Choice of Tourist Destination

8/12/2019 Choice of Tourist Destination

1/15


2/15

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1Empirical evidence of destination choice with revealed preference probabilistic models

Authors Destination Model Explicativedimensions

Operative variables

Wennergren and Nielsen(1968)

Natural parks Probabilistic basedon the Luce model

Destinationattributes

Surface area of recreational area Distance

Perdue (1986) Nature parks Multinomial logit Destinationattributes

Attraction Distance

Borgers, Van Der Heijden,and Timmermans (1989)

Nature parks Multinomial logit Destinationattributes

Surface area Distance Type of recreation area Existence of specic installations Type of vegetation

Fesenmaier (1988) Nature parks Multinomial logit Destinationattributes

Distance Infrastructure

Personalcharacteristics

Motivations (activities)

Morey et al. (1991) Nature parks Multinomial logit Destinationattributes

Price (cost of travel) Activities at the destination

Dubin (1998) Nature parks Multinomial logit Destinationattributes

Price (travel costs)

Train (1998) Nature parks Multinomial logitand multinomiallogit with randomcoefcients


Size of each area Price (travel costs) Natural attributes (number of species, aesthetics number of camping sites number of access

points) Number of protected species Ranking in tourist guides

Riera (2000) Nature parks Multinomial logit Destinationattributes

Surface area Price (travel costs) Natural attributes Infrastructure Accessibility Programmed activities


Income Age Sex

Studies Nationality Occupation

Eymann and Ronning (1992) Administrative units(countries)

Nested multinomiallogit


Price (purchase parity differential) Repetition of destination


Organization of the trip Fragmentation of holidays

Eymann and Ronning (1997) Macro-destinationsformed by perceptions of similitude of countries



Price (specic cost index)

J.L. Nicolau, F.J. Ma s / Tourism Management 27 (2006) 982996 983


3/15

literature; despite the fact that the majority of nationaltourism in many countries is domestic, as in the case of Spain ( Bote, Huescar, & Vogeler, 1991 ; Martnez, 2002 );and that the territorial examination of tourism demand is avaluable element of regional economic planning ( Usach,1998 ), as it can characterize the tourist ow behaviour of nationals within their own country from the point of viewof geographical distribution.

Apart from the above, the literature of destinationchoice is centred on the direct impact of destinationattributes such as distance and prices, although the authorshave reached no consensus on them. Some studies nd thatthe dimensions distance and price are deterrent

factors while others conclude that they can be attractionfactors (see Section 2). Alternatively, our study assumes amoderating role of motivations in the effects of distanceand price on destination choice. The underlying logic isthat tourist motivations can become the main generators of utility when visiting distant or expensive destinations.Tourist habits have recently changed and these changesseem to have become permanent. Tourists spend more orless and travel further or closer depending on their wishesat a specic time. Accordingly, the effects of distance andprice on destination could alter in function of themotivation of the tourist.

The literature of Consumer Behaviour considers thatmotivations represent individual internal forces that lead toaction ( Schiffman & Kanuk, 1978 ). In this respect, touristmotivations are characteristics of individuals that inuencethe choice of destinations, since they act as push factorsleading to the realisation of tourist travel ( Gartner, 1993 ;Kim & Lee, 2002 ; Moutinho, 1987 ; Sirakaya, 1992 ;Sirakaya, McLellan, & Uysal, 1996 ). It is important tostress that the selection of a certain holiday destina-tion implies a desire for some kind of benet. Because of this, motivations play a fundamental role in destinationchoice, as they constitute internal thoughts which leadtourist behaviour towards certain ends ( Nahab, 1975 ); inother words, they are the reasons why people take a

holiday ( Santos, 1983 ). These motivations have beenclassied according to the following typology by McIntoshand Goeldner (1984) : (i) physical, such as relaxation;(ii) cultural, such as discovering new geographical areas;(iii) interpersonal, such as socialising and meeting newpeople; and (iv) prestige, such as self-esteem and self-actualisation.

Despite the above points, empirical choice literature hasdevoted little attention to the impact of tourist motivationson the selection of destinations. Exceptions to this scarcityare the studies of Fesenmaier (1988) and Eymann andRonning (1997) . Most of studies assume independencebetween tourist motivations and attributes of the destina-

tion. Alternatively, our study examines the interactionbetween attributes of destinations (price and distance) andthe motivations search for relaxation and a good climate(physical), broaden culture and discover new places(cultural), and visiting family and friends (interpersonalmotivations). These motivation are according to thetypology of McIntosh and Goeldner (1984) . In particular,we assume the following interactions: motivations x priceof destinations and motivations x distance.

Accordingly, the objective of this study is to analysewhether motivations act as moderating dimensions of theinuence of distance and price on the choice of touristdestinations, dened as intra-country administrative units(see Fig. 1 ). To do this, we propose various hypotheses thatexplain the above decisions through the interaction of thedistance and price of the destination with the personalmotivations of the tourist. The methodology applied isbased on the estimation of various multinomial logitmodels with random coefcients in order to control touristheterogeneity and possible correlations between differentdestinations. The empirical application is carried out inSpain on a sample of 2127 individuals.

In order to full this objective, the remainder of thepaper is arranged as follows: the second section proposesand justies various hypotheses on the moderating role of motivations in the effect of distance and price on the choice

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1 ( continued )

Authors Destination Model Explicativedimensions

Operative variables


Motivations (relax, culture, etc.) Repetition of the destination Members o 18 years old Age Marital status Education Size of city of residence Residence

Siderelis and Moore (1998) Macro-destinationsformed by the analyst bygeographical proximity



Surface area Price (travel cost) Attributes related to naturalattractions, quality and services



4/15


5/15

2.1. Effect of distance on the choice of tourist destinations:moderating role of motivations

The distance between the usual place of residence of anindividual and the destination is an especially importantcriterion due to the clearly inherent spatial dimension of tourist destination choice. However, there is no consensusin literature on its inuence. One train of thought holdsthat distanceor geographical position of the touristrelative to destinationsis considered a restriction or adissuasive dimension of destination choice, as the displace-

ment of an individual to the destination entails physical,temporal and monetary cost ( Taylor & Knudson, 1976 ).This is the result reached by the studies of Wennergren andNielsen (1968) , Perdue (1986) , Borgers et al. (1989) ,Fesenmaier (1988) , Adamowicz et al. (1994) and Schroederand Louviere (1999) . Alternatively, another line of researchproposes that distance can lend positive utility. Baxter(1979) shows that the journey itself, as a component of thetourism product, can give satisfaction in its own right sothat, on occasions, longer distances are preferred. Simi-larly, Wolfe (1970, 1972) indicates that distance does notalways act as a dissuasive factor, as the friction derivedfrom it disappears after passing a certain threshold and itbecomes a favourable attribute of the utility of adestination. Beaman (1974, 1976) explains this behaviourthrough a marginal analysis of distance, by observing thereaction of individuals to each unit of distance andconcluding that each additional unit travelled offers lessresistance than the previous.

