Not at all
Likely
Slightly
Likely
Moderately
Likely
Very
Likely
Extremely
Likely
Values given are percentages
visit Austin again within the next
2 years
(n = 299; M = 4.56; SD = 0.80)
0.7 3.0 6.7 19.4 70.2
recommend your friends and/or
relatives visit Austin
(n = 299; M = 4.65; SD = 0.65)
0.3 1.0 4.3 22.4 71.9
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, visitors were asked their level of
agreement with Austin being a destination to visit during different times of the year (i.e., winter,
spring, summer, fall) (Table 19). Visitors indicated the spring (M = 4.61) and fall (M = 4.50) as
the two seasons they agreed with the most for times of the year during which Austin is a
destination to visit.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
23
Table 19: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin during Four
Seasons
Austin is a destination to go in
the...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
winter (December, January,
February)
(n = 289; M = 3.88; SD = 0.96 )
1.7 4.8 28.0 34.3 31.1
spring (March, April, May)
(n = 296; M =4.61; SD = 0.60 )
0.3 0.3 3.0 30.1 66.2
summer (June, July, August)
(n = 292 ; M = 3.65 ; SD = 1.18)
6.2 11.3 21.2 33.6 27.7
fall (September, October,
November)
(n = 294; M = 4.50; SD = 0.68 )
0.3 0.3 7.5 32.7 59.2
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, visitors indicated their level of
agreement with different types of trips for which Austin is a destination (Table 20). The top five
items according to the means were Austin is a destination to go for entertainment (M = 4.63),
weekend getaway (M = 4.57), leisure (M = 4.55), special events (M = 4.54), and a last minute
getaway (M = 4.38). The only item that did not exceed the 4 = Agree level was a day trip with a
mean of 3.94.
Table 20: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for Various
Types of Trips
Austin is a destination to go
for...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
entertainment
(n = 297; M = 4.63; SD = 0.57)
0.0 0.0 4.4 27.9 67.7
a weekend getaway
(n = 297; M = 4.57; SD = 0.76)
1.3 0.7 6.1 23.6 68.4
leisure
(n = 294; M = 4.55; SD = 0.65)
0.0 1.0 5.4 31.0 62.6
special events
(n = 295; M = 4.54; SD = 0.64)
0.0 0.3 7.1 30.5 62.0
a last minute getaway
(n = 289; M = 4.38; SD = 0.83)
0.7 2.8 9.7 31.1 55.7
a vacation (about a week or
longer)
(n = 297; M = 4.25; SD = 0.93)
1.0 4.4 14.5 28.6 51.5
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
24
Table 20 (continued)
business trips
(n = 286; M = 4.18; SD = 0.80)
0.0 0.7 22.0 35.7 41.6
conventions
(n = 282; M = 4.16; SD = 0.79)
0.4 0.0 23.0 36.5 40.1
group meetings
(n = 286; M = 4.11; SD = 0.82)
0.0 0.7 26.2 34.3 38.8
a day trip
(n = 286; M = 3.94; SD = 1.15)
5.6 6.6 15.4 33.2 39.2
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
When asked about agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) with various types
of activities and experiences Austin provides as a destination visitors most highly agreed Austin
is a destination to enjoy live music (M = 4.70), enjoy a variety of food (M = 4.54), enjoy night
life (M = 4.50), and see performing arts (M = 4.49) (Table 21). Agreement with Austin is a
destination to experience the unique community and attend special events tied for the fifth
highest mean at 4.44. The two items visitors least agreed with were Austin is a destination to
play golf (M = 3.40) participate in sports (M = 3.51), and watch sporting events (M = 3.66).
Table 21: Frequency Distribution for Visitors Agreement with Visiting Austin for Various Types
of Activities
Austin is a destination to...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
enjoy live music
(n = 295; M = 4.70; SD = 0.62)
0.3 0.7 4.7 16.9 77.3
enjoy a variety of food
(n = 299; M = 4.54; SD = 0.64)
0.0 0.7 5.7 33.1 60.5
enjoy nightlife
(n = 295; M = 4.50; SD = 0.71)
0.3 0.3 9.5 28.5 61.4
see performing arts (e.g., music,
drama, dance)
(n = 299; M = 4.49; SD = 0.73)
0.3 1.0 8.7 29.1 60.9
experience the unique community
(n = 295; M = 4.44; SD = 0.72)
0.3 0.7 9.2 34.2 55.6
attend special events
(n = 294; M = 4.44; SD = 0.68)
0.0 0.3 9.9 35.7 54.1
go to cultural/historical sites
(n = 297; M = 4.25; SD = 0.72)
0.3 1.7 9.1 50.2 38.7
participate in outdoor recreation
activities
(n = 291; M = 4.23; SD = 0.81)
0.7 0.7 17.5 37.1 44.0
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
25
Table 21 (continued)
experience the multicultural arts
scene
(n = 294; M = 4.21; SD = 0.80)
0.7 1.4 15.6 40.8 41.5
experience many unique cultures
(n = 293; M = 4.09; SD = 0.89)
0.7 3.1 21.8 35.8 38.6
go shopping
(n = 296; M = 4.07; SD = 0.86)
1.4 2.0 19.3 42.9 34.5
experience ethnic diversity
(n = 292; M = 3.83; SD = 0.91)
0.7 5.1 31.2 36.3 26.7
enjoy kid friendly activities
(n = 281; M = 3.74; SD = 0.92)
1.1 2.5 44.8 24.2 27.4
watch sporting events
(n = 286; M = 3.66; SD = 0.90)
2.1 2.8 42.0 32.9 20.3
participate in sports
(n = 284; M = 3.51; SD = 0.89)
2.1 2.5 55.6 21.5 18.3
play golf
(n = 286; M = 3.40; SD = 0.86)
2.8 4.5 62.9 17.5 15.0
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
The top five attributes visitors’ agreed (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) with for
Austin as a destination were Austin is a destination where people like them would enjoy visiting
(M = 4.44), with a lot to do downtown (M = 4.43), offers visitors a wide variety of things to do
(M = 4.41), is a destination with great natural scenery/landscape (M = 4.37), and unique
restaurants (M = 4.34) (Table 22). Two of the items visitors agreed with the least were related to
transportation. Visitors rated Austin is a destination with convenient transportation to get around
the city (M = 3.67) and with convenient transportation to get to the city (M = 3.74) between
neutral and agree. The other items based on the average that visitors rated between neutral (3)
and agree (4) were Austin is a destination that is LGBT friendly (M = 3.74) and Austin is a
destination with pleasant year round weather (M = 3.89).
Table 22: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Various Attributes of Austin
Austin is a destination...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
where people like me would
enjoy visiting
(n = 295; M = 4.44; SD = 0.69)
0.0 2.0 5.1 39.3 53.6
with a lot to do downtown
(n = 296; M = 4.43; SD = 0.74)
0.3 2.3 5.7 37.5 54.1
that offers visitors a wide variety
of things to do
(n = 295; M = 4.41; SD = 0.67)
0.3 1.4 4.4 44.4 49.5
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
26
Table 22 (continued)
with great natural
scenery/landscape
(n = 291; M = 4.37; SD = 0.70)
0.0 1.0 10.0 39.9 49.1
with unique restaurants
(n = 293; M = 4.34; SD = 0.67)
0.0 0.7 9.2 45.1 45.1
with friendly local residents
(n = 294; M = 4.33; SD = 0.73)
0.3 1.0 10.2 42.2 46.3
that does not require a lot of pre-
planning
(n = 292; M = 4.20; SD = 0.81)
0.3 4.8 8.6 46.9 39.4
with a variety of types of lodging
facilities (e.g., hotels,
campgrounds, bed & breakfasts,
resorts)
(n = 295; M = 4.12; SD = 0.81)
0.3 2.0 19.0 42.4 36.3
with top notch lodging facilities
(n = 292; M = 4.11; SD = 0.82)
0.7 1.7 19.5 42.1 36.0
with unique retail stores
(n = 294; M = 4.10; SD = 0.85)
1.4 2.4 16.3 44.9 35.0
that is walkable for visitors
(n = 296; M = 4.05; SD = 0.89)
0.7 6.1 14.9 43.9 34.5
that is reasonably priced for
visitors
(n = 296; M = 4.01; SD = 0.74)
0.0 2.7 18.6 54.1 24.7
that is safe
(n = 296; M = 4.00; SD = 0.78)
1.0 2.4 17.2 54.1 25.3
with pleasant year round weather
(n = 294; M = 3.89; SD = 0.98)
1.4 9.5 16.7 43.2 29.3
that is a LGBT friendly
destination
(n = 285; M = 3.74; SD = 0.84)
0.0 1.1 48.4 25.6 24.9
with convenient transportation to
get to the city
(n = 287; M = 3.74; SD = 0.94)
1.4 4.5 39.0 28.9 26.1
with convenient transportation to
get around the city
(n = 287; M = 3.67; SD = 0.99)
1.7 6.3 42.2 23.3 26.5
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
27
When asked about level of agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) with
adjectives and phrases to describe Austin, the top five items according to visitors were creative
(M = 4.42), eclectic (M = 4.41), friendly (M = 4.40), scenic (M = 4.37), and outdoorsy (M = 4.34)
(Table 23). Visitors were somewhat neutral that Austin is stereotypically country (M = 2.75), but
agreed it is unlike the rest of Texas (M = 4.12).
Table 23: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Adjectives to Describe Austin
Austin is...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
Creative
(n = 292; M = 4.42; SD = 0.64)
0.3 0.0 6.2 43.8 49.7
Eclectic
(n = 293; M = 4.41; SD = 0.71)
0.3 0.3 9.9 36.9 52.6
Friendly
(n = 293; M = 4.40; SD = 0.70)
0.3 1.0 7.2 41.3 50.2
Scenic
(n = 292; M = 4.37; SD = 0.67)
0.0 1.0 7.9 44.2 46.9
Outdoorsy
(n = 290; M = 4.34; SD = 0.71)
0.3 1.0 8.6 44.5 45.5
Exciting
(n = 291; M = 4.33; SD = 0.72)
0.3 1.0 9.6 43.3 45.7
Relaxing
(n = 290; M = 4.31; SD = 0.69)
0.3 0.7 8.6 48.6 41.7
Historical
(n = 293; M = 4.25; SD = 0.71)
0.3 1.4 9.9 49.8 38.6
Charming
(n = 292; M = 4.21; SD = 0.76)
0.3 1.4 14.0 45.2 39.0
Environmentally friendly
(n = 286; M = 4.20; SD = 0.76)
0.0 1.0 17.5 41.6 39.9
Intelligent
(n = 290; M = 4.18; SD = 0.76)
0.7 0.3 16.6 45.2 37.2
Clean
(n = 294; M = 4.17; SD = 0.75)
0.7 1.0 14.3 49.0 35.0
Diverse
(n = 289; M = 4.15; SD = 0.84)
0.7 2.8 16.3 41.2 39.1
Unlike the rest of Texas
(n = 289; M = 4.12; SD = 0.92)
0.7 3.1 23.2 29.8 43.3
Sincere
(n = 288; M = 4.05; SD = 0.79)
0.0 1.4 24.3 42.4 31.9
Family oriented
(n = 289; M = 3.91; SD = 0.84)
0.3 2.8 29.8 39.8 27.3
Weird
(n = 291; M = 3.89; SD = 1.09)
3.1 8.6 20.6 31.6 36.1
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
28
Table 23 (continued)
Fashionable
(n = 292; M = 3.88; SD = 0.85)
0.7 3.8 27.1 43.8 24.7
Stereotypically country
(n = 289; M = 2.75; SD = 1.14)
12.1 32.9 32.9 11.8 10.4
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, visitors agreed they had positive
interactions with Austin residents (M = 4.26) and felt welcomed as a visitor to Austin (M = 4.22)
(Table 24). Visitors rated the remaining items about emotional solidarity with Austin residents
between neutral and agree.
