Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 16:24–44, 2015

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1528-008X print/1528-0098 online
DOI: 10.1080/1528008X.2015.966296

Willingness to Travel With Pets:

A U.S. Consumer Perspective

KSENIA KIRILLOVA, SENA LEE, and XINRAN LEHTO

School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

The purpose of this exploratory study was to understand U.S.

pet-owners’ perception of traveling with pets as well as to gain
insights into their willingness to take pets on leisure trips. Regression
analysis revealed that motivators and emotional attachment influ-
enced willingness to travel with pets while perceived constraints
and satisfaction with existing pet-related hospitality and tourism
services did not significantly predict travel-with-pets intentions.
Further inquiry indicated that although household income affects
willingness to travel with pets, all predictors equally appeal to pet
owners regardless of their socio-demographic characteristics, sug-
gesting that these factors are of universal concern to pet owners.
Given the insights from this research, industry practitioners could
cater to needs and desires of tourists with pets, linking industry
practices with consumer preferences, and thus achieving higher
customer satisfaction and retention.

KEYWORDS constraints, hospitality, pet tourism, satisfaction,

willingness to travel

INTRODUCTION

Pets of all sizes and breeds have become increasingly popular. According to
the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA), in 1988, 56%
of American households owned at least one pet as compared with 63% of
American households in 2011–2012, which equals 72.9 million homes (2012).
This enthusiasm can be translated into large sums of money spent each year

Address correspondence to Ksenia Kirillova, School of Hospitality and Tourism

Management, Purdue University, 900 W. State St., Marriott Hall, Room 206, West Lafayette,
IN 47907. E-mail: kkirillo@purdue.edu

24
 Willingness to Travel With Pets 25

on pet-related products and services (USA Today, 2005). In fact, it is reported

that pet spending is expected to reach an all-time high of $52.87 billion in
2012 (APPMA, 2012). As an increasing number of people consider pets as
members of their families, pet owners are refusing to travel without their pets
(Quinn, 2001). For instance, 49% of adult leisure travelers in the United States
consider their pets to be a part of the family, and 18% of all American leisure
tourists reported having traveled with a pet (U.S. Travel Association, 2012).
Responding to the demands of people with more disposable recreation dol-
lars and the inclination to treat their pets as family members, many hotels
across the country are adopting pet-friendly policies (Boroshok, 2006). Other
industry sectors such as restaurants, shopping centers, and parks also offer
pet-related products and services in attempts to attract customers (APPMA,
2012).
However, compared with the increasing number of pet owners and
their growing interests in respect to trips with pets, pet-related tourism prod-
ucts and services are in their early stage of development. Comparatively
few tourism destinations have provided pet-related services and accommo-
dations. A study of Australian dog tourism market identified a major gap
between dog owners’ desire to travel with pets and the actualization of this
desire (Carr & Cohen, 2009). This gap seems to signify a potential niche mar-
ket that has yet to be substantially tapped. In the United States, much of the
analysis represents industry-produced reports depicting the current state of
the pet tourism market and advocating for catering to pet-owning customers
(Boroshok, 2006), leaving the consumer perspective in the periphery.
Academically, studies related to companionship with pets are abundant;
however, the findings have been largely outside the tourism domain (Carr
& Cohen, 2009 is a notable exception). The purpose of this exploratory
study was to understand the U.S. pet owners’ perceptions of traveling with
pets as well as to gain insights into consumers’ willingness to take pets
on leisure trips. The specific objectives of this study were (1) to develop
a typology of consumers traveling with pets based on pet owners’ socio-
demographic background; (2) to explore pet owners’ overall perceptions
of traveling with pets; (3) to investigate their satisfaction with existing pet-
related hospitality and tourism services; and (4) to examine factors that affect
consumers’ willingness to travel with pets.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Pet Ownership
The benefits of bonding with companion animals have been discussed in
various academic areas, where the literature has shown a strong positive
association between pet ownership and health promotion. By encouraging
their owners to get involved in outdoor activities and exercise (in the case of
26 K. Kirillova et al.

dog ownership) and by providing feelings of safety and comfort, pets play
important roles in physical health promotion and in the alleviation of anxiety,
loneliness, and depression (Friedmann, 1990). Pet owners show higher par-
ticipation in outdoor activities (Ball, Bauman, Leslie, & Owen, 2001; Brown &
Rhodes, 2006), lower heart rate and blood pressure (Friedmann & Thomas,
1995), less anxiety (Barker & Dawson, 1998; Richeson, 2003), and better
overall cardio fitness (Aiba et al., 2012). While pets in general positively
affect their owners’ health, the differences in this effect exist between cats
and dogs. For example, older dog owners demonstrated better health charac-
teristics than did both older cat owners and older no-pet owners (Enmarker,
Hellzen, Ekker, & Berg, 2012; Rijken & van Beek, 2001). Pet owners also
benefit from increased socialization with their local communities and thus
have lower rates of loneliness (Wood, Giles-Corti, & Bulsara, 2005). With the
recognition of links between pet ownership and health benefits, companion
animals have been used therapeutically for a long time (Benda, 2004) in a
variety of settings, from hospitals and nursing homes to schools and prisons
(Connor & Miller, 2000).
Albert and Bulcroft (1988) found that roles played by pets are related
to the internal structure of the household. Although the majority of pets live
in households with children (Weise, 2012), attachment to a pet is stronger
among never-married, divorced, widowed people, childless couples, and
“empty nesters” (Albert & Bulcroft, 1988). Notably, Carr and Cohen (2009)
found that single dog owners in Australia were more likely to take their pets
on leisure trips than all other socio-demographic groups.

