Journal of Travel Research http://jtr.sagepub.

com

How Special Is Special Interest Tourism?

Bob Mckercher and Andrew Chan
Journal of Travel Research 2005; 44; 21
DOI: 10.1177/0047287505276588

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/44/1/21

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations (this article cites 19 articles hosted on the

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/44/1/21

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007

© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
AUGUST 2005
10.1177/0047287505276588
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH

How Special Is Special Interest Tourism?

BOB MCKERCHER and ANDREW CHAN

Much of the research documenting the size and impor- that are thought to represent nature-based activities, such as
tance of special interest (SI) tourism is based on secondary national parks, protected areas, zoos, and wildlife parks.
analysis of visitor survey data. Segments are defined by ana- The method may document accurately what people did at
lyzing responses to activity questions, with the assumption a destination. The results are, however, typically interpreted
being that activities are a valid proxy for motives to travel or as reflecting underlying travel motives, and the findings
trip purpose. The soundness of this approach is based on two reported as representing trip purposes in accordance with the
suppositions that do not appear to have been questioned. The conceptualization of SI tourism as “the hub around which the
first is that visitor surveys are constructed in such a way that total travel experience is planned and developed” (Read
valid SI trip-purpose segments can be defined. The second is 1980, as cited in Hall and Weiler 1992). In this manner, an
the existence of a direct correlation between actions and mo- assertion is made that because x% of tourists visited certain
tivations. This article illustrates that both suppositions are types of attractions, then x% must be SI tourists for whom the
unfounded, resulting in the production of figures that over- activity represented their main reason to visit the destination.
state the true importance of SI tourism as a trip generator by Thus, the KwaZulu-Natal study can conclude that 45% of
as much as 20 times. The authors call for the discontinuation South Africa’s foreign air arrival market are nature-based
of the method. tourists because they visit at least one wildlife or nature
reserve while in South Africa (KwaZulu-Natal Tourism
Keywords: special interest tourism; methodology; sec- Association 2003). The TIA can assert that so many people
ondary data analysis are historic/cultural travelers because “they included at least
one cultural, arts, heritage or historic activity or event while
The special interest (SI) tourism market is thought to be traveling in the past year” (Keefe 2002, p. 1). The UK report
very special. The Travel Industry Association of America to the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and
(TIA) reported that “a remarkable 81% of US adults who Regional Affairs (Matthews 2001, p. 1) derives its heritage
traveled in the past year or 118 million, are considered his- tourist figures from the observation that “the 1999 ETC sur-
toric/cultural travelers” (Keefe 2003, p. 1). Reports from vey of Visits to Tourist Attractions, for example, estimated
Canada suggest that 52% of American tourists and 68% of that 32% of visitors to historic buildings in England were
foreign visitors are classified as cultural tourists (Okanogan from abroad.” Tourism Queensland’s (2004) study con-
2003). The International Ecotourism Society (2000) indi- cludes that 50% of all international visitors are cultural tour-
cated that as many as 60% of all international tourists are ists because they visited at least one cultural place during
nature-based tourists and 40% are wildlife-related tourists, their visit, the Canadian Okanogan (2003) report draws its
and a report by the Australian Tourist Commission (2004) conclusions because a certain percentage of American and
suggests that 11% of all inbound Australian tourists are wine other foreign tourists include at least one cultural activity or
tourists. Other studies producing similarly impressive results event during their visit to Canada, and so on.
are highlighted in table 1. Moreover, SI tourists are also Although the method produces very attractive numbers,
thought to spend more, stay longer, travel more frequently, its validity is predicated on the assumption that either activi-
and participate in more activities than other tourists (Keefe ties are a valid proxy for defining a single trip purpose or
2002; MacKay, Andereck, and Vogt 2002; Stronge 2000). that visitor surveys are structured in such a way that SI trip-
These figures are derived using the same method based purpose segments can be defined by analyzing activity ques-
on secondary analysis of closed-ended questions on visitor tions. This article argues that neither assumption is
surveys asking tourists to identify all activities they pursued
while at the destination. Those activities that are thought to
be evocative of the specialist interest under examination are Bob McKercher is associate professor and associate
selected for further analysis, with segment size defined by head of school at the School of Hotel and Tourism Manage-
raw participation rates. Participants and nonparticipants are ment, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,
also compared to identify differences between groups that Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR. Andrew Chan is assistant profes-
are then attributed to the SI. For example, a survey of cultural sor at the School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong
tourists to Vermont was based on “an analysis of those Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong
respondents who indicated they included cultural or heritage Kong SAR.
activities as part of at least one of their trips to Vermont” Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44, August 2005, 21-31
(Martin and Valliere 2002, p. 2). Likewise, the nature-based DOI: 10.1177/0047287505276588
sector might be defined based on visitation rates to places © 2005 Sage Publications

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007

© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
22 AUGUST 2005

TABLE 1
SPECIAL INTEREST SEGMENT SIZE

Source Special Interest Segment Market Size

Ferguson (2002) Culture 57%
Sports (of tourists to Victoria, Australia) 58%
World Tourism Organization Cultural 37% of global travel
(as cited by Richards 1996b)
World Tourism Organization Ecotourism 20% of global travel
(as cited by Chin et al. 2000)
Tourism Queensland (2004) Cultural tourism in Queensland, Australia 50% of international tourists
Okanogan (2003) Cultural tourism in Canada 52% of American tourists
68% of international tourists
Gold Coast City Council (2002) Cultural tourism potential in 60% of international visitors
South Queensland, Australia
Charters and Ali-Knight (2001) Wine tourists in Australia 10% in 1993 and a 20%
growth in 1 year
Tighe (1985) U.S. cultural tourism market in Europe 80% museums
56% theater
Canadian Tourism Commission (2001) Cultural tourists in Canada Nearly 40%
Australian Tourist Commission (2004) Food and wine tourists to Australia 11%
International Ecotourism Society Ecotourism 40-60% of international tourists
(2000; repeating others’ figures) are nature tourists
20-40% are wildlife-related
tourists
Stronge (2000) Cultural tourism in Florida 18%
Keefe (2003) American domestic cultural/heritage tourists 81% or 217 m person-trips
Antolovic (1999) Cultural 70% of Americans to Europe
Taubman (1999) Shopping tourists 89% of overseas visitors
Culturalist shoppers (engaged in 32.4%
both shopping and cultural or
heritage tourism)
Patterson (2000) Nature-based tourism in Tasmania 69% of all visitors and 86% of
overseas tourists
Blamey (1995) Ecotourism market in Australia Up to 50% of international
arrivals
KwaZulu-Natal Tourism Association (2003) South Africa nature-based tourism market 45%
Matthews (2001) Heritage tourism in UK 32% of visitors to historic
buildings from abroad
Ireland (Northern Ireland Tourism Historic properties 94.3
Board 2003; number of visitors Museums/exhibitions 86.2
given in thousands) Walking 58.3
Golf 34.1
Travel Industry Association U.S. domestic travel market segments
of America (2004) Adventure travelers 1/2 of U.S. adults, or 98 million
Beaches 12%
Biking vacations 27 million travelers
Festivals and fairs 41%