Table 24: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Emotional Solidarity with Austin
Residents
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
I had positive interactions with
Austin residents
(n = 298; M = 4.26; SD = 0.65)
0.0 0.3 9.4 53.7 36.2
I felt welcomed as a visitor to
Austin
(n = 297; M = 4.22; SD = 0.70)
0.3 1.3 9.8 52.9 35.7
I feel Austin residents appreciate
visitors for the contribution we
(as visitors) make to the local
economy
(n = 297; M = 3.89; SD = 0.77)
0.3 3.0 24.6 51.2 20.9
I identify with Austin residents
(n = 295; M = 3.89; SD = 0.88)
1.4 3.7 25.4 43.1 26.4
I have a lot in common with
Austin residents
(n = 297; M = 3.87; SD = 0.87)
0.7 5.1 25.9 43.8 24.6
I feel Austin residents appreciate
the benefits associated with me (a
visitor) coming to the community
(n = 298; M = 3.86; SD = 0.72)
0.3 3.0 28.2 47.3 21.1
I feel close to some residents I
have met in Austin
(n = 296; M = 3.69; SD = 0.96)
1.4 6.8 37.8 29.7 24.3
I have made friends with some
Austin residents
(n = 297; M = 3.69; SD = 1.00)
1.3 9.4 34.0 29.3 25.9
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
29
Average trip expenditures were calculated on a per party per day basis for overnight visitors
(Table 25). There were insufficient responses from day trip visitors to include their spending.
Overnight travel parties spent an average of $126.04 per day on their hotel, $59.06 in restaurants,
and $39.51 in retail stores. The total average daily spending for overnight travel parties was
almost $400 ($395.14).
Table 25: Per Party Per Day Spending by Overnight Visitors
Sector
Average Daily Spending
Per Overnight Travel
Party
Hotel/Motel/Other Lodging 126.04
Restaurants 59.06
Other transportation (e.g., airplane, shuttles, limo) 44.84
Retail shopping 39.51
Entertainment (e.g., movies, performing arts, music, etc) 33.27
Automobile transportation (e.g., parking, gas, service, rental car 27.93
Grocery 26.34
Nightclubs and bars 24.67
Recreational activities (e.g., golf, fishing) 13.48
Total $395.14
Visitors to Austin averaged 7.51 total leisure and 3.43 business trips in the past 2 years (Table
26). Of the total trips just over one (1.02) were outside the United States.
Table 26: Visitors’ Travel Experience in the Past 2 Years
M SD
Leisure (n = 286) 7.51 9.55
Business (n = 221) 3.43 7.48
Outside the United States (n = 261) 1.02 2.22
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
30
Visitors were asked their level of agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) with
various tourism destinations they would like to visit (Table 27). The five destinations visitors
had the highest levels of agreement with were Austin, Texas (M = 4.62), San Francisco,
California (M = 4.10), New York, New York (M = 4.04), San Diego, California (M =- 4.01), and
San Antonio, Texas (M = 3.98).
Table 27: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Tourism Destinations
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
Austin, Texas
(n = 294; M = 4.62; SD = 0.68)
1.0 0.7 2.7 26.9 68.7
San Francisco, California
(n = 288; M = 4.10; SD = 1.15)
5.9 5.2 10.4 29.9 48.6
New York, New York
(n = 290; M = 4.04; SD = 1.16)
5.5 5.9 14.5 27.6 46.6
San Diego, California
(n = 288; M = 4.01; SD = 1.05)
3.8 4.9 17.0 35.4 38.9
San Antonio, Texas
(n = 291; M = 3.98; SD = 0.95)
2.4 5.2 15.8 45.0 31.6
New Orleans, Louisiana
(n = 285; M = 3.91; SD = 1.13)
4.2 9.8 13.7 35.4 36.8
Seattle, Washington
(n = 284; M = 3.89; SD = 1.03)
3.5 5.3 21.8 37.7 31.7
Santa Fe, New Mexico
(n = 290; M = 3.84; SD = 0.97)
3.1 4.1 24.8 40.7 27.2
Chicago, Illinois
(n = 283; M = 3.65; SD = 1.20)
7.4 10.2 20.1 34.6 27.6
Nashville, Tennessee
(n = 283; M = 3.61; SD = 1.02)
3.9 9.5 26.5 41.7 18.4
Portland, Oregon
(n = 284; M = 3.59; SD = 1.20)
7.7 8.8 27.5 28.9 27.1
Los Angeles, California
(n = 287; M = 3.33; SD = 1.31)
11.5 16.4 23.3 25.1 23.7
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
(n = 281; M = 3.23; SD = 1.13)
10.0 12.2 36.3 28.5 13.2
Houston, Texas
(n = 285; M = 2.98; SD = 1.12)
12.3 31.2 36.1 24.2 8.4
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
31
Non-Visitor Inquirers
The second group of respondents in this study included those who inquired about Austin as a
destination, but did not visit in the past 2 years. On a scale of 1 = Not at all Likely to 5 =
Extremely Likely, non-visitor inquirers were asked how likely they are to visit Austin in the next
2 years (Table 28). On average, non-visitor inquirers are moderately to very likely to visit
Austin in the next 2 years (M = 3.50). Almost half (49.1%) of the non-visitor inquirers indicated
they are very (27.4%) or extremely likely (21.7%) to visit Austin in the next 2 years.
Table 28: Non-Visitors’ Likelihood of Visiting Austin in the Next 2 Years
Frequency Percent
Not at all Likely 3 2.8
Slightly Likely 16 15.1
Moderately Likely 35 33.0
Very Likely 29 27.4
Extremely Likely 23 21.7
106 100.0
M = 3.50; SD = 1.08
M = mean; SD = standard deviation
When asked about the importance (1 = Not at all Important to 5 = Extremely Important) of
sources of information in deciding to visit Austin or not, non-visitors generally rated most
sources of information below the moderately important level according to the mean (Table 29).
The Official Visitors Guide to Austin (M = 3.25) and Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau
website (www.austintexas.org) (M = 3.37) were two of four sources of information with a mean
above moderately important. Friends (M = 3.26) and magazines/editorial (M = 3.08) were also
rated above moderately important.
Table 29: Frequency Distribution for Importance of Sources of Information for Non-Visitors
Deciding to Visit
Not at all
Important
Slightly
Important
Moderately
Important
Very
Important
Extremely
Important
Values given are percentages
Austin Convention & Visitors
Bureau Website
(www.austintexas.org)
(n = 105; M = 3.37; SD = 1.13)
9.5 8.6 31.4 36.2 14.3
Friends
(n = 105; M = 3.26; SD = 1.49)
23.8 4.8 17.1 30.5 23.8
Official Visitors Guide to Austin
(n = 106; M = 3.25; SD = 1.27)
14.2 11.3 27.4 30.2 17.0
Magazines/editorial (e.g., articles
or stories
(n = 104; M = 3.08; SD = 1.09)
11.5 13.5 38.5 28.8 7.7
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
32
Table 29 (continue)
Previous trips to Austin
(n = 99; M = 2.63; SD = 1.71)
48.5 3.0 7.1 20.2 21.2
Online booking engine (e.g.,
Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, etc.)
(n = 103; M = 2.61; SD = 1.33)
31.1 13.6 26.2 21.4 7.8
Relatives
(n = 103; M = 2.60; SD = 1.50)
41.7 3.9 17.5 26.2 10.7
Online ad
(n = 100; M = 2.58; SD = 1.26)
29.0 14.0 34.0 16.0 7.0
Austin eNEWS
(n = 102; M = 2.49; SD = 1.27)
33.3 13.7 28.4 19.6 4.9
Other websites
(n = 100; M = 2.43; SD = 1.30)
36.0 15.0 25.0 18.0 6.0
Print ad
(n = 99; M = 2.17; SD = 1.12)
39.4 19.2 27.3 13.1 1.0
Social media (e.g., Facebook,
Twitter)
(n = 100; M = 1.88; SD = 1.15)
53.0 21.0 15.0 7.0 4.0
Travel agent/tour operator
(n = 100; M = 1.63; SD = 1.08)
70.0 8.0 13.0 7.0 2.0
Mobile apps
(n = 99; M = 1.60; SD = 0.95)
66.7 12.1 17.2 3.0 1.0
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
33
Next, the non-visitor inquirers were shown the map in Figure 7. The instructions asked
respondents to rank up to the top five areas of Austin they would like to visit in the future.
Respondents were shown the names of the five areas on the map and dragged their responses to a
“Top Areas” box on the screen. Respondents could also click and drag the options in the “Top
Areas” box to reorder their rankings.
Figure 7: Map of Austin for Ranking Top Areas Non-Visitors Would Like to Visit
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
34
The area of Austin non-visitors would most like to visit in the future is Downtown/Capitol (M =
1.31) (Table 30). The second area non-visitors would most like to visit in Austin is the
University area (M = 2.95), followed by East (M = 3.29). Following this ranking question
respondents were asked to explain why they selected the area they did as the number one area
they would like to visit. The explanations can be found in Appendix D.
Table 30: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Rankings of Top Areas They would Like to
Visit in Austin in the Future
Ranking
(Area on
map)
Downtown/
Capitol (1)
University (2)
South (3)
East (4)
West (5)
Frequency (Percentage)
1 71 (80.7) 4 (5.3) 7 (10.1) 4 (5.5) 2 (2.9)
2 12 (13.6) 36 (48.0) 11 (15.9) 17 (23.3) 7 (10.0)
3 2 (2.3) 12 (16.0) 15 (21.7) 16 (21.9) 26 (37.1)
4 1 (1.1) 6 (8.0) 19 (27.5) 26 (35.6) 17 (24.3)
5 2 (2.3) 17 (22.7) 17 (24.6) 10 (13.7) 18 (25.7)
88 (100.0) 75 (100.0) 69 (100.0) 73 (100.0) 70 (100.0)
M = 1.31;
SD = 0.78
M = 2.95;
SD = 1.30
M = 3.41;
SD = 1.30
M = 3.29;
SD = 1.14
M = 3.60;
SD = 1.07
M = mean; SD = standard deviation
Non-visitors had the highest levels of agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree)
with Austin being a destination to go to in the spring (M = 4.39) and fall (M = 4.21) (Table 31).
