Download The impact of socio-demographics on tourist behavior

The impact of socio-demographics on tourist behavior –
analyzing segments of cultural tourists visiting Coimbra
Elisabeth Kastenholz ([email protected]),
Maria João Carneiro ([email protected]),
Celeste Eusébio ([email protected])
University of Aveiro, Department of Economy, Management and Industrial Engineering
The impact of socio-demographics on tourist behavior –
analyzing segments of cultural tourists visiting Coimbra
1. Introduction
The present paper reveals results of a study undertaken with the cultural tourist market
interviewed when visiting Coimbra in summer 2004, yielding a number of 322 valid
responses. The study was integrated in a European research project, coordinated by
ATLAS (Association for Tourism and Leisure Education), with the objective of analysing
the motivations, socio-demographic profiles, consumption patterns and destination images
of cultural tourists in different countries.
The objective of the present study was to identify different cultural tourist segments based
on a set of socio-demographic variables and to further analyze differences existing between
these groups in terms of travel behavior. Results point at a clear distinction between a
wealthier, older group of tourists, with a higher level of education, contrasting with a
poorer, younger and less educated group. These clusters or culture tourist segments were
further analyzed with regard to other aspects of their socio-demographic profile and their
travel behavior, revealing significant differences between groups. Results may help
understand the culture tourist market and contribute to an improved target marketing to
each group, simultaneously understanding the actual and potential role of each group for
the destination area in question.
2. Cultural Tourism
In the tourism literature there isn’t much agreement amongst researchers about what
“cultural tourism” means. This concept has been widely used, but it is also widely
misunderstood. Richards (1994:99) corroborating this idea, defends that “cultural tourism
is a difficult concept, partly because of its potentially wide scope, but also because the term
“culture” itself has many possible meanings.” Some researchers use a narrow definition of
“cultural tourism”, while others choose a broader one.
Medlik (2003: 48), for example, defines cultural tourism in a narrow sense as “special
interest holidays (vacations) essentially motivated by cultural interests, such as trips and
visits to historical sites and monuments, museums and galleries, artistic performances and
festivals, as well as lifestyles of communities”, while he also includes in a broader sense
“activities with a cultural content as parts of trips and visits with a combination of
pursuits”. However, for quantifying cultural tourism, this kind of definition is sometimes
difficult to use. In this case, it is more adequate to use a technical definition of cultural
tourism. Bonink and Richards (1992) suggest the following technical definition of cultural
tourism: “all movements of persons to specific cultural attractions, such a heritage sites,
artistic and cultural manifestations, arts and drama outside their normal place of
residence”. This definition will be used in this paper.
Although there are many difficulties to achieve a consensual definition of cultural tourism,
both academics and policy makers agree that the importance of cultural tourism is
undeniable and increasing worldwide. A study carried out in 1997 revealed that 25% of the
Europeans who went on holidays had visited cities and that, for European holidaymakers,
historical interest was the fifth most important criteria for choosing the travel destination
(EU, 1998). Cultural tourism has also been identified as one of the most rapidly growing
areas of global tourism demand, with an increase of 15% in the last decade (WTO, 2001a).
Nowadays it already accounts for about 10% of the tourism arrivals worldwide (WTO,
2001b). There is a general perspective that the market of cultural tourism is likely to be
composed of travellers with high socio-economic status, high levels of education, adequate
leisure time, and often having occupations related to the cultural industries and education
(Richards, 1996; WTO, 2001b).
According to some authors (e.g. Schuster, 1993; Heilbrun and Gray, 1993, cited by
Richards, 1996), the education of visitors is a strong determinant of cultural participation,
with the difference in participation rates across educational levels being evidenced as
greater than across income levels. Based on this strong relationship between the education
level and cultural participation rate, it is possible to forecast an increase in world cultural
tourism, because an expansion of worldwide educational opportunities can be observed.
