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

com

How Special Is Special Interest Tourism?

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

The online version of this article can be found at:

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

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

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

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

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

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

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

Citations (this article cites 19 articles hosted on the

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

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

© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
AUGUST 2005
10.1177/0047287505276588
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH
How Special Is Special Interest Tourism?
BOB MCKERCHER and ANDREW CHAN
Much of the research documenting the size and impor-
tance of special interest (SI) tourism is based on secondary
analysis of visitor survey data. Segments are defined by ana-
lyzing responses to activity questions, with the assumption
being that activities are a valid proxy for motives to travel or
trip purpose. The soundness of this approach is based on two
suppositions that do not appear to have been questioned. The
first is that visitor surveys are constructed in such a way that
valid SI trip-purpose segments can be defined. The second is
the existence of a direct correlation between actions and mo-
tivations. This article illustrates that both suppositions are
unfounded, resulting in the production of figures that over-
state the true importance of SI tourism as a trip generator by
as much as 20 times. The authors call for the discontinuation
of the method.
Keywords: special interest tourism; methodology; sec-
ondary data analysis
The special interest (SI) tourism market is thought to be
very special. The Travel Industry Association of America
(TIA) reported that “a remarkable 81% of US adults who
traveled in the past year or 118 million, are considered his-
toric/cultural travelers” (Keefe 2003, p. 1). Reports from
Canada suggest that 52% of American tourists and 68% of
foreign visitors are classified as cultural tourists (Okanogan
2003). The International Ecotourism Society (2000) indi-
cated that as many as 60% of all international tourists are
nature-based tourists and 40% are wildlife-related tourists,
and a report by the Australian Tourist Commission (2004)
suggests that 11% of all inbound Australian tourists are wine
tourists. Other studies producing similarly impressive results
are highlighted in table 1. Moreover, SI tourists are also
thought to spend more, stay longer, travel more frequently,
and participate in more activities than other tourists (Keefe
2002; MacKay, Andereck, and Vogt 2002; Stronge 2000).
These figures are derived using the same method based
on secondary analysis of closed-ended questions on visitor
surveys asking tourists to identify all activities they pursued
while at the destination. Those activities that are thought to
be evocative of the specialist interest under examination are
selected for further analysis, with segment size defined by
raw participation rates. Participants and nonparticipants are
also compared to identify differences between groups that
are then attributed to the SI. For example, a survey of cultural
tourists to Vermont was based on “an analysis of those
respondents who indicated they included cultural or heritage
activities as part of at least one of their trips to Vermont”
(Martin and Valliere 2002, p. 2). Likewise, the nature-based
sector might be defined based on visitation rates to places
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
that are thought to represent nature-based activities, such as
national parks, protected areas, zoos, and wildlife parks.
The method may document accurately what people did at
a destination. The results are, however, typically interpreted
as reflecting underlying travel motives, and the findings
reported as representing trip purposes in accordance with the
conceptualization of SI tourism as “the hub around which the
total travel experience is planned and developed” (Read
1980, as cited in Hall and Weiler 1992). In this manner, an
assertion is made that because x% of tourists visited certain
types of attractions, then x% must be SI tourists for whom the
activity represented their main reason to visit the destination.
Thus, the KwaZulu-Natal study can conclude that 45% of
South Africa’s foreign air arrival market are nature-based
tourists because they visit at least one wildlife or nature
reserve while in South Africa (KwaZulu-Natal Tourism
Association 2003). The TIA can assert that so many people
are historic/cultural travelers because “they included at least
one cultural, arts, heritage or historic activity or event while
traveling in the past year” (Keefe 2002, p. 1). The UK report
to the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and
Regional Affairs (Matthews 2001, p. 1) derives its heritage
tourist figures from the observation that “the 1999 ETC sur-
vey of Visits to Tourist Attractions, for example, estimated
that 32% of visitors to historic buildings in England were
from abroad.” Tourism Queensland’s (2004) study con-
cludes that 50% of all international visitors are cultural tour-
ists because they visited at least one cultural place during
their visit, the Canadian Okanogan (2003) report draws its
conclusions because a certain percentage of American and
other foreign tourists include at least one cultural activity or
event during their visit to Canada, and so on.
Although the method produces very attractive numbers,
its validity is predicated on the assumption that either activi-
ties are a valid proxy for defining a single trip purpose or
that visitor surveys are structured in such a way that SI trip-
purpose segments can be defined by analyzing activity ques-
tions. This article argues that neither assumption is
Bob McKercher is associate professor and associate
head of school at the School of Hotel and Tourism Manage-
ment, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,
Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR. Andrew Chan is assistant profes-
sor at the School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong
Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong
Kong SAR.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 44, August 2005, 21-31
DOI: 10.1177/0047287505276588
© 2005 Sage Publications
22 AUGUST 2005

TABLE 1
SPECIAL INTEREST SEGMENT SIZE

Source Special Interest Segment Market Size

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

supportable, and, as such, the application of this technique is little correlation between actions pursued and trip purpose.
likely to produce results that significantly exaggerate the true As such, it cannot be supported.
value of SI tourism as a trip generator. We examine each of Crompton and McKay (1997) argued that attractions can
these assumptions, along with the associated assumption that appeal to multiple markets simultaneously because different
comparing participants with nonparticipants is a valid tech- people may visit to satisfy different motives. They illustrate
nique to identify unique features of segments. We then test that a restaurant may appeal to some people wishing to expe-
the assumptions empirically to illustrate the extent to which rience a cultural tradition, but it can also appeal to others as a
unreliable results are produced. vehicle to foster inter- or intragroup socialization. Richards
(1996a) cautioned that not all tourists visiting cultural attrac-
tions can automatically be classified as cultural tourists, for
ACTIONS AS A PROXY FOR MOTIVES their visits may not be driven by cultural reasons. He stated
that many consume these types of attractions as part of a
To begin, let us examine the assumption that actions are a wider experience. Prentice and Andersen (2003) likewise
valid proxy for motives. A number of authors have ques- identified multiple motives and different consumption pat-
tioned this belief, and a number of empirical studies show terns at festivals, and McKercher and du Cros (2003)
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