supportable, and, as such, the application of this technique is little correlation between actions pursued and trip purpose.
likely to produce results that significantly exaggerate the true As such, it cannot be supported.
value of SI tourism as a trip generator. We examine each of Crompton and McKay (1997) argued that attractions can
these assumptions, along with the associated assumption that appeal to multiple markets simultaneously because different
comparing participants with nonparticipants is a valid tech- people may visit to satisfy different motives. They illustrate
nique to identify unique features of segments. We then test that a restaurant may appeal to some people wishing to expe-
the assumptions empirically to illustrate the extent to which rience a cultural tradition, but it can also appeal to others as a
unreliable results are produced. vehicle to foster inter- or intragroup socialization. Richards
(1996a) cautioned that not all tourists visiting cultural attrac-
tions can automatically be classified as cultural tourists, for
ACTIONS AS A PROXY FOR MOTIVES their visits may not be driven by cultural reasons. He stated
that many consume these types of attractions as part of a
To begin, let us examine the assumption that actions are a wider experience. Prentice and Andersen (2003) likewise
valid proxy for motives. A number of authors have ques- identified multiple motives and different consumption pat-
tioned this belief, and a number of empirical studies show terns at festivals, and McKercher and du Cros (2003)
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 23

illustrated that the population of visitors to Hong Kong’s cul- segments can be identified using secondary analysis. Sec-
tural attractions is diverse and, in fact, includes a substantial ondary analysis is a valid method providing the survey
share of business travelers. instrument, and resultant data satisfy reliability, sensitivity,
Tourists participate in a wide variety of activities when fitness, and validity criteria for the desired purpose (Pizam
they travel. No doubt, some are directly related to their trip 1994; Churchill 1995; Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill
purpose; but many more are ancillary or peripheral to the rea- 2000). Reliability and sensitivity criteria relate to the extent
son for travel, and the consumption of them complements the to which data can provide consistent results and fine enough
total trip experience. Indeed, the decision to participate in detail for the purpose of the research. Fitness recognizes that
many activities is not made until after arrival at the destina- data collected for one purpose may not be relevant, timely, or
tion (Lew 1987; Pearce and Wilson 1995; McKercher 1996). suitable for another purpose. Validity refers to the degree to
One of the authors’ recent experiences at a conference illus- which the instrument can predict a criterion (Pizam 1994), in
trates this point. The conference planners organized a num- this case, SI trip-purpose segments.
ber of social activities and technical visits, including trying To test validity and fitness, 13 English-language surveys
the local cuisine, an evening of wine tasting, a technical visit from 6 countries were analyzed (see Table 2). The sample
to see glacial features, and an opera staged in a sixteenth- was limited to surveys that were available online. Some are
century castle. Even though he joined these activities, it dated, but the set is sufficiently broad to encompass different
would be misleading to suggest he was a culinary, wine, eco- geographic areas and levels of government (national, state,
, or heritage and arts tourist, when, in actuality, it was the
and local) so that general conclusions can be made about the
convention that drew him to the community.
type of wording used and information gathered. National vis-
Attractions that are evocative of SI tourism represent the
itor surveys from New Zealand, Hong Kong, and the United
types of discretionary attraction that complement the tourist
States; two from Canada; and excerpts of the UK interna-
experience (McKercher 2002). Cultural, heritage, and natu-
ral assets, in particular, constitute a large share of the total tional visitors survey are included, as well as state surveys
product mix in most destinations and also help give them from Tasmania in Australia and Vermont, New Hampshire,
their unique local character. Many of them are conveniently Virginia, and Idaho in the United States. Two local surveys
located in tourist nodes and are accessible free of charge or at are also analyzed.
highly subsidized rates, encouraging spontaneous visitation. In general, trip-purpose questions appear near the begin-
The profile of visitors at these attractions is, therefore, ning, and activity questions are located later in the instru-
diverse. Tourists who visit museums, for example, might be ment, often as the penultimate section prior to concluding
cultural tourists, but they could equally be business travelers demographic questions. The wording of trip-purpose ques-
with a free afternoon, shopping tourists who visited during a tions is precise and singular in its intent, as shown in Table 2.
rainy day, or sightseeing tourists who purchased a package Participants are asked to identify one main reason why they
tour that happened to include the museum on the itinerary. visited the destination. A closed-ended format is used, with
A number of empirical studies further suggest that SI respondents given the choice of a limited number of options
tourists represent a small share of visitors to places that may reflecting business, pleasure, visiting friends and relatives
be evocative of a specialist interest. Half of all tourists visit- and variations on these themes, such as attending confer-
ing Australia will go to natural or protected areas, but only ences, seminars, or a family reunion. The Virginia survey,
5% said nature-based tourism particularly influenced their for example, asked respondents, “How would you describe
decision to visit (Blamey 1995). Pearce and Wilson (1995) the primary purpose of the trip?” with the word primary in
noted that many wildlife-viewing tourists in New Zealand bold. The Government Travel Survey of Visitors to Canada
have only a casual interest in this activity and join primarily asked, “What was the traveling party’s main reason for tak-
for its recreation and fun values. A study of cultural tourism ing this trip?” again with the words traveling party’s main
in Hong Kong revealed that although one-third of tourists underlined. Other surveys use questions like “Which of these
will experience cultural or heritage attractions at some stage [terms] best describes your primary reason for visiting?” or
of their visit, fewer than 4% could be classified as purposeful “Which of these [terms] best describes your main reason for
cultural tourists, people who traveled specifically to learn traveling?”
about cultural heritage and who had a deep learning experi- Only a small number of SI options is included, with the
ence (McKercher 2002). The Northern Ireland Tourism most common being attending special events/festivals,
Board (2003) likewise illustrated that only about 2% of visi- which appears on most surveys, and hunting/fishing, which
tors to historical properties or museums identified these was common on American state surveys. The New Zealand
activities as a reason to visit Northern Ireland. Ferguson International Visitors Survey included different recreational,
(2002), examining sports tourism in Australia, concluded sporting, and event options among its 19 trip-purpose cate-
that only 9% of respondents described their trip as a health/ gories, and the 1995 American Travel Survey provided 12
sport-oriented holiday, a far cry from the 58% participation options, including sightseeing and visiting historic/scenic
rate noted. Even the World Tourism Organization (2002, p. attractions, outdoor recreation (including camping, boating,
111) has identified ecotourism as a “small niche market in and sports), entertainment, and shopping.
constant growth” and not as a mass market. The Idaho Travel questionnaire was unique (Department
of Resource Recreation 1999). Not only did it include the
largest number of SI options, but it also asked people to iden-
STRUCTURE OF VISITOR SURVEYS tify primary and secondary trip purposes by requesting them
to choose one main reason and all other reasons that applied.
Let us now consider the second assumption: that visitor Fifteen different categories were provided, including five
surveys are constructed in such a way that SI trip-purpose open-ended options, asking people to identify the specific
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 24
TABLE 2
WORDING OF TRIP-PURPOSE AND ACTIVITY QUESTIONS