Due to the lack of consensus, our study proposes thatthe following motivations moderate the impact of distanceon the choice of destination.

2.1.1. The search for climate and tranquilityWith regard to these physical motivations, we can say

that Rugg (1973) assumes that a stay in a destination over a

period of time allows for the consumption or enjoyment of the attribute of the destination, such as the climate ortranquillity that exist at a certain place ( Rugg, 1973,p. 65 ) and that the tourist obtains utility from this. Bearingin mind this consideration, and the fact that the motivationto go on holiday is a determinant of the valuation of attributes (distance) and of the choice of destination(De Borja, Casanovas, & Bosch, 2002 ; Eymann &Ronning, 1997 ), we can expect that people who choose adestination for its climate or for relaxation have a greaterpropensity to travel further if they receive these attributes

in return. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:Hypothesis 1. The search for climate moderates the effectof distance on the choice of destination, in such a way thatthe tourist is prepared to cover longer distances.

Hypothesis 2. The search for tranquillity moderates theeffect of distance on the choice of destination, in such away that the tourist is prepared to cover longer distances.

2.1.2. Tourist interest in broadening culture and discovering new places

With regard to these cultural motivations, Anderson(1970) and Santos (1983) propose the so called UlyssesFactor, which is a psychological aspect of specialrelevance in the planning of vacations; through whichpeople feel a deep need to explore and to discover what liesbeyond the known horizon. Mayo and Jarvis (1981)suggest that this need to explore is determinant in theexplanation of travel, due to the fact that travel allowsone to satisfy the intellectual need to know. Bearing thisin mind, and the fact that the importance assigned bytourists to the attributes of tourism products (distance)comes from the motivations of each situation ( Calantone &Johar, 1984 ; Hu & Ritchie, 1993 ), it can be assumed thatthis yearning to explore, manifested by an interest inbroadening cultural knowledge and in discovering new

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ATTRIBUTES OF THEDESTINATIONDistancePrices

CHOICE OF DESTINATION

TOURIST MOTIVATIONS

Physical (H1, H2, H6 and H7)Cultural (H3, H4, H8 and H9)Interpersonal (H5 and H10)

TOURISTMOTIVATIONS

Fig. 1. The moderating role of motivations. Note : dot arrows represent the research carried out to date and the continuous line shows the aim of the

article. Source : own work.



6/15

places generates positive utility by visits to faraway places.In other words, it is assumed that an interest in broadeningcultural knowledge and discovering new places moderatesthe effect of the distance between the place of origin andthe destination (a tourist could be prepared to travelfurther if it entails visiting a new place or broadening

cultural knowledge, which would satisfy these interests).We therefore propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3. The interest of an individual in broadeningcultural knowledge moderates the effect of distance on thechoice of destination, in such a way that the tourist isprepared to cover longer distances.

Hypothesis 4. The interest of an individual in discoveringnew places moderates the effect of distance on the choice of destination, in such a way that the tourist is prepared tocover longer distances.

2.1.3. Visiting family and friendsThe interpersonal motivation of socialising throughvisiting family and friends leads many individuals to thistype of tourism. In fact, returning to the place of originat least once a year is a very common tourist practice insome countries, such as Spain ( Usach, 1998 ). Along theselines, we propose that this factor moderates the effect of distance, given that an individual could be willing to travellong distances to visit family and friends. In virtue of theabove, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5. Visiting family and friends moderates theeffect of distance on the choice of destination, in such a

way that the tourist is prepared to cover longer distances.

2.2. The effect of prices on the choice of tourist destinations:the moderating role of motivations

Literature does not reach a consensus on the inuence of prices on destination choice. One line of thought holds thatdemand for tourism products is that of an ordinary good , insuch a way that price increments diminish consumption(Lanquar, 2001 ; Serra, 2002 ; Smith, 1995 ), meaning thatprice is considered as a factor which reduces the utility of adestination. At an empirical level, a negative relationshipbetween price and destination choice is found by Moreyet al. (1991) , Dubin (1998) , Train (1998) , Riera (2000) andSiderelis and Moore (1998) in the case of natural parks; byHaider and Ewing (1990) , Morley (1994a, 1994b) andEymann and Ronning (1992) for countries (administrativeunits) and by Siderelis and Moore (1998) for macro-destinations.

Conversely, another line of thought proposes that pricedoes not have a dissuasive effect on destination choice, butthat it is an attraction factor. Morrison (1996) indicatesthat the underlying hedonistic character often found in theconsumption of tourism products implies that high pricesdo not always act against demand; rather that the conceptof value for money, which compares the amount spent with

the quality of installations and service, takes over(Morrison, 1996 ). This implies an association of priceincrease with demand increase.

Due to the lack of consensus, our study proposes thatthe following motivations moderate the impact of prices onthe choice of destination.

2.2.1. The search for climate and tranquilityIn the opinion of Rugg (1973) , a stay at a destination

over a period of time facilitates the enjoyment of attributesof the destination, such as the climate or tranquillityof the place, which generate utility for the tourist.Furthermore, the motivation to go on holiday determinesthe valuation of attributes (price) and the choice of destination ( De Borja et al., 2002 ; Eymann & Ronning,1997 ), which means that we can assume that people whochoose a destination for its climate or tranquillity have agreater propensity to pay higher prices if they can obtainthese attributes. In virtue of the above, we propose thefollowing hypotheses:

Hypothesis 6. The search for climate moderates the effectof prices on the choice of destinations, in such a way thatthe tourist is prepared to pay higher prices.

Hypothesis 7. The search for tranquillity moderates theeffect of prices on the choice of destinations, in such a waythat the tourist is prepared to pay higher prices.