illustrated that the population of visitors to Hong Kong’s cul-
tural attractions is diverse and, in fact, includes a substantial
share of business travelers.
Tourists participate in a wide variety of activities when
they travel. No doubt, some are directly related to their trip
purpose; but many more are ancillary or peripheral to the rea-
son for travel, and the consumption of them complements the
total trip experience. Indeed, the decision to participate in
many activities is not made until after arrival at the destina-
tion (Lew 1987; Pearce and Wilson 1995; McKercher 1996).
One of the authors’ recent experiences at a conference illus-
trates this point. The conference planners organized a num-
ber of social activities and technical visits, including trying
the local cuisine, an evening of wine tasting, a technical visit
to see glacial features, and an opera staged in a sixteenth-
century castle. Even though he joined these activities, it
would be misleading to suggest he was a culinary, wine, eco-
, or heritage and arts tourist, when, in actuality, it was the
convention that drew him to the community.
Attractions that are evocative of SI tourism represent the
types of discretionary attraction that complement the tourist
experience (McKercher 2002). Cultural, heritage, and natu-
ral assets, in particular, constitute a large share of the total
product mix in most destinations and also help give them
their unique local character. Many of them are conveniently
located in tourist nodes and are accessible free of charge or at
highly subsidized rates, encouraging spontaneous visitation.
The profile of visitors at these attractions is, therefore,
diverse. Tourists who visit museums, for example, might be
cultural tourists, but they could equally be business travelers
with a free afternoon, shopping tourists who visited during a
rainy day, or sightseeing tourists who purchased a package
tour that happened to include the museum on the itinerary.
A number of empirical studies further suggest that SI
tourists represent a small share of visitors to places that may
be evocative of a specialist interest. Half of all tourists visit-
ing Australia will go to natural or protected areas, but only
5% said nature-based tourism particularly influenced their
decision to visit (Blamey 1995). Pearce and Wilson (1995)
noted that many wildlife-viewing tourists in New Zealand
have only a casual interest in this activity and join primarily
for its recreation and fun values. A study of cultural tourism
in Hong Kong revealed that although one-third of tourists
will experience cultural or heritage attractions at some stage
of their visit, fewer than 4% could be classified as purposeful
cultural tourists, people who traveled specifically to learn
about cultural heritage and who had a deep learning experi-
ence (McKercher 2002). The Northern Ireland Tourism
Board (2003) likewise illustrated that only about 2% of visi-
tors to historical properties or museums identified these
activities as a reason to visit Northern Ireland. Ferguson
(2002), examining sports tourism in Australia, concluded
that only 9% of respondents described their trip as a health/
sport-oriented holiday, a far cry from the 58% participation
rate noted. Even the World Tourism Organization (2002, p.
111) has identified ecotourism as a “small niche market in
constant growth” and not as a mass market.
STRUCTURE OF VISITOR SURVEYS
Let us now consider the second assumption: that visitor
surveys are constructed in such a way that SI trip-purpose
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 23
segments can be identified using secondary analysis. Sec-
ondary analysis is a valid method providing the survey
instrument, and resultant data satisfy reliability, sensitivity,
fitness, and validity criteria for the desired purpose (Pizam
1994; Churchill 1995; Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill
2000). Reliability and sensitivity criteria relate to the extent
to which data can provide consistent results and fine enough
detail for the purpose of the research. Fitness recognizes that
data collected for one purpose may not be relevant, timely, or
suitable for another purpose. Validity refers to the degree to
which the instrument can predict a criterion (Pizam 1994), in
this case, SI trip-purpose segments.
To test validity and fitness, 13 English-language surveys
from 6 countries were analyzed (see Table 2). The sample
was limited to surveys that were available online. Some are
dated, but the set is sufficiently broad to encompass different
geographic areas and levels of government (national, state,
and local) so that general conclusions can be made about the
type of wording used and information gathered. National vis-
itor surveys from New Zealand, Hong Kong, and the United
States; two from Canada; and excerpts of the UK interna-
tional visitors survey are included, as well as state surveys
from Tasmania in Australia and Vermont, New Hampshire,
Virginia, and Idaho in the United States. Two local surveys
are also analyzed.
In general, trip-purpose questions appear near the begin-
ning, and activity questions are located later in the instru-
ment, often as the penultimate section prior to concluding
demographic questions. The wording of trip-purpose ques-
tions is precise and singular in its intent, as shown in Table 2.
Participants are asked to identify one main reason why they
visited the destination. A closed-ended format is used, with
respondents given the choice of a limited number of options
reflecting business, pleasure, visiting friends and relatives
and variations on these themes, such as attending confer-
ences, seminars, or a family reunion. The Virginia survey,
for example, asked respondents, “How would you describe
the primary purpose of the trip?” with the word primary in
bold. The Government Travel Survey of Visitors to Canada
asked, “What was the traveling party’s main reason for tak-
ing this trip?” again with the words traveling party’s main
underlined. Other surveys use questions like “Which of these
[terms] best describes your primary reason for visiting?” or
“Which of these [terms] best describes your main reason for
traveling?”
Only a small number of SI options is included, with the
most common being attending special events/festivals,
which appears on most surveys, and hunting/fishing, which
was common on American state surveys. The New Zealand
International Visitors Survey included different recreational,