Survey Trip-Purpose Questions Activity Questions

Canada Travel Survey of Visitors to Canada Q5 What was the traveling party’s main reason for taking this Q6 On this trip to Canada, did anyone in the
(Statistics Canada 2001) trip to Canada? Check one only. traveling party . . . Check all that apply.
12 options including attending events or attractions 19 activities listed
Canadian Travel Survey Questionnaire TR_Q23 What was your main reason for taking this trip? (one only) TR_Q25 On this trip did you . . . (Record those
(Statistics Canada 2003) activities that the selected respondent
participated.) 17 activities
7 options TR_Q 26 and TR_Q 27 Did you participate in any
sporting or outdoor activities? What were these
sporting or outdoor activities? Mark all that apply.
13 options
Hong Kong Tourist Board Departing Visitor 15 options provided, including hobby/sport and religious related 53 activities listed
Survey Air (Hong Kong Tourism Board 2004;
viewed in confidence, exact wording not
replicated)
New Zealand International Visitor Survey Q7 Which of these describes your main reason for traveling to Q12 Looking at this map of New Zealand, and
(Tourism Research Council New Zealand 2004) New Zealand? starting with the first night of your visit, point out
each of the places you stayed overnight, and the
19 options including skiing, to see a publicized number of nights you stayed there. More details
special event, or to watch or play sport about each of those places will be asked.
12g. What attractions and activities did you see
and do there?
REPEAT (d)-(p) FOR ALL PLACES STAYED
OVERNIGHT
UK International Passenger Survey A single main purpose of visit is recorded for all contacts. How many people visited Northern Ireland’s main
(Office of National Statistics 2003) 4 options including miscellaneous tourist attractions? 20 places named.
Activities Undertaken by Visitors to Northern How many people visited Forest/Country Parks
Ireland 2002 (Northern Ireland Tourism and Gardens?
Board 2003) 20 places named

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007

(Surveys not cited)
1995 American Travel Survey (U.S. Department QF 10 What was the main reason that [you] took the trip Not tested
of Transportation 1995) TO [destination]

© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
12 options including outdoor recreation (sports, hunting, fishing,
boating, camping, and so on) and entertainment (attend theater,
attend concert, attend sports event, gambling, and so on)
Idaho Travel visitors’ survey (mail back; Q1 What are the reasons you are traveling in IDAHO on this trip? Trip diary provided asking respondents to identify
Department of Resource Recreation 1999) (Please read through the list below and then choose the one major activities participated at each stop
main reason, and as many other reasons as apply.)
15 options including 7 open-ended questions seeking specific
information about the name of the convention attended, resort or
town visited, natural attraction visited, event or festival, and so on
New Hampshire Visitor Survey Winter Q2 What was the PRIMARY purpose of this visit? Q3 In which types of activities did you participate
2003-2004 (Thurston 2004) (Please check only one.) while on this trip? (Please check as many as
6 options including outdoor recreation apply.)
16 named plus 2 open-ended other
 Vermont International Tourist Survey Q4 What is the primary purpose of your visit to Vermont? Q11 What activities did you take part in while
(Brown 2002) Business- or pleasure-only options visiting Vermont? 20 items listed
1997/1998 Virginia Visitor Survey (Virginia Q 2 How would you describe the primary purpose of this trip? Q 12 “X” all the VA activities/locations that anyone
Tourism Corporation 1998) (X Only ONE Trip Purpose) in the travel party experienced on your May 97
12 options, including outdoor recreation and special event or festival trip to, thru, or within VA.
50 general sites and activities, 33 specific sites,
and 35 specific cities
Q 13 Using the #’s 001-118 above, write in ONE #
that best reflects the trip’s motivating place/
activity.
Tasmanian Visitor Survey 2003/2004 Q3 What was/is the main purpose of this trip? Mark ONE response Q12 Did you visit or stay overnight at any of the
(Tourism Tasmania 2003) only. following attractions?
7 options including event or festival (specific name sought) 46 attractions listed geographically
Q15 During this trip did you . . . (Mark all that
apply.) 32 activities listed
City of Gallipolis (Ohio Division of Travel Q4 Which of the following best describes your primary reason for Q7 What places were you able to visit?
and Tourism 2002) visiting Gallipolis? Choose one . . . 14 places listed
10 options listed, including special event, genealogy, hunting/fishing,
and historical attractions
Gallup, New Mexico, Visitors Survey (Gallup What is the primary purpose of your visit? How will/did you spend your time while in Gallup?
McKinley County Chamber of Commerce 2004) 3 options: business, pleasure, and other 12 options