2.2.2. Tourist interest in broadening culture and discovering new places

With regard to these cultural motivations, the Ulysses

Factor explains why people feel the need to explorebeyond the known ( Anderson, 1970 ; Santos, 1983 ); andthis need to explore determines the reasons for touristtravel ( Mayo & Jarvis, 1981 ). Furthermore, the importanceassigned by tourists to the attributes of destinations (price)come from the motivations of each situation ( Calantone &Johar, 1984 ; Hu & Ritchie, 1993 ), which means that we canassume that an individuals need to explore (manifested byan interest in broadening cultural knowledge and discover-ing new places), generates positive utility when visitingexpensive destinations. In other words, we expect that aninterest in broadening cultural knowledge and discoveringnew places moderates the effect of the price of thedestination (a tourist could be prepared to pay higherprices if it entails visiting a new place or broadeningcultural knowledge). Therefore, we propose the followinghypotheses:

Hypothesis 8. The interest of an individual in broadeningcultural knowledge moderates the effect of prices on thechoice of destination, in such a way that the tourist isprepared to pay higher prices.

Hypothesis 9. The interest of an individual in discoveringnew places moderates the effect of prices on the choice of destination, in such a way that the tourist is prepared topay higher prices.

ARTICLE IN PRESS



7/15


8/15

of primary unitscitiesand of secondary unitscensor-ial sections. The information was collected in October 1995through personal, at home, interviews with a structuredquestionnaire. Of the initial sample of 3781 individuals, weare left with 2127 that take holidays. This nal samplerepresents a sample error of 7 2.16% for a condence level

of 95.5%.In order to make the choice models operative, we willdene the variables used and identify the dependent andindependent variables.

(1) Dependent variables . To represent the intra-countrydestination (administrative units) chosen by the tourist,we use 50 dummy variables for the Spanish provinces.

(2) Independent Variables .(a) Distance to the destination . In general, studies use

different indicators of real distance, 3 such as theEuclidean distancein kilometres or miles (Adamowicz et al., 1994 ; Borgers et al., 1989 ;Dellaert, Borgers, & Timmermans, 1997 ; Fesenma-ier, 1988 ; Moutinho & Trimble, 1991 ; Perdue, 1986 ;Peterson, Dwyer, & Darragh, 1983 ; Schroeder &Louviere, 1999 ; Stopher & Ergu n, 1979 ; Wennerg-ren & Nielsen, 1968 ), and displacement time(Dellaert et al., 1997 ; Kemperman, Borgers, Oppe-wal, & Timmermans, 2000 ; Louviere & Hensher,1983 ; Schroeder & Louviere, 1999 ).Following these authors, we measure distance inkilometres (DKm) and in time invested in displace-ment (Dtime), which facilitates a comparison of theresults with those of other international studies.

The use of both variables implies the constructionof two origin-destination matrices of a 50 50order, in which we include kilometres and timebetween each origin and destination for theprovinces. This information on distances anddisplacement times between origins and destina-tions is found in the Campsa Interactive Guide(taking the provincial capitals as reference points).

(b) Destination Prices . Literature measures the prices of a destination with different indicators. For exam-

ple, costs at the destination in absolute quantities orin terms relative to individual tourist income.However, the difculties tourists have in knowing,a priori, all costs (e.g. goods bought at destination)and the exact cost of each component obligeresearchers to make simplications in their empiri-

cal applications. Consequently, various authorspropose the use of widely available proxies toreect the prices of a destination.Morey et al. (1991) , Dubin (1998) , Train (1998) ,Riera (2000) , Siderelis and Moore (1998) andMorley (1994a, 1994b) employ travel costs as aproxy of total price, as it is one of the highest coststo the tourist. However, the measurement of travelcosts is not without problems. Travel costs aremade up of the following three elements ( Ewing,1980 ): (i) the effective cost of travelling, measurableby the price paid on public transport ( Dellaertet al., 1997 ; Morley, 1994a, 1994b ) or in a privatevehicle; whether by unit of distance (e.g., 24 ptas/km ( Riera, 2000 ) or 0.16$/mile ( Siderelis & Moore,1998 )) or by total fuel costs ( Train, 1998 ); (ii) thephysical and psychological effort of realising the journey, which, to date, has not been modelledgiven the impossibility of representing it in mone-tary terms and by unit of time ( Ewing, 1980 ); and(iii) the opportunity costs of the time given to the journey (what an individual would earn if s/hespent the travelling time on money earning activ-ities), whose measurement has been very limited inliterature; using estimations from other elds (value

of time spent travelling to work ( Cesario, 1976 ;Edwards & Dennis, 1976 )untrustworthy fortourism ( Ewing, 1980 ; Goodwin, 1976 ); the resultof regressing the number of journeys in a period ontravelling time, salary and cost of transport ( Hof &Rosenthal, 1987 ); or arbitrarily xing a value of 1/3of salary per hour ( Train, 1998 )).Another indicator is the exchange rate of thedestination country ( Morley, 1994a, 1994b ; Witt& Martin, 1987 ). However, authors such asEymann and Ronning (1992) and Usach (1999)consider that the correct method of reecting theprices of a certain tourist market is to comparedestination prices with those of the home marketand those of competing destinations. Along thisline, Eymann and Ronning (1992) use purchaseparity differentials between the origin and respec-tive destinations, obtained from the correspondingconsumer price indexes. 4 In line with these authors,our study measures destination prices of intra-country administrative units through consumerprice index differentials among origins and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

3 Psychology and Geography of Behaviour show the existence of discrepancies among perceived distance by individualsor subjective

and the real distanceobjective or geographical. Ewing (1980) argues theincidence of factors such as the familiarity or monotony of a route. Baxterand Ewing (1981) propose the perceptual barrier effect, by which adistance is perceived to increase due to a perceived rather than real barrier(e.g. a mountain pass). Moreover, with the lack of perceptual barriers,tourists perceive destinations closer than they physically are ( Mayo andJarvis, 1981 ). Finally, Baxter and Ewing (1979) propose the so calledintervening opportunities effect, which considers the ow of peoplebetween two destinations a and b with similar characteristics andequidistant from an origin o are inuenced by intermediary destinations.Thus, a destination c situated between o and a greatly reduces owsbetween o and b, independently of the fact that c competes indistinctlywith a and b. In other words, these intermediary opportunities act asdistance ampliers between two destinations. The lack of information inour study on the perceptions of individuals prevents us from usingsubjective measurements of distance.

4 Morley (1994c) demonstrates that the Consumer Price Index of ageographical region is a good indicator of tourist prices, by showing highcorrelation between the two.



9/15

destinations, which are published in the NationalInstitute of Statistics (INE), which represent thecost of living of each origin/destination.

