160

INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter considered the variety and characteristics of attractions within the tourism system and also examined other supply-side components of the tourism industry, including travel agencies, transportation, tour operators, merchandisers and the hospitality sector. Chapter 6 returns to the demand side of the tourism equation by refocusing on the tourist. The next section reviews the major market trends in the tourism sector since 1950, and this is followed by a discussion of the destination selection process. The final section considers the importance of tourist market segmentation and examines the geographical, sociodemographical, psychographical and behavioural criteria that are commonly used in segmentation exercises.

TOURIST MARKET TRENDS

The tourist market is the overall group of consumers that engages in tourism-related travel. Since 1950 there have been several major trends in the evolution of this market and these are discussed below. Essentially, the overall tendency has been towards a gradually more focused level of market segmentation, which can be defined as the division of the tourist market into distinctive market segments presumed to be relatively consistent in terms of their members’ behaviour.

The democratisation of travel

The first trend was considered thoroughly in chapters 3 and 4 and can be described as the democratisation of travel. This emerged as increased discretionary time and income, among other factors, made domestic and then international travel accessible to the non-elite. Involvement in international travel grew rapidly in the Western world during the 1960s and 1970s, while a similar development occurred in certain Asian societies during the 1980s and 1990s. This was the classic era of global ‘mass tourism’, during which the tourism industry — like Thomas Cook 100 years earlier (see chapter 3) — perceived tourists as a more or less homogeneous market that demanded and consumed a very similar array of ‘cookie-cutter’ goods and services (see figure 6.1).

The emergence of simple market segmentation and multilevel segmentation

The second major trend emerged during the mid-1970s, as a large increase in oil prices made marketers and planners come to appreciate that a continuous growth scenario was not practical for every destination, and that some portions of the rapidly growing tourist market were more resistant to crisis conditions than others. This resulted in the practice of simple market segmentation, or the division of the tourist market into a minimal number of more or less homogenous subgroups based on certain common characteristics and/or behavioural patterns. Initially, marketers tried to isolate the smallest possible number of market segments in their desire to simplify marketing and product development efforts. Hence, broad market segments were treated as uniform entities (e.g. ‘women’ versus ‘men’, ‘old’ versus ‘young’, ‘Americans’ versus ‘Europeans’ and ‘Asians’).

By the 1980s the concept of market differentiation was refined through the practice of multilevel segmentation, which subdivided the basic market segments into more specific subgroups. For example, ‘Americans’ were divided into ‘East Coast’, 161‘West Coast’, ‘African–Americans’ and other relevant categories that recognised the diverse characteristics and behaviour otherwise disguised by simple market segmentation. Generational segments, such as the Millennials and Baby Boomers (see chapter 3), illustrate the idea of multilevel segmentation.

Niche markets and ‘markets of one’

By the 1990s the tourist market in Phase Four societies was more sophisticated and knowledgeable, having had three decades of mass travel experience. Consumers were aware of what the tourism experience could and should be, and thus demanded higher quality and more specialised products that cater to individual needs and tastes. The tourism industry has been able to fulfil these demands because of the internet, flexible production techniques and other technological innovations that have made catering to specialised tastes more feasible.

At the same time, the continued expansion of the tourist market has meant that traditionally invisible market segments (e.g. older gay couples, railway enthusiasts, stargazing ecotourists) are now much larger and thus constitute potentially lucrative markets for the tourism industry in their own right. This has led to the identification of niche markets encompassing relatively small groups of consumers with specialised characteristics and tastes, and to the targeting of these tourists through an appropriately specialised array of products within the tourism industry (see chapter 5). Space tourists (see chapter 2) and medical tourists (see chapter 4) are good examples of emerging niche markets. Extreme segmentation, based on markets of one, or segments consisting of just one individual, has also become a normal part of product development 162and marketing strategies in the early twenty-first century. This does not mean that mass marketing will disappear, especially given that attractions such as theme parks continue to emphasise their universal appeal, but simply that it will be technologically and financially feasible to tailor a product to just one consumer, in recognition of the fact that each individual, ultimately, is a unique market segment.

THE DESTINATION SELECTION PROCESS

Further insight is gained into the importance of market segments and the methods that can be used to target these segments for marketing and management purposes by understanding the process whereby tourists arrive at a decision to visit one or more destinations. Destination marketers need to identify and understand the elements of this process that they can influence to achieve their visitation goals. They may, for example, have considerable influence over pull factors such as the design and distribution of brochures and maps, but no influence over push factors (see chapter 3) that induce people to travel. This is especially relevant to travel that is undertaken for leisure/recreation purposes, since the destination is usually predetermined in business and VFR tourism (see chapter 2). There are many destination selection models in the tourism literature (Um & Crompton 1990 is a classic), and figure 6.2 represents just one simplified way in which this process can be depicted. A logical place to begin is the decision to travel (1), which is driven by a combination of the ‘push’ factors discussed in chapter 3 and the potential tourist’s personality, motivations, culture, prior life experience (including previous travel), gender, health and education (box A in figure 6.2).

The next stage (2) involves the evaluation of potential destinations from an ‘awareness set’ of all places known to the decision maker. This awareness set includes places that are known from prior direct or indirect experiences (that is, places known 163through past visits or through reading, media or word-of-mouth exchanges), as well as new places that emerge from subsequent information search. The latter search, as with the broader process of destination evaluation, is filtered by the personal characteristics listed in box A as well as push factors such as income, available time and family size. An open-minded, wealthy and well-educated person with no children, for example, is likely to undertake a very different information search and evaluation process than an inhibited person from an insular and proscriptive culture who also has a large family. The latter individual is likely to begin with a small awareness set and to rule out many destinations immediately because of the limitations just described (i.e. destinations that are too expensive, risky or child-intolerant). This requires assessment of the pull factors described in chapter 4, so that the final selection (3) will likely focus on an affordable, politically stable and accessible destination with many interesting attractions and a culture similar to that of the decision maker. The actual complexity of the evaluation process is evident in the fact that this often involves ‘final’ decisions that are subsequently revoked or altered by changing push and pull factors — such as being denied an expected pay increase, or news of a coup d’état in the destination to be visited. Similarly, a decision could be made as to which specific country to visit (e.g. New Zealand), but uncertainty may continue as to which destinations to visit within that country (e.g. Rotorua or Queenstown).