On average, non-visitors ratings of Austin as a destination to visit in the winter (M = 3.36) and
summer (M = 3.29) were between neutral and agree.
Table 31: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin during Four
Seasons
Austin is a destination to go in
the...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
winter (December, January,
February)
(n = 102 ; M = 3.36; SD = 0.92)
2.9 13.7 35.3 40.2 7.8
spring (March, April, May)
(n = 106; M = 4.39; SD =0.68)
0.9 5.7 46.2 47.2 47.2
summer (June, July, August)
(n = 104; M = 3.29; SD = 1.08)
3.8 24.0 23.1 37.5 11.5
fall (September, October,
November)
(n = 105; M = 4.21; SD = 0.76)
1.0 1.0 11.4 49.5 37.1
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
35
On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, the top five types of trips non-visitor
inquirers agreed with were Austin as a destination for entertainment (M = 4.64), special events
(M = 4.42), leisure (M = 4.39), a vacation (M = 4.25), and a weekend getaway (M = 4.10) (Table
32). The only item with an average below neutral was Austin is a destination for a day trip (M =
2.81).
Table 32: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for Various
Types of Trips
Austin is a destination to go
for...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
entertainment
(n = 100; M = 4.64; SD = 0.58)
0.0 0.0 5.0 26.0 69.0
special events
(n = 100; M = 4.42; SD = 0.70)
0.0 1.0 9.0 37.0 53.0
leisure
(n = 99; M = 4.39; SD = 0.65)
0.0 1.0 6.1 45.5 47.5
a vacation (about a week or
longer)
(n = 103; M = 4.25; SD = 0.87)
4.9 13.6 33.0 48.5 48.5
a weekend getaway
(n = 103; M = 4.10; SD = 0.91)
1.0 6.8 10.7 44.7 36.9
a last minute getaway
(n = 97; M = 3.86; SD = 0.97)
0.0 11.3 20.6 39.2 28.9
conventions
(n = 99; M = 3.68; SD = 0.92)
2.0 5.1 36.4 36.4 20.2
business trips
(n = 99; M = 3.63; SD = 0.92)
2.0 6.1 37.4 36.4 18.2
group meetings
(n = 98; M = 3.57; SD = 0.90)
2.0 5.1 42.9 33.7 16.3
a day trip
(n = 99; M = 2.81; SD = 1.30)
17.2 31.3 17.2 22.2 12.1
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, according to non-visitor inquirers the
top five activities for which Austin is a destination to go to included to enjoy live music (M =
4.69), enjoy nightlife (M = 4.51), see performing arts (M = 4.50), experience the multicultural
arts scene (M = 4.26), and enjoy a variety of food (M = 4.26) and attend special events (M =
4.26) tied for fifth (Table 33). Non-visitors rated play golf (M = 2.88) and participate in sports
(M = 2.87) as relatively neutral in terms of their average level of agreement.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
36
Table 33: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for Various
Types of Activities
Austin is a destination to...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
enjoy live music
(n = 104; M = 4.69; SD = 0.61)
1.0 0.0 1.9 23.1 74.0
enjoy nightlife
(n = 104; M = 4.51; SD = 0.71)
0.0 1.0 9.6 26.9 62.5
see performing arts (e.g., music,
drama, dance)
(n = 104; M = 4.50; SD = 0.72)
0.0 2.0 7.7 28.8 61.5
experience the multicultural arts
scene
(n = 103; M = 4.26; SD = 0.75)
0.0 1.9 12.6 42.7 42.7
enjoy a variety of food
(n = 104; M = 4.26; SD = 0.76)
1.0 0.0 13.5 43.3 42.3
attend special events
(n = 103; M = 4.26; SD = 0.79)
1.0 1.0 12.6 41.7 43.7
experience the unique community
(n = 103; M = 4.25; SD = 0.74)
1.0 0.0 11.7 47.6 39.8
go to cultural/historical sites
(n = 101; M = 4.09; SD = 0.69)
0.0 2.0 13.9 57.4 26.7
experience many unique cultures
(n = 103; M = 4.02; SD = 0.87)
1.0 1.0 28.2 35.0 35.0
go shopping
(n = 103; M = 3.90; SD = 0.91)
1.0 4.9 26.2 38.8 29.1
participate in outdoor recreation
activities
(n = 103; M = 3.86; SD = 0.93)
2.9 3.9 21.4 47.6 24.3
experience ethnic diversity
(n = 103; M = 3.72; SD = 0.92)
1.9 4.9 34.0 37.9 21.4
watch sporting events
(n = 102; M = 3.25; SD = 1.00)
3.9 13.7 50.0 17.6 14.7
enjoy kid friendly activities
(n = 102; M = 3.08; SD = 1.08)
8.8 15.7 46.1 17.6 11.8
play golf
(n = 103; M = 2.88; SD = 0.99)
10.7 16.5 53.4 12.6 6.8
participate in sports
(n = 103; M = 2.87; SD = 0.94)
9.7 15.5 58.3 10.7 5.8
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
37
On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, non-visitor inquirers agreed Austin is
a destination with a lot to do downtown (M = 4.38), that offers a wide variety of things to do (M
= 4.32), where people like them would enjoy visiting (M = 4.31), with great natural
scenery/landscape (M = 4.13), and with a variety of types of lodging facilities (M = 4.09) for the
top five (Table 34).
Table 34: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Various Attributes of Austin
Austin is a destination...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
with a lot to do downtown
(n = 104; M = 4.38; SD = 0.64)
0.0 0.0 8.7 44.2 47.1
that offers visitors a wide variety
of things to do
(n = 103; M = 4.32; SD = 0.67)
0.0 1.0 8.7 47.6 42.7
where people like me would
enjoy visiting
(n = 103; M = 4.31; SD = 0.63)
0.0 1.0 5.8 54.4 38.8
with great natural
scenery/landscape
(n = 103; M = 4.13; SD = 0.71)
0.0 1.0 16.5 51.5 31.1
with a variety of types of lodging
facilities (e.g., hotels,
campgrounds, bed & breakfasts,
resorts)
(n = 103; M = 4.09; SD = 0.69)
0.0 0.0 19.4 52.4 28.2
that is walkable for visitors
(n = 103; M = 4.08; SD = 0.70)
0.0 0.0 20.4 51.5 28.2
with top notch lodging facilities
(n = 103; M = 4.07; SD = 0.73)
0.0 0.0 23.3 46.6 30.1
with unique restaurants
(n = 103; M = 4.06; SD = 0.73)
0.0 0.0 23.3 47.6 29.1
with friendly local residents
(n = 103; M = 4.05; SD = 0.72)
0.0 0.0 23.3 48.5 28.2
with unique retail stores
(n = 103; M = 3.88; SD = 0.81)
0.0 1.9 33.0 39.8 25.2
that is reasonably priced for
visitors
(n = 103; M = 3.87; SD = 0.76)
0.0 1.0 33.0 43.7 22.3
that is safe
(n = 104; M = 3.83; SD = 0.76)
0.0 0.0 38.5 40.4 21.2
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
38
Table 34 (continued)
that does not require a lot of pre-
planning
(n = 104; M = 3.81; SD = 0.86)
0.0 5.8 30.8 40.4 23.1
with pleasant year round weather
(n = 103; M = 3.80; SD = 0.87)
0.0 9.7 20.4 50.5 19.4
with convenient transportation to
get around the city
(n = 103; M = 3.69; SD = 0.82)
0.0 2.9 44.7 33.0 19.4
with convenient transportation to
get to the city
(n = 103; M = 3.66; SD = 0.82)
0.0 3.9 44.7 33.0 18.4
that is a LGBT friendly
destination
(n = 101; M = 3.55; SD = 0.79)
0.0 1.0 60.4 20.8 17.8
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, non-visitor inquirers top five
adjectives to describe Austin were exciting (M = 4.25), scenic (M = 4.24), creative (M = 4.22),
eclectic (M = 4.18), and friendly (M = 4.16) (Table 35). Non-visitors were somewhat neutral
when asked if Austin is stereotypically country (M = 2.82) and between neutral and agree Austin
unlike the rest of Texas (M = 3.79).
Table 35: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Adjectives to Describe
Austin
Austin is...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
Exciting
(n = 101; M = 4.25; SD = 0.67)
0.0 1.0 9.9 52.5 36.6
Scenic
(n = 102; M = 4.24; SD = 0.65)
0.0 0.0 11.8 52.9 35.3
Creative
(n = 101; M = 4.22; SD = 0.64)
0.0 0.0 11.9 54.5 33.7
Eclectic
(n = 102; M = 4.18; SD = 0.67)
0.0 0.0 14.7 52.9 32.4
Friendly
(n = 102; M = 4.16; SD = 0.67)
0.0 1.0 12.7 55.9 30.4
Historical
(n=104; M = 4.13; SD= 0.70)
0.0 1.9 12.5 55.8 29.8
Diverse
(n = 103; M = 4.08; SD = 0.67)
0.0 0.0 18.4 55.3 25.0
Outdoorsy
(n = 102; M = 4.06; SD = 0.70)
0.0 1.0 18.6 53.9 26.5
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
39
Table 35 (continued)
Relaxing
(n = 101; M = 4.03; SD = 0.71)
0.0 2.0 17.8 55.4 24.8
Charming
(n = 102; M = 4.03; SD = 0.72)
0.0 2.0 18.6 53.9 25.5
Intelligent
(n = 102; M = 3.98; SD = 0.74)
0.0 1.0 25.5 49.0 24.5
Environmentally friendly
(n = 102; M = 3.96; SD = 0.70)
0.0 0.0 26.5 51.0 22.5
Clean
(n = 102; M = 3.95; SD = 0.69)
0.0 0.0 26.5 52.0 21.6
Fashionable
(n = 101; M = 3.93; SD = 0.70)
0.0 3.0 18.8 60.4 17.8
Sincere
(n = 102; M = 3.83; SD = 0.73)
0.0 1.0 33.3 47.1 18.6
Unlike the rest of Texas
(n = 102; M = 3.79; SD = 0.88)
0.0 4.9 36.3 33.3 25.5
Family oriented
(n = 102; M = 3.67; SD = 0.81)
0.0 3.9 43.1 35.3 17.6
Weird
(n = 101; M = 3.55; SD = 0.99)
2.0 11.9 33.7 33.7 18.8
Stereotypically country
(n = 102; M = 2.82; SD = 0.98)
8.8 24.5 49.0 10.8 6.9
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
When asked about travel in the past 2 years, non-visitor inquirers indicated an average of 4.13
leisure trips and 1.66 business trips (Table 36). Of the non-visitors’ trips the past 2 years, an
average of 1.44 were taken outside the United States.