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007

© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
25
26 AUGUST 2005

natural attraction, recreation or leisure activity, event or fes- between breakfast cereal consumption and the propensity of
tival, or other purpose that caused the trip. wearing pajamas, one does not induce the other to occur.
Like trip-purpose questions, activity questions also fol- Time of day is the real causal agent, with the observed
low a similar, closed-ended format. The only difference is relationship being coincidental.
that multiple answers are encouraged. Table 2, again, offers Although an apparent relationship may exist between
different examples of the wording used. Between 20 and 115 certain activities and extended length of stay or higher
discrete activities, places, or attraction types were listed on expenditure, one must search more deeply for the true cause
the surveys examined, with most instruments including of these differences. A substantial body of literature suggests
between 25 and 40 options. The New Hampshire winter sur- that more prosaic reasons, including prior visitation history,
vey asks visitors, “In which activities did you participate the role of the destination as a main or secondary goal, and
while on this trip? Please check as many as apply.” Likewise, tour group participation, better explain these differences.
the Virginian survey requested respondent to “‘X’ out all the Fakeye and Crompton (1991), Gitelson and Crompton
Virginia activities/locations that anyone in the travel party (1984), Oppermann (1997), and Lau and McKercher (2004)
experienced in your May 97 trip to, thru or within VA.” have all shown that first-time visitors are more active than
Trip-purpose and activity questions, therefore, represent repeat visitors. They tend to explore a destination widely, do
discrete and unrelated sections of the survey instrument that more, and are willing to travel to out-of-the-way places.
are designed to gather different types of information. Trip- Likewise, Mill and Morrison (1985), Oppermann (1995),
purpose questions ask why people visited, whereas activity and McKercher (2001) described significant differences in
questions document what they did. No inference can be made the length of stay, expenditure, and actions of main destina-
about activities pursued by analyzing trip-purpose questions tion tourists compared to those who are stopover tourists.
alone, and no inferences can be made about trip purpose Tour group participation may also be a factor, because local
based solely on an analysis of activity questions or in combi- sightseeing tours bundle a number of sites, attractions, and
nation with trip-purpose questions, unless the specific SI was activities into a product (Economic Planning Group of Can-
listed explicitly in the trip-purpose section. Few of the ada 1995). Participants will therefore visit many places that
reports reviewed in table 1 recognize trip purpose as being would be reported on departure surveys. Tour participants
distinct from activities pursued. Patterson (2000) was one also tend to be older, more affluent, and better educated than
exception, identifying 69% of visitors to Tasmania as partici- the general traveling public.
pating in nature-based tourism, then concluding elsewhere Indeed, participation in the activity is more likely to be an
that the majority of them were visiting for pleasure or to visit opportunistic beneficiary of these factors than a cause of
friends and relatives. extended stays or increased expenditures. Visiting a museum
may not cause people to stay longer and spend more. But
first-time visitors, main destination tourists, and those who
COMPARING PARTICIPANTS AND join commercial sightseeing tours are more likely to visit
NONPARTICIPANTS TO ATTRIBUTE museums because they are interested in exploring the desti-
nation, have the time to do so, or may visit as part of a tour’s
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOURISTS itinerary.
A second issue must also be considered. Even if the
Finally, the practice of comparing participants and underlying premise were valid, the moderating effects of
nonparticipants to identify differences between SI and other other activities would need to be considered to confidently
tourists must also be reassessed, for, like much else in SI show that the activity under examination was the singular
research, the arithmetic is simple, but the conceptual and cause of observed differences. Thus, analysts would need to
operational underpinning is flawed. A simple example illus- manipulate the data to identify all combinations involving
trates how this procedure works. Visitors who selected the the activity in question, then test each combination to control
museums box in the activity question are compared to those for and exclude the possible impact that other activities may
who left that box blank on such dimensions as length of stay, have had on observed differences. The task becomes unman-
expenditure, tour group participation, and demographic pro- ageably complicated when the number of possible combina-
file. The act of visiting a museum is then identified as the tions of activities is included. Remember, respondents are
cause for observed differences among groups, with the con- asked to identify all activities they pursued while at the desti-
clusion being made that people who travel specifically to nation. Thus, the set of items listed could be combined in a
visit museums stay longer and spend more. total of 2x−1 possible ways. A 4-item set listing activities a,
The logic behind this procedure is specious. As discussed b, c, and d could produce 15 different combinations of
above, activity questions record what people did, not why answers describing what tourists did (a, b, c, d, ab, ac, ad, bc,
they visited. The activity questions, therefore, test an effect bd, cd, abc, abd, acd, bcd, and abcd). A 20-item set produces
of visitation. They are then compared to other effects of visi- 1,048,575 combinations, a 30-item set 1,073,741,823 differ-
tation (how long they stayed, how much they spent, and how ent answers, and a 100-item set a staggering
many other activities they pursued) or who exhibited this 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 possible com-
behavior (older visitors, higher-income earners, and so on) in binations of answers. One activity, therefore, can be com-
an effort to show causality. But, in reality, what is being bined with any or all other items in 2(x – 1) ways. Activity a, in
tested is an effect-effect relationship and not a cause-effect the above example, could be combined in eight different
relationship. Relationships may be found, but they will be ways (a, ab, ac, ad, abc, abd, acd, and abcd). One activity in
casual and most likely incidental. This type of analysis is a 20-item set produces more than possible 524,000 permuta-
akin to arguing that wearing pajamas causes people to eat tions with the other 19 items, whereas more than
breakfast cereal. Although a relationship may be shown 500,000,000 answers could be combined with any item in a
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 27