Feedback loops, such as occur when a tentative destination decision is rejected and the evaluation process is revisited, are found elsewhere in the model. This commonly occurs through the refinement of the destination image ‘pull’ factor as a result of direct experience (4) (e.g. the traveller had a wonderful vacation and thus carries a strongly positive destination image into the next evaluation process). The influence can also be indirect, as when the travel experience leads to transformations in the individual’s personality or attitudes (e.g. the traveller becomes more open to further travel to exotic destinations). Post-trip recollection and evaluation (5) also usually influence subsequent travel decisions.

Multiple decision makers

The destination selection process is further complicated by the fact that more than one person is often involved in the decision-making process. In such cases, purchase decisions both before and during the trip tend to require more time, as they often represent a compromise among group members. One study of Danish holiday decision-making identified ‘tweens’ (children aged 8 to 12) as extremely proactive and skilful negotiators who substantially influence decisions made during family vacations. They were found to take into account their own wishes but also those of other family members, engaging in successive rounds of compromise. The researchers, however, caution that the results may not be applicable to American tweens who they regard as more ‘parent-phobic’, self-confident and pestering (Blichfeldt et al. 2011).

TOURIST MARKET SEGMENTATION

There are at least eight factors that should be considered concurrently when evaluating the utility of market segmentation in any given situation, including:

• Measurability. Can the target characteristics be measured in a meaningful and convenient way? Psychological criteria or high levels of ‘stress’, for example, are more difficult to quantify than age or education level.

• Size. Is the market segment large enough to warrant attention? Very small groups, such as female war veterans over 85 years of age, may be insufficiently large to 164warrant attention by smaller companies or destinations that lack the capacity to engage in sophisticated niche marketing.

• Homogeneity. Is the segmented group sufficiently distinct from other market segments? It may be, for example, that the 45–49 age group of adult males is not significantly different from the 50–54 age group, thereby eliminating any rationale for designating them as separate segments. A related consideration is whether the segmented group is internally homogeneous; if not, then like Generation Y (see chapter 3), it may need to be divided into separate segments.

• Compatibility. Are the values, needs and wants of the segment compatible with the destination or company’s own values and planning strategies? There are instances in the Caribbean of specialised gay and lesbian cruise groups being confronted and threatened by conservative protesters who object to their presence.

• Accessibility. How difficult is it to reach the target market? Sex tourists are relatively inaccessible because they are less likely to admit participation in socially unsanctioned activities. A more frequently encountered illustration is a small business in an English-speaking country that lacks the capacity to market its products overseas in languages other than English, and cannot communicate sufficiently with non–English-speaking tourists when they visit.

• Actionability. Is the company or destination able to serve the needs of the market segment? For example, a wilderness lodge is usually not an appropriate venue for catering to gamblers or those with severe physical disabilities.

• Durability. Will the segment exist for a long enough period of time to justify the pursuit of specialised marketing or management strategies? For example, the population of World War II veterans is now experiencing a high rate of attrition, and will be negligible in size by 2020. In contrast, baby boomers will constitute a lucrative market probably until the 2040s.

• Relevance. Is there some underlying logic for targeting a particular segment? Segmentation on the basis of eye colour meets all the previous criteria, but there is no rational basis for thinking that eye colour influences consumer behaviour in any significant way.

The following sections discuss the major market segmentation criteria that are commonly used in the contemporary tourism sector, as well as those that are not widely employed but could be of potential value to tourism destinations and the tourism industry. These criteria include the box A characteristics in figure 6.2, which also influence the behaviour of individuals during and after the actual tourism experience. Ultimately, the appropriateness of particular segmentation criteria to a destination or business will depend on the conclusions reached in the evaluation of the eight factors outlined earlier.

Geographic segmentation

Geographic segmentation, the oldest and still the most popular basis for segmentation, takes into account spatial criteria such as country of birth, nationality or current residence of the consumer. Geographic segmentation declined during the 1980s as other segmentation criteria emerged, but it is now reasserting its former dominance through cost-effective GIS (geographic information systems) that facilitate the spatial analysis of tourism-related phenomena. GIS encompasses a variety of sophisticated computer software programs that assemble, store, manipulate, analyse and display spatially referenced information (Miller 2008). In a GIS package, the exact location of a person’s residence can be specified and related to other criteria relevant to that same 165location (e.g. income level, age structure, education levels, rainfall, road network). It is therefore possible to compile detailed combinations of market characteristics at a very high level of geographic resolution (e.g. individual households), making feasible the identification of the ‘markets of one’. Before GIS, the best level of resolution that could be hoped for was the equivalent of the postal code or census subdistrict.

Region and country of residence

The least sophisticated type of geographical analysis, but the simplest to compile, is regional residence, which has often been used as a surrogate for culture. Traditionally, tourism managers were content to differentiate their markets as ‘Asian’, ‘North American’ or ‘European’, because of low numbers and on the assumption that these regional markets exhibited relatively uniform patterns of behaviour. Most destinations and businesses now realise that such generalisations are simplistic and misleading, and prefer to differentiate at least by country of origin. In the case of Australia, for example, useful distinctions can be made between the mature Japanese and emerging Chinese inbound tourist markets on a range of tourism variables (see table 6.1 and the case study at the end of this chapter).

TABLE 6.1 Characteristics of Japanese and Chinese tourists visiting Australia, 2011

Source: Data derived from TRA (2012a)

Criterion	Japanese inbound	Chinese inbound
Repeat visitors (%)	45	50
Package tour visitors (%)	43	40
Backpackers (%)	8	2
Visiting New South Wales (%) Visiting Queensland (%)	46 54	61 43
Visitor-nights in homes of family or friends (%)	10	22
Average length of stay (nights)	29	48
Average total trip expenditure ($) Average expenditure per day ($) Expenditure on shopping for souvenirs and gifts (%) Expenditure on food/drink/accommodation (%)	4681 161 6 22	7097 148 10 25

Subnational segmentation

It is appropriate to pursue geographical segmentation at a subnational level under two circumstances. First, larger countries tend to display important differences in behaviour from one internal region to another. Reduced cost and travel time, for example, position the California market as a stronger per capita source of tourists for Australia than New York or Florida.

The second factor is the number of people that travel to a destination from a particular country. A large number justifies the further division of that market into geographical subcomponents. For example, when the number of Chinese inbound tourists to Australia involved only a few thousand visitors, there was no compelling reason to make any further distinction by province of origin. However, as this number approaches 600 000 per year, it makes more sense to consider subnational criteria as a basis for market segmentation. Australian tourism authorities in the early 2000s focused their promotional efforts on the three large coastal ‘gateway’ markets 166of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong Province, but have more recently expanded their attention to the ‘secondary’ cities of Chongqing, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Shenyang, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Wuhan and Xiamen — all of which now display levels of affluence and sophistication similar to the original gateway markets (TRA 2012b).