Pet-Friendly Services in the Lodging Sector

As a growing number of people wishes to engage their pets in leisure activi-
ties, many lodging properties, have adopted pet-friendly policies addressing.
Industry practitioners have extensively deliberated about the rationale behind
pet-friendly policy, marketing strategies for this segment, and the benefits
received (Jeanine, 1998). The very definition of “pet-friendly” may vary from
“vacation destination where family pets are permitted” (www.travelvictoria.
com.au) to “accommodation property which may allow certain types of pets
to accompany guests during their stay or some may permit animals inside
the accommodation or have appropriate fencing to contain animals” outside
(http://vacations.morefocus.com/).
According to Smith Travel Research (2007), the following percentages
of hotels, by segment, allow pets: luxury at 71%; upper-upscale at 47%,
upscale at 45%, midscale with food and beverage at 59%, midscale without
food and beverage at 41%, economy at 75%, independent at 45% . While
many hotels now accommodate guests with pets, some hotels set up new
pet-friendly policies, which could be valuable for positive image building.
For example, each of Loews’ hotels provides a “Loews Loves Pets” program,
 Willingness to Travel With Pets 27

and individual properties welcome pets at check-in with special treats and a
note informing their owners about the hotel’s additional pet services. Loews
hotels also provide well-trained hotel staff, who can walk and take care of
pets (Hansen, 2004). The lodging industry can benefit from setting a pet-
friendly policy since welcoming guests with pets is a direct opportunity to
increase revenue per room and raise profits. Additional pet services may
drive the occupancy rate without engaging in heavy discounting (Boroshok,
2006). Kimpton properties reported that the average stay of a pet-owning
guest is about 2.56 nights compared with 2.1 nights for guests without pets
(Boroshok, 2006), and a Starwood survey showed that 76% of pet owners
would be loyal to a hotel chain if their pets were allowed in hotel rooms
during the trip (Hansen, 2004). Pet-friendliness allows hotel chains to focus
on unique needs of target groups of people and thus to differentiate them-
selves from competitors without much financial investments (Kridler, 2005).
In addition to being a valuable marketing tool and an added convenience for
traveling pet owners, pet-friendliness offers lodging industry the opportunity
to build positive publicity through participation in animal welfare programs
(Brendan, 1998).

Pet-Friendly Services in Other Sectors

Other sectors of the tourism industry also have pet policies. The practice of
taking dogs to a restaurant and other public places is usual in European
countries, and throughout Southern California and Florida in the United
States. In Miami Beach, for example, virtually all of the dozens of out-
door cafes that line Lincoln Road Mall accommodate patrons with dogs.
Dog-friendly restaurants, however, remain rare in the northern states. While
major airlines allow passengers to travel with small pets, airlines usually
charge from $100 to $250 one way to carry pets in the cabin. With some air-
lines, travelers with pets must often stop at the check-in counter to show a
veterinary health certificate and have an animal inspected. In addition, there
is generally a limit on the number of animals on board. Additionally, there
have been numerous reports of dog deaths in cargos of an airplane during
flights that could have caused travelers to be even more reluctant to bringing
pets on vacations.
However, not every place welcomes pets. According to a 2007 survey by
Bringyourpet.com, 39% of pet owners pointed out that finding pet-friendly
lodging was difficult. Dogfriendly.com (2007) also asked the U.S. pet own-
ers to grade various hospitality services such as lodging, campgrounds,
airlines, trains, parks, beaches, restaurants, shopping malls, and tourist attrac-
tions. While hotels, off-leash parks, and campgrounds scored the highest,
most of other hospitality sectors such as restaurants, shopping malls, tourist
attractions, airlines, buses, and trains showed much room for improvement.
According to the survey conducted by the Pennsylvania Bureau of State
28 K. Kirillova et al.

Parks, 80% of pet owners think that pets should be allowed in the state park
campgrounds (Lisco & Sauder, 2003). Moreover, if pets were allowed, more
than 30% of pet owners would increase their visits to state parks, and about
40% of pet owners would seek out those campgrounds that allowed pets
(Lisco & Sauder, 2003). Therefore, it appears that love for pets and desire to
spend quality time with them are important motivators to frequent certain
recreational venues.

Travel Constraints, Satisfaction, and Willingness to Travel

Research to date has indicated that participation in leisure travel is ham-
pered by constraints (Chen, Chen, & Okumus, 2013). Three groups of travel
constraints were proposed to influence potential travel behavior: structural
(e.g., heath, financial resources, work schedule), intra-personal (e.g., anx-
iety), and inter-personal (lack of travel companion) (Crawford, Jackson, &
Godbey, 1991). Several studies tested and verified the hierarchical model
of constraints (e.g., Nyaupane & Andereck, 2008) noting the structural
constraints as the most influential (Chen, Kerstetter, & Caldwell, 2001).
Focusing on structural constraints, Nyaupane and Andereck (2008) further
specified that time and cost were more powerful constraints than the place
attributes in deciding whether to participate in leisure travel. Although travel
constraints do matter in travel decision-making, they do not necessarily pre-
vent or reduce participation in leisure travel as one attempts to overcome
or negotiate travel constraints (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001). For example, in
the case of cruise travel, Hung and Petrick (2010) demonstrated that travel
constraints negotiation favorably influenced travel intentions while perceived
constraints alone negatively affect willingness to travel.
Besides travel constraints, satisfaction with tourism experience at a des-
tination also influences consumers’ willingness to engage in similar tourism
activities (Mazursky, 1989). It was demonstrated that revisit intentions could
be partially predicted by satisfaction with the recent tourism experience
(Petrick, Morais, & Norman, 2001), although it was also argued that perceived
performance quality rather than satisfaction influences behavioral intentions
(e.g., Baker & Crompton, 2000). Others, however, assert that perceived value
and experience quality affect satisfaction, which only then influences behav-
ioral intentions (e.g., Chen & Chen, 2010; Tam, 2000). Given the criticality of
tourist satisfaction for destination loyalty (Lee, Jeon, & Kim, 2011) and behav-
ioral intentions (Baloglu, Pekcan, Chen, & Santos, 2004), both attribute and
overall satisfaction in tourism have been the areas of intensive research (e.g.,
Akama & Kieti, 2003; Chi & Qu, 2008; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Pizam,
Neumann, & Reichel, 1978). Particularly, because satisfaction with specific
attributes of tourism experience (e.g., lodging, dining, leisure activities) leads
to global satisfaction with this experience (Spreng, MacKenzie, & Olshavsky,
1996), perceived performance quality across the attributes becomes of central
 Willingness to Travel With Pets 29

importance. In fact, Baker and Crompton (2000) showed that performance

quality attenuates satisfaction and ultimately affects the intention to return.
In summary, although with no consensus on the exact mechanism, research
to date has shown that satisfaction is an important predictor of future behav-
ior. As such, customer satisfaction becomes the least expensive means of
advertising in the service setting and deserves scrutinized attention with
respect to pet owning tourists as well.