The kind of visitors’ occupation is another important determinant of cultural tourism
demand. Cultural tourism is particularly popular amongst people with occupations related
to culture. A cultural tourism research project, elaborated by ATLAS in 1992 demonstrated
the importance of cultural occupation for cultural consumption. In this study almost 20%
of all cultural visitors interviewed had an occupation which was related to the cultural
industries (Richards, 1996).
The socio-economic status of visitors is another factor that influences cultural
consumption. People with higher levels of income and mobility in general reveal greater
levels of consumption of cultural activities. Several studies have demonstrated this kind of
relationship (e.g. Schuster, 1993; Merriman’s, 1991, cited by Richards, 1996). Apart from
the above described variables influencing cultural tourism demand, other factors may be:
more leisure time availability, increase of standards of living and the increase of senior
tourism.
Although the growth of the cultural tourism market is widely recognised and specific
characteristics of this market have been identified, several authors state the importance of
recognizing the growing differentiation within specific tourist markets (Poon, 1993). In
this context, segmentation studies are increasingly popular amongst planners and managers
of destination areas, since they may contribute to a more cost-effective design and
promotion of more satisfactory tourism products.
3. The relevance of segmentation for tourist destination marketing
Kotler (1994: 264) stated that “the heart of modern strategic marketing can be described as
… segmenting, targeting and positioning”, with segmentation being the essential first step
in the direction of a “target marketing approach”. The concept of segmentation was
introduced by Wendell Smith (1956, cited by Baker, 1991), based on the argument that
“groups of consumers can be defined in such a way that their purchasing behavior would
be relatively homogeneous.” Middleton (1988) suggests that segmentation may be defined
as “a process of dividing a total market, such as all tourists, into manageable sub-groups...
(permitting) more cost effective marketing, through the design, promotion and delivery of
purpose built products aimed at satisfying the identified needs of target groups.” Similarly,
Weinstein (1987, as cited by Loker and Perdue, 1992) explains: “Good market
segmentation research provides operational data that are practical, usable, and readily
translatable into strategy.”
The selection of a relevant segmentation basis, i.e. the characteristic according to which
segments are distinguished, is essential for a useful structuring of the market. A large range
of variables have been suggested in the general marketing (Kotler et al., 1999) and tourism
literature (Mill and Morrison, 1992; Pender, 1999; Kotler et al., 1995). Generally sociodemographic variables such as nationality, age, income or education have been considered
as quite usable, since they are easy to assess (Lawson, 1994) and have also been identified
as relevant determinants of tourist behavior (e.g. Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997; Kastenholz,
2002; Gitelson and Kerstetter, 1990).
As discussed before, in the context of educational and cultural tourism, one may consider
particularly the tourist’s educational level as relevant, but also age differences may have an
impact on different tourist behavior, with level of income also being considered as an
important determinant of consumption patterns in the culture tourism context.
Guiltinan & Paul (1994: 71) explain that “firms may find some segments more attractive
than others because of variations in segment size, growth potential, or competition.” In the
case of tourism, one could add “because of the existence of certain features of the
destination, best fitting the needs of specific segments and because of overall destination
development concerns” (Kastenholz, 2002: 79). Beane & Ennis (1987: 20) state, in this
context, that “segments can be perceived as opportunities. A company (here: destination)
with limited resources needs to pick only the best opportunities to pursue.”
Nowadays, in destination marketing “the emphasis is shifting from competition between
(destinations) on the basis of price to the management of destinations in order to present a
consistent range of services intended to satisfy particular types of tourists” (Laws, 1995:
26). McKercher (1995) stresses the limited control tourism marketers often have over the
product mix and new product development and the little flexibility of complex destination
products, suggesting a need for “managing the market-portfolio rather than the product
portfolio”. Consequently, segmentation may also be used as a tool for “managing
demand”, which may be particularly useful within a strategy of sustainable tourism
development. Specifically, a destination may choose the most interesting target segment(s),
based on a range of criteria that reveal the segments’ attractiveness from a sustainability
point of view, associated with long-term economic profits, social, cultural and
environmental benefits versus costs (Kastenholz, 2004). Additionally, this analysis permits
directing diverse tourist groups within a larger destination area and along the year to
enhance the overall benefits and minimize possible negative impacts of tourism.