sporting, and event options among its 19 trip-purpose cate-
gories, and the 1995 American Travel Survey provided 12
options, including sightseeing and visiting historic/scenic
attractions, outdoor recreation (including camping, boating,
and sports), entertainment, and shopping.
The Idaho Travel questionnaire was unique (Department
of Resource Recreation 1999). Not only did it include the
largest number of SI options, but it also asked people to iden-
tify primary and secondary trip purposes by requesting them
to choose one main reason and all other reasons that applied.
Fifteen different categories were provided, including five
open-ended options, asking people to identify the specific
 24
Survey
Canada Travel Survey of Visitors to Canada
(Statistics Canada 2001)
Canadian Travel Survey Questionnaire
(Statistics Canada 2003)
Hong Kong Tourist Board Departing Visitor
Survey Air (Hong Kong Tourism Board 2004;
viewed in confidence, exact wording not
replicated)
New Zealand International Visitor Survey
(Tourism Research Council New Zealand 2004)
UK International Passenger Survey
(Office of National Statistics 2003)
Activities Undertaken by Visitors to Northern
Ireland 2002 (Northern Ireland Tourism
Board 2003)
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
(Surveys not cited)
1995 American Travel Survey (U.S. Department
of Transportation 1995)
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Idaho Travel visitors’ survey (mail back;
Department of Resource Recreation 1999)
New Hampshire Visitor Survey Winter
2003-2004 (Thurston 2004)
TABLE 2
WORDING OF TRIP-PURPOSE AND ACTIVITY QUESTIONS
Trip-Purpose Questions
Q5 What was the traveling party’s main reason for taking this
trip to Canada? Check one only.
12 options including attending events or attractions
TR_Q23 What was your main reason for taking this trip? (one only)
7 options
15 options provided, including hobby/sport and religious related
Q7 Which of these describes your main reason for traveling to
New Zealand?
19 options including skiing, to see a publicized
special event, or to watch or play sport
A single main purpose of visit is recorded for all contacts.
4 options including miscellaneous
QF 10 What was the main reason that [you] took the trip
TO [destination]
12 options including outdoor recreation (sports, hunting, fishing,
boating, camping, and so on) and entertainment (attend theater,
attend concert, attend sports event, gambling, and so on)
Q1 What are the reasons you are traveling in IDAHO on this trip?
(Please read through the list below and then choose the one
main reason, and as many other reasons as apply.)
15 options including 7 open-ended questions seeking specific
information about the name of the convention attended, resort or
town visited, natural attraction visited, event or festival, and so on
Q2 What was the PRIMARY purpose of this visit?
(Please check only one.)
6 options including outdoor recreation
Activity Questions
Q6 On this trip to Canada, did anyone in the
traveling party . . . Check all that apply.
19 activities listed
TR_Q25 On this trip did you . . . (Record those
activities that the selected respondent
participated.) 17 activities
TR_Q 26 and TR_Q 27 Did you participate in any
sporting or outdoor activities? What were these
sporting or outdoor activities? Mark all that apply.
13 options
53 activities listed
Q12 Looking at this map of New Zealand, and
starting with the first night of your visit, point out
each of the places you stayed overnight, and the
number of nights you stayed there. More details
about each of those places will be asked.
12g. What attractions and activities did you see
and do there?
REPEAT (d)-(p) FOR ALL PLACES STAYED
OVERNIGHT
How many people visited Northern Ireland’s main
tourist attractions? 20 places named.
How many people visited Forest/Country Parks
and Gardens?
20 places named
Not tested
Trip diary provided asking respondents to identify
major activities participated at each stop
Q3 In which types of activities did you participate
while on this trip? (Please check as many as
apply.)
16 named plus 2 open-ended other
 Vermont International Tourist Survey
(Brown 2002)
1997/1998 Virginia Visitor Survey (Virginia
Tourism Corporation 1998)
Tasmanian Visitor Survey 2003/2004
(Tourism Tasmania 2003)
City of Gallipolis (Ohio Division of Travel
and Tourism 2002)
Gallup, New Mexico, Visitors Survey (Gallup
McKinley County Chamber of Commerce 2004)
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
25
Q4 What is the primary purpose of your visit to Vermont?
Business- or pleasure-only options
Q 2 How would you describe the primary purpose of this trip?
(X Only ONE Trip Purpose)
12 options, including outdoor recreation and special event or festival
Q3 What was/is the main purpose of this trip? Mark ONE response
only.
7 options including event or festival (specific name sought)
Q4 Which of the following best describes your primary reason for
visiting Gallipolis? Choose one . . .
10 options listed, including special event, genealogy, hunting/fishing,
and historical attractions
What is the primary purpose of your visit?
3 options: business, pleasure, and other
Q11 What activities did you take part in while
visiting Vermont? 20 items listed
Q 12 “X” all the VA activities/locations that anyone
in the travel party experienced on your May 97
trip to, thru, or within VA.
50 general sites and activities, 33 specific sites,
and 35 specific cities
Q 13 Using the #’s 001-118 above, write in ONE #
that best reflects the trip’s motivating place/
activity.
Q12 Did you visit or stay overnight at any of the
following attractions?
46 attractions listed geographically
Q15 During this trip did you . . . (Mark all that
apply.) 32 activities listed
Q7 What places were you able to visit?
14 places listed
How will/did you spend your time while in Gallup?
12 options
26 AUGUST 2005
natural attraction, recreation or leisure activity, event or fes-
tival, or other purpose that caused the trip.
Like trip-purpose questions, activity questions also fol-
low a similar, closed-ended format. The only difference is
that multiple answers are encouraged. Table 2, again, offers
different examples of the wording used. Between 20 and 115
discrete activities, places, or attraction types were listed on
the surveys examined, with most instruments including
between 25 and 40 options. The New Hampshire winter sur-
vey asks visitors, “In which activities did you participate
while on this trip? Please check as many as apply.” Likewise,