METHOD
Data Collection
To address the study objectives, this research followed a three-step process.
First, in order to have a better understanding of possible factors affecting
willingness to travel with pets, a pilot study using semi-structured interviews
was conducted with 68 U.S. pet owners. During these interviews, respon-
dents were asked about their perspectives on traveling with pets and the
perceived state of pet tourism market. The respondents were intersected at
veterinary clinics and recreation parks of a Midwestern town of the United
States. The final instrument as described in the following section was devel-
oped partially based on the results of this preliminary inquiry. Second, the
full-scale survey was administered at a recreation park, special events, and
veterinary clinics of the same town. Additionally, a web version of the survey
was posted on the online pet owners’ communities from July 2007 to June
2008. A total of 187 pet owners in United States responded to the survey.
Among the 187 pet owners, 34 respondents were from local parks and veteri-
nary clinics, and 153 were from the online pet owner communities. In order
to ensure that there is no demographic difference between the respondents
from online and offline channels, chi-square tests on demographic vari-
ables of the respondents were conducted. These tests were non-significant,
indicating no apparent differences between on-line and off-line samples.
Due to substantial missing data, 34 unusable responses from online com-
munities were not coded for further analysis resulting in a final sample of
153 responses.

Survey Questionnaire
The survey questionnaire was comprised of the following sections: (1) con-
sumers’ overall perceptions of traveling with pets; (2) consumers’ satisfaction
with existing pet-related services provided by hospitality and tourism
operations; (3) consumers’ willingness to travel with pets; and (4) socio-
demographic and trip characteristics of consumers traveling with pets.
Because scholarly literature on the topic is scarce, the instrument to
assess overall consumers’ perceptions of traveling with pets was derived
30 K. Kirillova et al.

based on the Starwood telephone survey with dog owners and the
2007 Kimpton Hotels report (items 2–4, 6, 7, 11–16), the preliminary study
data (items 5, 8–10), and the study conducted by the Idaho Department of
Parks and Recreation in 2004 about the role of pet companionship in human
recreation (items 1, 17, 18). The resulting scale was comprised of 18 state-
ments in which respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement
on 5-point Likert-type scale. The scales to measure pet owners’ satisfaction
with existing pet-related hospitality and tourism services was adopted from
the 2007 report by Dogfriendly.com and consisted of eight statements in
which respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction on 5-
point Likert-type scale. With the same scale calibration, willingness to travel
with pets was measured by “I am willing to take my pets on a leisure trip in
a year.”
A three-person expert panel evaluated construct validity of the instru-
ment. Two academics with extensive tourism industry experience and
scholarly expertise and one with professional and academic expertise in
lodging management approved the final instrument. Face validity was
assessed during a focus group with pet owners, after which slight modifi-
cations to wording were made. Reliability of the scales was verified with
Cronbach alphas of 0.77 for the overall perceptions scale and 0.85 for the
satisfaction scale (Nunnally, 1967). The questionnaire concluded with ques-
tions pertaining to a number of pets owned, number of trips taken with
pets, accommodation and transportation options utilized, length of stay,
additional pet fees, information channels used while planning trips, and
socio-demographic characteristics.

Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics of frequency and percentages were utilized to exam-
ine the socio-demographic characteristics and travel behavior of pet owners.
Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotations was implemented
to investigate dimensionality of both constructs: overall perceptions of
traveling with pets and satisfaction with existing pet-related hospitality and
tourism services. Factors were considered significant and retained only if they
had an eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1 and factor loadings of greater
than 0.40. Regression analysis was adopted to test the relative importance
of the identified factors in relation to pet owners’ willingness to travel with
their pets. After investigating the relationship between the identified factors
and willingness to travel with pets, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
with Tukey’s post hoc tests were conducted to test if socio-demographic
variables affect the identified factors, satisfaction, and willingness to travel
with pets.
 Willingness to Travel With Pets 31

RESULTS
Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Travel Behavior
The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in
Table 1.
Table 2 summarizes respondents’ trip characteristics. According to the
results, more than 80% of the pet owners in the sample took their pets on a
leisure trip and showed a strong willingness to travel with their pets again.
Additionally, pet owners who already had taken their pets on leisure travel
were more likely to be repeat customers, since more than 80% have traveled
with their pets at least twice in the last 2 years and pet owners who traveled
with their pets more than 10 times accounted for over 20% of the respon-
dents. When pet owners traveled with pets, they usually stayed overnight
either at commercial lodging facilities like a hotel and motel or at the res-
idence of friends or family. These findings indicate that if lodging industry
welcomes these consumers with well-established pet-friendly policies, more
pet owners would consider staying at commercial accommodations when
they plan to travel with pets, and destinations can benefit from this additional
expenditure.