30-item set. It is therefore operationally impossible to con- TABLE 3

trol for and exclude the cross-pollinating effects of other PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
activities simply and easily, unless trip purpose was identi-
fied in an earlier part of the survey. %
Origin (n = 1,304) China 14.3
Taiwan 31.3
TESTING THE METHOD Singapore/Malaysia 13.8
United States 12.1
A study was conducted in Hong Kong to illustrate how Australia 14.2
Western Europe 14.3
the application of the standard method can distort the true
Trip Purpose Vacation/leisure 49.2
value of SI tourism as a trip generator. Every year, the Hong (n = 1,296) Business/meeting 34.6
Kong Polytechnic University conducts its own Omnibus vis- Visiting friends and relatives 11.3
itor survey of departing tourists. The survey mirrors the for- Other 4.6
mat used by national and state tourism organizations. The Gender Male 55.8
2003 survey included two questions specifically designed to (n = 1,300) Female 44.2
test SI tourism. The first was a standard activity question ask- Age (n = 1,301) < 26 9.0
ing respondents to select all activities they pursued during 26–45 54.6
their visit. A set of 24 items reflecting both mainstream and 46–65 32.1
SI activities was included. This question facilitated the appli- 66 and above 4.3
Education High school or less 14.4
cation of the standard secondary analysis technique to define
(n = 1,301) College or university 64.0
segments and differentiate participants from nonparticipants. Postgraduate qualification 21.7
A second question was added asking respondents to iden- First visit to Yes 34.3
tify and rank as many as three of their chosen activities that Hong Kong No 65.4
influenced their decision to visit Hong Kong. This question Hong Kong as the Yes 52.5
followed a format similar to that used on the Idaho survey. Its main destination No 47.5
inclusion enabled the researchers to identify SI tourists, for Tour group Full or partial package 21.6
whom the pursuit of the activity could be identified as a moti- participation Independent 78.4
vating factor in the destination choice, from other
participants.
Data were collected via face-to-face interviews con- of stay was 3 nights, with a mean of 4.7 nights. Because the
ducted in English or Putonghua (Mandarin) in the secure survey was conducted in the Hong Kong International Air-
departure lounge area of the Hong Kong International Air- port, the profile of respondents differs from that of the gen-
port during October 2003. Visitors from six source markets eral tourist population. The sample tends to be more up-
are targeted: North America (primarily the United States), market and is skewed toward both Westerners and business
Europe, Australia, the People’s Republic of China, Chinese travelers. It is, however, suitable for this study, because the
Taipei, and Singapore/Malaysia. A multistage cluster- purpose is to examine an SI methodological issue rather than
sampling design with stratification is used to ensure that the profile SI tourism in Hong Kong. Data analysis mirrored the
sample approximates a random sample of visitors. Specific
approach used in other studies. Raw participation rates were
flights are selected using a judgment method dictated by
calculated through frequency analysis, then participants and
practical and logistical considerations. Because there are a
nonparticipants were compared on 33 trip, motivational, and
limited number of flights daily to the United States, Austra-
satisfactions variables to define differences among cohorts.
lia, and Singapore, each flight is selected repeatedly. By con-
The results illustrate the unreliability of documenting
trast, numerous flights operate to Beijing and Shanghai in
China and to Taipei and Kaohsiung in Chinese Taipei, pro- activities without identifying or considering purpose. First,
viding more flexibility in flight selection. Individual candi- tourists participate in a large number of activities during their
date respondents are identified using a systematic sampling visits, regardless of their trip purpose. Overall, the sample
method to ensure that participants are selected in a near- participated in a mean of 7.6 activities per person per visit,
random manner. Respondents must satisfy three qualifying with VFR tourists joining in on a mean of 8.7 activities, plea-
questions before the interview can proceed: they must be sure tourists 8.2, and business travelers 7.0 activities per
nonresidents of Hong Kong, nontransit passengers, and resi- person per trip.
dents of one of the target source markets. The survey form The importance of SI tourism as a trip purpose was exam-
adopts an Omnibus format, combining a number of smaller ined by comparing participation rates, motivation rates, and
projects into one large questionnaire and adding common the ratio between participation and motivation rates
trip, motivational, satisfaction, and demographic questions. (PM ratio) for the 24 activities. Participation rates show the
The common questions are designed to mirror those typically raw percentage of respondents who participated in the
asked in visitor surveys. Hui and McKercher (2001) activity at some point during their visit. The motivation rate
described the sampling method in detail. is the percentage of respondents who identified the activity
A total of 1,304 valid responses was received (table 3). as one of the three main reasons why they visited Hong
The sample includes pleasure, business, and VFR (visiting Kong. The PM ratio is derived by dividing the participation
friends and relatives) tourists. About one-third of respon- rate by the motivation rate. On one hand, a PM score
dents were making their first visit to Hong Kong, and slightly approaching 1.0 indicates a close association between partic-
more than half identified Hong Kong as the main destination. ipation and the reason for visiting. A high score, on the other
One in 5 visited as part of a package tour. The median length hand, shows an activity that by the respondent’s own
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
28 AUGUST 2005