(c) Motivations . The measurement of motivations isnot simple as it involves analysing internal aspectsof the individual. An approach suggests that values

and life styles (psychographic variables) provide aglobal description of the cognitive structure of theindividual ( Gonza lez & D az, 1996 ). These factorsare fundamental characteristics in order to properlycongure vacation products, since research demon-strates that psychographic variables have a strongexplanatory power on tourist choice behavior(Dalen, 1989 ; De Borja et al., 2002 ; Gonza lez &Bello 2002 ; Hsieh, OLearly, Morrison, & Chang,1993 ; Muller, 1991 ; Pitts & Woodside, 1980 ; Shih,1986 ; Zins, 1996 ).

However, these psychographic factors are not widelyused in the literature of choice as they are not directlyobservable by the analyst, who would have to makeadditional effort in the collection of information throughdatabases and Value and Life Styles (VALS), List of Values(LOV) or Activities, Interests and Opinions (AIO) studies(Plog, 1994 ). However, certain one-dimensional indicators,which are also known as primary dimensions or life styleparameters ( Bigne , Font, & Andreu, 2000 ; Lehmann,1993 ), allow the capture, as proxies, of the internal aspectsof the individual. Along these lines, motivations of thesearch for climate and tranquillity , interest in broad-ening cultural knowledge and discovering new places ,and of visiting family and friends , are measured throughdummy variables, where the value of one means that theindividual considers this motivation when selecting adestination, and zero otherwise ( Eymann and Ronning,1997 ; McIntosh & Goeldner, 1984 ).

4. Results obtained and discussion

The identication of the moderating role played bymotivations (proposed by Hypotheses 110) in the effect of distance and prices on the choice of destination implies theestimation of various logit models with random coef-cients, which are shown in Tables 35 .

Equation 1 of the tables shows the effects of bothdistance (in kilometres and in travelling time) and of priceswith no interactive effects, which are taken as referencemodels to observe the increase in the explicative capacity(through the function of maximum-likelihood) of themotivations that interact with them in the other equations.The results obtained show that, for the dimensionsanalyseddistance (in kilometres and travelling time)and pricesthe inclusion of motivations as interactionsleads to increases in the values of the maximum-likelihoodfunction (the only exception being Equation 6 of Table 5 ),which supports the idea that motivations moderate the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

T a b l e 3

I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n d i s t a n c e ( K m ) a n d m o t i v a t i o n s i n d e s t i n a t i o n c h o i c e w i t h R C L

I n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s

E q u a t i o n 1

E q u a t i o n 2

E q u a t i o n 3

E q u a t i o n 4

E q u a t i o n 5

E q u a t i o n 6

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

D K m

0 . 0 0 3 a

0 . 0 0 3 a

0 . 0 0 4 a

0 . 0 0 3 a

0 . 0 0 3 a

0 . 0 0 3 a

0 . 0 0 4 a

0 . 0 0 3 a

0 . 0 0 4 a

0 . 0 0 3 a

0 . 0 0 4 a

0 . 0 0 3 a

( 0 . 0

0 0 ) ( 0 . 0 0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

D K m c l i m a t e

0 . 0 0 0 7

b

0 . 0 0 0

( 0 . 0

0 0 2 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

D k m

t r a n q u i l i t y

0 . 0 0 1 a

0 . 0 0 0

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

D K m c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t

0 . 0 0 0 6

0 . 0 0 0 3

( 0 . 0

0 0 4 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 6 )

D K m n e w p l a c e s

0 . 0 0 1 a

0 . 0 0 0

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

D K m v i s i t i n g F & R

0 . 0 0 1 a

0 . 0 0 0

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

( 0 . 0

0 0 )

M L ( y )

7 6 0 1

. 7 1

7 4 4 5

. 0 6

7 4 3 3

. 5 8

7 4 4 8

. 5 5

7 4 3 1

. 7 4

7 4 3 6

. 2 3

S t a n d a r d e r r o r s i n p a r e n t h e s i s .

a P r o b o 0 . 1 %

.

b P r o b o 1 %

. c P r o b o 5 %

.



10/15

ARTICLE IN PRESS

T a b l e 4

I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n d i s t a n c e ( i n t r a v e l i n g t i m e ) a n d m o t i v a t i o n s i n d e s t i n a t i o n c h o i c e w i t h R C L


E q u a t i o n 1

E q u a t i o n 2

E q u a t i o n 3

E q u a t i o n 4

E q u a t i o n 5

E q u a t i o n 6

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

D T i m e

0 . 5 1 0 a

0 . 6 7 6 a

0 . 5 6 6 a

0 . 6 7 2 a

0 . 4 4 1 a

0 . 6 6 7 a

0 . 5 1 7 a

0 . 6 7 5 a

0 . 5 8 5 a

0 . 6 6 6 a

0 . 5 8 1 a

0 . 6 6 6 a

( 0 . 0

2 2 )

( 0 . 0

2 5 )

( 0 . 0

2 6 )

( 0 . 0

2 5 )

( 0 . 0

2 5 )

( 0 . 0

2 5 )

( 0 . 0

2 2 )

( 0 . 0

2 5 )

( 0 . 0

2 6 )

( 0 . 0

2 5 )

( 0 . 0

2 6 )

( 0 . 0

2 5 )

D T i m e c l i m a t e

0 . 1 7 0 a

0 . 0 7 4

( 0 . 0

4 3 )

( 0 . 0

8 9 )

D T i m e

T r a n q u i l i t y

0 . 2 4 1 a

0 . 0 6 0

( 0 . 0

4 5 )

( 0 . 1

1 2 )

D T i m e c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t

0 . 0 9 6

0 . 1 8 1

( 0 . 0

7 6 )

( 0 . 0

9 6 )

D T i m e n e w p l a c e s

0 . 2 8 7 a

0 . 0 0 9

( 0 . 0

4 4 )

( 0 . 0

1 8 )

D T i m e v i s i t i n g F & R

0 . 2 3 7 a

0 . 0 4 8 a

( 0 . 0

4 3 )

( 0 . 0

3 0 )

M L ( y )

7 3 4 0

. 2 2

7 3 3 2

. 4 0

7 3 2 6

. 3 5

7 3 3 9

. 2 2

7 3 2 0

. 6 7

7 3 2 5

. 6 8


a P r o b o 0 . 1 %

. b P r o b o 1 %

. c P r o b o 5 %

.