TABLE 1 Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample

Characteristics Descriptions n f (%)

Gender Male 23 15.0

Female 130 85.0
Age, years Below 25 24 15.7
25–34 38 24.8
35–44 44 28.8
45–54 32 20.9
55–64 12 7.8
65 or over 3 2.0
Education Less than high school 7 4.6
High school graduate 23 15.0
College/University 80 52.3
Post graduate 43 28.1
Income Less than $20,000 14 9.2
$20,000 - $39,999 18 11.8
$40,000 - $59,999 23 15.1
$60,000 - $79,999 19 12.5
More than $80,000 47 30.9
Family status Single 31 20.3
In a relationship 27 17.6
Married 78 51.0
Divorced 11 7.2
Other 6 3.9
 TABLE 2 Trip Characteristics of Tourists With Pets

Characteristic Descriptions n % Characteristic Descriptions n %

∗
Number of pets Dog 1 76 49.7 Number of vacations 1 19 15.2
2 39 25.5 taken with pets 2-3 29 23.2
3 or more 27 17.6 4-5 36 28.8
Cat 1 23 15.0 6-7 9 7.2
2 15 9.8 8-10 6 4.8
3 or more 13 8.5 More than 10 26 20.8
Other 28 19.3
Experience of traveling Yes 126 82.4 Length of trip Daytrip 12 9.7
with pets No 27 17.6 1 night 9 7.3
∗ 2–3 nights 46 37.1
Accommodation Hotel & Motel 60 48.4
4–5 nights 23 18.5
Friends/Family 48 38.7
6–7 nights 16 12.9
Rental house/Condo 14 11.3
8–10 nights 9 7.3
Campground 11 8.9
11–15 nights 6 4.8

32
No accommodation 13 10.5
20 nights or more 3 2.4
Other 5 4.0
∗ ∗
Transportation Car 118 95.2 Companionship Children 17 13.8
Air 13 10.5 Spouse 76 61.3
Bus 2 1.6 Parents 23 18.5
Train 1 0.8 Relatives 17 13.7
Ship 1 0.8 Friends 15 12.1
Other 5 4.0 No Companion 12 9.7
∗
Information TV/Newspaper 10 8.1 Expenditure Less than $10 38 34.2
channel Vet clinic 11 8.9 $10–$30 21 18.9
Fellow pet owners 28 22.8 $30–$50 16 14.4
Travel agency 5 4.1 $50–$100 18 16.2
Websites 64 520 $100–$300 13 11.7
Other 33 26.8 More than $300 5 4.5
a
Sample size decreased because of missing data.
∗
Allowed multiple responses.
 Willingness to Travel With Pets 33

Satisfaction With Pet-Related Hospitality and Tourism Services

The means for the responses to the questions about pet owners’ satisfaction
with pet-friendly services are presented in Table 3.
When pet owners were asked about their satisfaction with hospital-
ity and tourism services, they ranked airline pet services the lowest (M =
2.46), followed by extra pet fee (M = 2.63), and additional pet services
(M = 2.75) of the lodging properties. Lodging accommodation options (M =
2.94) and policies (M = 2.98) registered higher satisfaction evaluations by
the pet owners but still below the average scale score of 3. The results
revealed that most of the pet owners traveled by car, which is consistent
with the findings from previous industry reports (Dogfriendly.com, 2007;
Starwood Hotels and Resorts, 2006) and trade magazines (Boroshok, 2006;
Quinn, 2001). As the literature review indicated, pet owners show low satis-
faction with airline pet policies and current airline services due to high cost,
complicated boarding procedure, required paperwork, and treatment of pets
as luggage (Dogfriendly.com, 2007).
When pet owners planed to travel with pets, half of them consulted
websites and fellow pet owners to receive relevant information. Friends
and family were also reliable sources of pet-friendly travel information (see
Table 1). This could be interpreted that the word-of-mouth could be one of
the effective advertisement tools to influence pet owners’ plans to travel with
pets. Therefore, pet owners’ low satisfaction level of information availability
about pet-friendly tourism options could be improved by establishing appro-
priate information strategy to familiarize these customers with pet-related
tourism products so that they can plan more frequent trips with their pets.

Overall Perceptions of Traveling With Pets

When pet owners were asked about overall perceptions of traveling with
pets, it appears that emotional factors such as attachment to pets were the
key contributors (see Table 4). Pet owners feel happy when they spend time

TABLE 3 Satisfaction With Pet-Related Services

Satisfaction Factorsa Mean SD

Accommodation options 2.94 1.15

Accommodation availability 3.07 1.09
Extra pet charge fee 2.63 1.06
Pet-friendly services 2.75 0.96
Pet-related policies 2.98 1.17
Information availability 2.90 1.17
Airline pet services 2.46 0.99
Overall travel experience 3.53 0.96
a
All items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).
34 K. Kirillova et al.

TABLE 4 Perceptions of Traveling With Pets

Perception Mean SD

I am happy when I spend time with my pet(s). 4.89 0.47

I feel guilty leaving behind my pet(s) during leisure trips. 4.20 1.07
I miss my pet(s) when I travel without them. 4.68 0.81
When I travel without my pet(s), I am worried about them. 4.21 1.02
I prefer to let my pet(s) stay at a pet boarding facility than take 1.74 1.05
them on leisure trips.
I would cancel or change my trip if I am not able to provide care 4.46 0.86
for my pet(s).
I am willing to pay more if lodging facilities have well 4.06 0.92
established pet-friendly services available.
I have traveled without my pet(s) because it was too expensive 2.42 1.26
to take them.
Price is the most important factor when I consider pet boarding 1.94 1.03
services.
I feel that boarding services are more expensive than the extra 3.11 1.03
cost incurred by traveling with pet(s).
I am willing to pay more than I pay for the boarding facility if I 3.70 1.06
can take my pet(s) on a leisure trip.
I have traveled without my pet(s) because pet-friendly policy has 3.21 1.15
not yet been established well.
I would refuse to stay longer at the travel destination if I travel 3.64 1.13
without my pet(s).
Pet-friendly policies can make me consider taking my pet(s) on 4.25 0.94
leisure trips.
Pet-friendly policy is the most important factor if I plan to travel 4.28 1.05
with my pet(s).
I will be loyal to a hotel chain if my pet(s) is well treated during 4.48 0.77
my stay.
I believe traveling with my pet(s) enhances my overall vacation 4.26 0.96
experience.
I think traveling with my pet(s) makes me happy. 4.44 0.81
I am willing to take my pet(s) on leisure trip in a year. 4.32 0.96
a
All items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