Urban and rural origins

Useful insights may be gained by subdividing the tourist market on the basis of community size. Residents of large metropolitan areas have better access to media and the internet than other citizens, and more options to choose from at all stages of the destination buying process. Yet, within those same communities, the residents of gentrified inner-city neighbourhoods (e.g. North Sydney) are quite distinct from the residents of working-class outer suburbs (e.g. Parramatta) or the exurbs. Rural residents also have distinctive socioeconomic characteristics and behaviour. The urban–rural dichotomy is particularly important in less developed countries, where large metropolitan areas are likely to accommodate Phase Three or Four societies, while the countryside may reflect Phase Two characteristics (see chapter 3).

Sociodemographic segmentation

Sociodemographic segmentation variables include gender, age, family lifecycle, household education, occupation and income. Such variables are popular as segmentation criteria because they are easily collected (though respondents often withhold or misrepresent their income) and often associated with distinct types of behaviour.

Gender and gender orientation

Gender segmentation can be biological or sociocultural. If construed in strictly biological terms, gender is a readily observable and measurable criterion in most instances. Some activities (notably hunting) are an almost exclusively male domain (Lovelock 2008), while it is commonly alleged that ecotourists are disproportionately female (Weaver 2012). Females are also overrepresented as patrons of cultural events within Australia. During 2009–10, 19 per cent of Australian females 15 or older attended at least one theatre performance, compared with 13 per cent of males. Similar discrepancies were found in dance performances (13 and 7 per cent respectively) and musicals and operas (21 and 12 per cent) (ABS 2010). More subtly, female shoppers among Chinese visitors to the United States were found to place a higher value than males on communication with sales assistants to learn about products, and were more likely to express dissatisfaction with employees who did not engage with them accordingly (Xu & McGehee 2012). A survey of young and single Norwegian tourists revealed that females placed a much higher value on having a travel companion with whom to bond with, share experiences, and feel safe by night as well as day. Companionship among males, in contrast, was more superficial and transient (Heimtun & Abelsen 2012).

Gender can also be construed in terms of sexual orientation, and in this sense three stages and modes of development can be identified:

1. For many years, gay and lesbian tourism was either ignored by the tourism industry, or existed only as an informal fringe element. A ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ attitude often prevailed, and gay expression was largely an ‘underground’ phenomenon.

2. With the liberalisation of sexual attitudes in the late twentieth century, this component of tourism became more visible through the emergence of specialised formal businesses and activities, particularly in the areas of accommodation (e.g. Turtle Cove Resort north of Cairns), tour operators, special events (e.g. the Gay Games) and the cruise ship sector.

3. 167Since the late 1990s, the mainstream tourism industry has recognised the formidable purchasing power of gays and lesbians and has actively and openly pursued these markets. Some estimates suggest that the pink dollar accounts for 10–15 per cent of all consumer purchasing power. Destinations that are regarded as gay and lesbian ‘friendly’ include Sydney, San Francisco, London, Cape Town and Amsterdam. Sydney in particular is making a concerted bid to be recognised as a major gay and lesbian tourism destination, with its highly successful annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, and its hosting of the Gay Games in 2002. The 2006 Mardi Gras attracted an estimated 450 000 participants, the majority of them heterosexual (Markwell & Tomsen 2010).

4. Gay and lesbian activists who resent the ‘invasion’ of gay environments by ‘mainstream’ tourists and businesses create their own ‘queer’ spaces where they can feel more empowered and less like performers at a show. This also reflects the high proportion of gay and lesbian people who do not feel safe travelling home from events such as the Mardi Gras due to the risk of attack from homophobic individuals (Markwell & Tomsen 2010).

Age and family lifecycle

Age and lifecycle considerations are popular criteria used in sociodemographic segmentation, since these can also have a significant bearing on consumer behaviour. Specific consideration is given in the following subsections to older adults, young adults and the traditional family lifecycle.

Older adults

Along with the emergence and growing acceptance of the gay and lesbian community, the rapid ageing of population is one of the dominant trends in contemporary Phase Four societies (see chapter 3). In the year 2010 the first baby boomers turned 65, and this has accelerated interest in the ‘older adult’ market segment. Traditionally, the 65+ market was assumed to require special services and facilities due to deteriorating physical condition. Their travel patterns, moreover, were believed to be influenced by the dual impact of reduced discretionary income and increased discretionary time caused by retirement. Finally, older adults were commonly perceived to constitute a single uniform market.

All these assumptions, however, are simplistic. In postindustrial Phase Four societies the 65-year age threshold is no longer a strict indicator of a person’s retirement status. Many companies facilitate early retirement options, while there is a concurrent trend to remove artificial age-of-retirement ceilings established during the industrial era. As for income, the current cohort of retirees is likely to be better off financially than their predecessors. In the early 2000s, the average Australian aged 55 to 64 had a net worth of $671 000 (Snoke, Kendig & O’Laughlin 2011). The assumption of physical deterioration is also false, as the 65-year-old of 2014 is in much better physical condition than their counterpart of 1950. A 65-year old male and female resident of New South Wales in 2009 could expect to live respectively to the ages of 83.7 and 86.8 (ABS 2011) (see figure 6.3). Finally, the assumption of market uniformity is also untenable, as demonstrated by cluster analysis of Australian 168older adults that differentiates between such substantial sub-segments as ‘enthusiastic connectors’ (about 20 per cent), ‘discovery and self-enhancers’ (26 per cent), ‘nostalgic travellers’ (29 per cent) and ‘reluctant travellers’ (25 per cent) (Cleaver Sellick 2004).

Young adults

In contrast to the 65+ cohort, Millennials and other young adults are often associated with higher levels of high-risk behaviour. This is especially evident in ritual events such as the ‘spring break’ phenomenon in the United States (Litvin 2009) and Australia’s ‘Schoolies Week’ (the celebration of a student’s completion of high school), which destination managers on the Gold Coast have attempted to convert into an orderly festival. Involving up to 30 000 young visitors, Schoolies Week is regarded with ambivalence by local residents (Weaver and Lawton 2013). There is parallel evidence, however, that young adults are also very interested in activities such as volunteer tourism that focus on self-improvement and the wellbeing of destination communities.

Family lifecycle

The family lifecycle (FLC) consists of a series of stages through which the majority of people in a Phase Four society are likely to pass during the time from young adulthood to death (see figure 6.4). The FLC stages are associated with particular age brackets, although there are many exceptions to this. All stages are also related to probable significant changes in family status, such as marriage, the raising of children, and the death of a partner. Retirement (i.e. change in work status) is also identified as an important stage transition.