T a b l e 5

I n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n p r i c e s a n d m o t i v a t i o n s i n d e s t i n a t i o n c h o i c e w i t h R C L


E q u a t i o n 1

E q u a t i o n 2

E q u a t i o n 3

E q u a t i o n 4

E q u a t i o n 5

E q u a t i o n 6

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

b

S D o f

b

P r i c e s

0 . 1 9 9 a

0 . 0 9 9

0 . 1 5 7 a

0 . 0 1 3

0 . 2 2 2 a

0 . 0 9 0

0 . 2 1 3 a

0 . 0 7 7

0 . 2 3 6 a

0 . 0 1 6

0 . 1 7 2 a

0 . 0 9 2

( 0 . 0

1 9 )

( 0 . 1

4 4 )

( 0 . 0

2 3 )

( 0 . 0

2 0 )

( 0 . 0

2 2 )

( 0 . 1

5 8 )

( 0 . 0

1 9 )

( 0 . 1

8 9 )

( 0 . 0

2 2 )

( 0 . 1

4 8 )

( 0 . 0

2 1 )

( 0 . 1

4 8 )

P r i c e s c l i m a t e

0 . 1 4 0 b

0 . 3 3 4 a

( 0 . 0

4 1 )

( 0 . 0

8 7 )

P r i c e s t r a n q u i l i t y

0 . 0 8 1

0 . 0 2 7

( 0 . 0

4 2 )

( 0 . 0

6 3 )

P r i c e s c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t

0 . 1 9 3 b

0 . 1 2 6

( 0 . 0

7 2 )

( 0 . 2

0 3 )

P r i c e s n e w p l a c e s

0 . 1 4 2 a

0 . 1 9 0

( 0 . 0

4 4 )

( 0 . 1

2 8 )

P r i c e s v i s i t i n g F & R

0 . 1 1 2 b

0 . 0 0 1

( 0 . 0

4 5 )

( 0 . 0

2 7 )

M L ( y )

8 2 6 7

. 6 4

8 2 6 0

. 6 4

8 2 6 5

. 8 6

8 2 6 4

. 1 3

8 2 6 1

. 8 5

8 2 6 7

. 6 2


a P r o b o 0 . 1 %

.

b P r o b o 1 %

. c P r o b o 5 %

.



11/15

effects of distance and prices in the choice of touristdestinations.

4.1. The moderating role of motivations in the relationshipbetween distance and destination choice

With regard to the direct impact of distance, we nd thatthis dimension (in kilometres for Table 3 and in travellingtime for Table 4 ), is signicant at a level below 0.001 in allthe equations and presents a negative sign, which leads usto characterize distance as a dissuasive factor in the choiceof destination province, in line with Taylor and Knudson(1976) . In other words, the displacement of an individual tothe intra-country destination supposes physical, temporaland monetary investment. Apart from this, the signicanceof its variance at the 0.001 level in all cases, suggests thatdistance has a differentiated effect among the individuals of the sample, and thus, longer distances do not suppose lessutility for all the sample tourists.

The analysis of the motivations that moderate the effectof distance ( Tables 3 and 4 ), shows the following: for thephysical motivation search for climate, the estimation of the interactive coefcient presents a positive sign, signi-cant at the 0.01 level (Equation 2), which implies that anindividual interested in climate as an important attribute of a holiday is prepared to make a long journey to nd it,which supports Hypothesis 1. For the physical motivationsearch for tranquillity (Equation 3), the interactivecoefcient is also signicant at the 0.001 level but with anegative sign, which does not support Hypothesis 2. Thismeans that individuals looking for this attribute prefer to

stay close to their normal place of residence. It would seemthat the journey itself represents physical and psychologicaleffort and that people looking for tranquillity are notpre-disposed towards long distances, especially whentranquillity can be found closer to home. It should not beforgotten that in Spain there is a marked tendency to takeholidays in the home or neighbouring regions of theindividual. This aspect could be explained by the type of tourism realised, whose main motivation is leisure or rest infamiliar areas, for which long journeys are not necessary(Usach, 1998 ).

Turning to cultural motivations, interest in discoveringnew places positively inuences (at the 0.001 level) theutility of distant destinations (Equation 5), which supportsHypothesis 4, whereas interest in broadening culturalknowledge does not interact signicantly with distance(Equation 4), which leads us to reject Hypothesis 3. Theseresults imply that the Ulysses Factor, through whichpeople feel a need to explore and discover what is beyondthe known horizon, is manifested in individuals motivatedto discover new places, which leads them to make longer journeys for their holidays. However, the inuence of thisfactor is not manifested in people who wish to broadentheir cultural knowledge, as they may not be willing(or have no need) to cover long distances to satisfy thisintellectual need.

Finally, the interaction between the interpersonal moti-vation of visiting family and friends and distance(Equation 6) is positive and signicant at the 0.001 level,which allows us to accept Hypothesis 5. This means thattourists who travel to visit family and friends have apredisposition towards long journeys; for them, travel

often represents returning home.

4.2. The moderating role of motivations in the relationshipbetween prices and destination choice

With regard to the direct impact of prices (see Table 5 ),we nd that this dimension is signicant at a level below0.001 in all the equations, and presents a negative sign,which suggests that tourists tend to choose intra-countrydestinations (provinces) with lower prices, in line withSmith (1995) and Lanquar (2001) . This result allows us tosupport the idea that tourism products are ordinary goods.It is important to stress that the variance parameter of theprice coefcient is not signicant in any equation, whichimplies that higher prices lead to less utility for allindividuals.

The analysis of the motivations that moderate the effectof prices shows the following: for the physical motivationsearch for climate, the estimation of the interactivecoefcient presents a negative sign, signicant at the 0.01level (Equation 2), which does not support Hypothesis 6.This result implies that an individual looking for climate asan important holiday attribute is not willing to pay highprices to obtain it. The other physical motivation, searchfor tranquillity (Equation 3) is not signicant, which leads

us to reject Hypothesis 7 on the moderating role of themotivation search for tranquillity in the effect of priceson the choice of destination.

With regard to cultural motivations, interest in broad-ening cultural knowledge and discovering new places havea positive inuence (at the 0.001 level) on the utility of highpriced destinations (Equations 4 and 5), which supportsHypotheses 8 and 9. This result implies that people whomanifest an intellectual need to know and discover newplaces (Ulysses Factor) are willing to pay higher prices.