with their pets (M = 4.89). When they travel without pets, they worry (M =
4.21) and always think about them (M = 4.68). Logistic issues also appear
to be of significance. A large number of pet owners believe that price of
boarding services is not an important factor to consider (M = 1.94) when
they are away from pets during a trip. This could explain the finding that
pet owners prefer to find some place they can trust with their pets’ care.
In addition, pet owners would cancel or change the trip schedule if they are
not able to provide good care for their pets during the trip (M = 4.46), and
they would refuse to stay longer than scheduled if they are not traveling with
pets (M = 3.64). This might be interpreted to mean that pet owners would
extend their stay at a destination if the industry addresses the needs of pet
owners. This finding has important implications for industry practitioners:
the less guests feel guilty about leaving their pets behind, the more nights
 Willingness to Travel With Pets 35

they are willing to spend at a destination, which translated into more money
expended within this destination.
Pet owners indicated that well-established pet policies can motivate
them to go on a leisure trip (M = 4.25) and encourage them to be loyal
towards a hotel chain that offers great services for both customers and their
pets (M = 4.48). For economic issues, pet owners reported a strong willing-
ness to pay more for their pets if owners could share leisure activities their
pets (M = 4.06), and the respondents felt that the cost incurred by taking
their pets on a trip was similar with the boarding facility cost (M = 3.11).
Pet owners also believe that traveling with pets enhances their overall travel
experience (M = 4.26) and makes them feel happy (M = 4.44), which might
encourage these consumers to take pets on a leisure trip in a year (M =
4.32). Overall, emotional attachment appears to be important in pet own-
ers’ decision-making to take pets on leisure trips. Results showed strong pet
owners’ willingness to pay more money than they pay for boarding if the
hospitality and tourism industry is prepared to care for their pets. Combined
with other aspects, logistic issues appear to be a highly influential consider-
ation when pet owners decide to travel with pets. Results indicate that pet
owners might extend their stay if their pets are well treated during travel.

Factors Concerning Willingness to Travel With Pets

Exploratory factor analyses were conducted to understand dimensionality
of overall perception of traveling with pets and satisfaction with existing
hospitality products and services. The initial factor analysis conducted on
18 statements of overall perception of traveling with pets revealed a six-factor
solution (KMO = 0.777), which accounted for 67.57% of variance. After the
items with cross-loadings above 0.40 were removed and the analysis was
re-run, a three-factor solution emerged (see Table 5). The first factor, labeled
as “Motivators” includes six items related to the aspects of pet travel that
favorably influence the decision of pet owners to travel with pets. The sec-
ond factor, consisting of three items, addresses how much pet owners bond
with their companion animals and is labeled as “Emotional attachment.” The
last factor, named “Perceived constraints,” has three attributes that explain
the aspects of pet travel that may negatively affect the decision of whether to
travel with pets. These constraints appear to be of structural nature as they
are mainly concerned with price and pet-related policies at a destination.
In sum, these three factors explained 62.10% of the variance with KMO of
0.813. The Cronbach alphas to check internal consistency of items within
each factor ranged from 0.60 to 0.85.
The second factor analysis run on eight statements of the satisfaction
scale initially revealed a two-factor solution explaining 63.85% of variance
36 K. Kirillova et al.

TABLE 5 Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factors F1 F2 F3

Factor 1: Perceived Benefits

I am willing to pay more than I pay for the boarding 0.462
facility if I can take my pet(s) on a leisure trip
Pet-friendly policies can make me consider taking my 0.797
pet(s) on leisure trips.
Pet-friendly policy is the most important factor when 0.725
I make a reservation for lodging if I plan to travel
with my pet(s)
I will be loyal to a hotel chain if my pet(s) is well 0.766
treated during my stay.
I believe traveling with my pet(s) enhances my 0.831
overall vacation experience.
I think traveling with my pet(s) makes me happy. 0.810
Factor 2: Emotional Attachment
I feel guilty leaving behind my pets during leisure 0.835
trips.
I miss my pet(s) when I travel without them. 0.701
When I travel without my pet(s), I am worried about 0.825
my pet(s).
Factor 3: Perceived Constraints
I have traveled without my pets because it was too 0.835
expensive to take them.
Price is the most important factor when I consider pet 0.670
boarding services.
I have traveled without my pet(s) because pet-friendly 0.640
policy has not yet been established well.
Eigenvalue 4.30 1.87 1.29
Percentage of variance explained 39.43 17.96 14.71
Coefficient alpha 0.85 0.75 0.60
Number of attributes 6 3 3

with KMO of 0.846. When two cross-loaded items were eliminated, the anal-
ysis finalized a unifactorial solution explaining 56.26% of variance with KMO
of 0.836. The Cronbach alpha for the factor was 0.84.

Factor Effects on Willingness to Travel With Pets

Multiple regression analysis was employed to examine to what extent the
independent variables (satisfaction with existing pet-related hospitality and
tourism services and three factors of overall perceptions) exert influence on
the dependent variable (willingness to travel with pets). As a dependent
variable, the score of willingness to travel with pets was used in the regres-
sion. Summated mean procedure was employed for independent variables.
Table 6 shows the results from the multiple regression analysis.
 Willingness to Travel With Pets 37

TABLE 6 Multiple Regression Analysis

Factor Standard Beta, β t value p value VIF

Satisfaction with prior experience 0.29 0.45 .66 1.01

Motivators 0.51 6.85 .00∗ 1.32
Emotional attachment 0.20 2.56 .01∗ 1.49
Perceived constraints −0.04 −0.60 .55 1.15
R 2 = 0.385 Adjusted R 2 = 0.369
F-ratio = 23.20 Significance p < .001