Table 36: Non-Visitors’ Travel Experience in the Past 2 Years
M SD
Leisure (n = 92) 4.13 3.91
Business (n = 87) 1.66 2.53
Outside the United States (n = 81) 1.44 2.62
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
40
When asked about agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) with various
destinations they would like to visit, the top five destinations non-visitor inquirers of Austin
indicated they would like to visit included Austin (M = 4.60), San Francisco, California (M =
3.99), New York, New York (M = 3.97), Seattle, Washington (M = 3.90), and San Diego,
California (M = 3.90) (Table 37).
Table 37: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Tourism Destinations
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
Austin, Texas
(n = 105; M = 4.60; SD = 0.58)
0.0 1.0 1.9 33.3 63.8
San Francisco, California
(n = 104; M = 3.99; SD = 1.04)
3.8 4.8 16.3 38.5 36.5
New York, New York
(n = 104; M = 3.97; SD = 1.14)
3.8 9.6 13.5 31.7 41.3
Seattle, Washington
(n = 102; M = 3.90; SD = 0.92)
1.0 6.9 20.6 44.1 27.5
San Diego, California
(n = 104; M = 3.90; SD = 0.90)
1.0 4.8 25.0 41.3 27.9
San Antonio, Texas
(n = 104; M = 3.87; SD = 1.06)
2.9 9.6 17.3 38.5 31.7
New Orleans, Louisiana
(n = 104; M = 3.81; SD = 1.14)
4.8 9.6 18.3 34.6 32.7
Santa Fe, New Mexico
(n = 105; M = 3.79; SD = 1.01)
1.0 13.3 17.1 42.9 25.7
Nashville, Tennessee
(n = 103; M = 3.79; SD = 1.09)
2.9 11.7 19.4 35.9 30.1
Portland, Oregon
(n = 103; M = 3.63; SD = 1.08)
2.9 9.7 35.9 24.3 27.2
Chicago, Illinois
(n = 103; M = 3.58; SD = 1.21)
9.7 6.8 23.3 35.9 24.3
Los Angeles, California
(n = 103; M = 3.20; SD = 1.17)
6.8 23.3 28.2 26.2 15.5
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
(n = 103; M = 3.01; SD = 1.09)
8.7 25.2 29.1 30.1 6.8
Houston, Texas
(n = 103; M = 2.99; SD = 1.09)
8.7 25.2 32.0 26.2 7.8
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
41
Resident Inquirers
Austin area resident inquirers were shown the map in Figure 8. The instructions asked
respondents to rank up to the top five areas of Austin that they would recommend visitors go
when in Austin. Respondents were shown the names of the five areas on the map and dragged
their responses to a “Top Areas” box on the screen. Respondents could also click and drag the
options in the “Top Areas” box to reorder their rankings.
Figure 8: Map of Austin for Ranking Top Areas Residents Would Recommend Visitors Go
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
42
The number one area Austin residents would recommend visitors go to when in Austin is the
Downtown/Capitol area (M = 1.21), followed by the South area (M = 2.67) and University (M =
3.04) (Table 38).
Table 38: Frequency Distribution for Top Areas Residents Would Recommend Visitors Go
Ranking
(Area on
map)
Downtown/
Capitol (1)
University (2)
South (3)
East (4)
West (5)
Frequency (Percentage)
1 168 (86.6) 5 (2.8) 17 (9.4) 1 (0.6) 4 (2.2)
2 14 (7.2) 68 (38.4) 69 (38.3) 20 (12.0) 19 (10.7)
3 9 (4.6) 44 (24.9) 57 (31.7) 25 (15.1) 49 (27.5)
4 3 (1.4) 35 (19.8) 30 (16.7) 40 (24.1) 59 (33.1)
5 0 (0.0) 25 (14.1) 7 (3.9) 80 (48.2) 47 (21.9)
194 (100.0) 177(100.0) 180 (100.0) 166 (100.0) 178 (100.0)
M = 1.21;
SD = 0.56
M = 3.04;
SD = 1.12
M = 2.67;
SD = 0.99
M = 4.07;
SD = 1.08
M = 3.71;
SD = 1.04
M = mean; SD = standard deviation
On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, resident inquirers indicated the
highest level of agreement for times to visit Austin as the spring (M = 4.80) and fall (M = 4.55)
(Table 39). Resident inquirers rated winter (M = 3.82) and summer (M = 3.60) between neutral
and agree.
Table 39: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Visiting Austin during Four
Seasons
Austin is a destination to go in
the...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
winter (December, January,
February)
(n = 211; M = 3.82; SD = 1.02)
2.4 9.0 20.4 40.3 28.0
spring (March, April, May)
(n = 211; M = 4.80; SD = .059)
0.9 0.9 0.9 11.8 85.3
summer (June, July, August)
(n = 210; M = 3.60; SD = 1.23)
7.1 13.8 20.0 30.5 28.6
fall (September, October,
November)
(n = 211; M = 4.55; SD = 0.74)
0.9 1.4 5.2 27.0 65.4
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
43
Resident inquirers indicated the highest levels of agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 =
Strongly Agree) with Austin being a destination to go for a weekend getaway (M = 4.75),
entertainment (M = 4.74), special events (M = 4.63), leisure (M = 4.60), and a last minute
getaway (M = 4.51) (Table 40). All of the other types of trips to Austin resulted in means over
the agree option, indicating residents generally agree Austin is a good destination for visitors for
a variety of types of trips.
Table 40: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for Various
Types of Trips
Austin is a destination to go
for...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
a weekend getaway
(n = 212; M = 4.75; SD = 0.52)
0.5 0.0 1.4 20.3 77.8
entertainment
(n = 213; M = 4.74; SD = 0.60)
0.5 1.4 1.4 17.4 79.3
special events
(n = 213; M = 4.63; SD = 0.64)
0.5 0.9 3.3 25.4 70.0
leisure
(n = 212; M = 4.60; SD = 0.58)
0.0 0.5 3.3 32.1 46.2
a last minute getaway
(n = 211; M = 4.51; SD = 0.77)
0.5 2.4 7.1 26.1 64.0
conventions
(n = 211; M = 4.49; SD = 0.74)
0.0 2.8 6.2 30.3 60.7
group meetings
(n = 212; M = 4.44; SD = 0.68)
0.0 0.5 9.4 35.8 54.2
business trips
(n = 211; M = 4.44; SD = 0.72)
0.0 1.4 9.0 33.6 55.9
a day trip
(n = 210; M = 4.37; SD = 0.87)
1.4 3.3 7.6 32.4 55.2
a vacation (about a week or
longer)
(n = 211; M = 4.28; SD = 0.85)
0.5 3.8 11.8 34.6 49.3
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, 90.6% of residents strongly agreed
with Austin as a destination to enjoy live music (M = 4.87) (Table 41). Other activities making
the top five according to Austin residents included to enjoy nightlife (M = 4.73), participate in
outdoor recreation (M = 4.63), experience the unique community (M = 4.57), and attend special
events (M = 4.55).
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
44
Table 41: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for Various
Types of Activities
Austin is a destination to...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
enjoy live music
(n = 213; M = 4.87; SD = 0.47)
0.5 0.0 2.3 6.6 90.6
enjoy nightlife
(n = 212; M = 4.73; SD = 0.58)
0.5 0.5 2.8 17.9 78.3
participate in outdoor recreation
activities
(n = 211; M = 4.63; SD = 0.62)
0.5 0.0 4.7 25.6 69.2
experience the unique community
(n = 213; M = 4.57; SD = 0.70)
0.9 0.5 4.7 28.3 65.6
attend special events
(n = 210; M = 4.55; SD = 0.70)
0.5 1.4 4.8 29.0 64.3
enjoy a variety of food
(n = 213; M = 4.51; SD = 0.79)
0.9 3.8 1.9 30.0 36.6
see performing arts (e.g., music,
drama, dance)
(n = 213; M = 4.49; SD = 0.76)
0.5 2.8 5.2 30.5 61.0
go to cultural/historical sites
(n = 212; M = 4.14; SD = 0.91)
0.5 6.1 13.7 38.2 41.5
experience the multicultural arts
scene
(n = 213; M = 4.09; SD = 0.95)
1.4 5.2 17.4 35.2 40.8
enjoy kid friendly activities
(n = 211; M = 4.07; SD = 0.93)
1.4 1.9 25.6 30.8 40.3
go shopping
(n = 211; M = 4.01; SD = 0.88)
1.4 4.3 17.1 46.4 30.8
experience many unique cultures
(n = 211; M = 3.99; SD = 1.00)
1.9 7.1 17.5 36.5 37.0
participate in sports
(n = 212; M = 3.92; SD = 0.92)
1.9 1.9 29.7 35.4 31.1
watch sporting events
(n = 209; M = 3.84; SD = 1.06)
2.4 9.6 22.5 32.5 33.0
play golf
(n = 211; M = 3.81; SD = 0.92)
0.5 4.3 37.4 29.4 28.4
experience ethnic diversity
(n = 212; M = 3.69; SD = 1.05)
2.8 10.4 26.9 34.9 25.0
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
45
When asked about attributes of Austin, resident inquirers had the highest levels of agreement (1
= Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) that Austin is a destination with friendly local
residents (M = 4.60), is somewhere people like them would enjoy visiting (M = 4.57), has a lot to
do downtown (M = 4.55), offers visitors a wide variety of things to do (M = 4.53), and with great
natural scenery/landscape (M = 4.51) (Table 42). The lowest rated items by local area resident
inquirers were Austin is a destination with convenient transportation to get to the city (M = 3.49)
and with convenient transportation to get around the city (M = 3.30).