Finally, the interpersonal motivation visiting familyand friends (Equation 6) is negative and signicant at the0.01 level, which does not allow us to accept Hypothesis 10.This means that tourists that travel to visit family andfriends have lower utilities (more negative) of expensivedestinations. Therefore, the price of a destination stillbehaves as a barrier in the choice of destination, despitethe existence of a motivation to visit family and friends.Table 6 presents the results of the tests of the proposedhypotheses.

5. Conclusions

The supposition that the effects of distance and prices onthe choice of tourist destinations (intra-country adminis-trative units) could be moderated by motivations has

ARTICLE IN PRESS



12/15

allowed us to analyse this aspect in Spain with a sample of 2127 individuals. To do this, our study proposes varioushypotheses on the interaction between these dimensionsand physical, cultural and interpersonal motivations.

The operative formalization to test these hypothesesfollows the logit modelisation with random coefcients.This is due to their ability to deal with the unobservedheterogeneity of tourists, and because it is a exible model

that allows representation of different correlation patternsbetween different alternatives and, therefore, overcomesthe inconveniences of non-compliance with the IIAhypothesis. The empirical application realised on theanalysed sample shows that the dissuasive inuence of distance and prices on the selection of destinations ismoderated by motivations. Additionally, the resultsobtained nd that the motivations examined have a direct(increasing the dissuasive effect) or inverse (reducing thedissuasive effect) moderating effect on the inuences of distance and prices.

Motivations with a direct moderating impact on the effectof distance . Search for tranquillity increases the negativeeffect of distance; in other words, it reinforces the fact thatindividuals reduce their preference for distant destinations.The physical and psychological effort implicit in long journeys leads to a situation in which individuals lookingfor tranquillity are not inclined towards long trips,especially when they can nd their tranquillity close tohome.

Motivations with an inverse moderating impact on theeffect of distance . Interest in discovering new places, thesearch for climate and visiting family and friendsreduce the negative effect of distance. Interest in exploringand discovering what lies beyond the known horizon(Ulysses Factor ), the search for climate as a fundamental

holiday attribute and returning to the place of origin tovisit family and friends lead people to make longer journeys.

Motivations with a direct moderating impact on the effectof prices . Search for climate and visiting family andfriends increase the negative effect of prices; meaning thatthey reinforce the fact that individuals reduce theirpreference for expensive destinations. Although climate is

an aspect that is valued by tourists (leading to themcovering long distances), they are not prepared to pay anyprice to nd it. Similarly, tourists visiting family andfriends, who have part of their costs already met, do nottend to go to expensive destinations.

Motivations with an inverse moderating impact on theeffect of prices . Interest in broadening cultural knowledgeand discovering new places reduces the negative effect of prices. In other words, people that manifest an intellectualneed to know and discover new places ( Ulysses Factor ) arewilling to pay higher prices.

As implications for management, knowledge of themoderating role of personal motivations in the effect of destination attributes (distance and price) on choiceenables tourism organisations to better design theirmarketing strategies and policies, adapting them accordingto the key dimensions. In fact, the result obtainedconcerning distance, through which it is considered adissuasive element in the choice of destination, implies thatpublic and private managers should promote touristdestinations in the closest administrative units (provinces)as Spanish tourists are more likely to travel to closerdestinations. However, the results reached regardingthe moderating role of motivations lead one to reorientatethe former implication for distance. On the onehand, tranquil destinations should be promoted in

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 6Destination choice hypotheses tests

Hypotheses Accept Reject

H1. The search for climate moderates the effect of distance on the choice of destination, in such a way that the touristis prepared to cover longer distances.

X

H2. The search for tranquillity moderates the effect of distance on the choice of destination, in such a way that thetourist is prepared to cover longer distances.

X

H3. The interest of an individual in broadening cultural knowledge moderates the effect of distance on the choice of destination, in such a way that the tourist is prepared to cover longer distances.

X

H4. The interest of an individual in discovering new places moderates the effect of distance on the choice of destination, in such a way that the tourist is prepared to cover longer distances.

X

H5. Visiting family and friends moderates the effect of distance on the choice of destination, in such a way that thetourist is prepared to cover longer distances.

X

H6. The search for climate moderates the effect of prices on the choice of destinations, in such a way that the tourist isprepared to pay higher prices.

X

H7. The search for tranquillity moderates the effect of prices on the choice of destinations, in such a way that thetourist is prepared to pay higher prices.

X

H8. The interest of an individual in broadening cultural knowledge moderates the effect of prices on the choice of destination, in such a way that the tourist is prepared to pay higher prices.

X

H9. The interest of an individual in discovering new places moderates the effect of prices on the choice of destination,in such a way that the tourist is prepared to pay higher prices.

X

H10. Visiting family and friends moderates the effect of prices on the choice of destination, in such a way that thetourist is prepared to pay higher prices.

X



13/15

neighbouring provinces, as individuals with this motivationare not willing to cover long distances, whereas on theother hand, destinations with good climate and culturalaspects could also be promoted in more distant markets, asindividuals with these motivations are prepared to travelfurther. With regard to prices, according to the results

obtained, they are seen as inhibitors of the choice of destinations. This statement would explain the widely usedlow-cost strategy by tourism rms. As a matter of fact, thegeneralisation of the low-cost strategy has been adopted bythe airline, rent-a-car, cruising and hotel industries, amongothers, and the tourism companies consider the low-costconcept as a permanent phenomenon, since it is aconsequence of the typical feeling of the consumer whoconsiders price a decisive element in the decision. However,these tourism rms should also take into account the factthat tourist habits have changed, since tourists spend moreor less depending on the motivations they have at a specictime. Also, this study has detected that tourists looking forculture are generally more willing to pay higher prices,whereas those looking for climate are less willing. There-fore, the analysis of the tourist motivations, which lead tothe choice of a destination is crucial, and it should be bornin mind by tourism organisations in order to identify themaximum price that tourists are prepared to pay ( reserve price ).

Among the limitations of this study are the following:(i) its static character, as it is only based on the mainannual holiday of an individual. Alternatively, an analysisof all holidays taken (main holiday, weekend trips etc.) in ayear or over various years with panel data would allow us a

better understanding of the determinants of the choice;(ii) the eld of study is Spain. It would be useful if theresults were reinforced by applications on other geogra-phical areas in order to be able to generalise theconclusions; (iii) the lack of available information oncertain variables, such as psychological distance andindividual perceptions of the attributes of the destinations;and (iv) we do not consider a specic destination, ratherany of the destinations chosen by Spanish tourists. Thiscould impede knowledge of the impact of the characteristicfactors of a particular destination. However, this way of working allows us to nd the inuence of differentdimensions in a general manner.