The regression model was significant (F = 23.20, p < .001), explaining

36.9% of variance in willingness to travel with pets (adj. R 2 = 0.369, see
Table 6). Of the four independent variables, two were significant at p < .05:
motivators and emotional attachment. Among the four proposed predictors
of willingness to travel with pets, satisfaction with existing pet-related hos-
pitality and tourism services and perceived constraints were not influential
in pet owners’ decision-making while emotional attachments to pets along
with motivating aspects significantly affected willingness to travel with pets.
It appears that, although perceived constraints had a negative influence on
willingness to travel (negative coefficient), it was not powerful enough to
offset the effects of motivators and emotional attachment. In other words,
regardless of extra monetary cost and logistical inconvenience, pet owners
would like to spend time with their pets and want to share leisure expe-
rience with them, the assertion well supported by previous literature (e.g.,
Ball et al., 2001; Brown & Rhodes, 2006). The finding also corroborates with
the concept of travel constraint negotiation (e.g., Hubbard & Mannell, 2001).
Instead of abandoning idea of traveling with pets altogether due to perceived
constraints, pet owners seem to successfully negotiate these constraints and
still be willing to take their pets on vacation trips.

Socio-Demographic Characteristics’ Effects on Willingness to Travel

With Pets
One-Way ANOVA test showed that there is no gender, age, or family sta-
tus difference on willingness to travel with pets, while income showed a
significant difference between the groups. Tukey’s post hoc test further indi-
cated significant mean differences for pet owners’ willingness to travel with
pets, suggesting that those in higher income levels ($40,000 to $ 59,999, and
more than $80,000) were significantly more likely to go on a leisure vacation
with their pets in a year compared with those in a lower income (less than
$20,000) group at the p < .05 level. Gender, age, and family status did not
have a significant influence on the decision. Thus, those pet owners who
have greater income tend to show more willingness to travel with their pets
regardless of owners’ gender, age, and family status.
38 K. Kirillova et al.

Socio-Demographic Characteristics’ Effects on Motivators, Emotional

Attachment, Perceived Constraints, and Satisfaction
In order to examine if socio-demographic variables influence motivators,
emotional attachment, perceived constraints, and satisfaction, one-way
ANOVA was utilized. The results indicated that socio-demographic variables
such as gender, age, income, and family status did not have statistically signif-
icant effects on emotional attachment, perceived constraints, and satisfaction
at the p < .05 level. It appears that these four predictors are universally
applicable across all socio-demographic groups. Such a result is somewhat
inconsistent with the existing family cycle literature indicating that unmar-
ried pet owners tend to establish a stronger emotional bond with pets than
married couples. However, it seems that in the case of travel, emotional
attachment to their pets equally motivates married and unmarried people
to take pets on leisure trips (e.g., Albert & Bulcroft, 1988; Carr & Cohen,
2009). Another interesting observation is that perceived constraints do not
differ across household income groups as does willingness to travel. This
could indicate that pet owners from distinct income groups perceive travel
constraints similarly despite the fact that pet owners from household with
higher income levels are actually more likely to take pets on vacations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

While pet owners exhibit increased interest in traveling with pets, little atten-
tion has been given to this market segment as existing research from the
consumer perspective is limited. This study contributes to a deeper under-
standing of pet owners’ perceptions of pet-friendly services in the United
States and their willingness to travel with pets. The study sought to con-
tribute to the tourism literature by highlighting socio-demographic profiles
of traveling pet owners in the United States, their perceptions of existing
pet-friendly services, and factors influencing willingness to travel with pets.
Despite the exploratory nature of the present study, the findings shed some
light on the pet-friendly tourism. The study made the first attempt to add to
the literature about pet tourism by identifying the factors and their contribu-
tion to pet owners’ willingness to travel with pets. The study contributes to
the existing body of knowledge in tourism by developing initial empirical
insights into pet-friendly travel, serving as a starting point for more directed
studies needed in the future.
Pet owners feel deeply connected to their pets and are willing to over-
come powerful constraints in order to travel with their animals. As this
research has demonstrated, this is a valid notion regardless pet owners’
gender, age, income level, or marital status. Thus, the importance of this
emotional component in tourists’ satisfaction and overall tourism experience
 Willingness to Travel With Pets 39

cannot be overestimated. Considering the size of this market segment, to stay

competitive, tourist destinations and hospitality businesses should strive to
not only comfortably accommodate tourists and their pets but also to utilize
these services to emotionally connect with such consumers. If tourists feel
comfortable bringing their pets on trips and share quality time with them,
satisfaction with this vacation experience may further result in customer’
revisit intention and perhaps enhanced overall well-being. This argument
implies that, in addition to immediate economic gains from the market seg-
ment, tourist destinations and hospitality businesses within it can utilize the
idea of emotional bond with pets in their positioning and branding strate-
gies, which could further result in greater customer satisfaction, loyalty, and
revisit intentions.
Keeping abreast of market trends and changes in consumer preferences,
identifying characterizing qualities of those traveling with pets is critical for
target market decision-making and product development in the hospitality
industry. Based on the present study, most of tourists with pets in the sample
tended to belong to higher income and education strata. This demographic
characteristic may bear implication for hospitality and tourism product devel-
opment. For example, tourism agencies could offer highly customized travel
packages and cater to specific needs of tourists with pets while offering
pet-and-family leisure activities and more spacious hotel rooms. By under-
standing the socio-demographic characteristics of pet owners willing to travel
with pets, marketers can identify more efficient channels for transmitting
valuable promotional information, thereby attracting more pet owners and
their companion animals. Since the present study showed that there was
no gender, age, or family status difference in willingness to travel with
pets, tourism industry should focus more on promotional approaches that
effectively cater to the higher income group.
In addition to pet owners’ demographic information and willingness to
travel, the current study presented information about pet owners’ satisfac-
tion with existing pet services in the hospitality setting. Pet owners reported
airline pet-friendly services and information availability to be the least satis-
factory among the services provided by the hospitality industry. It appears
that there is room for more and better services to accommodate pets’ and
their owners’ needs. Pet owners have complained about poor pet services
in airlines because of complicated check-in procedures and paper work as
well as high extra fees for pets. Perhaps one reason why pet owners hes-
itate to travel with pets by air is that pets that are not small enough to fit
in the cabin and must be transported in the luggage compartment. With pet
owners’ continuous appeal, Congress passed legislation requiring airlines
to account for any animals that are harmed or become lost and to better
train workers in safe animal handling in cargo (Sawiscki, 2000). With low
satisfaction with airline service, availability of information concerning pet-
friendly tourism services was suggested as problematic. Since respondents
40 K. Kirillova et al.