Table 42: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Various Attributes of Austin
Austin is a destination...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
with friendly local residents
(n = 212; M = 4.60; SD = 0.68)
0.9 0.5 4.2 25.9 68.4
where people like me would
enjoy visiting
(n = 213; M = 4.57; SD = 0.67)
0.5 0.9 4.2 29.6 64.8
with a lot to do downtown
(n = 213; M = 4.55; SD = 0.80)
1.4 1.9 3.8 26.3 66.7
that offers visitors a wide variety
of things to do
(n = 211; M = 4.53; SD = 0.67)
0.0 1.9 4.3 33.2 60.7
with great natural
scenery/landscape
(n = 210; M = 4.51; SD = 0.71)
0.5 1.0 6.7 30.5 61.4
with unique restaurants
(n = 213; M = 4.49; SD = 0.71)
0.5 1.9 4.2 34.7 58.7
with unique retail stores
(n = 211; M = 4.33; SD = 0.81)
0.5 2.8 10.4 35.5 50.7
that does not require a lot of pre-
planning
(n = 211; M = 4.33; SD = 0.79)
0.9 2.4 7.1 42.2 47.7
with top notch lodging facilities
(n = 211; M = 4.31; SD = 0.83)
0.5 2.8 11.8 35.1 49.8
that is safe
(n = 212; M = 4.21; SD = 0.77)
1.4 1.9 7.1 53.8 35.8
with a variety of types of lodging
facilities (e.g., hotels,
campgrounds, bed & breakfasts,
resorts)
(n = 212; M = 4.07; SD = 0.91)
0.5 5.7 18.4 37.7 37.7
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
46
Table 42 (continued)
that is a LGBT friendly
destination
(n = 209; M = 4.05; SD = 0.86)
1.0 0.5 26.8 35.9 35.9
that is reasonably priced for
visitors
(n = 211; M = 3.98; SD = 0.87)
1.4 4.3 17.5 48.8 28.0
that is walkable for visitors
(n = 213; M = 3.92; SD = 0.98)
1.9 8.0 17.4 41.8 31.0
with pleasant year round weather
(n = 211; M = 3.84; SD = 1.03)
1.9 13.3 10.4 47.7 27.0
with convenient transportation to
get to the city
(n = 210; M = 3.49; SD = 1.19)
6.2 15.2 26.2 28.6 23.8
with convenient transportation to
get around the city
(n = 212; M = 3.30; SD = 1.20)
7.5 19.3 28.3 25.5 19.3
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, resident inquirers had the highest
levels of agreement that Austin is creative (M = 4.68), eclectic (M = 4.64), friendly (M = 4.64),
outdoorsy (M = 4.62), and unlike the rest of Texas (M = 4.57) (Table 43). Residents were
between disagree and neutral that Austin is stereotypically country (M = 2.57), but agreed Austin
is unlike the rest of Texas (M = 4.57).
Table 43: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Adjectives to Describe Austin
Austin is...
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
Creative
(n = 210; M = 4.68; SD = 0.58)
0.5 0.5 1.4 26.2 71.4
Eclectic
(n = 211; M = 4.64; SD = 0.63)
0.5 0.9 2.4 27.0 69.2
Friendly
(n = 211; M = 4.64; SD = 0.60)
0.5 0.5 2.4 28.0 68.7
Outdoorsy
(n = 211; M = 4.62; SD = 0.61)
0.5 0.9 0.9 31.3 66.4
Unlike the rest of Texas
(n = 211; M = 4.57; SD = 0.75)
0.0 2.8 7.6 19.0 70.6
Scenic
(n = 211; M = 4.54; SD = 0.68)
0.9 0.0 4.7 33.2 61.1
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
47
Table 43 (continued)
Intelligent
(n = 211; M = 4.48; SD = 0.69)
0.5 0.5 7.1 34.6 57.3
Environmentally friendly
(n = 211; M = 4.46; SD = 0.69)
0.5 0.9 5.7 38.4 54.5
Exciting
(n = 208; M = 4.44; SD = 0.71)
0.5 1.4 5.3 38.9 53.8
Relaxing
(n = 211; M = 4.41; SD = 0.72)
0.9 0.9 5.2 41.7 51.2
Weird
(n = 206; M = 4.39; SD = 0.87)
1.5 2.4 7.8 32.5 55.8
Historical
(n = 209; M = 4.22; SD = 0.77)
0.0 3.3 11.0 45.9 39.7
Sincere
(n = 210; M = 4.20; SD = 0.83)
1.0 1.9 14.8 41.4 41.0
Charming
(n = 210; M = 4.19; SD = 0.81)
0.5 2.9 13.8 43.3 39.5
Family oriented
(n = 209; M = 4.19; SD = 0.82)
0.5 2.4 15.8 40.2 41.1
Clean
(n = 210; M = 4.14; SD = 0.86)
1.0 4.3 12.4 44.8 37.6
Diverse
(n = 211; M = 4.13; SD = 0.95)
1.9 5.7 10.9 40.3 41.2
Fashionable
(n = 211; M = 3.95; SD = 0.90)
1.4 5.2 19.0 45.5 28.9
Stereotypically country
(n = 206; M = 2.57; SD = 1.19)
17.0 40.3 21.4 11.7 9.7
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
48
Resident inquirers asked a series of questions related to emotional solidarity with Austin visitors
(Table 44). On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, residents indicated they
appreciate visitors for the contribution they make to the local economy (M = 4.67), the
community benefits from having visitors in Austin (M = 4.64), and resident inquirers indicated
they welcome visitors to Austin (M = 4.62). Two more emotional solidarity items with a mean
score above the agree level were that residents had positive interactions with Austin visitors (M =
4.28) and residents identify with visitors in Austin (M = 4.04).
Table 44: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Emotional Solidarity with
Austin Visitors
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
I appreciate visitors for the
contribution they make to the
local economy
(n = 211; M = 4.67; SD =0.61)
0.5 0.5 2.8 24.2 72.0
I feel the community benefits
from having visitors in Austin
(n = 212; M = 4.64; SD = 0.65)
0.5 0.9 3.8 23.6 71.2
I welcome visitors to Austin
(n = 212; M = 4.62; SD = 0.67)
0.9 0.5 3.3 26.4 68.9
I had positive interactions with
Austin visitors
(n = 208; M = 4.28; SD =0.74)
0.5 0.0 13.9 41.8 43.8
I identify with visitors in Austin
(n = 210; M = 4.04; SD =0.87)
1.0 2.4 22.4 40.0 34.3
I have a lot in common with
Austin visitors
(n = 210; M = 3.91; SD = 0.90)
1.0 3.8 28.1 37.1 30.0
I have made friends with some
visitors in Austin
(n = 212; M = 3.86; SD =0.99)
1.9 5.7 28.8 32.1 31.6
I feel close to some visitors I have
met in Austin
(n = 210; M = 3.83; SD =1.00)
1.0 7.1 32.4 26.7 32.9
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
49
Resident inquirers averaged 6.50 leisure trips and 5.11 business trips over the past 2 years (Table
45). Just over one (1.04) of the trips was taken outside the United States.
Table 45: Residents’ Travel Experience in the Past 2 Years
M SD
Leisure (n = 191) 6.50 7.18
Business (n = 175) 5.11 10.46
Outside the United States (n = 184) 1.04 3.27
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, the top five destinations residents
would like to visit were Austin, Texas (M = 4.39), San Francisco, California (M = 4.36), New
York, New York (M = 4.35), San Diego, California (M = 4.05), and Seattle, Washington (M =
3.95) (Table 46).
Table 46: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Tourism Destinations
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Values given are percentages
Austin, Texas
(n = 210; M = 4.39; SD = 0.85)
0.5 1.4 16.7 21.4 60.0
San Francisco, California
(n = 211; M = 4.36; SD = 0.93)
2.4 2.8 9.0 27.5 58.3
New York, New York
(n = 209; M = 4.35; SD = 1.04)
3.3 5.7 4.8 24.9 61.2
San Diego, California
(n = 208; M = 4.05; SD = 0.96)
1.9 5.8 14.4 41.3 36.5
Seattle, Washington
(n = 208; M = 3.95; SD = 1.00)
1.0 8.7 20.2 34.6 35.6
Chicago, Illinois
(n = 210; M = 3.88; SD = 1.20)
4.3 13.8 11.4 30.5 40.0
Santa Fe, New Mexico
(n = 210; M = 3.86; SD = 1.04)
1.4 11.0 20.5 34.3 32.9
New Orleans, Louisiana
(n = 209; M = 3.86; SD = 1.18)
5.3 11.5 11.0 36.8 35.4
Portland, Oregon
(n = 210; M = 3.83; SD = 1.08)
1.4 12.9 20.5 31.4 33.9
San Antonio, Texas
(n = 212; M = 3.59; SD = 1.06)
5.2 9.9 24.5 41.5 18.9
Nashville, Tennessee
(n = 211; M = 3.51; SD = 1.10)
4.3 15.2 25.6 35.1 19.9
Los Angeles, California
(n = 210; M = 3.42; SD = 1.26)
7.6 19.0 21.9 26.7 24.8
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
50
Table 46 (continued)
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
(n = 212; M = 2.87; SD = 1.13)
12.7 25.5 30.7 24.1 7.1
Houston, Texas
(n = 211; M = 2.64; SD = 1.10)
17.7 29.4 28.9 21.3 3.3
n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation
Comparisons of Inquirers
This section compares visitors, non-visitors, and residents for the destination image related items
asked of all three inquiry groups. In each table, the overall mean (M) and standard deviation
(SD) is reported in the first column with the item. The items in each table are in descending
order according to the overall mean. The next three columns include the mean and standard
deviation for the visitor, non-visitor, and resident inquirers, respectively. Analysis of variance
(ANOVA) tests were used to statistically determine which groups were significantly different for
each item. Significant differences are identified for each variable with asterisks and the level of
significance is indicated by the number of asterisks, with three asterisks being the most highly
significant. Groups that have a significant difference are indicated by superscript letters
representing the groups that are significantly different. For example, if visitor and resident
inquirers are significantly different for a respective item, the visitor column for that item has a
superscript R and the resident column a superscript V. A series of bullet points follows each
table to interpret or explain significant differences.
The first items tested for differences between the types of inquirers were the rankings of the five
areas to visit in Austin (Table 47). The areas of Austin that were ranked are in order from the
top spot to fifth in the first column, which includes the overall mean and standard deviation.
Since the question asked respondents to rank the areas, the lower the mean the stronger the
feeling it is an area to visit in Austin. Following the table are bullet points to describe the
differences found in ranking the areas of Austin.
Table 47: Comparison of Inquirers on Areas to Visit in Austin
Visitors (V) Non-visitors (N) Residents (R)
Mean (Standard Deviation)
Downtown/Capitol
(M = 1.32; SD = 0.70)*
1.40 (0.73) R 1.31 (0.78) 1.21 (0.60)
V
South
(M = 2.86; SD = 1.19)***
2.84 (1.26) N 3.41 (1.30)
V, R 2.67 (0.99)
N
University
(M = 2.96; SD = 1.20)
2.90 (1.23) 2.95 (1.30) 3.04(1.12)
West
(M = 3.59; SD = 1.10)
3.48 (1.15) 3.60 (1.07) 3.71 (1.04)
East
(M = 3.80; SD = 1.20)***
3.76 (1.25) N, R
3.29 (1.14) V, R
4.07 (1.08) V, N
*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
51
Downtown/Capitol:
o Residents (M = 1.21) had a significantly stronger feeling compared to visitors (M
= 1.40) that the Downtown/Capitol area of Austin is an area to visit.