4. The Empirical study
4.1. Objectives and methodology
These data are part of an international research project – the “Atlas Cultural Tourism
project global surveys 2004” – that was coordinated by ATLAS (Association for Tourism
and Leisure Education). The objective of this project was to obtain data from cultural
tourists travelling worldwide in order to better characterise the international cultural
tourism market. For this purpose, surveys were carried out in diverse countries of several
continents in order to interview tourists that were visiting cultural tourism attractions. The
questionnaires included questions concerning the socio-economic profile of the visitors
(e.g. age, nationality, educational level, income) as well as questions about their travel
behaviour (e.g. accommodation and forms of transport used, duration of stay, arrangement
of the trip) and destination images of the visitors.
The objective of the here presented paper is to analyse whether, in the broad market of
cultural tourism, it is possible to distinguish market segments with different socioeconomic
characteristics, specifically in terms of age, educational level and income. If segments
could be identified, it would be another objective to analyse whether they differ in terms of
travel behaviour, justifying different approaches by suppliers and marketers of cultural
tourism products. In this paper, the data analysed only concerns the questionnaires,
administered in Coimbra (N=322) by a research group of the University of Aveiro.
4.2. Coimbra as a cultural tourism destination
Coimbra is located in the Central Region of Portugal, between other important cities of the
country, Porto and Lisbon. Coimbra is one of the country’s most important cultural cities,
with European-wide relevance. Here, visitors may participate in several cultural activities
and visit interesting monuments.
Coimbra has one of Europe’s oldest universities with interesting academic traditions,
where the “Queima das fitas” is only one example. This city is also famous by its
traditional song – “fado de coimbra” – and by its medieval walls, monasteries (e.g. Santa
Cruz and Celas), museums (e.g. Machado de Castro Museum) as well as the Cathedral.
Ten miles to the south of this city the most important roman archaeological site of Portugal
is located – Conímbriga - .
Statistical data reveals that in this city are located only 0,9% of the country’s total hotel
accommodation capacity, being occupied by also 0,9% of total bednights. However,
Coimbra is one of the most important tourism destination within the Central Region of
Portugal. Here are located about 7% of the region’s hotel accommodation capacity, that
capture almost 11% of nights spent in the tourist accommodation mentioned (INE, 2004).
Differing from the rest of the Central Region, inbound tourism is the most important
tourism market of Coimbra, where about 53% of the nights spent in hotel establishments
correspond to foreign demand. The most important foreign markets of this city are, with
decreasing order of relevance: Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Netherlands, USA and the
UK (INE, 2004).
In this city the here presented survey was carried out, specifically, at one of the city’s most
important cultural tourism attractions, the University of Coimbra.
4.3 Analysis of results
4.3.1. Socio-demographic profile and travel behavioural of the sample
Visitors interviewed were mainly foreigners (90,7%), with very high educational levels
(82% had a degree equivalent or superior to a Bachelor) and the majority of them were
employed (74%) or students (21%) (see table 1). Among those who were employed, there
was a predominance of professionals (doctors, lawyers, teachers), and also a considerable
quantity of directors/managers (19,6%) and persons with a technical profession
(technicians, nursing) (17,2%). These professions are probably related to the high level of
education within the sample. Although some respondents have very high incomes (20,4%
have an annual household gross income superior to 30,000€), there seems to be a
considerable balance among respondents in terms of income, since there are also 20,4% of
respondents having annual gross incomes lower or equal to 10,000€ (table 1).