reported that websites are the major source of information to aid with trip
arrangements, travel agencies and hotels might include more comprehensive
information on their websites such as featured pet-friendly lodging, leisure
activities, airlines, and transportation services. Moreover, this approach may
push pet-friendly tourism and hospitality businesses to form strategic part-
nerships and alliances to provide better services to travelers with pets while
capitalizing on this market segment.
With the benefits of catering to travelers with pets, before deciding to
implement any pet-friendly strategy, a hospitality enterprise should be also
aware of possible negative issues arising from such policies. For example,
many hotel and restaurant guests do not expect to see animals in these public
areas and may be deferred by pet-friendly rules. They may feel unsafe in the
presence of animals and could even view this very presence as unsanitary
and disrespectful. Another issue is related to allergies when some guests
cannot physically tolerate to be near furry animals. In such cases, not only
do pet-friendly policies present threats to some guests’ health but hotels, for
instance, need to clean pet-friendly rooms with extra care to eliminate all
allergen, which may incur extra costs. Initiating pet-friendly policies presents
potential issues for housekeeping departments in hotels. Pet-friendly rooms
require additional cleaning and, in the case of some dogs, may be dangerous
to enter. Therefore, hospitality operations willing to implement pet-friendly
strategies may need to balance needs and wants of both pet owners and non-
pet lovers. One approach undertaken by many hotels in the United States
(e.g., Loews) involves devoting separate floors in a hotel to guests with pets.
In a restaurant, customers with pets can be accommodated on a patio or
other outside sitting areas. Such an approach may appeal to not only diners
with pets but also to other diners who like animals and perceive this aspect
to be a part of a dining experience.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

This research is not free of limitations. With the lack of scholarly literature
in the area of pet-friendly services, there is a high possibility that items
that might better explain pet owners’ willingness to travel with pets were
not included in the present study. In addition, since the present study did
not discriminate between domestic and international trips, factors influenc-
ing willingness to travel with pets may differ in the two instances. In future
research, the factors should be examined separately for domestic and inter-
national travel to obtain more precise results. Similar research also needs
to be conducted with pet owners in the context of other nations to cross-
validate the findings of this study. For instance, while pet-friendly tourism
services in Europe have been in existence for a long time and traveling with
pets is not unusual, pet-related services in most Asian countries would be dif-
ferent from those of European countries. Another possible avenue for future
 Willingness to Travel With Pets 41

research could be exploring and comparing the views and perceptions of

tourists with pets with those who are not pet owners or who prefer not to
travel with pets. Such a comparative study would be meaningful to the practi-
tioners as it could reveal the key differences in factors affecting willingness to
travel and thus provide more specific strategic marketing recommendations.
With a limited purposive sample, generalization to the entire pet owner
population needs to be cautioned. Future research should consider utiliz-
ing random samples from more states and countries. In the present study,
as there were only few respondents who belonged to a senior age group
(65 or more), one of the major pet owning populations in the United States,
investigation of their willingness to travel with pets and socio-demographic
characteristics were not feasible. Furthermore, the present study was con-
ducted predominantly from a consumer viewpoint while comparison of
customer and industry perspectives on pet-friendly hospitality services may
allow for a better understanding of the current trend. Issues for non-pet
owners and sanitary concerns in public places should not be excluded in a
comprehensive study of pet tourism, and thus future research should com-
pare positive and negative effects of pet-friendly strategies in the hospitality
and tourism context.
Since the scale to assess overall perceptions of traveling with pets was
developed mainly based on the industry surveys and reports, there could
be bias for the three factors identified in this research: motivating aspects,
emotional attachment, and perceived constraints. Additionally, dog owners
dominated the sample, which made the comparison among owners of dif-
ferent pet species impossible; consequently, future research should attempt
to diversify the sample to allow for statistically and practically meaningful
comparisons. Lastly, the present study did not account for family cycle in
assessing willingness to travel with pets, although differences could exist as
pets may take on a variety of roles from best friends to children as a family
moves through stages of development. Thus, comparing families who are at
different stages could reveal interesting insights relevant to the family tourism
literature as well as industry practices.

REFERENCES

Aiba, N., Yokoyama, M., Wang, G., Tabata, M., Kamiya, K. S., & Kamekawa, D.
(2012). Usefulness of pet ownership as a modulator of cardiac autonomic imbal-
ance in patients with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and/or hyperlipidemia.
The American Journal of Cardiology, 109, 1164–1170.
Akama, S., & Kieti, D. (2003). Park, measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya’s
wildlife safari: A case study of Tsavo West National. Tourism Management,
24(1), 73–81.
42 K. Kirillova et al.