South:
o Visitors (M = 2.84) had a significantly stronger feeling compared to non-visitors
(M = 3.41) that the South area of Austin is an area to visit.
o Residents (M = 2.67) had a significantly stronger feeling compared to non-visitors
(M = 3.41) that the South area of Austin is an area to visit.
East:
o Non-visitors (M = 3.29) had a significantly stronger feeling compared to visitors
(M = 3.76) that the East area of Austin is an area to visit.
o Visitors (M = 3.76) had a significantly stronger feeling compared to residents (M
= 4.07) that the East area of Austin is an area to visit.
o Non-visitors (M = 3.29) had a significantly stronger feeling compared to residents
(M = 4.07) that the East area of Austin is an area to visit.
All three groups of inquirers generally agreed spring and fall are the times of the year to visit
Austin (Table 48). However, for the spring all three groups were significantly different in the
level of agreement with residents having the highest level of agreement with each of the seasons,
followed by visitors, and then residents. For the fall visitors and residents had significantly
higher levels of agreement compared to non-visitors, but visitors and residents were not
significantly different. Following the table are bullet point explanations of the significant
differences found for the level of agreement with the seasons during which to visit Austin.
Table 48: Comparison of Inquirers on Seasons to Visit Austin
Visitors (V) Non-visitors (N) Residents (R)
Mean (Standard Deviation)
Winter (December, January, February)
(M = 3.77; SD = 0.99)***
3.88 (0.96) N 3.36 (0.92)
V, R 3.82 (1.02)
N
Spring (March, April, May)
(M = 4.64; SD = 0.63)***
4.61 (0.60) N, R
4.39 (0.68) V, R
4.80 (0.59) V, N
Summer (June, July, August)
(M = 3.57; SD = 1.19)*
3.65 (1.18) N 3.29 (1.08)
V 3.60 (1.23)
Fall (September, October, November)
(M = 4.47; SD = 0.72)***
4.50 (0.68) N 4.21 (0.76)
V, R 4.55 (0.74)
N
*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001
Winter:
o Visitors (M = 3.88) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.36) that Austin is a destination to go to in the winter.
o Residents (M = 3.82) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.36) that Austin is a destination to go to in the winter.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
52
Spring:
o Visitors (M = 4.61) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.39) that Austin is a destination to go to in the spring.
o Residents (M = 4.80) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.61) that Austin is a destination to go to in the spring.
o Residents (M = 4.80) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.39) that Austin is a destination to go to in the spring.
Summer:
o Visitors (M = 3.65) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.29) that Austin is a destination to go to in the summer.
Fall:
o Visitors (M = 4.50) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.21) that Austin is a destination to go to in the fall.
o Residents (M = 4.55) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.21) that Austin is a destination to go to in the fall.
When asked about types of trips to Austin a number of significant differences were found (Table
49). In general, residents displayed the highest level of agreement with each type of trip to
Austin, followed by visitors, and then non-visitors. Following the table is a bullet point list
explaining the significant differences between the three inquiry groups for types of trips to
Austin.
Table 49: Comparison of Inquirers on Types of Trips to Austin
Visitors (V) Non-visitors (N) Residents (R)
Mean (Standard Deviation)
entertainment
(M = 4.67; SD = 0.58)
4.63 (0.57) 4.64 (0.58) 4.74 (0.60)
a weekend getaway
(M = 4.55; SD = 0.75)***
4.57 (0.76) N, R
4.10 (0.91) V, R
4.75 (0.52) V, N
special events
(M = 4.55; SD = 0.65)*
4.54 (0.64) 4.42 (0.70) R 4.63 (0.64)
N
leisure
(M = 4.54; SD = 0.63)*
4.55 (0.65) 4.39 (0.65) R 4.60 (0.58)
N
a last minute getaway***
(M = 4.34; SD = 0.86)
4.38 (0.83) N 3.86 (0.97)
V, R 4.51 (0.77)
N
a vacation (about a week or longer)
(M = 4.26; SD = 0.89)
4.25 (0.93) 4.25 (0.87) 4.28 (0.85)
conventions
(M = 4.20; SD = 0.84)***
4.16 (0.79) N, R
3.68 (0.92) V, R
4.49 (0.74) V, N
business trips
(M = 4.18; SD = 0.84)***
4.18 (0.80) N, R
3.63 (0.92) V, R
4.44 (0.72) V, N
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
53
Table 49 (continued)
group meetings
(M = 4.14; SD = 0.84)***
4.11 (0.82) N, R
3.57 (0.90) V, R
4.44 (0.68) V, N
a day trip
(M = 3.90; SD = 1.21)***
3.94 (1.15) N, R
2.82 (1.30) V, R
4.37 (0.87) V, N
*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001
A weekend getaway:
o Visitors (M = 4.57) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.10) that Austin is a destination to go to for a weekend
getaway.
o Residents (M = 4.75) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.57) that Austin is a destination to go to for a weekend getaway.
o Residents (M = 4.75) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.10) that Austin is a destination to go to for a weekend
getaway.
Special events:
o Residents (M = 4.63) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.42) that Austin is a destination to go to for special events.
Leisure:
o Residents (M = 4.60) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.39) that Austin is a destination to go to for leisure.
A last minute getaway:
o Visitors (M = 4.38) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.86) that Austin is a destination to go to for a last minute
getaway.
o Residents (M = 4.51) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.86) that Austin is a destination to go to for a last minute
getaway.
Conventions:
o Visitors (M = 4.16) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.68) that Austin is a destination to go to for a convention.
o Residents (M = 4.49) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.16) that Austin is a destination to go to for a convention.
o Residents (M = 4.49) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.68) that Austin is a destination to go to for a convention.
Business trips:
o Visitors (M = 4.18) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.63) that Austin is a destination to go to for business trips.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
54
o Residents (M = 4.44) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.18) that Austin is a destination to go to for business trips.
o Residents (M = 4.44) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.63) that Austin is a destination to go to for business trips.
Group meetings:
o Visitors (M = 4.11) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.57) that Austin is a destination to go to for group meetings.
o Residents (M = 4.44) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.11) that Austin is a destination to go to for group meetings.
o Residents (M = 4.44) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.57) that Austin is a destination to go to for group meetings.
A day trip:
o Visitors (M = 3.94) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 2.82) that Austin is a destination to go to for a day trip.
o Residents (M = 4.37) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 3.94) that Austin is a destination to go to for a day trip.
o Residents (M = 4.37) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 2.82) that Austin is a destination to go to for a day trip.
When asked about activities and experiences in Austin visitor, non-visitor, and resident inquirers
also had some significantly different levels of agreement (Table 50). A few of the largest
differences occurred with all three groups having different levels of agreement that Austin is a
destination to go to play golf, participate in sports, and for outdoor recreation activities, with
residents having the highest level of agreement, followed by visitors, and then non-visitors.
Following Table 50 is a bullet point list explaining the significant differences found for activities
to do in Austin.
Table 50: Comparison of Inquirers on Types of Activities to do in Austin
Visitors Non-visitors Residents
Mean (Standard Deviation)
enjoy live music
(M = 4.76; SD = 0.58)**
4.70 (0.62) R 4.69 (0.61)
R 4.87 (0.47)
V, N
enjoy nightlife
(M = 4.58; SD = 0.68)***
4.50 (0.71) R 4.51 (0.71)
R 4.73 (0.58)
V, N
see performing arts (e.g., music, drama,
dance)
(M = 4.49; SD = 0.74)
4.49 (0.73) 4.50 (0.72) 4.49 (0.76)
enjoy a variety of food
(M = 4.48; SD = 0.72)**
4.54 (0.64) N 4.26 (0.76)
V, R 4.51 (0.79)
N
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
55
Table 50 (continued)
experience the unique community
(M = 4.45; SD = 0.72)**
4.44 (0.72) 4.25 (0.74) R 4.57 (0.70)
N
attend special events
(M = 4.45; SD = 0.71)**
4.44 (0.68) 4.26 (0.79) R 4.55 (0.70)
N
participate in outdoor recreation
activities
(M = 4.31; SD = 0.82)***
4.23 (0.81) N, R
3.86 (0.93) V, R
4.63 (0.62) V, N
go to cultural/historical sites
(M = 4.19; SD = 0.79)
4.25 (0.72) 4.09 (0.69) 4.14 (0.91)
experience the multicultural arts scene
(M = 4.18; SD = 0.85)
4.21 (0.80) 4.26 (0.75) 4.09 (0.95)
experience many unique cultures
(M = 4.04; SD = 0.93)
4.09 (0.89) 4.02 (0.87) 4.00 (1.00)
go shopping
(M = 4.02; SD = 0.88)
4.07 (0.86) 3.90 (0.91) 4.01 (0.88)
experience ethnic diversity
( M = 3.76; SD = 0.96)
3.83 (0.91) 3.72 (0.92) 3.69 (1.05)
enjoy kid friendly activities
(M = 3.74; SD = 1.01)***
3.74 (0.92) N, R
3.08 (1.08) V, R
4.07 (0.93) V, N
watch sporting events
(M = 3.66; SD = 1.00)***
3.66 (0.90) N 3.25 (1.00)
V, R 3.84 (1.06)
N
participate in sports
(M = 3.55; SD = 0.98)***
3.51 (0.89) N, R
2.87 (0.94) V, R
3.92 (0.92) V, N
play golf
(M = 3.46; SD = 0.96)***
3.40 (0.86) N, R
2.88 (0.99) V, R
3.81 (0.92) V, N
*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001
Enjoy live music:
o Residents (M = 4.87) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.70) that Austin is a destination to enjoy live music.
o Residents (M = 4.87) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.69) that Austin is a destination to enjoy live music.
Enjoy nightlife:
o Residents (M = 4.73) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.50) that Austin is a destination to enjoy nightlife.
o Residents (M = 4.73) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.51) that Austin is a destination to enjoy nightlife.
Enjoy a variety of food:
o Visitors (M = 4.54) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.26) that Austin is a destination to enjoy a variety of food.
o Residents (M = 4.51) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.26) that Austin is a destination to enjoy a variety of food.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
56
Experience the unique community:
o Residents (M = 4.57) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.25) that Austin is a destination to experience the unique
community.
Attend special events:
o Residents (M = 4.55) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.26) that Austin is a destination to attend special events.
Participate in outdoor recreation activities:
o Visitors (M = 4.23) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.86) that Austin is a destination to participate in outdoor
recreation activities.
o Residents (M = 4.63) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.23) that Austin is a destination to participate in outdoor recreation
activities.
o Residents (M = 4.63) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.86) that Austin is a destination to participate in outdoor
recreation activities.