169

The importance of family lifecycle as a segmentation criterion is demonstrated by patterns of resort patronage in the United States identified by Choi, Lehto and Brey (2011). They found that couples with young children displayed the lowest levels of product loyalty, as expressed in modest emotional attachment, service satisfaction, employee regard, and perceived value for money. It is therefore more difficult to cultivate repeat visit intentions in this segment. Another finding was that young couples with no children do not rate employee regard as important but would prefer to develop personal rapport and friendships with staff. Resort employees therefore need to be trained to display different types of behaviour in the presence of different lifecycle segments. Finally, the non-traditional segment of single parents distinguished itself (unexpectedly) as the highest spending and least likely to give value for money as a reason for being loyal to the resort.

One major drawback of the traditional FLC is the increasing number of non-conforming people. Exceptions include permanently childless (or ‘childfree’) couples or those who have children relatively late in life, divorced people, family groupings that combine individuals from both marital partners (blended families), single parents, long-term gay and lesbian couples, multigenerational families, ‘permanent singles’, families where the children never leave the nest, older solitary survivors who marry and start new families with younger people (‘remarrieds’) and those whose spouses die at an early age. In essence, the conventional FLC reflects the traditional nuclear family of the 1950s and 1960s rather than the present era of familial diversity. In addition, even if individuals do conform to the FLC, this is not necessarily reflected in the composition of travel groups. People in relationships may decide to travel by themselves, or with a group of friends, while married couples may be accompanied by one or more parents, nephews or other married couples. Older children (e.g. 16-year-olds) often decline to accompany their younger siblings on annual family holidays. Another confounding factor is pet ownership and the increasing tendency of individuals in all stages of the FLC to regard their animals as family members (sometimes described as ‘companion animals’ or ‘fur babies’) and desirable travel companions who significantly influence and constrain their travel-related decisions (see Contemporary issue: Travelling with my best friend).

Education, occupation and income

Education, occupation and income are often interrelated in terms of travel behaviour, since education generally influences occupation, which in turn influences income level. University education, for example, often leads to higher-paying professional employment. Income and education are often accessed indirectly by targeting neighbourhoods that display consistent characteristics with regard to these criteria. Not surprisingly, high levels of income and education, as well as professional occupations, are associated with increased tourism activity and in particular with a higher incidence of long-haul travel. One important implication is that high-income earners are usually less concerned with financial considerations when assessing destination options, and less likely to alter their travel plans in the event of an economic recession. Destinations and products that cater to high-income earners are therefore themselves less susceptible to recession-induced slumps in visitation. Distinctive forms of educational segmentation include international students, schoolies and participants in school excursions.

Race, ethnicity and religion

There is a general reluctance to ascribe distinctive character and behavioural traits on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion, and none of these are, therefore, commonly used for generic segmentation purposes. However, these are commonly used as segmentation criteria for specialised attractions that cater to particular racial, ethnic or religious groups. Examples include the marketing of heritage slavery sites in western Africa to African-Americans, and religious pilgrimages and festivals to applicable religious groups. In the case of Australia and New Zealand, it is likely that Indigenous Australian and Maori people constitute a growing portion of their respective domestic and outbound tourism sectors, yet research on ‘Aboriginal tourism’ and ‘Maori tourism’ are almost exclusively focused on the product side. We know almost nothing about the ‘Indigenous Australian tourist’ or ‘Maori tourist’ as distinct market segments. Moreover, as Australia and New Zealand move from a mainly Anglo-European to a multicultural society, these three criteria are likely to become more important to domestic tourism managers and marketers. For example, almost 529 000 and 476 000 Australians respectively indicated their affiliation with Buddhism and Islam in the 2011 census, but little is known about their behaviour as distinctive single or multiple market segments (ABS 2012).

Physical and mental condition

Persons with disabilities are often neglected or overlooked as a significant tourist segment, even though it is apparent that the number of such individuals is immense and 171their desire to travel as high as the general population’s (Yau, McKercher & Packer 2004; Stumbo & Pegg 2005). According to Australian Bureau of Statistics criteria, 18.5 per cent of the Australian population (or over 4 million people) were considered to have a disability in 2009 (ABS 2009). Four factors that indicate the need for tourism managers to pay greater attention to this segment are the:

• increasing number of conditions that constitute an officially recognised ‘disability’

• ageing of Phase Four populations (given that older adults still have a higher incidence of disabilities; for example disability levels increase to 40 per cent among Australians aged 65 to 69, and 88 per cent among those 90 or older (ABS 2009))

• availability of technology to expedite travel by persons with disabilities

• increasing recognition of the basic human rights, including the right to travel, of such persons.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that many tourism-related products and services still do not adequately address the needs of persons with disabilities (see Managing tourism: Catering to people with disabilities). Similar problems pertain to people who are overweight or obese (see Breakthrough tourism: Obesity as a tourism issue).

172

Psychographic segmentation

The differentiation of the tourist market on the basis of psychological characteristics is referred to as psychographic segmentation. This can include a complex and diverse combination of factors, such as motivation, personality type, attitudes and perceptions, and needs. Psychographic profiles are often difficult to compile due to problems in identifying and measuring such characteristics. Individuals themselves are usually not aware of where they would fit within such a structure. Whereas most people can readily provide their income, age, or country of residence for a questionnaire, psychological profiles often have to be inferred through their responses to complex surveys, and then interpreted by the researcher. Whether they can then be placed into neat or stable categories, as with place of residence, is also highly questionable, as is the degree to which resulting profiles predict actual purchasing behaviour.

Also problematic is how much psychological characteristics can change, depending on circumstances. Personality type can change as a result of a person’s experiences, but this often occurs imperceptibly and in a way that is difficult to quantify, unlike changes of address or income level. Identification of a person’s ‘usual’ personality can 173also be misleading to the extent that an ‘alternate’ personality may emerge during a tourism experience, since this constitutes a change of routine for the traveller — that is, today’s partying schoolie can be tomorrow’s volunteer tourist. Because of such complexities, psychographic research usually requires more time and money than other types of segmentation, and often yields conflicting and uncertain results.

Psychographic typology

The idea of segmenting the tourist market according to levels of individual risk tolerance is largely associated with Plog (2005). His resilient allocentrics are intellectually curious travellers who enjoy immersing themselves in other cultures and willingly accept a high level of risk. They tend to make their own travel arrangements, travel by themselves or in pairs and are open to spontaneous changes in itinerary. They tend to avoid places that are heavily developed as tourist destinations, seeking out locales in which tourism is non-existent or incipient. Figure 6.5 provides a more detailed list of characteristics and tourism behaviour attributed to allocentrics.