Albert, A., & Bulcroft, K. (1988). Pets, families, and the life course. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 50, 543–552.
American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA). (2012). Industry
Statistics & Trends. Retrieved from http://www.appma.org/press_industrytrends.
asp
Baker, D., & Crompton, J. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785–804.
Ball, K., Bauman, A., Leslie, E., & Owen, N. (2001). Perceived environmental aes-
thetics and convenience and company are associated with walking for exercise
among Australian adults. Preventive Medicine, 33, 343–440.
Baloglu, S., Pekcan, A., & Santos, J. (2004). The relationship between destination
performance, overall satisfaction, and behavioral intention for distinct segments.
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3-4), 149–165.
Barker, S., & Dawson, K. (1998). The effects of animal-assisted therapy on anxiety
ratings of hospitalized psychiatric patients. Psychiatric Services, 49, 797–801.
Benda, W. (2004). For man would die of a great loneliness. Seminars in Integrative
Medicine, 2(4), 127–128.
Boroshok, J. (2006). It pays to welcome travelers with pets. HSMAI Marketing Review,
23(3), 76–79.
Brendan, M. (1998). Hotels make dog days of travel easier by catering to guests with
pets. Hotel Business, 7(3), 53.
Bringyourpet.com. (2007). Survey. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from http://www.
bringyourpet.com/survey
Brown, S., & Rhodes, R. (2006). Relationships among dog ownership and leisure-time
walking in Western Canadian adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
30(2), 131–136.
Carr, N., & Cohen, S. (2009). Holidaying with the family pet: No dogs allowed!
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 9(4), 290–304. doi:10.1057/thr.2009.10
Chen, C., & Chen, F. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and
behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management, 31(1), 29–35.
Chen, H., Chen, P., & Okumus, F. (2013). The relationship between travel constraints
and destination image: A case study of Brunei. Tourism Management, 35,
198–208.
Chen, P., Kerstetter, D., & Caldwell, L. (2001). Individuals’ interpretation of
constraints: A new perspective on existing theory. Proceedings of the
2000 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (pp. 89–93). Newtown
Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern
Research Station.
Chi, C., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image,
tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism
Management, 29, 624–636.
Connor, K., & Miller, J. (2000). Help from our animal friends. Nursing Management,
31(7), 42–46.
Crawford, D., Jackson, E., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure
constraints. Leisure Science, 13, 309–320.
Dogfriendly.com. (2007). Survey results. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from http://
www.dogfriendly.com/server/general/portal/general/survey/results.shtml
 Willingness to Travel With Pets 43

Enmarker, I., Hellzen, O., Ekker, K., & Berg, A. (2012). Health in older cat and
dog owners: The Nord-Trondelag Health Study (HUNT)-3 study. Scandinavian
Journal of Public Health, 40, 718–724.
Friedmann, E. (1990). The value of pets for health and recovery. Proceedings of the
Waltham Symposium, 20, 9–17.
Friedmann, E., & Thomas, S.A. (1995). Pet ownership, social support and one-year
survival after acute myocardial infarction in the Cardian Arrhythmia Suppression
Trial (CAST). The American Journal of Cardiology, 76, 1213–1217.
Hansen, K. (2004). Pampering pets is a national trend. Florida Hotel & Motel Journal,
27(1), 16–17.
Hubbard, J., & Mannell, R. (2001). Testing competing models of the leisure constraint
negotiation process in a corporate employee recreation setting. Leisure Sciences,
23(3), 145–163.
Hung, K., & Petrick, J. (2010). Developing a measurement scale for constraints to
cruising. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1), 206–228.
Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (2006). Pet companionship in human
outdoor recreation in Idaho. Retrieved November 13, 2007 from http://
idahodocs.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/search/collection/p15100coll7!p15100coll2/
searchterm/parks%20and%20recreation,%20idaho/field/creato/mode/all/conn/
and/order/subjec
Jeanine, C. (1998). Kimpton group makes pampering pets profitable. Hotel Business,
6(15), 34.
Kimpton Hotels. (2007). Survey. Unpublished report.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an
off-season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 260–269.
Kridler, K. (2005, October 14). An increasing number of hotels are inviting pets.
Daily Record. Baltimore, MD.
Lee, S., Jeon, S., & Kim, D. (2011). The impact of tour quality and tourist satisfaction
on tourist loyalty: The case of Chinese tourists in Korea. Tourism Management,
32, 1115–1124. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2010.09.016
Lisco, J., & Sauder, R. (2003). Camper attitudes and perceptions concerning the
presence of pets in ten Pennsylvania state park campgrounds. Northeastern
Recreation Research Symposium, 240–245.
Mazursky, D. (1989). Past experience and future tourism decisions. Annals of Toursm
Research, 16(3), 333–344.
Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Nyaupane, G., & Andereck, K. (2008). Understanding travel constraints: Application
and extension of a lesure constraints model. Journal of Travel Research, 46,
433–439.
Petrick, J., Morais, D., & Norman, W. (2001). An examination of the determinants
of entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel Research,
40(1), 41–48.
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with
a destination area. Annals of Tourism Research, 5(3), 314–322.
Quinn, J. (2001). Families taking pets along on vacation. Akron Beacon Journal
(OH). Retrieved Sunday, February 11, 2007 from the Newspaper Source
database.
44 K. Kirillova et al.

Richeson, N. (2003). Effects of animal-assisted therapy on agitated behaviors

and social interactions of older adults with dementia. American Journal of
Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias, 18, 353–358.
Rijken, M., & van Beek, S. (2011). About cats and dogs . . . Reconsidering
the relationship between pet ownership and health related outcomes in
community-dwelling elderly. Social Indicators Research, 102, 373–388.
Sawiscki, S. (2000). Travels with pets. Animals, 133(4), 14.
Smith Travel Research. (2007). STR. Retrieved November 7, 2007 from http://www.
strglobal.com/News/News.aspx
Spreng, R., MacKenzie, C., & Olshavsky, R. (1996). A reexamination of the
determinants of consumer satisfaction. The Journal of Marketing, 60, 15–32.
Starwood Hotels and Resorts. (2006). Customer satisfaction survey. Unpublished
report.
Tam, J. (2000). The effects of service quality, perceived value and customer satis-
faction on behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing,
6(4), 31–43.
U.S. Travel Association. (2012). Travel facts and statistics. Retrieved December 10,
2012 from http://www.ustravel.org/news/press-kit/travel-facts-and-statistics
USA Today. (2005). Is travel going to the dogs? USA Today, 134 (2722).
Weise, E. (2012). Pet ownership declines, but more households loyal to dogs. Retrieved
December 10, 2012 from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/
2012-08-06/pet-ownership-down/56882786/1
Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B., & Bulsara, M. (2005). The pet connection: Pets as a conduit
for social capital? Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1159–1173.
Copyright of Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism is the property of Taylor
& Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.