admission played no role in the decision to visit. These perception of similarity between Hong Kong and their home
results are shown in table 4. culture, and motivational factors relating to spending time
PM ratios varied from 1.1 to 18.6, suggesting that trip with family and friends, discovery, a quest for knowledge, or
purpose cannot be inferred from an analysis of activities using Hong Kong as a convenient stopover. The two groups
alone. Moreover, the large range of PM ratio values pre- of country park and natural area visitors had different visita-
cludes the identification of an average or normal ratio. Activ- tion histories, perceptions of the role of Hong Kong as their
ities that scored the lowest PM ratios reflected standard main destination, the number of activities in which they
motives like sightseeing, travel to visit friends and relatives, participated, and expenditure.
or business. High PM ratio scores of between 4.0 and 18.6 Finally, most research involves the production of discrete
were noted among activities that are evocative of SI tourism. studies of different SI segments. In doing so, differences
Indeed, inferring causality from participation rates alone between participants and nonparticipants are identified as
may overstate the importance of the activity as a trip genera- being important indicators of the uniqueness and value of the
tor by between 4 and almost 20 times. For example, although segment. All 24 activities were analyzed on 33 motivation,
24% of the sample could be classified as tourists who visited demographic, and trip profile variables to determine the
historic sites, fewer than 6% could be classified as heritage meaningfulness of identifying significant differences. On
tourists. Similarly, 20% and 17% respectively could be clas- average, 19.2 statistically significant differences were identi-
sified as tourists who visited natural areas or country parks or fied between participants and nonparticipants per activity.
as tourists who went to beaches, whereas only 2.5% and This finding suggests that differences can always be found if
1.3% could be classified as nature-based tourists and beach/ sought, but they may not necessarily be meaningful. Instead,
resort tourists. they are likely a reflection of the diversity of tourists
Participation rate ratio analysis may provide insights attracted to a destination.
into ranking attractions and the relative value of certain SI
segments. Low ratio scores (i.e., lower than 2.0) reflect the
destination’s primary attractions. Hong Kong is known as a DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
business center and, like all destinations, also attracts a sig-
nificant portion of VFR tourists. Pleasure tourists come pri-
marily for shopping and generic sightseeing. Moderate PM This study critically analyzed the most common method
ratios (between 2.1 and 6.0) may reflect secondary attrac- used to define SI tourism market segments and to differenti-
tions or perhaps can be used as a tool to identify attractive SI ate them from other tourists. An empirical study was under-
markets. Certainly, Hong Kong has a reputation as a culinary taken to illustrate how the true value of SI tourism as a trip
destination and the gateway to China. In addition, long-haul generator can be exaggerated. The assumption that activities
tourists, in particular, travel in part to experience its unique are a valid proxy for a single, identifiable SI trip purpose was
cultural heritage. High PM ratios (i.e., higher than 6.1), how- not supported. In addition, an analysis of visitor survey
ever, are indicative of substitutable attractions and activities instruments showed no relationship between trip purpose
that may complement the overall tourism experience but do and activities. Finally, we argued that the practice of compar-
little to generate visitation. ing participants with nonparticipants was flawed because it
The validity of attributing unique features to SI tourists tests effect-effect relationships and not cause-effect relation-
was tested by comparing participants and nonparticipants. ships. The commonly used method, therefore, was shown to
Again, the study revealed the flaws in this technique. Tour- have a number of fatal flaws. It must be abandoned.
ists engaged in largely unique and individualistic activity The fault does not lie with the visitor survey instrument
sets. Indeed, the sample of 1,304 respondents produced or in the quality of the data collected. It is just that neither
1,002 different activity sets. The most common grouping was designed for the type of secondary analysis desired. The
(shopping, dining, eating different food than normal, and rid- questions simply do not allow researchers to infer trip pur-
ing public transport and business) was identified by fewer pose from activity questions or to identify meaningful differ-
than 1% of respondents, whereas 859 combinations were ences between SI and other tourists. Yet, this technique has
mentioned only once. And so, although broad conclusions been and continues to be the preferred method, for it is arith-
can be made about the behavior of a population of tourists, metically simple and, importantly, produces “good” num-
the movements of any one are essentially random. The 246 bers. Cameron (1997) acknowledged the value of such num-
visitors to museums are a case in point. Collectively, they bers, for they enable stakeholders to argue that the activities
displayed 236 different combinations of activities that hap- and institutions are wanted and needed by the constituency
pened to include a museum visit. Thus, the analyst would that ultimately pays for them.
have to examine each of these 236 combinations separately The study also highlights a further issue relating to the
and manipulate the data to exclude the possible impacts of manner in which language is used in a misleading way to
other activities, individually or collectively, on the attributes convey an inappropriate message. Language and word order
being tested (e.g., length of stay or expenditure) before any play a particularly important role in influencing our attitudes
confident conclusion could be made about the role that and in conveying meanings. Darcy (2002, 2004), in his work
museum visitation played. on tourism and disability, illustrated that calling someone a
Moreover, specific attractions or activities attract hetero- disabled person has a starkly different connotation than
geneous markets, as shown by comparing those who identi- using the term person with a disability. The words have cul-
fied the activity as one of the three reasons why they came to tural and political contexts, by which, for example, the for-
Hong Kong and other participants. Church, temple, and other mer places the emphasis on the disability in defining the per-
religious activity visitors differed in prior visitation history, son, whereas the latter defines the individual as a person first
country of origin, the number of activities pursued, the who has a disability.
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 TABLE 4
PARTICIPATION RATES IN ACTIVITIES

Attending
business meetings/ Attending Attending Cross-border tourism
exhibitions/ seminars or Other family special (e.g., to Macau
Activity conferences Sightseeing Shopping training activities gatherings Visiting friends family events or Guangdong)
Participation rate 44.6 65.7 84.2 9.4 9.7 33.6 2.8 24.5
Motivation rate 40.6 45.3 55.8 5.8 5.9 20.8 1.6 8.4
Ratio of participation
to motivation rate 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.9

Eating Visiting Visiting

different types Visiting churches, festivals
or styles of food Visiting Visiting theme museums Playing sports temples, or events,
Dining in than I normally historic parks and other and/or (including golf and other including
Activity restaurants eat at home sites tourist attractions art galleries and tennis) religious sites traditional opera
Participation rate 91.4 70.8 23.8 29.0 18.6 4.7 22.5 10.0
Motivation rate 27.5 18.6 5.7 6.1 3.6 0.7 3.3 1.2
Ratio of participation
to motivation rate 3.3 3.8 4.2 4.7 5.2 6.8 6.8 8.1

Watching
sports
Visiting natural (including
Visiting areas and going to the Going Riding Riding public Participating Drinking wine
Activity nightclubs country parks horse races) to beaches ferries transport in ecotourism and alcohol
Participation rate 10.8 20.5 4.3 16.7 50.8 70.6 2.8 30.0
Motivation rate 1.3 2.5 0.4 1.2 3.2 4.4 0.2 1.6
Ratio of participation
to motivation rate 8.3 8.3 11.2 14.5 15.8 15.9 18.0 18.6

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007

Note: Participation rate = percentage of mentions. Motivation rate = percentage of times identified as being one of the three most important reasons for visiting Hong Kong. P/M ratio
= participation rate/motivation rate.

© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
29
30 AUGUST 2005

The same situation applies in SI research. The term spe- management organizations, and public and private sector
cial interest tourist is used in place of the more accurate but tourism stakeholders.
less glamorous term tourists who visit attractions or activi-
ties that are evocative of a specialist interest. Yet, each con-
veys a fundamentally different meaning. Calling someone a REFERENCES
special interest tourist (i.e., a cultural tourist), places the pur-
suit of the specialist interest at the heart of the travel decision Acott, T. G., H. L. La Trobe, and S. H. Howard (1998). “An Evaluation of
and destination choice, whereas the more benign term a tour- Deep Ecotourism and Shallow Ecotourism.” Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 6 (3): 238-53.
ist who visited an activity that is suggestive of a specialist Antolovic, J. (1999). “Immovable Cultural Monuments and Tourism.” In
interest at some time during their trip (i.e., someone who vis- Cultural Tourism Session Notes XII Assembly ICOMOS. Mexico, pp.
ited a museum at some time during his or her trip) describes 103-18.
Australian Tourist Commission (2004). Food and Wine Tourism Fact Sheet.
behavior without making any inferences about its underlying Sydney: Australian Tourist Commission.
cause. Blamey, R. (1995). “Profiling the Ecotourism Market.” In Taking the Next
The substitution of the inaccurate but more powerful Steps, edited by H. Richins, J. Richardson, and A. Crabtree. Brisbane:
Ecotourism Association of Australia, pp. 1-9.
term obfuscates the real source of the information used, the Brown, L. (2002). The International Overnight Tourist in Vermont: Appen-
type of information gathered, and what it represents. In doing dix A, International Visitor Survey. Montpelier: Vermont Tourism
so, it further facilitates both misrepresentation of the results Data Center, University of Vermont.
Cameron, C. (1997). “Cultural Tourism: Gold Mine or Land Mine.” Cultural
at source and misinterpretation of their meaning by second- Resource Management,17 (3): 28-31.
ary users. For example, Stronge (200, p 14) reminded readers Canadian Tourism Commission (2001). “Rethinking Canada as a Cultural
in his report on arts and cultural tourism in Florida that Destination.” Communiqué, (May): 3.
Charters, S., and J. Ali-Knight (2001). “Who Is the Wine Tourist?” Tourism
Management, 23 (3): 311-19.
no claim is made that arts and cultural programs or fa- Chin, C., S. Moore, T. Wallington, and R. Dowling (2000). “Ecotourism in
cilities are the major reason why these “arts and cul- Bako National Park Borneo: Visitors’ Perspectives on Environmental
Impacts and Their Management.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8
tural tourists” come to Florida. The extent to which (1): 20-35.
they are drawn by art and culture to Florida or to Churchill, G. (1995). Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations,
which arts and cultural events contribute to their en- 6th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.
Crompton, J., and S. McKay (1997). “Motives for Visitors Attending Festi-
joyment in Florida is unknown. vals.” Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (2): 425-39.
Darcy, S. (2002). “Marginalized Participation: Physical Disability, High
Yet his portrayal of their economic impacts presented a table Support Needs and Tourism.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 9 (1): 61-72.
labeling this cohort as arts and cultural tourists, and illus- ——— (2004). Disabling Journeys: The Social Relations of Tourism for
trates that 64,345 tourism jobs are attributable them. The People with Impairments in Australia: An Analysis of Government
findings have in turn been abbreviated in subsequent mate- Tourism Authorities and Accommodation Sector Practices and Dis-
courses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney.
rial produced by the Florida Division of Cultural Affairs Department of Resource Recreation (1999). Idaho Travel: How Do We Stack
(2001) to suggest that cultural tourists produce these bene- Up? Moscow: Department of Resource Recreation and Tourism, Uni-
fits, with no mention of the original codicil. versity of Idaho.
Economic Planning Group of Canada (1995). Packaging and Selling to the
Were it simply a matter of semantics, the issue would be United States. Ottawa: Economic Planning Group of Canada for Tour-
rather trivial. But the use of an invalid method and the subse- ism Canada.
quent misrepresentation or misinterpretation of results influ- Ferguson, C. (2002). The Sports Tourist: Cultural Cringe or Cultural Tour-
ist? Paper presented at the Museums Australia Conference, Adelaide,
ence tourism policy, marketing, and product development MarchÄ.
decisions in both the public and private sectors. Understand- Florida Division of Cultural Affairs (2001). Cultural Tourism. Tallahassee:
ing why people visit a destination is far more important than Florida Division of Cultural Affairs.
Fakeye, P. C., and L. Crompton (1991). “Image Differences between Pro-
documenting what they did, for by understanding trip pur- spective, First-Time, and Repeat Tourists to the Lower Rio Grande
pose, marketing and promotion campaigns can be devised Valley.” Journal of Travel Research, 30 (2): 10-16.
and new products developed to satisfy tourists’ needs. Con- Gold Coast City Council (2002). Tourism Market Profile: Cultural Tourism.
Gold Coast, Australia: Gold Coast City Council.
fusing actions with motives leads to poor decision making, Gitelson, R. J., and J. L. Crompton (1984). “Insights into the Repeat Vaca-
which explains why phantom demand continues to affect this tion Phenomena.” Annals of Tourism Research, 11 (2): 199-218.
sector (Pearce and Wilson 1995; Litvin 1996; Acott, La Gallup McKinley County Chamber of Commerce (2004). Gallup Visitors
Survey. Gallup McKinley County Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved
Trobe, and Howard 1998; McKercher and Robbins 1998; August 5, 2004, from http://www.gallupchamber.com/survey.htm.
Loon and Polakow 2001). Indeed, the apparent mass interest Hall, C. M., and B. Weiler (1992). “Introduction: What’s So Special about
shown in SI tourism rarely translates into real commercial Special Interest Tourism?” In Special Interest Tourism, edited by B.
Weiler and C. M. Mall. London: Belhaven Press, pp. 1-14.
opportunities, relegating much of SI tourism to the periphery Hong Kong Tourism Board (2004). Hong Kong Departing Visitor Survey:
of the tourism mainstream in most destinations. Air. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Tourism Board.
How important is SI tourism? Without a doubt, it is a Hui, L. L., and B. McKercher (2001). “The Omnibus Survey.” Pacific Tour-
ism Review, 5 (1/2): 5-11.
valuable niche product for multiproduct destinations and a International Ecotourism Society (2000). Ecotourism Statistical Fact Sheet.
core activity for single-product destinations. Any sugges- Washington, DC: International Ecotourism Society.
tion, however, that it is a mass market activity based on sec- Keefe, C. (2002). Travelers Who Love History and Culture Spend More and
Stay Longer than Average Tourists. Travel Industry Association of
ondary data analysis must be treated with skepticism. For the America. Retrieved December 31, 2003, from http://www.hotel-on-
most part, activities that are evocative of a specialist interest line.com/News/PR2002_1st/Jan02_HistoryTravelers.html.
provide appealing activities that complement trip experi- ——— (2003). History and Culture Significant and Growing Part of the US
Travel Experience. Travel Industry Association of America. Retrieved
ences but are demonstrably not the hub around which a travel April 6, 2004, from http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2003_2nd/
decision is made. The fundamental flaws in the method pro- Jun03_HistoryCulture.htm.
KwaZulu-Natal Tourism Authority (2003). KwaZulu-Natal’s Nature Based
duce meaningless results. Its continued application works Tourism Market. Tourism KwaZulu-Natal Occasional Paper no. 12.
against the best interests of the tourism industry, destination Durban, South Africa: KwaZulu-Natal Tourism Authority.