the Virginian survey requested respondent to “‘X’ out all the
Virginia activities/locations that anyone in the travel party
experienced in your May 97 trip to, thru or within VA.”
Trip-purpose and activity questions, therefore, represent
discrete and unrelated sections of the survey instrument that
are designed to gather different types of information. Trip-
purpose questions ask why people visited, whereas activity
questions document what they did. No inference can be made
about activities pursued by analyzing trip-purpose questions
alone, and no inferences can be made about trip purpose
based solely on an analysis of activity questions or in combi-
nation with trip-purpose questions, unless the specific SI was
listed explicitly in the trip-purpose section. Few of the
reports reviewed in table 1 recognize trip purpose as being
distinct from activities pursued. Patterson (2000) was one
exception, identifying 69% of visitors to Tasmania as partici-
pating in nature-based tourism, then concluding elsewhere
that the majority of them were visiting for pleasure or to visit
friends and relatives.
COMPARING PARTICIPANTS AND
NONPARTICIPANTS TO ATTRIBUTE
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOURISTS
Finally, the practice of comparing participants and
nonparticipants to identify differences between SI and other
tourists must also be reassessed, for, like much else in SI
research, the arithmetic is simple, but the conceptual and
operational underpinning is flawed. A simple example illus-
trates how this procedure works. Visitors who selected the
museums box in the activity question are compared to those
who left that box blank on such dimensions as length of stay,
expenditure, tour group participation, and demographic pro-
file. The act of visiting a museum is then identified as the
cause for observed differences among groups, with the con-
clusion being made that people who travel specifically to
visit museums stay longer and spend more.
The logic behind this procedure is specious. As discussed
above, activity questions record what people did, not why
they visited. The activity questions, therefore, test an effect
of visitation. They are then compared to other effects of visi-
tation (how long they stayed, how much they spent, and how
many other activities they pursued) or who exhibited this
behavior (older visitors, higher-income earners, and so on) in
an effort to show causality. But, in reality, what is being
tested is an effect-effect relationship and not a cause-effect
relationship. Relationships may be found, but they will be
casual and most likely incidental. This type of analysis is
akin to arguing that wearing pajamas causes people to eat
breakfast cereal. Although a relationship may be shown
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
between breakfast cereal consumption and the propensity of
wearing pajamas, one does not induce the other to occur.
Time of day is the real causal agent, with the observed
relationship being coincidental.
Although an apparent relationship may exist between
certain activities and extended length of stay or higher
expenditure, one must search more deeply for the true cause
of these differences. A substantial body of literature suggests
that more prosaic reasons, including prior visitation history,
the role of the destination as a main or secondary goal, and
tour group participation, better explain these differences.
Fakeye and Crompton (1991), Gitelson and Crompton
(1984), Oppermann (1997), and Lau and McKercher (2004)
have all shown that first-time visitors are more active than
repeat visitors. They tend to explore a destination widely, do
more, and are willing to travel to out-of-the-way places.
Likewise, Mill and Morrison (1985), Oppermann (1995),
and McKercher (2001) described significant differences in
the length of stay, expenditure, and actions of main destina-
tion tourists compared to those who are stopover tourists.
Tour group participation may also be a factor, because local
sightseeing tours bundle a number of sites, attractions, and
activities into a product (Economic Planning Group of Can-
ada 1995). Participants will therefore visit many places that
would be reported on departure surveys. Tour participants
also tend to be older, more affluent, and better educated than
the general traveling public.
Indeed, participation in the activity is more likely to be an
opportunistic beneficiary of these factors than a cause of
extended stays or increased expenditures. Visiting a museum
may not cause people to stay longer and spend more. But
first-time visitors, main destination tourists, and those who
join commercial sightseeing tours are more likely to visit
museums because they are interested in exploring the desti-
nation, have the time to do so, or may visit as part of a tour’s
itinerary.
A second issue must also be considered. Even if the
underlying premise were valid, the moderating effects of
other activities would need to be considered to confidently
show that the activity under examination was the singular
cause of observed differences. Thus, analysts would need to
manipulate the data to identify all combinations involving
the activity in question, then test each combination to control
for and exclude the possible impact that other activities may
have had on observed differences. The task becomes unman-
ageably complicated when the number of possible combina-
tions of activities is included. Remember, respondents are
asked to identify all activities they pursued while at the desti-
nation. Thus, the set of items listed could be combined in a
total of 2x−1 possible ways. A 4-item set listing activities a,
b, c, and d could produce 15 different combinations of
answers describing what tourists did (a, b, c, d, ab, ac, ad, bc,
bd, cd, abc, abd, acd, bcd, and abcd). A 20-item set produces
1,048,575 combinations, a 30-item set 1,073,741,823 differ-
ent answers, and a 100-item set a staggering
1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 possible com-
binations of answers. One activity, therefore, can be com-
bined with any or all other items in 2(x – 1) ways. Activity a, in
the above example, could be combined in eight different
ways (a, ab, ac, ad, abc, abd, acd, and abcd). One activity in
a 20-item set produces more than possible 524,000 permuta-
tions with the other 19 items, whereas more than
500,000,000 answers could be combined with any item in a
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 27