In contrast, psychocentrics are self-absorbed individuals who seek to minimise risk by visiting familiar and extensively developed destinations where a full array of familiar goods and services are available. According to Plog, those leaning toward the allocentric and psychocentric poles of the psychographic spectrum each account for about one-fifth of the US population. The remaining 60 per cent of the population, as depicted in figure 6.6, are midcentrics whose personalities combine elements of the allocentric and psychocentric dimensions. Typical midcentric behaviour, indicating a personal strategy of ‘mediated risk’, is an eagerness to attend a local cultural performance and sample the local cuisine, but parallel eagerness to have access to comfortable accommodation, hygienically prepared meals and a clean bathroom.

The typology has important implications for the evolution and management of tourism systems. Psychocentrics, for example, tend to visit well-established destinations dominated by large corporations and well-articulated tourism distribution systems, while allocentrics display an opposite tendency. A psychocentric would prefer to eat at McDonald’s, stay overnight at the Sheraton and visit a theme park, all mediated by a package tour, while an allocentric would eat at a local market stall, stay overnight in a small guesthouse situated away from the tourist district and explore the local rainforest.

The conceptual simplicity of the psychographic spectrum makes it very popular in tourism research. Recent applications include Weaver (2012), who found that visitors to a relatively isolated private protected area in South Carolina, United States, were mostly allocentrics. Critical from a management perspective is that these visitors — who are disproportionately older and female — were more likely to indicate loyalty to that protected area and a willingness to engage in activities to help its ecology. In another study, allocentrics and psychocentrics were both well represented among a sample of international and domestic guests at Malaysian homestay facilities, but the allocentrics were more likely to evaluate the experience as extraordinary and highly satisfying, and accordingly were more likely to want similar experiences in the future (Jamal, Othman & Muhammad 2011). These researchers therefore recommended that homestay managers target market their facilities to allocentric consumers.

Segmentation applications of the psychographic typology need to consider its shortcomings, which include the lack of a single reliable scale that would facilitate comparison across a variety of case studies. As stated earlier, the degree to which a person’s psychographic profile is fixed or can change with life experience is also unclear — does travel to an ‘allocentric’ destination make psychocentric people more open, or do they simply withdraw even further into their shell? Revealed mismatches between psychographic types and destinations (e.g. psychocentrics staying at Malaysian homestays) are common, and may indicate the influence of intervening 175factors such as financial necessity, time limitations, or preferences of other family members (Litvin 2006).

Motivation

Travel motivation is different from travel purpose (see chapter 2) in that it indicates the intrinsic reasons the individual is embarking on a particular trip. Thus, a person might be travelling for VFR purposes, but the underlying motivation is to resolve a dispute with a parent, or to renew a relationship with a former partner. A stated pleasure or leisure purpose often disguises a deeper need to escape routine. In all these cases, the apparent motivation may itself have some even more fundamental psychological basis, such as the need for emotional satisfaction or spiritual fulfillment. Motivation is implicit in the psychographic spectrum, in that allocentrics are more driven by curiosity than psychocentrics, who in turn are more likely to be motivated by hedonism. Top motivations for older residents of Changsha, China (55 or older) who define as ‘frequent’ travellers (at least two leisure tourism trips per year) are depicted in table 6.2.

There are numerous theories and classification schemes associated with motivation. One of the best known is Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs (in Hsu & Huang 2008), which ranges from basic physiological needs (e.g. food, sleep, sex) to the needs for safety and security, love, esteem, self-actualisation, knowledge and understanding, and finally, aesthetics (see figure 6.7). A complex experience such as participation in volunteer tourism demonstrates how these needs can all factor into a single tourism experience. The volunteer tourist might be motivated by the need to achieve something important and to grow personally as a result. Being a member of a volunteer team fulfils a need to belong, while an experience is selected that is safe and provides for basic physiological needs.

Behavioural segmentation

The identification of distinct tourist markets on the basis of activities and other actions undertaken especially during the tourism experience is an exercise in behavioural segmentation. In a sense, it employs the outcomes of prior destination or product buying decisions as a basis for market segmentation, and therefore omits the non-travelling component of the population (unless non-travel behaviour is itself included as a ‘travel’ category). Basic behavioural criteria include:

• travel occasion

• destination coverage (including length of stay)

• activity

• repeat patronage and loyalty.

Travel occasion

Travel occasion is closely related to purpose. Occasion-based segmentation differentiates consumers according to the specific occasion that prompts them to visit a particular tourism product. Birthdays, anniversaries, funerals and other rites of passage are examples of individually-focused travel occasions, while Schoolies Week and sporting spectacles are mass participation variants. An intermediate example is the family reunion, which is becoming increasingly popular as a way of maintaining direct contact with extended families widely separated by geographical and generational drift. It has been estimated that 72 million Americans travel each year to participate in family reunions, and many destinations and businesses are providing specialised facilities and services to serve their needs (Kluin & Lehto 2012).

Destination coverage

Destination coverage can be expressed by length of stay, and also by the number of destinations (as opposed to stopovers and other transit experiences) that are visited during a particular trip. Visitors to Australia, for example, can be segmented by how 177much their visits are focused on a single state (as in the case of Japanese package tours to Queensland) or a multistate itinerary (as in the case of backpackers from Europe). Both single-destination and multi-destination trips usually display a great deal of variety with respect to destination coverage, as described by Lew and McKercher (2006) (see figure 6.8). Numerous implications follow from these variants, including the extent to which tourists are concentrated or dispersed within a destination, the length of time (and thus amount of money) spent in different parts of the country, the configuration of transit regions, and the types of services that are accessed during the tourism experience. Multi-destination itineraries continue to grow in popularity as countries and regions pursue mutually beneficial bilateral and multilateral destination marketing and development initiatives. An excellent Asia–Pacific example is the emergence of a formal Mekong Tourism brand that encourages cross-border travel within the participating countries of Cambodia, China (Guangxi and Yunnan Provinces only), Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam (Semone & Kozak 2012).

Activity

Variables that can be segmented under the generic category of ‘activity’ include accommodation type, mode of transportation, total and per-day expenditure, attractions visited and types of tourist activities undertaken. An emerging topic of importance is the degree to which tourists behave in an environmentally and socially responsible manner during their travel (see chapter 11). Tourist activities, in particular, are extremely diverse. Relevant market segments in Australia include ecotourists, theme park visitors, honeymooners, beach bathers, bush walkers, visitors to Aboriginal sites and performances, backpackers (see Technology and tourism: Introducing the flashpacker), heritage tourists, festival attendees and wine tourists. Whether these activities are of primary or secondary importance to the relevant segment is also a critical factor.