Enjoy kid friendly activities:
o Visitors (M = 3.74) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.08) that Austin is a destination to enjoy kid friendly activities.
o Residents (M = 4.07) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 3.74) that Austin is a destination to enjoy kid friendly activities.
o Residents (M = 4.07) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.08) that Austin is a destination to enjoy kid friendly activities.
Watch sporting events:
o Visitors (M = 3.66) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.25) that Austin is a destination to watch sporting events.
o Residents (M = 3.84) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.25) that Austin is a destination to watch sporting events.
Participate in sports:
o Visitors (M = 3.51) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 2.87) that Austin is a destination to participate in sports.
o Residents (M = 3.92) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 3.51) that Austin is a destination to participate in sports.
o Residents (M = 3.92) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 2.87) that Austin is a destination to participate in sports.
Play golf:
o Visitors (M = 3.40) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 2.88) that Austin is a destination to play golf.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
57
o Residents (M = 3.81) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 3.40) that Austin is a destination to play golf.
o Residents (M = 3.81) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 2.88) that Austin is a destination to play golf.
The attributes of Austin had differences between the three groups of inquirers (Table 51). Once
again, in general Austin resident inquirers showed higher levels of agreement compared to
visitors and non-visitors for several items. However, when asked if Austin is a destination with
convenient transportation to get around the city residents had a significantly lower level of
agreement compared to both visitor and non-visitor inquirers. Following Table 51 is a bullet
point list explaining the significant differences for the attributes of Austin.
Table 51: Comparison of Inquirers on Various Attributes of Austin
Visitors Non-visitors Residents
Mean (Standard Deviation)
where people like me would enjoy
visiting
(M = 4.47; SD = 0.68)**
4.44 (0.69) 4.31 (0.63) R 4.57 (0.67)
N
with a lot to do downtown
(M = 4.46; SD = 0.74)
4.43 (0.74) 4.38 (0.64) 4.55 (0.78)
that offers visitors a wide variety of
things to do
(M = 4.44; SD = 0.68)*
4.41 (0.67) 4.32 (0.67) R 4.53 (0.67)
N
with great natural scenery/landscape
(M = 4.38; SD = 0.72)***
4.37 (0.70) N 4.12 (0.71)
V, R 4.51 (0.71)
N
with friendly local residents
(M = 4.38; SD = 0.74)***
4.33 (0.73) N, R
4.05 (0.72) V, R
4.60 (0.68) V, N
with unique restaurants
(M = 4.35; SD = 0.71)***
4.34 (0.67) N, R
4.06 (0.73) V, R
4.49 (0.71) V, N
that does not require a lot of pre-
planning
(M = 4.18; SD = 0.83)***
4.20 (0.81) N 3.81 (0.86)
V, R 4.33 (0.79)
N
with top notch lodging facilities
(M = 4.17; SD = 0.81)**
4.11 (0.82) R 4.07 (0.73)
R 4.31 (0.83)
V, N
with unique retail stores
(M = 4.14; SD = 0.84)***
4.10 (0.85) R 3.88 (0.81)
R 4.33 (0.81)
V, N
with a variety of types of lodging
facilities (e.g., hotels, campgrounds,
bed & breakfasts, resorts)
(M = 4.10; SD = 0.83)
4.12 (0.81) 4.09 (0.69) 4.07 (0.91)
that is safe
(M = 4.04; SD = 0.78)***
4.00 (0.78) R 3.83 (0.76)
R 4.21 (0.77)
V, N
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
58
Table 51 (continued)
that is walkable for visitors
(M = 4.01; SD = 0.90)
4.05 (0.89) 4.08 (0.70) 3.92 (0.98)
that is reasonably priced for visitors
(M = 3.97; SD = 0.79)
4.01 (0.74) 3.87 (0.76) 3.98 (0.87)
with pleasant year round weather
(M = 3.86; SD = 0.98)
3.89 (0.98) 3.80 (0.87) 3.84 (1.03)
that is a LGBT friendly destination
(M = 3.82; SD = 0.86)***
3.74 (0.84) R 3.55 (0.79)
R 4.05 (0.86)
V, N
with convenient transportation to get to
the city
(M = 3.64; SD = 1.02)*
3.74 (0.94) R 3.66 (0.82) 3.49 (1.19)
V
with convenient transportation to get
around the city
(M = 3.54; SD = 1.06)***
3.67 (0.99) R 3.69 (0.82)
R 3.30 (1.20)
V, N
*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001
Where people like me would enjoy visiting:
o Residents (M = 4.57) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.31) that Austin is a destination where people like them would
enjoy visiting.
That offers visitors a wide variety of things to do:
o Residents (M = 4.53) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.32) that Austin is a destination that offers visitors a wide
variety of things to do.
With great natural scenery/landscape:
o Visitors (M = 4.37) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.12) that Austin is a destination with great natural
scenery/landscape.
o Residents (M = 4.51) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.12) that Austin is a destination with great natural
scenery/landscape.
With friendly local residents
o Visitors (M = 4.33) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.05) that Austin is a destination with friendly local residents.
o Residents (M = 4.60) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.33) that Austin is a destination with friendly local residents.
o Residents (M = 4.60) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.05) that Austin is a destination with friendly local residents.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
59
With unique restaurants:
o Visitors (M = 4.34) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.06) that Austin is a destination with unique restaurants.
o Residents (M = 4.49) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.34) that Austin is a destination with unique restaurants.
o Residents (M = 4.49) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.06) that Austin is a destination with unique restaurants.
That does not require a lot of pre-planning:
o Visitors (M = 4.20) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.81) that Austin is a destination that does not require a lot of
pre-planning.
o Residents (M = 4.33) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.81) that Austin is a destination that does not require a lot of
pre-planning.
With top notch lodging facilities:
o Residents (M = 4.31) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.11) that Austin is a destination with top notch lodging facilities.
o Residents (M = 4.31) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.07) that Austin is a destination with top notch lodging
facilities.
With unique retail stores:
o Residents (M = 4.33) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.10) that Austin is a destination with unique retail stores.
o Residents (M = 4.33) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.88) that Austin is a destination with unique retail stores.
That is safe:
o Residents (M = 4.21) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.00) that Austin is a destination that is safe.
o Residents (M = 4.21) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.83) that Austin is a destination that is safe.
That is a LGBT friendly destination:
o Residents (M = 4.05) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 3.74) that Austin is a LGBT friendly destination.
o Residents (M = 4.05) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.55) that Austin is a LGBT friendly destination.
With convenient transportation to get to the city:
o Visitors (M = 3.74) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
residents (M = 3.49) that Austin is a destination with convenient transportation to
get to the city.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
60
With convenient transportation to get around the city:
o Visitors (M = 3.67) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
residents (M = 3.30) that Austin is a destination with convenient transportation to
get around the city.
o Non-visitors (M = 3.69) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
residents (M = 3.30) that Austin is a destination with convenient transportation to
get around the city.
The comparison of adjectives and phrases to describe Austin revealed that residents generally
had higher levels of agreement than visitor and non-visitor inquirers for most items (Table 52).
Although all three groups generally agreed that Austin is eclectic, outdoorsy, friendly,
environmentally friendly, and creative, residents had the highest levels of agreement, followed
by visitors, and then non-visitors. The same significant differences were found for the item
asking if Austin is unlike the rest of Texas. Following Table 52 is a bullet point list describing
the significant differences for the adjectives to describe Austin.
Table 52: Comparison of Inquirers on Adjectives to Describe Austin
Visitors Non-visitors Residents
Mean (Standard Deviation)
Creative
(M = 4.48; SD = 0.58)***
4.42 (0.64) N, R
4.22 (0.64) V, R
4.68 (0.58) V, N
Eclectic
(M = 4.45; SD = 0.69)***
4.41 (0.71) N, R
4.18 (0.67) V, R
4.64 (0.63) V, N
Friendly
(M = 4.44; SD = 0.68)***
4.40 (0.70) N, R
4.16 (0.67) V, R
4.64 (0.60) V, N
Scenic
(M = 4.41; SD = 0.68)**
4.37 (0.67) R 4.24 (0.65)
R 4.54 (0.68)
V, N
Outdoorsy
(M = 4.39; SD = 0.70)***
4.34 (0.71) N, R
4.06 (0.70) V, R
4.62 (0.61) V, N
Exciting
(M = 4.36; SD = 0.71)
4.33 (0.72) 4.25 (0.67) 4.44 (0.71)
Relaxing
(M = 4.30; SD = 0.71)***
4.31 (0.69) N 4.03 (0.71)
V, R 4.41 (0.72)
N
Environmentally friendly
(M = 4.25; SD = 0.75)***
4.20 (0.76) N, R
3.96 (0.70) V, R
4.46 (0.69) V, N
Intelligent
(M = 4.25; SD = 0.76)***
4.18 (0.76) N, R
3.97 (0.74) V, R
4.48 (0.69) V, N
Historical
(M = 4.22; SD = 0.73)
4.25 (0.71) 4.13 (0.70) 4.22 (0.77)
Unlike the rest of Texas
(M = 4.22; SD = 0.90)***
4.12 (0.92) N, R
3.79 (0.88) V, R
4.57 (0.75) V, N
Charming
(M = 4.17; SD = 0.77)
4.21 (0.76) 4.03 (0.72) 4.19 (0.81)
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
61
Table 52 (continued)
Diverse
(M = 4.13; SD = 0.85)
4.15 (0.84) 4.08 (0.67) 4.13 (0.95)
Clean
(M = 4.12; SD = 0.79)
4.17 (0.75) 3.95 (0.69) 4.14 (0.86)
Sincere
(M = 4.06; SD = 0.80)**
4.05 (0.79) N 3.83 (0.73)
V, R 4.20 (0.83)
N
Weird
(M = 4.00; SD = 1.04)***
3.89 (1.09) N, R
3.55 (0.99) V, R
4.39 (0.85) V, N
Family oriented
(M = 3.97; SD = 0.85)***
3.91 (0.84) N, R
3.67 (0.81) V, R
4.19 (0.82) V, N
Fashionable
(M = 3.91 ; SD = 0.84)
3.88 (0.85) 3.93 (0.70) 3.95 (0.90)
Stereotypically country
(M = 2.70; SD = 1.13)
2.75 (1.14) 2.82 (0.98) 2.57 (1.19)
*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001
Creative:
o Visitors (M = 4.42) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.22) that Austin is creative.
o Residents (M = 4.68) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.42) that Austin is creative.
o Residents (M = 4.68) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.22) that Austin is creative.
Eclectic:
o Visitors (M = 4.41) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.18) that Austin is eclectic.
o Residents (M = 4.64) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.41) that Austin is eclectic.
o Residents (M = 4.64) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.18) that Austin is eclectic.
Friendly:
o Visitors (M = 4.40) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.16) that Austin is friendly.
o Residents (M = 4.64) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.40) that Austin is friendly.
o Residents (M = 4.64) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.16) that Austin is friendly.