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007

© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 31

Lau, L. S., and B. McKercher (2004). “Exploration versus Acquisition: A Patterson, E. (2000). Nature-Based Tourism in Tasmania 1998-99 Update.
Comparison of First-Time and Repeat Visitors.” Journal of Travel Re- Hobart: Tourism Tasmania.
search, 42 (3): 279-85. Pearce, D., and P. Wilson (1995). “Wild-Life Viewing Tourists in New Zea-
Lew, Alan A. (1987). “A Framework of Tourist Attraction Research.” An- land.” Journal of Travel Research, 34 (4):19-26.
nals of Tourism Research, 14 (4): 553-75. Pizam, A. (1994). “Planning a Tourism Research Investigation.” In Travel,
Litvin, S. (1996). “Ecotourism: A Study of Purchase Proclivity.” Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Re-
Vacation Marketing, 3 (1): 43-54. searchers, 2nd ed., edited by J. Ritchie, and C. Goeldner. Toronto:
Loon, R. M., and D. Polakow (2001). “Ecotourism Ventures: Rags or John Wiley, pp. 91-104.
Riches?”Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (4):892-907. Prentice, R., and V. Andersen (2003). “Festivals as Creative Destinations.”
MacKay, K., K. Andereck, and C. Vogt (2002). “Understanding Vacationing Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (1): 7-30.
Motorist Niche Markets.”Journal of Travel Research, 40 (May): 356- Richards, Greg (1996a). “Production and Consumption of European Cul-
63. tural Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (2): 261-83.
Martin, B., and W. Valliere (2002). 2001 National Survey of the Vermont ——— (1996b). “Introduction: Cultural Tourism in Europe.” In Cultural
Visitor: The Cultural Heritage Sector. Montpelier: Vermont Depart- Tourism in Europe, edited by G. Richards. Oxon, UK: CAB Interna-
ment of Tourism and Marketing, Vermont Tourism Data Center and tional, pp. 3-18.
School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont. Saunders, M., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill (2000). Research Methods for
Matthews, D. (2001). Memorandum by Southwest Tourism (CEM 123). Lon- Business Students, 2nd ed. Harlow, UK: FT Prentice Hall.
don: UJ Parliament. Statistics Canada (2001). Government Travel Survey of Visitors to Canada.
McKercher, B. (1996). “Insights into Ranking Attractions: Comparing Visi- Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
tors Intentions with Their Actions.” In Tourism and Hospitality Re- ——— (2003). Canadian Travel Survey Questionnaire: Year 2003. Ottawa:
search: Australian and International Perspectives, edited by G. Statistics Canada.
Prosser. Canberra, Australia: Bureau of Tourism Research, pp. 561-68. Stronge, W. (2000). The Economic Impact of the Florida Arts and Cultural
——— (2001). “A Comparison of Main Destination and Through Travelers Industry. West Palm Beach: Florida Cultural Alliance.
at a Dual Purpose Destination.” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (4): Taubman Centers (1999). Shopping and Cultural/Heritage Tourism: A Spe-
433-48. cial Study of Overseas Travelers to the United States. Washington,
——— (2002). “Towards a Classification of Cultural Tourists.” Interna- DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
tional Journal of Tourism Research, 4: 29-38. Thurston, S. (2004). New Hampshire Visitor Survey Winter 2003-04. Plym-
McKercher, B., and H. du Cros (2003). “Testing a Cultural Tourism outh: New Hampshire Division of Travel and Tourism Development,
Typology.” International Journal of Tourism Research, 5 (1): 45-58. Institute for New Hampshire Studies.
McKercher, B., and B. Robbins (1998). “Business Development Issues Af- Tighe, A. (1985). “Cultural Tourism in the USA.” Tourism Management, 6
fecting Nature-Based Tourism Operators in Australia.” Journal of Sus- (4): 234-51.
tainable Tourism, 6 (2), 173-88. Tourism Queensland (2004). Cultural Tourism. Brisbane, Australia: Tour-
Mill, R. C., and A. M. Morrison (1985). The Tourism System: An Introduc- ism Queensland.
tory Text. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Travel Industry Association of America (2004). Domestic Research: Travel
Northern Ireland Tourism Board (2003). Northern Ireland Tourism Facts Market Segments. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http://www.tia.org/
2002. Belfast: Northern Ireland Tourism Board. Travel/TravelTrends.asp.
Ohio Division of Travel and Tourism (2002). Visitor Information Survey 1. Tourism Research Council New Zealand (2004). International Visitor Sur-
Columbus: Ohio Division of Travel and Tourism. Retrieved February vey: Questionnaire. Tourism Research Council New Zealand. Re-
2, 2004, from http://www.ohiotourism.com/industry/research/profiles/ trieved March 3, 2004, from http://www.trcnz.govt.nz/Surveys/
niche.html. International+Visitor+Survey/Questionnaire.htm.
Okanogan (2003). “Cultural Tourism and Cultural Industries.” In Okanogan Tourism Tasmania (2003). Tasmanian Visitor Survey. Hobart: Tourism-
Cultural Corridor. Kelowna. Retrieved December 31, 2003, from Tasmania.
http://www.okanaganculturalcorridor.com/thecorridor/ Virginia Tourism Corporation (1998). VTC Virginia Visitor Survey Virginia.
culturaltourism.htm. Virginia Tourism Corporation. Retrieved March 8, 2004, from http://
Office of National Statistics (2003). Travel Trends 2002: A Report on the In- www.vatc.org/research/surveypopup.htm.
ternational Travel Survey, Appendix A. Newport, UK: Office of Na- U.S. Department of Transportation (1995). 1995 American Travel Survey,
tional Statistics. Appendix E. American Travel Survey Technical Documentation.
Oppermann, M. (1995). “A Model of Travel Itineraries.” Journal of Travel Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Research, 33 (4): 57-61. Transport Statistics.
——— (1997). “First-Time and Repeat Tourists to New Zealand.” Tourism World Tourism Organization (2002). Tourism Market Trends: World Over-
Management, 18 (3): 177-81. view and Tourism Topics. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007

© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.