A relevant issue is whether tourists are mainly interested in specific activities, and therefore choose their destination accordingly, or whether they are primarily interested in a particular destination, within which available activities are then pursued. The second scenario is less common than the first. This mainly involves tourists who are constrained by financial or time limitations to travel within their own state or country or, more rarely, who are motivated by patriotic considerations or a compelling desire to visit a particular destination that they encountered in a book or the media. The Queensland coastal resort community of Hervey Bay illustrates both scenarios. Some of its whale-watching tourists are there because they are primarily interested in that activity. Others are there because they are primarily interested in visiting Hervey Bay, and whale-watching happens to be one of the available activities.

It is important for destinations to determine what proportions of their visitors fall into each category in order to better understand both their markets and their competitors. In attracting tourists mainly interested in whale-watching, Hervey Bay is competing with destinations in other parts of the world (e.g. New Zealand, Canada) and potentially in other parts of Australia. In attracting tourists in the second category, Hervey Bay is competing with the Sunshine and Gold Coasts, as well as other destinations that happen to be located within Queensland but do not necessarily offer whale-watching.

Repeat patronage and loyalty

As with any type of product, high levels of repeat visitation (i.e. repeat patronage) are regarded as evidence of a successful destination, hence the critical distinction between first-time and repeat visitors. One practical advantage of repeat visitation is the reduced need to invest resources into marketing campaigns, not only because the repeat visitors are returning anyway, but because these satisfied customers are more likely to provide free publicity through positive word-of-mouth and electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) 179contact with other potential visitors. Use frequency is an important segmentation variable that essentially quantifies repeat patronage by indicating the number of times that a product (e.g. a destination or an airline flight) is purchased over a given period of time. Frequent flyer and other repeat-user programs are perhaps the best example of an industry initiative that responds to and encourages high use frequency. Moreover, they provide an excellent database for carrying out relevant marketing and management exercises. At the opposite end of the continuum, there is increased interest in understanding the nontravel segment, or those defined as not having taken a recreational trip over a given period of time, usually 2 or 3 years. Litvin, Smith and Pitts (2013) emphasise the enormous size of this market (around 40 per cent of Australians, for example) and note that their generally more sedentary lifestyles constrain efforts to encourage a higher level of travel.

Repeat patronage and lengthy stays are often equated with product loyalty. However, the concept of loyalty goes beyond this single factor to incorporate the psychological attitudes towards the products that compel such behaviour. When both attitudinal and behavioural (repeat purchase) dimensions are taken into account, a four-cell loyalty matrix emerges (see figure 6.9):

• Consumers who demonstrate a pattern of repeat visitation and express a high psychological attachment to a destination (or any other tourism-related product), including a willingness to recommend the product to others, belong in the ‘high’ loyalty category.

• Conversely, those who have made only a single visit, and indicate negative attitudes about the destination, are assigned to the ‘low’ loyalty cell, as they are unlikely to visit again.

• ‘Spurious’ loyalty is a paradox, occurring when a pattern of repeat visitation is exhibited along with a weak psychological attachment. This could result when someone feels compelled to make repeat visits to a destination due to family or peer group pressure, or because financial limitations prohibit visits to more desired destinations.

• ‘Latent’ loyalty is also paradoxical, describing the opposite scenario where someone regards a destination very highly, but only makes a single visit. The commonest example of this behaviour is a ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ visit to an exotic but expensive location.

The loss of the spuriously loyal clientele usually does not indicate any serious problem for a business, since their visits are mainly a matter of habit, convenience or coercion rather than conviction. In contrast, high-loyalty visitors are highly valued by destinations because of their predictability, and because they are more likely to continue their patronage for longer even if the situation in the destination, or in their personal circumstances, begins to deteriorate (i.e. they are more resistant to the erosion of relevant push and pull factors). These tourists, then, constitute an important indicator group, in that the loss of this group’s patronage may show that the product is experiencing a very serious level of deterioration or change — as, for example, in association with changing destination lifecycle dynamics (see chapter 10). Failure to foster or retain high loyalty traits in some markets, however, may simply indicate a failure to understand cultural characteristics such as ‘face’ and ‘harmony’ that give rise to loyalty (Hoare & Butcher 2008).

181

CHAPTER REVIEW

Since the 1950s there has been a shift in the perception of the tourist market from a homogeneous group of consumers to increasingly specific or niche market segments. This has occurred in part because of the growing sophistication and size of the market, which has added complexity to the demand for tourism-related products and made it viable for operators to serve ever more specialised groups of consumers. In addition, technologies have emerged to readily identify these specialised segments and facilitate the development and marketing of appropriate niche tourism products. The culmination of this process has been the ability of marketers and managers to regard each customer as an individual segment, or market of one.

All consumers experience a similar decision-making process when selecting destinations and other tourism products. However, the specifics of the process (and subsequent tourism behaviour) vary according to many push and pull forces as well as personal characteristics such as culture, personality and motivations. Many of these forces and characteristics are therefore potentially useful as segmentation variables, though their relevance in any given situation depends on factors such as measurability, size, homogeneity and compatibility.

Four major categories of market segmentation are widely recognised. Geographic segmentation considers spatial criteria such as region or country of origin, subnational origins and the urban–rural distinction. This type of segmentation is the most commonly employed, and is becoming more sophisticated due to the development of GIS technologies. Sociodemographic segmentation includes gender, age, disability and family lifecycle as well as the highly interrelated criteria of education, occupation and income. Gay and lesbian tourists, along with retiring baby boomers and women, are three market segments that have attracted sustained industry attention due to their growth and purchasing power. Psychographic segmentation is the most difficult to identify. The distinction between allocentrics, psychocentrics and midcentrics is the best-known example, although motivation is also commonly used. Finally, behavioural segmentation considers such experiential factors as travel occasion, the number of destinations visited during a trip, activities, and repeat patronage and loyalty.