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

trol for and exclude the cross-pollinating effects of other PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
activities simply and easily, unless trip purpose was identi-
fied in an earlier part of the survey. %
Origin (n = 1,304) China 14.3
Taiwan 31.3
TESTING THE METHOD Singapore/Malaysia 13.8
United States 12.1
A study was conducted in Hong Kong to illustrate how Australia 14.2
Western Europe 14.3
the application of the standard method can distort the true
Trip Purpose Vacation/leisure 49.2
value of SI tourism as a trip generator. Every year, the Hong (n = 1,296) Business/meeting 34.6
Kong Polytechnic University conducts its own Omnibus vis- Visiting friends and relatives 11.3
itor survey of departing tourists. The survey mirrors the for- Other 4.6
mat used by national and state tourism organizations. The Gender Male 55.8
2003 survey included two questions specifically designed to (n = 1,300) Female 44.2
test SI tourism. The first was a standard activity question ask- Age (n = 1,301) < 26 9.0
ing respondents to select all activities they pursued during 26–45 54.6
their visit. A set of 24 items reflecting both mainstream and 46–65 32.1
SI activities was included. This question facilitated the appli- 66 and above 4.3
Education High school or less 14.4
cation of the standard secondary analysis technique to define
(n = 1,301) College or university 64.0
segments and differentiate participants from nonparticipants. Postgraduate qualification 21.7
A second question was added asking respondents to iden- First visit to Yes 34.3
tify and rank as many as three of their chosen activities that Hong Kong No 65.4
influenced their decision to visit Hong Kong. This question Hong Kong as the Yes 52.5
followed a format similar to that used on the Idaho survey. Its main destination No 47.5
inclusion enabled the researchers to identify SI tourists, for Tour group Full or partial package 21.6
whom the pursuit of the activity could be identified as a moti- participation Independent 78.4
vating factor in the destination choice, from other
participants.
Data were collected via face-to-face interviews con- of stay was 3 nights, with a mean of 4.7 nights. Because the
ducted in English or Putonghua (Mandarin) in the secure survey was conducted in the Hong Kong International Air-
departure lounge area of the Hong Kong International Air- port, the profile of respondents differs from that of the gen-
port during October 2003. Visitors from six source markets eral tourist population. The sample tends to be more up-
are targeted: North America (primarily the United States), market and is skewed toward both Westerners and business
Europe, Australia, the People’s Republic of China, Chinese travelers. It is, however, suitable for this study, because the
Taipei, and Singapore/Malaysia. A multistage cluster- purpose is to examine an SI methodological issue rather than
sampling design with stratification is used to ensure that the profile SI tourism in Hong Kong. Data analysis mirrored the
sample approximates a random sample of visitors. Specific
approach used in other studies. Raw participation rates were
flights are selected using a judgment method dictated by
calculated through frequency analysis, then participants and
practical and logistical considerations. Because there are a
nonparticipants were compared on 33 trip, motivational, and
limited number of flights daily to the United States, Austra-
satisfactions variables to define differences among cohorts.
lia, and Singapore, each flight is selected repeatedly. By con-
The results illustrate the unreliability of documenting
trast, numerous flights operate to Beijing and Shanghai in
China and to Taipei and Kaohsiung in Chinese Taipei, pro- activities without identifying or considering purpose. First,
viding more flexibility in flight selection. Individual candi- tourists participate in a large number of activities during their
date respondents are identified using a systematic sampling visits, regardless of their trip purpose. Overall, the sample
method to ensure that participants are selected in a near- participated in a mean of 7.6 activities per person per visit,
random manner. Respondents must satisfy three qualifying with VFR tourists joining in on a mean of 8.7 activities, plea-
questions before the interview can proceed: they must be sure tourists 8.2, and business travelers 7.0 activities per
nonresidents of Hong Kong, nontransit passengers, and resi- person per trip.
dents of one of the target source markets. The survey form The importance of SI tourism as a trip purpose was exam-
adopts an Omnibus format, combining a number of smaller ined by comparing participation rates, motivation rates, and
projects into one large questionnaire and adding common the ratio between participation and motivation rates
trip, motivational, satisfaction, and demographic questions. (PM ratio) for the 24 activities. Participation rates show the
The common questions are designed to mirror those typically raw percentage of respondents who participated in the
asked in visitor surveys. Hui and McKercher (2001) activity at some point during their visit. The motivation rate
described the sampling method in detail. is the percentage of respondents who identified the activity
A total of 1,304 valid responses was received (table 3). as one of the three main reasons why they visited Hong
The sample includes pleasure, business, and VFR (visiting Kong. The PM ratio is derived by dividing the participation
friends and relatives) tourists. About one-third of respon- rate by the motivation rate. On one hand, a PM score
dents were making their first visit to Hong Kong, and slightly approaching 1.0 indicates a close association between partic-
more than half identified Hong Kong as the main destination. ipation and the reason for visiting. A high score, on the other
One in 5 visited as part of a package tour. The median length hand, shows an activity that by the respondent’s own
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
28 AUGUST 2005
admission played no role in the decision to visit. These
results are shown in table 4.
PM ratios varied from 1.1 to 18.6, suggesting that trip
purpose cannot be inferred from an analysis of activities
alone. Moreover, the large range of PM ratio values pre-
cludes the identification of an average or normal ratio. Activ-
ities that scored the lowest PM ratios reflected standard
motives like sightseeing, travel to visit friends and relatives,
or business. High PM ratio scores of between 4.0 and 18.6