Possible future lines of research are that the results of this study should be supported by research on othergeographical areas in order to make comparisons. Simi-larly, it would be interesting to test the hypotheses from alongitudinal perspective, which would allow us to observethe temporal evolution of the effects of the proposeddimensions.

Acknowledgement

This study has beneted from a Spanish tourism grantfrom the Secretary of State for Commerce and Tourism of

the Ministry of Economy for the realisation of theDoctoral thesis of the rst author.

References

Adamowicz, W., Bocal, P., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated

preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choiceexperiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultur-al Economics , 80(February), 6475.

Adamowicz, W., Louviere, J., & Williams, M. (1994). Combining revealedand stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 26 , 271292.

Anderson, J. R. L. (1970). The Ulysses factor . New York: Ed. HarcourtBrace Johanovich, Inc.

Baxter, M., & Ewing, G. (1981). Models of recreational trip distribution.Regional Studies , 15(5), 327344.

Baxter, M. J. (1979). The interpretation of the distance and attractivenesscomponents in models of recreational trips. Geographical Analysis ,11(3), 311315.

Baxter, M. J., & Ewing, G. O. (1979). Calibration of production-constrained trip distributon models and the effect of intervening

opportunities. Journal of Regional Science .Beaman, J. (1974). Distance and the reaction to distance as a function of

distance. Journal of Leisure Research , 6 (summer), 220231.Beaman, J. (1976). Corrections regarding the impedance of distance

functions for several g(d) functions. Journal of Leisure Research ,4952.

Bigne , E., Font, X., & Andreu, L. (2000). Marketing de destinos tur sticos:Ana lisis and estrategias de desarrollo . Madrid: Esic.

Borgers, A. W. J., Van Der Heijden, R. E. C. M., & Timmermans, H. J. P.(1989). A variety seeking model of spatial choice-behaviour. Environ-ment and Planning A , 21, 10371048.

Borocz, J. (1990). Hungary as a destination 19601984. Annals of TourismResearch , 17 (1), 1935.

Bote, V., Huescar, A., & Vogeler, C. (1991). Concentracio n e integracio nde las agencias de viajes espan olas ante el acta u nica Europea. Papers

de Turisme , 5, 543.Calantone, R. J., & Johar, J. S. (1984). Seasonal segmentation of the

tourism market using a benet segmentation framework. Journal of Travel Research , 23(fall), 1424.

Cesario, F. J. (1976). Value of time in recreation benet studies. Land Economics , 52, 3241.

Dalen, E. (1989). Research into values and consumer trends in Norway.Tourism Management , 10, 183186.

De Borja, L., Casanovas, J. A., & Bosch, R. (2002). El ConsumidorTur stico . Madrid: Esic Editorial.

Dellaert, B. G. C., Borgers, A. W. J., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (1997).Conjoint models of tourist portfolio choice: Theory and illustration.Leisure Sciences , 19, 3158.

Dubin, J. A. (1998). The demand for recreations shing in montana. InJ. A. Dubin (Ed.), Studies in consumer demand-econometric methods

applied to market data . Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Edwards, S. L., & Dennis, S. J. (1976). Long distance day-tripping in

Great Britain. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy , 10, 237256.Erdem, T., Swait, J., & Louviere, J. (2002). The impact of brand credibility

on consumer price sensitivity. International Journal of Research inMarketing , 19, 119.

Ewing, G. (1980). Progress and problems in the development of recreational trip generation and trip distribution models. LeisureSciences , 3(1), 124.

Eymann, A., & Ronning, G. (1992). Discrete choice analysis of foreigntravel demand. In H. J. Vosgerau (Ed.), European integration in theworld economy. Studies in international economics and institutions .Berlin: Springer.

Eymann, A., & Ronning, G. (1997). Microeconometric models of touristsdestination choice. Regional Science and Urban Economics , 27 ,735761.

ARTICLE IN PRESS



14/15

Fesenmaier, D. R. (1988). Integrating activity patterns into destinationchoice models. Journal of Leisure Resesarch , 20(3), 175191.

Fesenmaier, D. R., & Jeng, J. (2000). Assessing structure in the pleasuretrip planning process. Tourism Analysis , 5, 1327.

Fesenmaier, D. R., Yeong, H., Pan, B., & Gretzel, U. (2002). Behavioral foundations for travel destination recommendation systems . WorkingDraft, National Laboratory for Tourism and e-Commerce, University

of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign).Fotheringham, A. S., & OKelly, M. E. (1989). Spatial interaction models:Formulations and applications . Dordrecht (The Netherlands): KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Gartner, W. C. (1993). Image formation process. In M. Uysal, & D. R.Fesenmaier (Eds.), Communication and channel systems in tourismmarketing . New York: The Harworth Press.

Gonza lez, A. M., & Bello, L. (2002). The construct lifestyle in marketsegmentation: The behaviour of tourist consumers. European Journal of Marketing , 36 (1/2), 5185.

Gonza lez, A. M., & D az, A. M. (1996). Ana lisis del comportamiento delturista a PARTIR de las variables de estilos de vida. In L. Valde s, &A. Ruiz Vega (Eds.), Turismo and promocio n de destinos tur sticos:Implicaciones empresariales . Gijo n: Universidad de Oviedo.

Goodwin, P. B. (1976). Human effort and the value of travel time. Journal

of Transport Economics and Policy , 10, 315.Haider, W., & Ewing, G. O. (1990). A model of tourist choices of hypothetical caribbean destinations. Leisure Sciences , 12, 3347.

Hensher, D. (2001). The valuation of commuter travel time savings for cardrivers in New Zealand: Evaluating alternative model specications.Transportation , 28, 101118.

Hof, J. G., & Rosenthal, D. H. (1987). Valuing opportunity cost of traveltime in recreation demand models: An application to aggregate data.Journal of Leisure Research , 19(3), 174188.

Hsieh, S., OLearly, J. T., Morrison, A. M., & Chang, P.-H. S. (1993).Modelling the travel mode choice of Australian outbound travellers.The Journal of Tourism Studies , 4(1), 5161.

Hu, A., & Ritchie, R. B. (1993). Measuring destination attractive-ness: A contextual approach. Journal of Travel Research (fall),2534.

Kemperman, A. D. A. M, Borgers, A. W. J., Oppewal, H., & Timmer-mans, H. J. P. (2000). Consumer choice of theme parks: A conjointchoice model of seasonality effects and variety seeking behavior.Leisure Sciences , 22, 118.