SUMMARY OF KEY TERMS

Allocentrics according to Plog’s typology, ‘other-centred’ tourists who enjoy exposing themselves to other cultures and new experiences, and are willing to take risks in this process

Behavioural segmentation the identification of tourist markets on the basis of activities and actions undertaken during the actual tourism experience

Family lifecycle (FLC) a sequence of stages through which the traditional nuclear family passes from early adulthood to the death of a spouse; each stage is associated with distinct patterns of tourism-related behaviour associated with changing family and financial circumstances

Flashpackers backpackers who are hyper-connected to technology during their travel, thereby creating behaviour that is substantially distinct from conventional backpackers

Gender segmentation the grouping of individuals into male and female categories, or according to sexual orientation

Geographic segmentation market segmentation carried out on the basis of the market’s origin region; can be carried out at various scales, including region (e.g. Asia), country (Germany), subnational unit (California, Queensland), or urban/rural182

GIS (geographic information systems) sophisticated computer software programs that facilitate the assembly, storage, manipulation, analysis and display of spatially referenced information

Loyalty the extent to which a product, such as a destination, is perceived in a positive way and repeatedly purchased by the consumer

Market segmentation the division of the tourist market into more or less homogenous subgroups, or tourist market segments, based on certain common characteristics and/or behavioural patterns

Market segments portions of the tourist market that are more or less distinct in their characteristics and/or behaviour

Markets of one an extreme form of market segmentation, in which individual consumers are recognised as distinct market segments

Midcentrics ‘average’ tourists whose personality type is a compromise between allocentric and psychocentric traits

Motivation the intrinsic reasons why the individual is embarking on a particular trip

Multilevel segmentation a refinement of simple market segmentation that further differentiates basic level segments

Niche markets highly specialised market segments

Pink dollar the purchasing power of gay and lesbian consumers, recognised to be much higher than the average purchasing power (sometimes used to describe the purchasing power of women)

Psychocentrics ‘self-centred’ tourists who prefer familiar and risk-averse experiences

Psychographic segmentation the differentiation of the tourist market on the basis of psychological and motivational characteristics such as personality, motivations and needs

Simple market segmentation the most basic form of market segmentation, involving the identification of a minimal number of basic market segments such as ‘female’ and ‘male’

Sociodemographic segmentation market segmentation based on social and demographic variables such as gender, age, family lifecycle, education, occupation and income

Tourist market the overall group of consumers that engages in some form of tourism-related travel

Zero-commission tours package tour arrangements in which no commissions are paid and profits are realised through aggressive and captive sales strategies; often associated with Chinese outbound tourism

QUESTIONS

1. For managers and marketers, what are the advantages and disadvantages, respectively, of treating the tourist market as a single entity or as a collection of markets of one?

2. 1. To what extent do you believe that tourists in a given destination are obligated to behave in a manner that does not offend conservative local residents? Why?

   2. To what extent should local residents be willing to compromise their own norms to satisfy tourists? Why?

3. What strengths and weaknesses are associated with ‘country of residence’ and ‘region of residence’ as criteria for identifying tourist market segments?183

4. Should airlines have the right to discriminate against obese people in their pricing and seating policies? Explain your reasoning.

5. 1. What non-traditional family segments are becoming more widespread, and hence call into question the dominance of the traditional family lifecycle as a segmentation variable for the tourist market?

   2. What different kinds of restraints might characterise these different non-traditional segments?

6. 1. What criteria should a destination use in deciding whether to target specific racial, religious or ethnic groups?

   2. What are the risks in targeting specific racial, religious or ethnic markets?

7. What difficulties are associated with the operationalisation of psychographic segmentation criteria?

8. 1. What is the difference between trip purpose and trip motivation?

   2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each as segmentation criteria?

9. 1. How can the 16 specific motivations depicted in table 6.2 be combined into three or four more general categories?

   2. What is the relative importance of each of these broader categories, based on the frequencies indicated in table 6.2?

10. How can the loyalty matrix be operationalised to assist in the management and marketing of destinations?

EXERCISES

1. Assume that you are the manager of a local theme park and that you have obtained funding to identify your market through the use of a questionnaire. Because these funds are very limited, you must keep your questionnaire to only two pages, which allows you to obtain no more than 15 customer characteristics.

   1. List the 15 characteristics of your market base that you believe to be most important to the successful management of your attraction.

   2. Indicate why you selected these particular characteristics.

   3. Design the questionnaire.

   4. Prepare an accompanying 500-word report that explains your choices as well as the metrics you use to measure each of these characteristics.

2. 1. Design a 300-word travel brochure for a destination of your choice that attempts to attract as many visitors as possible by appealing to all levels of Maslow’s hierarchy (as shown in figure 6.7).

   2. Explain how the brochure evokes this hierarchy.

FURTHER READING

Aitchison, C. (Ed.) 2011. Gender and Tourism: Social, Cultural and Spatial Perspectives. London: Routledge. A comprehensive perspective on the role of gender in tourism is provided in this text, which considers how gendered identities are represented in exclusionary spaces, practices and policies.

Darcy, S. 2013. Disability and Tourism. Wallingford, UK: CABI. Tourism businesses are increasingly recognising people with disabilities as a large, growing and viable market segment. This text addresses the definitions of disability and considers issues of demand, marketing, accessibility and future trends.

Guichard-Anguis, S. & Moon, O. (Eds) 2011. Japanese Tourism and Travel Culture. London: Routledge. Notwithstanding the rapid growth of the 184Chinese tourist market, Japanese tourists continue to situate as an important inbound market for many destinations, including Australia. This text considers the distinctive characteristics of Japanese tourism and their implications for destination management and marketing.

Kozak, M. & Decrop, A. (Eds) 2012. Handbook of Tourist Behavior. London: Routledge. The chapters in this text consider various aspects related to tourist decision-making and behaviour-related market segments. International case studies illustrate the concepts.

Schänzel, H., Yeoman, I. & Backer, E. (Eds) 2012. Family Tourism: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Bristol: Channel View. Family travel is a prevalent type of tourist group, but one that is poorly understood. This is the first text to systematically analyse this critically important travel group segment, thereby providing a foundation for further study.

REFERENCES

ABS 2009. Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings. Catalogue No. 4430.0. www.abs.gov.au. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

ABS 2010. Attendance at Selected Cultural Venues and Events. Catalogue No. 4114.0. www.abs.gov.au. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

ABS 2011. Australian Social Trends March 2011. Catalogue No. 4102. www.abs.gov.au. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

ABS 2012. Reflecting a Nation: Stories from the 2011 Census, 2012–2013. Catalogue No. 2071.0. www.abs.gov.au. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Blichfeldt, B., Pedersen, B., Johansen, A. & Hansen, L. 2011. ‘Tweens on Holidays. In Situ Decision-making from Children’s Perspective’. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 11: 135–49.

Chang, R., Kivela, J. & Mak, A. 2011. ‘Attributes that Influence the Evaluation of Travel Dining Experience: When East meets West’. Tourism Management 32: 307–16.