were noted among activities that are evocative of SI tourism.
Indeed, inferring causality from participation rates alone
may overstate the importance of the activity as a trip genera-
tor by between 4 and almost 20 times. For example, although
24% of the sample could be classified as tourists who visited
historic sites, fewer than 6% could be classified as heritage
tourists. Similarly, 20% and 17% respectively could be clas-
sified as tourists who visited natural areas or country parks or
as tourists who went to beaches, whereas only 2.5% and
1.3% could be classified as nature-based tourists and beach/
resort tourists.
Participation rate ratio analysis may provide insights
into ranking attractions and the relative value of certain SI
segments. Low ratio scores (i.e., lower than 2.0) reflect the
destination’s primary attractions. Hong Kong is known as a
business center and, like all destinations, also attracts a sig-
nificant portion of VFR tourists. Pleasure tourists come pri-
marily for shopping and generic sightseeing. Moderate PM
ratios (between 2.1 and 6.0) may reflect secondary attrac-
tions or perhaps can be used as a tool to identify attractive SI
markets. Certainly, Hong Kong has a reputation as a culinary
destination and the gateway to China. In addition, long-haul
tourists, in particular, travel in part to experience its unique
cultural heritage. High PM ratios (i.e., higher than 6.1), how-
ever, are indicative of substitutable attractions and activities
that may complement the overall tourism experience but do
little to generate visitation.
The validity of attributing unique features to SI tourists
was tested by comparing participants and nonparticipants.
Again, the study revealed the flaws in this technique. Tour-
ists engaged in largely unique and individualistic activity
sets. Indeed, the sample of 1,304 respondents produced
1,002 different activity sets. The most common grouping
(shopping, dining, eating different food than normal, and rid-
ing public transport and business) was identified by fewer
than 1% of respondents, whereas 859 combinations were
mentioned only once. And so, although broad conclusions
can be made about the behavior of a population of tourists,
the movements of any one are essentially random. The 246
visitors to museums are a case in point. Collectively, they
displayed 236 different combinations of activities that hap-
pened to include a museum visit. Thus, the analyst would
have to examine each of these 236 combinations separately
and manipulate the data to exclude the possible impacts of
other activities, individually or collectively, on the attributes
being tested (e.g., length of stay or expenditure) before any
confident conclusion could be made about the role that
museum visitation played.
Moreover, specific attractions or activities attract hetero-
geneous markets, as shown by comparing those who identi-
fied the activity as one of the three reasons why they came to
Hong Kong and other participants. Church, temple, and other
religious activity visitors differed in prior visitation history,
country of origin, the number of activities pursued, the
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
perception of similarity between Hong Kong and their home
culture, and motivational factors relating to spending time
with family and friends, discovery, a quest for knowledge, or
using Hong Kong as a convenient stopover. The two groups
of country park and natural area visitors had different visita-
tion histories, perceptions of the role of Hong Kong as their
main destination, the number of activities in which they
participated, and expenditure.
Finally, most research involves the production of discrete
studies of different SI segments. In doing so, differences
between participants and nonparticipants are identified as
being important indicators of the uniqueness and value of the
segment. All 24 activities were analyzed on 33 motivation,
demographic, and trip profile variables to determine the
meaningfulness of identifying significant differences. On
average, 19.2 statistically significant differences were identi-
fied between participants and nonparticipants per activity.
This finding suggests that differences can always be found if
sought, but they may not necessarily be meaningful. Instead,
they are likely a reflection of the diversity of tourists
attracted to a destination.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This study critically analyzed the most common method
used to define SI tourism market segments and to differenti-
ate them from other tourists. An empirical study was under-
taken to illustrate how the true value of SI tourism as a trip
generator can be exaggerated. The assumption that activities
are a valid proxy for a single, identifiable SI trip purpose was
not supported. In addition, an analysis of visitor survey
instruments showed no relationship between trip purpose
and activities. Finally, we argued that the practice of compar-
ing participants with nonparticipants was flawed because it
tests effect-effect relationships and not cause-effect relation-
ships. The commonly used method, therefore, was shown to
have a number of fatal flaws. It must be abandoned.
The fault does not lie with the visitor survey instrument
or in the quality of the data collected. It is just that neither
was designed for the type of secondary analysis desired. The
questions simply do not allow researchers to infer trip pur-
pose from activity questions or to identify meaningful differ-
ences between SI and other tourists. Yet, this technique has
been and continues to be the preferred method, for it is arith-
metically simple and, importantly, produces “good” num-
bers. Cameron (1997) acknowledged the value of such num-
bers, for they enable stakeholders to argue that the activities
and institutions are wanted and needed by the constituency
that ultimately pays for them.
The study also highlights a further issue relating to the
manner in which language is used in a misleading way to
convey an inappropriate message. Language and word order
play a particularly important role in influencing our attitudes
and in conveying meanings. Darcy (2002, 2004), in his work
on tourism and disability, illustrated that calling someone a
disabled person has a starkly different connotation than
using the term person with a disability. The words have cul-
tural and political contexts, by which, for example, the for-
mer places the emphasis on the disability in defining the per-
son, whereas the latter defines the individual as a person first
who has a disability.
 TABLE 4
PARTICIPATION RATES IN ACTIVITIES