Table 1 – Socioeconomic characteristics of cultural visitors interviewed in Coimbra
N
Valid
percentage
Age
19 or younger
20 - 29
30 - 39
40 - 49
50 or older
13
116
80
57
53
4,1
36,4
25,1
17,9
16,6
Income
(annual household gross income)
5,000 Euro or less
5,001 - 10,000 Euro
10,001 - 20,000 Euro
20,001 - 30,000 Euro
30,001 - 40,000 Euro
40,001 - 50,000 Euro
50,001 - 60,000 Euro
More than 60,000 Euro
33
23
31
36
39
34
22
56
12,0
8,4
11,3
13,1
14,2
12,4
8,0
20,4
Educational level (highest level)
Primary or secondary school
Vocational education
Bachelor, Master or Doctoral degree
29
28
262
9,1
8,8
82,1
N
Valid
percentage
Nationality
Portuguese
Foreigners
30
291
9,3
90,7
Gender
Male
Female
150
168
47,2
52,8
Current position
Employee
Self employed
Retired
Housewife/man or carer
Student
Unemployed
196
39
11
5
67
1
61,6
12,3
3,5
1,6
21,1
0,3
Current ocupational group
Director or Manager
Professional (doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc)
Technical profession (technicians, nursing)
Clerical/ Administration
Service and sales personnel
Manual and crafts worker
49
100
43
34
19
5
19,6
40,0
17,2
13,6
7,6
2,0
The sample was also considerably balanced in terms of age and gender. As far as age is
concerned, approximately a third of the sample were 40 or older, with just slightly more
(40,5%) being 29 or younger (table 1).
The majority of the respondents were travelling with their partner (40,5%) and a lot of
them were also accompanied by friends (26,2%) or by their family (24,3%) (table 2). Only
a very small percentage were travelling alone (7,5%) or in tour groups (7,2%). The large
majority (70%) had used the car to travel to the region and only a small number opted for
the airplane, the coach or the train (only around 13% chose one of these options,
respectively). People were mainly travelling for a short-break in the Region of Coimbra
(56,8% stayed between 1 and 3 nights) and 25% didn’t intend to stay overnight in this
region (table 2).
Table 2 – Travel behaviour characteristics of cultural visitors interviewed in Coimbra
N
Valid
percentage
Kind of persons
people are travelling with
Alone
Partner
Family
Friends
Tour group
Other
24
130
78
84
23
0
7,5
40,5
24,3
26,2
7,2
0,0
Duration of the stay in Coimbra
(number of nights)
0
1
2 to 3
4 to 7
8 to 14
More than 14
77
91
84
29
21
5
25,1
29,6
27,4
9,4
6,8
1,6
Accommodation
Hotel
With family and friends
Caravan/ tent
Bed & breakfast/room in private house
Other
Second residence
Self catering accommodation
Youth hostel
Own home
143
49
43
25
21
10
10
9
8
45,3
15,2
13,6
7,9
6,6
3,2
3,2
2,8
2,5
Forms of transport
Own car
Hire car
Air
Coach
Train
Walking
Local transport (bus, metro, taxi)
Other
Bicycle
Motorcycle
121
103
45
42
39
13
10
4
3
0
37,8
32,2
14,1
13,1
12,2
4,1
3,1
1,3
0,9
0,0
N
Valid
percentage
Cultural attractions people
have visited or are planning to visit
Monuments
Historic sites
Religious sites
Museums
Heritage/crafts centres
Art galleries
Traditional festivals
Theatres
Classical music events
Dance events
World music events
Cinema
Pop concerts
236
223
172
169
65
37
33
13
11
10
7
4
4
76,4
69,3
55,7
54,9
21,0
12,0
10,7
4,2
3,6
3,2
2,3
1,3
1,3
Having already visited the city before
61
19,0
Sources of information people have
consulted about the city before arriving there
Guidebooks
Family/friends
Internet
Previous visit
Tourist board
Travel agency
Tour operator brochure
Newspapers/magazines
Other
TV/radio
188
141
118
35
30
24
16
15
15
3
59,9
44,9
37,6
11,1
9,6
7,6
5,1
4,8
4,8
1,0
Arrangement of the trip
All inclusive package
33
10,6
Transport booked separately
Booked via travel agent or tour operator
Booked via Internet
Made own travel arrangements directly (phone, fax)