Chen, S. & Gassner, M. 2012. ‘An Investigation of the Demographic, Psychological, Psychographic, and Behavioral Characteristics of Chinese Senior Leisure Travelers’. Journal of China Tourism Research 8: 123–45.

Choi, H-Y., Lehto, X. & Brey, E. 2011. ‘Investigating Resort Loyalty: Impacts of the Family Life Cycle’. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 20: 121–41.187

Chow, I. & Murphy, P. 2011. ‘Predicting Intended and Actual Travel Behaviors: An Examination of Chinese Outbound Tourists to Australia’. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 28: 318–30.

Cleaver Sellick, M. 2004. ‘Discovery, Connection, Nostalgia: Key Travel Motives Within the Senior Market’. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 17: 55–71.

Hoare, R. & Butcher, K. 2008. ‘Do Chinese Cultural Values Affect Customer Satisfaction/Loyalty?’ International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20: 156–71.

Heimtun, B. & Abelsen, B. 2012. ‘The Tourist Experience and Bonding’. Current Issues in Tourism 15: 425–39.

Hsu, C. & Huang, S. 2008. ‘Travel Motivation: A Critical Review of the Concept’s Development’. In Woodside, A. & Martin, D. (Eds) Tourism Management: Analysis, Behaviour and Strategy. Wallingford, UK: CABI, 14–27.

Hung, K-P., Chen, A. & Peng, N. 2012. ‘The Constraints for Taking Pets to Leisure Activities’. Annals of Tourism Research 39: 487–95.

Jamal, S., Othman, N. & Muhammad, N. 2011. ‘The Moderating Influence of Psychographics in Homestay Tourism in Malaysia’. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 28: 48–61.

Jarvis, J. & Peel, V. 2010. ‘Flashpacking in Fiji: Reframing the ‘Global Nomad’ in a Developing Destination’. In Hannam, K & Diekmann, A. (Eds). Beyond Backpacker Tourism: Mobilities and Experiences. Clevedon: Channel View, pp. 21–39.

Kluin, J. & Lehto, X. 2012. ‘Measuring Family Reunion Travel Motivations’. Annals of Tourism Research 39: 820–41.

Lew, A. & McKercher, B. 2006. ‘Modeling Tourist Movements: A Local Destination Analysis’. Annals of Tourism Research 33: 403–23.

Litvin, S. 2006. ‘Revisiting Plog’s Model of Allocentricity and Psychocentricity… One More Time’. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 47: 245–53.

Litvin, S. 2009. ‘A Comparison of Student Spring Break and Their ‘Normal’ Behaviors: Is the Hype Justified?’ Tourism Review International 13: 173–81.

Litvin, S., Smith, W. & Pitts, R. 2013. ‘Sedentary Behavior of the Nontravel Segment: A Research Note’. Journal of Travel Research 52: 131–6.

Markwell, K. & Tomsen, S. 2010. ‘Safety and Hostility at Special Events: Lessons from Australian Gay and Lesbian Festivals’. Event Management 14: 225–38.

Miller, G. & Twining-Ward, L. 2005. Monitoring for a Sustainable Tourism Transition: The Challenge of Developing and Using Indicators. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Paris, C. 2012. ‘Flashpackers: An Emerging Sub-culture?’ Annals of Tourism Research 39: 1094–115.

Patterson, I., Darcy, S. & Mönninghoff, M. 2012. ‘Attitudes and Experiences of Tourism Operators in Northern Australia Towards People with Disabilities’. World Leisure Journal 54: 215–29.

Pearlman, J. 2013. ‘Samoa Air introduces ‘XL class’ for larger passengers’. The Telegraph, 18 June. www.telegraph.co.uk.

Plog, S. 1991. Leisure Travel: Making it a Growth Market — Again! Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Plog, S. 2004. Leisure Travel: A Marketing Handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson Prentice Hall, p. 51.

Plog, S. 2005. ‘Targeting Segments: More Important than Ever in the Travel Industry’. In Theobald, W. (Ed.) Global Tourism. Third Edition. Sydney: Elsevier, pp. 271–93.

Prideaux, B., Cave, J., Thompson, M. & Sibtain, J. 2012. ‘Recognising New Market Opportunities and Selecting Appropriate Segments Targeting Chinese Outbound Tourists’. Journal of Vacation Marketing 18: 287–99.

Sagapolutele, F. & Perry, N. 2013. ‘Samoa airline introduces pay-by-weight pricing’. Yahoo! News. 4 April. http://news.yahoo.com.188

Semone, P. & Kozak, M. 2012. ‘Towards a Mekong Tourism Brand’. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 17: 595–614.

Snoke, M., Kendig, H. & O’Loughlin, K. 2011. ‘Australian Evidence of Baby Boomers Financial Security: A Review’. Journal of Economic and Social Policy 14(1): Article 8.

Sparks, B. & Pan, G. 2009. ‘Chinese Outbound Tourists: Understanding their Attitudes, Constraints and Use of Information Sources’. Tourism Management 30: 483–94.

Stumbo, N. & Pegg, S. 2005. ‘Travelers and Tourists With Disabilities: A Matter of Priorities and Loyalties’. Tourism Review International 8: 195–209.

TRA 2012a. ‘International Visitors in Australia, September 2012: Quarterly Results of the International Visitor Survey’. www.ret.gov.au.

TRA 2012b. ‘2020 China… Building the Foundations — Knowing the Customer’. www.tourism.australia.com.

Um, S. & Crompton, J. 1990. ‘Attitude Determinants in Tourism Destination Choice’. Annals of Tourism Research 24: 432–48.

Weaver, D. 2012. ‘Psychographic Insights from a South Carolina Protected Area’. Tourism Management 33: 371–9.

Weaver, D. & Lawton, L. 2013. ‘Resident perceptions of a contentious tourism event’. Tourism Management 37: 165–175.

Xu, Y. & McGehee, N. 2012. ‘Shopping Behavior of Chinese Tourists Visiting the United States: Letting the Shoppers Do the Talking’. Tourism Management 33: 427–30.

Yau, K., McKercher, B., & Packer, T. 2004. ‘Traveling with a Disability — More Than an Access Issue’. Annals of Tourism Research 31: 946–60.

Zhang, H-Q., Yan, Y-Q. & Li, Y-P. 2009. ‘Understanding the Mechanism Behind the Zero-commission Chinese Outbound Package Tours: Evidence from Case Studies’. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 21: 734–51.

Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. 2012. ‘Pets as Safe Havens and Secure Bases: The Moderating Role of Pet Attachment Orientations’. Journal of Research in Personality 46: 571–80.