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

Eating Visiting Visiting

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

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

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

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

© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
29
30 AUGUST 2005
The same situation applies in SI research. The term spe-
cial interest tourist is used in place of the more accurate but
less glamorous term tourists who visit attractions or activi-
ties that are evocative of a specialist interest. Yet, each con-
veys a fundamentally different meaning. Calling someone a
special interest tourist (i.e., a cultural tourist), places the pur-
suit of the specialist interest at the heart of the travel decision
and destination choice, whereas the more benign term a tour-
ist who visited an activity that is suggestive of a specialist
interest at some time during their trip (i.e., someone who vis-
ited a museum at some time during his or her trip) describes
behavior without making any inferences about its underlying
cause.
The substitution of the inaccurate but more powerful
term obfuscates the real source of the information used, the
type of information gathered, and what it represents. In doing
so, it further facilitates both misrepresentation of the results
at source and misinterpretation of their meaning by second-
ary users. For example, Stronge (200, p 14) reminded readers
in his report on arts and cultural tourism in Florida that
no claim is made that arts and cultural programs or fa-
cilities are the major reason why these “arts and cul-
tural tourists” come to Florida. The extent to which
they are drawn by art and culture to Florida or to
which arts and cultural events contribute to their en-
joyment in Florida is unknown.
Yet his portrayal of their economic impacts presented a table
labeling this cohort as arts and cultural tourists, and illus-
trates that 64,345 tourism jobs are attributable them. The
findings have in turn been abbreviated in subsequent mate-
rial produced by the Florida Division of Cultural Affairs
(2001) to suggest that cultural tourists produce these bene-
fits, with no mention of the original codicil.
Were it simply a matter of semantics, the issue would be
rather trivial. But the use of an invalid method and the subse-
quent misrepresentation or misinterpretation of results influ-
ence tourism policy, marketing, and product development
decisions in both the public and private sectors. Understand-
ing why people visit a destination is far more important than
documenting what they did, for by understanding trip pur-
pose, marketing and promotion campaigns can be devised
and new products developed to satisfy tourists’ needs. Con-
fusing actions with motives leads to poor decision making,
which explains why phantom demand continues to affect this
sector (Pearce and Wilson 1995; Litvin 1996; Acott, La
Trobe, and Howard 1998; McKercher and Robbins 1998;
Loon and Polakow 2001). Indeed, the apparent mass interest
shown in SI tourism rarely translates into real commercial
opportunities, relegating much of SI tourism to the periphery
of the tourism mainstream in most destinations.
How important is SI tourism? Without a doubt, it is a
valuable niche product for multiproduct destinations and a
core activity for single-product destinations. Any sugges-
tion, however, that it is a mass market activity based on sec-
ondary data analysis must be treated with skepticism. For the
most part, activities that are evocative of a specialist interest
provide appealing activities that complement trip experi-
ences but are demonstrably not the hub around which a travel
decision is made. The fundamental flaws in the method pro-
duce meaningless results. Its continued application works
against the best interests of the tourism industry, destination
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
management organizations, and public and private sector
tourism stakeholders.
REFERENCES
Acott, T. G., H. L. La Trobe, and S. H. Howard (1998). “An Evaluation of
Deep Ecotourism and Shallow Ecotourism.” Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 6 (3): 238-53.
Antolovic, J. (1999). “Immovable Cultural Monuments and Tourism.” In
Cultural Tourism Session Notes XII Assembly ICOMOS. Mexico, pp.
103-18.
Australian Tourist Commission (2004). Food and Wine Tourism Fact Sheet.
Sydney: Australian Tourist Commission.
Blamey, R. (1995). “Profiling the Ecotourism Market.” In Taking the Next
Steps, edited by H. Richins, J. Richardson, and A. Crabtree. Brisbane:
Ecotourism Association of Australia, pp. 1-9.
Brown, L. (2002). The International Overnight Tourist in Vermont: Appen-
dix A, International Visitor Survey. Montpelier: Vermont Tourism
Data Center, University of Vermont.
Cameron, C. (1997). “Cultural Tourism: Gold Mine or Land Mine.” Cultural
Resource Management,17 (3): 28-31.
Canadian Tourism Commission (2001). “Rethinking Canada as a Cultural
Destination.” Communiqué, (May): 3.
Charters, S., and J. Ali-Knight (2001). “Who Is the Wine Tourist?” Tourism
Management, 23 (3): 311-19.
Chin, C., S. Moore, T. Wallington, and R. Dowling (2000). “Ecotourism in
Bako National Park Borneo: Visitors’ Perspectives on Environmental
Impacts and Their Management.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8
(1): 20-35.
Churchill, G. (1995). Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations,
6th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden.
Crompton, J., and S. McKay (1997). “Motives for Visitors Attending Festi-
vals.” Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (2): 425-39.
Darcy, S. (2002). “Marginalized Participation: Physical Disability, High
Support Needs and Tourism.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 9 (1): 61-72.
——— (2004). Disabling Journeys: The Social Relations of Tourism for
People with Impairments in Australia: An Analysis of Government
Tourism Authorities and Accommodation Sector Practices and Dis-
courses. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney.
Department of Resource Recreation (1999). Idaho Travel: How Do We Stack
Up? Moscow: Department of Resource Recreation and Tourism, Uni-
versity of Idaho.
Economic Planning Group of Canada (1995). Packaging and Selling to the
United States. Ottawa: Economic Planning Group of Canada for Tour-
ism Canada.
Ferguson, C. (2002). The Sports Tourist: Cultural Cringe or Cultural Tour-
ist? Paper presented at the Museums Australia Conference, Adelaide,
MarchÄ.
Florida Division of Cultural Affairs (2001). Cultural Tourism. Tallahassee:
Florida Division of Cultural Affairs.
Fakeye, P. C., and L. Crompton (1991). “Image Differences between Pro-
spective, First-Time, and Repeat Tourists to the Lower Rio Grande
Valley.” Journal of Travel Research, 30 (2): 10-16.
Gold Coast City Council (2002). Tourism Market Profile: Cultural Tourism.
Gold Coast, Australia: Gold Coast City Council.
Gitelson, R. J., and J. L. Crompton (1984). “Insights into the Repeat Vaca-
tion Phenomena.” Annals of Tourism Research, 11 (2): 199-218.
Gallup McKinley County Chamber of Commerce (2004). Gallup Visitors
Survey. Gallup McKinley County Chamber of Commerce. Retrieved
August 5, 2004, from http://www.gallupchamber.com/survey.htm.
Hall, C. M., and B. Weiler (1992). “Introduction: What’s So Special about
Special Interest Tourism?” In Special Interest Tourism, edited by B.
Weiler and C. M. Mall. London: Belhaven Press, pp. 1-14.
Hong Kong Tourism Board (2004). Hong Kong Departing Visitor Survey:
Air. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Tourism Board.
Hui, L. L., and B. McKercher (2001). “The Omnibus Survey.” Pacific Tour-
ism Review, 5 (1/2): 5-11.
International Ecotourism Society (2000). Ecotourism Statistical Fact Sheet.
Washington, DC: International Ecotourism Society.
Keefe, C. (2002). Travelers Who Love History and Culture Spend More and
Stay Longer than Average Tourists. Travel Industry Association of
America. Retrieved December 31, 2003, from http://www.hotel-on-
line.com/News/PR2002_1st/Jan02_HistoryTravelers.html.
——— (2003). History and Culture Significant and Growing Part of the US
Travel Experience. Travel Industry Association of America. Retrieved
April 6, 2004, from http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2003_2nd/
Jun03_HistoryCulture.htm.
KwaZulu-Natal Tourism Authority (2003). KwaZulu-Natal’s Nature Based
Tourism Market. Tourism KwaZulu-Natal Occasional Paper no. 12.
Durban, South Africa: KwaZulu-Natal Tourism Authority.