Scenic:
o Residents (M = 4.54) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.37) that Austin is scenic.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
62
o Residents (M = 4.54) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.24) that Austin is scenic.
Outdoorsy:
o Visitors (M = 4.34) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.06) that Austin is outdoorsy.
o Residents (M = 4.62) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.34) that Austin is outdoorsy.
o Residents (M = 4.62) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.06) that Austin is outdoorsy.
Relaxing:
o Visitors (M = 4.31) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.03) that Austin is relaxing.
o Residents (M = 4.41) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 4.03) that Austin is relaxing.
Environmentally friendly:
o Visitors (M = 4.20) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.96) that Austin is environmentally friendly.
o Residents (M = 4.46) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.20) that Austin is environmentally friendly.
o Residents (M = 4.46) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.96) that Austin is environmentally friendly.
Intelligent:
o Visitors (M = 4.18) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.97) that Austin is intelligent.
o Residents (M = 4.48) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.18) that Austin is intelligent.
o Residents (M = 4.48) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.97) that Austin is intelligent.
Unlike the rest of Texas:
o Visitors (M = 4.12) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.79) that Austin is unlike the rest of Texas.
o Residents (M = 4.57) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.12) that Austin is unlike the rest of Texas.
o Residents (M = 4.57) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.79) that Austin is unlike the rest of Texas.
Sincere:
o Visitors (M = 4.05) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.83) that Austin is sincere.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
63
o Residents (M = 4.20) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.83) that Austin is sincere.
Weird:
o Visitors (M = 3.89) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.55) that Austin is weird.
o Residents (M = 4.39) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 3.89) that Austin is weird.
o Residents (M = 4.39) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.55) that Austin is weird.
Family oriented:
o Visitors (M = 3.91) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.67) that Austin is family oriented.
o Residents (M = 4.19) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 3.91) that Austin is family oriented.
o Residents (M = 4.19) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.67) that Austin is family oriented.
Interesting differences were found for the level of agreement with Austin, Texas being a
destination respondents would like to visit (Table 53). Although all three groups agreed it is
somewhere they would like to visit, visitors and non-visitors had higher levels of agreement than
residents that Austin is a destination they would like to visit. However, visitors and non-visitors
were not significantly different on their levels of agreement for Austin, Texas being a destination
they would like to visit. Following Table 53 is a bullet point list explaining the significant
differences for the level of agreement with the destinations respondents would like to visit.
Table 53: Comparison of Inquirers on Destinations to Visit
Visitors Non-visitors Residents
Mean (Standard Deviation)
Austin, Texas
(M = 4.54; SD = 0.73)**
4.62 (0.68) R 4.60 (0.58)
R 4.39 (0.85)
V, N
New York, New York
(M = 4.13; SD = 1.12)**
4.04 (1.16) R 3.97 (1.14)
R 4.35 (1.04)
V, N
San Diego, California
(M = 4.00; SD = 0.99)
4.01 (1.05) 3.90 (0.90) 4.05 (0.96)
Seattle, Washington
(M = 3.91; SD = 1.00)
3.89 (1.03) 3.90 (0.92) 3.95 (1.00)
New Orleans, Louisiana
(M = 3.87; SD = 1.15)
3.91 (1.13) 3.81 (1.14) 3.86 (1.18)
San Francisco, California
(M = 3.84; SD = 0.97)**
4.10 (1.15) R 3.99 (1.04)
R 4.36 (0.93)
V, N
Santa Fe, New Mexico
(M = 3.84; SD = 1.00)
3.85 (0.97) 3.79 (1.01) 3.86 (1.04)
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
64
Table 53 (continued)
San Antonio, Texas
(M = 3.83; SD = 1.02)***
3.98 (0.95) R 3.87 (1.06) 3.59 (1.06)
V
Chicago, Illinois
(M = 3.72; SD = 1.21)
3.65 (1.20) 3.58 (1.21) 3.88 (1.20)
Portland, Oregon
(M = 3.68; SD = 1.14)
3.59 (1.20) 3.63 (1.08) 3.83 (1.08)
Nashville, Tennessee
(M = 3.61; SD = 1.06)
3.61 (1.02) 3.79 (1.09) 3.51 (1.10)
Los Angeles, California
(M = 3.34; SD = 1.27)
3.33 (1.31) 3.20 (1.17) 3.42 (1.26)
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
(M = 3.06; SD = 1.13)**
3.23 (1.13) R 3.01 (1.09) 2.87 (1.13)
V
Houston, Texas
(M = 2.86; SD = 1.12)**
2.98 (1.12) R 2.99 (1.09)
R 2.64 (1.10)
V, N
*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001
Austin, Texas:
o Visitors (M = 4.62) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
residents (M = 4.39) with Austin, Texas being a destination they would like to
visit.
o Non-visitors (M = 4.60) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
residents (M = 4.39) with Austin, Texas being a destination they would like to
visit.
New York, New York:
o Residents (M = 4.35) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.04) with New York, New York being a destination they would like
to visit.
o Residents (M = 4.35) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.97) with New York, New York being a destination they
would like to visit.
San Francisco, California:
o Residents (M = 4.36) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
visitors (M = 4.10) with San Francisco, California being a destination they would
like to visit.
o Residents (M = 4.36) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
non-visitors (M = 3.99) with San Francisco, California being a destination they
would like to visit.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
65
San Antonio, Texas:
o Visitors (M = 3.98) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
residents (M = 3.59) with San Antonio, Texas being a destination they would like
to visit.
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas:
o Visitors (M = 3.23) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
residents (M = 2.87) with Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas being a destination they
would like to visit.
Houston, Texas:
o Visitors (M = 2.98) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
residents (M = 2.64) with Houston, Texas being a destination they would like to
visit.
o Non-visitors (M = 2.99) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to
residents (M = 2.64) with Houston, Texas being a destination they would like to
visit.
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to assess the images of Austin, Texas as a travel
destination and, where appropriate, compare the image between types of inquirers (i.e., visited in
past 2 years, have not visited in past 2 years, local area residents) that comprised the study
sample. In general, respondents had favorable images of Austin as a travel destination.
However, when the three groups were compared on their level of agreement with images of
Austin a number of significant differences were identified. Austin area residents typically had
the highest level of agreement, followed by visitor and then non-visitor inquirers, suggesting as
inquirers spend more time in Austin the uniqueness and character of the city might become more
evident.
This study allowed some comparisons to the 2003 visitor inquiry study conducted for the Austin
CVB (Behavior Research Center, Inc), as well as a recent qualitative study (Fire Studios, 2010).
The 2003 study indicated that 45.0% of inquirers had visited Austin, but 32.0% who had not yet
visited planned to visit. In the current study, 48.5% of the total respondents had visited Austin in
the past 2 years, 17.2% had not visited in the past 2 years, and 34.3% were local area residents.
Of the respondents in the current study who had not yet visited Austin, 49.1% indicated they
were very or extremely likely to visit in the next 2 years.
In the 2003 visitor inquiry study, 12.0% of visitors were day-trip visitors to Austin, compared to
15.0% in the current study. In 2003 the median length of an overnight trip was 3.50 nights,
while the current study’s median length of stay for an overnight trip was 3.00 nights.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
66
In 2003 Austin visitors were asked to rate Austin as a destination on a scale from excellent to not
sure and 85.0% of the visitors indicated either excellent or good. In the current study, 93.4%
were either very or extremely satisfied with their most recent visit to Austin.
The 2003 and current study also allow a general comparison of perceptions of Austin as a travel
destination. In 2003, 75.0% of visitors agreed Austin is a great destination for live music
options, while 94.2% agreed or strongly agreed Austin is a destination to enjoy live music in the
current study. Another interesting comparison is in 2003, 90.0% of visitors thought Austin is a
great place for people like them and in the current study 93.9% agreed or strongly agreed Austin
is a destination where people like them would enjoy visiting.
Both studies also allow some comparisons of non-visitor inquirers, including impressions of
destinations as a place to visit. In the 2003 study, 80.0% of non-visitors had positive images of
Austin as a destination. In the current study, 97.1% of non-visitor inquirers agreed or strongly
agreed Austin, Texas is a destination they would like to visit.
Recently, qualitative interviews of Austin visitors were conducted by Fire Studios for the Austin
CVB. The results share some common themes to the current quantitative study. For example,
both studies found friends and editorials as important sources of information in the travel
decision making process. Over half (55.9%) of visitors in the current study indicated friends
were very or extremely important sources of information in deciding to visit Austin. This was
the second most important source of information, following only previous trips to Austin.
Magazines/editorial was the sixth most important source of information, with 34.9% of visitors
indicating the source was very or extremely important.
In terms of information for planning a trip to Austin, the qualitative study indicated visitors did
not do much research prior to visiting and the decision to visit was made close to when the visit
actually occurred. The current study found the decision to visit Austin was made an average of
about 63 days prior to visiting and 26.0% of visitors indicated they were very or extremely
knowledgeable about Austin prior to their most recent visit.
The qualitative study indicated the music scene in Austin was the main reason people visited.
The majority (94.2%) of visitors in the current study agreed or strongly agreed Austin is a
destination to enjoy live music. Another important experience identified in the qualitative study
was the role of food when traveling. The majority (93.6%) of visitors in the current study were
very or extremely satisfied with the local cuisine in Austin on their most recent visit.
When assessing the “vibe” of Austin as a travel destination, the qualitative study used some of
the following terms and phrases to describe Austin according to visitors: “western chic”, “hip”,
“just the right amount of Texas friendly southern culture”. The current study found some similar
terms and phrases to result in the highest level of agreement among visitor inquirers. For
example, 93.5% agreed or strongly agreed Austin is creative and 89.5% agreed or strongly
agreed Austin is eclectic. Another interesting comparison between the two studies is related to
how “country” Austin is according to visitors. The qualitative study found the “Austin Vibe” is
not “Too country”. The phrase “Stereotypically country” received the least amount of agreement
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
67
in the current study for adjectives and phrases to describe Austin, with 45.0% of visitors
disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the phrase.
In conclusion, all three groups of inquirers in this study generally had positive images of Austin
as a tourism destination. The significant differences found for images between the three groups
of inquirers are mostly explained by the level of experience or time spent in Austin with
residents generally having highest levels of agreement for most items, followed by visitors and
then non-visitors.
2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study
University of Houston
Conrad N. Hilton College
68
References
Behavior Research Center, Inc. (2003, December). Austin Visitor Inquiry Study.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys:
The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2003). The meaning and measurement of destination image.
The Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 37-48.
Molina, A., Gomez, M., & Martin-Consuegra, D. (2010). Tourism marketing information and
destination image management. African Journal of Business Management, 4(5), 722-728.
Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing and conducting survey research: A
comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.