Kim, S., & Lee, C. h. (2002). Push and pull relationships. Annals of Tourism Research , 29(1), 257260.

Lanquar, R. (2001). Marketing tur stico . Barcelona: Ariel Turismo.Lehmann, D. R. (1993). Investigacio n y ana lisis de mercado . Me xico:

Cecsa.Louviere, J. J., & Hensher, D. A. (1983). Using discrete choice models

with experimental design data to forecast consumer demand for aunique cultural event. Journal of Consumer Research , 10(December),348361.

Mak, J., & Moncur, J. E. T. (1980). The demand for travel agents. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy , 23(May), 221231.

Mart nez, E. (2002). Flujos regionales del turismo dome stico en espana .Documento de Trabajo, Universidad de Gerona.

Mayo, E. J., & Jarvis, L. P. (1981). The psychology of leisure travel .Boston: CBI Publishing Co.

Mcintosh, R. W., & Goeldner, C. R. (1984). Tourism principles, practices, philosophies . Columbia: Grid Publishing Inc.

Morey, E. R., Shaw, W. D., & Rowe, R. D. (1991). A discrete choicemodel of recreational participation site choice, and activity valuationwhen complete trip data are not available. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 20, 181201.

Morley, C. L. (1994a). Experimental destination choice anaylsis. Annals of Tourism Research , 21(4), 780791.

Morley, C. L. (1994b). Discrete choice analysis of the impact of tourismprices. Journal of Travel Research (fall), 814.

Morley, C. L. (1994c). The use of CPI for tourism prices in demandmodeling. Tourism Management , 15(5), 342346.

Morrison, A. M. (1996). Hospitality and travel marketing . New York:Delmar Publishers.

Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of Marketing , 21(10), 144.

Moutinho, L., & Trimble, J. (1991). A probability of revisitation model:The case of winter visits to the grand canyon. The Service IndustriesJournal , 11 (4), 439457.

Muller, T. E. (1991). Using personal values to dene segments in aninternational tourism market. International Marketing Review , 8,5770.

Munizaga, M., A lvarez-Daziano, R. (2001). Mixed logit versus nested logitand probit . Working Paper, Departamento de Ingenier a Civil,Universidad de Chile.

Nahab, S. (1975). Tourism management . London: Tourism InternationalPress, Londres.

Perdue, R. R. (1986). Traders and nontraders in recreational destinationchoice. Journal of Leisure Research , 18(1), 1225.

Peterson, G. L., Dwyer, J. F., & Darragh, A. J. (1983). A behavioral urbanrecreation site choice model. Leisure Sciences , 6 (1), 6181.

Pitts, R. E., & Woodside, A. G. (1980). Personal values and traveldecisions. Journal of Travel Research , 25(summer), 2025.

Plog, S. C. (1994). Developing and using psychographics in tourism

research. In Travel, tourism and hospitality research . New York: Wiley.Riera, A. (2000). Modelos de eleccio n discreta and coste del viaje. Losespacios naturales protegidos en mallorca. Revista de Econom aAplicada , 8(24), 181201.

Rugg, D. (1973). The choice of journey destination: A theoretical andempirical analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics , 55(1),6472.

Santos, J. L. (1983). La decisio n de compra del turista-consumidor.Estudios Tur sticos , 79, 3953.

Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (1978). Consumer behavior . EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Schroeder, H. W., & Louviere, J. (1999). Stated choice models forpredicting the impact of user fees at public recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research , 31(3), 300324.

Seddighi, H. R., & Theocharous, A. L. (2002). A model of tourism

destination choice: A theoretical and empirical analysis. TourismManagement .

Serra, A. (2002). Marketing tur stico . Madrid: Ed. Pira mide.Shih, D. (1986). VALS as a tool of tourism market research: The

pennsylvania experience. Journal of Travel Research , 24(4), 211.Siderelis, Ch., & Moore, R. L. (1998). Recreation demand and the

inuence of site preference variables. Journal of Leisure Research ,30(3), 301318.

Sirakaya, E. (1992). Modeling vacation destination choice decisions:Development of an instrument . Clemson University Masters Thesis,South Carolina: Clemson University.

Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R. W., & Uysal, M. (1996). Modeling vacationdestinations decisions: A behavioural approach. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing , 5(1/2), 5775.

Smith, S. L. J. (1995). Tourism analysis: A handbook . United Kingdom:

Longman Group Limited.Spanieer, J., & Maize, E. (1991). Quasi-random methods for estimating

integrals using relatively small samples. SIAM Review , 36 , 1844.Stopher, P. R., & Ergu n, G. (1979). Population segmentation in urban

recreation choices. Transportation Research , 5965.Taylor, Ch. E., & Knudson, D. M. (1976). Area preferences of midwestern

campers. Journal of Leisure Research , 12(spring), 3948.Train, K. E. (1998). Recreation demand models with taste differences over

people. Land Economics , 74, 2.Train, K. E. (1999). Mixed logit models for recreation demand. In

J. Herriges, & C. Kling (Eds.), Valuing recreation and the environment .Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Train, K.E. (2001). Halton sequences for mixed logit . Working paper.Berkeley: University of California.

Train, K. E. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation . New York:Cambridge University Press.

ARTICLE IN PRESS



15/15

Usach, J. (1998). Ana lisis de los ujos interregionales de la demandatur stica interna espan ola. Estudios Tur sticos , 136 , 2743.

Usach, J. (1999). Un modelo de demanda tur stica interna para laeconoma espan ola. Papers de Turisme , 25, 59100.

Walsh, R. G., John, K. H., Mckean, J. R., & Hof, J. G. (1992). Effect of price on forecasts of participation in sh and wildlife recreation: Anaggregate demand model. Journal of Leisure Research , 24(2), 140156.

Wennergren, E.B., & Nielsen, D.B. (1968). A Probabilistic approach toestimating demand for outdoor recreation . Working paper. Utah StateUniversity.

Witt, S. F., & Martin, C. A. (1987). Econometric models for forecastinginternational tourism demand. Journal of Travel Research , 25(winter),2330.

Wolfe, R. I. (1970). Communication. Journal of Leisure Research , 2(1),8587.

Wolfe, R. I. (1972). The inertia model. Journal of Leisure Research , 4,7376.

Zins, A.H. (1996). Psychographic tools in tourism behaviour models: A crossvalidation . Conference of the European Marketing Academy-EMAC,pp. 12911311.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Documents

Choice of Tourist Destination