Lau, L. S., and B. McKercher (2004). “Exploration versus Acquisition: A
Comparison of First-Time and Repeat Visitors.” Journal of Travel Re-
search, 42 (3): 279-85.
Lew, Alan A. (1987). “A Framework of Tourist Attraction Research.” An-
nals of Tourism Research, 14 (4): 553-75.
Litvin, S. (1996). “Ecotourism: A Study of Purchase Proclivity.” Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 3 (1): 43-54.
Loon, R. M., and D. Polakow (2001). “Ecotourism Ventures: Rags or
Riches?”Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (4):892-907.
MacKay, K., K. Andereck, and C. Vogt (2002). “Understanding Vacationing
Motorist Niche Markets.”Journal of Travel Research, 40 (May): 356-
63.
Martin, B., and W. Valliere (2002). 2001 National Survey of the Vermont
Visitor: The Cultural Heritage Sector. Montpelier: Vermont Depart-
ment of Tourism and Marketing, Vermont Tourism Data Center and
School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont.
Matthews, D. (2001). Memorandum by Southwest Tourism (CEM 123). Lon-
don: UJ Parliament.
McKercher, B. (1996). “Insights into Ranking Attractions: Comparing Visi-
tors Intentions with Their Actions.” In Tourism and Hospitality Re-
search: Australian and International Perspectives, edited by G.
Prosser. Canberra, Australia: Bureau of Tourism Research, pp. 561-68.
——— (2001). “A Comparison of Main Destination and Through Travelers
at a Dual Purpose Destination.” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (4):
433-48.
——— (2002). “Towards a Classification of Cultural Tourists.” Interna-
tional Journal of Tourism Research, 4: 29-38.
McKercher, B., and H. du Cros (2003). “Testing a Cultural Tourism
Typology.” International Journal of Tourism Research, 5 (1): 45-58.
McKercher, B., and B. Robbins (1998). “Business Development Issues Af-
fecting Nature-Based Tourism Operators in Australia.” Journal of Sus-
tainable Tourism, 6 (2), 173-88.
Mill, R. C., and A. M. Morrison (1985). The Tourism System: An Introduc-
tory Text. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Northern Ireland Tourism Board (2003). Northern Ireland Tourism Facts
2002. Belfast: Northern Ireland Tourism Board.
Ohio Division of Travel and Tourism (2002). Visitor Information Survey 1.
Columbus: Ohio Division of Travel and Tourism. Retrieved February
2, 2004, from http://www.ohiotourism.com/industry/research/profiles/
niche.html.
Okanogan (2003). “Cultural Tourism and Cultural Industries.” In Okanogan
Cultural Corridor. Kelowna. Retrieved December 31, 2003, from
http://www.okanaganculturalcorridor.com/thecorridor/
culturaltourism.htm.
Office of National Statistics (2003). Travel Trends 2002: A Report on the In-
ternational Travel Survey, Appendix A. Newport, UK: Office of Na-
tional Statistics.
Oppermann, M. (1995). “A Model of Travel Itineraries.” Journal of Travel
Research, 33 (4): 57-61.
——— (1997). “First-Time and Repeat Tourists to New Zealand.” Tourism
Management, 18 (3): 177-81.
Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by Dimitris Agouridas on August 3, 2007
© 2005 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 31
Patterson, E. (2000). Nature-Based Tourism in Tasmania 1998-99 Update.
Hobart: Tourism Tasmania.
Pearce, D., and P. Wilson (1995). “Wild-Life Viewing Tourists in New Zea-
land.” Journal of Travel Research, 34 (4):19-26.
Pizam, A. (1994). “Planning a Tourism Research Investigation.” In Travel,
Tourism and Hospitality Research: A Handbook for Managers and Re-
searchers, 2nd ed., edited by J. Ritchie, and C. Goeldner. Toronto:
John Wiley, pp. 91-104.
Prentice, R., and V. Andersen (2003). “Festivals as Creative Destinations.”
Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (1): 7-30.
Richards, Greg (1996a). “Production and Consumption of European Cul-
tural Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (2): 261-83.
——— (1996b). “Introduction: Cultural Tourism in Europe.” In Cultural
Tourism in Europe, edited by G. Richards. Oxon, UK: CAB Interna-
tional, pp. 3-18.
Saunders, M., P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill (2000). Research Methods for
Business Students, 2nd ed. Harlow, UK: FT Prentice Hall.
Statistics Canada (2001). Government Travel Survey of Visitors to Canada.
Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
——— (2003). Canadian Travel Survey Questionnaire: Year 2003. Ottawa:
Statistics Canada.
Stronge, W. (2000). The Economic Impact of the Florida Arts and Cultural
Industry. West Palm Beach: Florida Cultural Alliance.
Taubman Centers (1999). Shopping and Cultural/Heritage Tourism: A Spe-
cial Study of Overseas Travelers to the United States. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Thurston, S. (2004). New Hampshire Visitor Survey Winter 2003-04. Plym-
outh: New Hampshire Division of Travel and Tourism Development,
Institute for New Hampshire Studies.
Tighe, A. (1985). “Cultural Tourism in the USA.” Tourism Management, 6
(4): 234-51.
Tourism Queensland (2004). Cultural Tourism. Brisbane, Australia: Tour-
ism Queensland.
Travel Industry Association of America (2004). Domestic Research: Travel
Market Segments. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http://www.tia.org/
Travel/TravelTrends.asp.
Tourism Research Council New Zealand (2004). International Visitor Sur-
vey: Questionnaire. Tourism Research Council New Zealand. Re-
trieved March 3, 2004, from http://www.trcnz.govt.nz/Surveys/
International+Visitor+Survey/Questionnaire.htm.
Tourism Tasmania (2003). Tasmanian Visitor Survey. Hobart: Tourism-
Tasmania.
Virginia Tourism Corporation (1998). VTC Virginia Visitor Survey Virginia.
Virginia Tourism Corporation. Retrieved March 8, 2004, from http://
www.vatc.org/research/surveypopup.htm.
U.S. Department of Transportation (1995). 1995 American Travel Survey,
Appendix E. American Travel Survey Technical Documentation.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of
Transport Statistics.
World Tourism Organization (2002). Tourism Market Trends: World Over-
view and Tourism Topics. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.