Nothing booked in advance
40
55
75
83
15,8
21,7
29,6
32,8
Accommodation booked separately
Booked via travel agent or tour operator
Booked via Internet
Made own travel arrangements directly (phone, fax)
Nothing booked in advance
26
27
60
105
11,9
12,4
27,5
48,2
Amongst those who wanted to stay some days in the region there was a clear preference for
staying in hotels (45,3%), with houses of friends/relatives (15,2%) and caravan/ tents
(13,6%) being the following favourite means of accommodation. The cultural attractions
that more people wanted to visit were monuments (76,4%), historic sites (69,3%), religious
sites (55,7%) and museums (54, 9%), followed at some distance by heritage/crafts
centres(21%), art galleries (12%) and traditional festivals (10,7%) (table 2). Not many
people intended to attend musical events or to go to the theatre or to the cinema. The
average travel expenditure of respondents was 456€. However, taking into account the high
standard deviation of this variable (693€). Differences in total expenditure levels may be a
consequence of different duration of stay, constitution of the travel group, as well as
different individual spending patterns.
Only few respondents (16%) had already visited Coimbra before (table 2). Information
about the city was acquired, mainly through guidebooks (59,9%), the respondents’
family/friends (44,9%) and the internet (37,6%). Only a small number of people was
travelling in all inclusive packages (10,6%). Amongst the others, there was a large number
who had not booked accommodation (48,2%) or transportation (32,8%) in advance (table
2). However, the majority had undertaken one kind of reservation and most reservations
were done directly (by phone or fax) or by internet.
4.3.2. Differences between clusters
To identify groups of visitors that differed in terms of socio-economic profile, a
hierarchical cluster analysis of the visitors of the University of Coimbra was undertaken.
The age, educational level and annual gross income of the visitors were used as input data
for this analysis. The cluster analysis was done applying the Ward’s method and, as a
measure of similarity, the Squared Euclidean Distance. In order to avoid biases due to the
different scales of the variables, these were standardized.
Two clusters were identified through this analysis. Chi-square analyses and Mann-Whitney
U tests were carried out to better characterize the clusters and identify the major
differences that existed between them (see tables 3 and 4). One of the clusters – cluster 1 -
is composed of tourists with a higher level of education, being relatively wealthier and
older. In contrast, cluster 2 is formed by poorer, younger and less educated individuals.
Table 3 – Differences between the two clusters of cultural visitors interviewed in Coimbra,
concerning socio-economic characteristics
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
N=176
(64,7% of respondents)
N=96
(35,3% of respondents)
(%)
(%)
Age
19 or younger
20 - 29
30 - 39
40 - 49
50 or older
0,0
34,0
76,7
93,0
100,0
100,0
66,0
23,3
7,0
0,0
Income (annual household gross income)
5,000 Euro or less
5,001 - 10,000 Euro
10,001 - 20,000 Euro
20,001 - 30,000 Euro
30,001 - 40,000 Euro
40,001 - 50,000 Euro
50,001 - 60,000 Euro
More than 60,000 Euro
12,5
21,7
29,0
38,9
94,9
100,0
90,5
96,4
87,5
78,3
71,0
61,1
5,1
0,0
9,5
3,6
Educational level (highest level)
Primary or secondary school
Vocational education
Bachelor, Master or Doctoral degree
21,1
61,9
68,5
78,9
38,1
31,5
Nationality
Portuguese
Foreigners
42,3
66,9
Gender
Male
Female
Chi-square tests
Current position
Employee
Self employed
Retired
Housewife/man or carer
Student
Unemployed
Current ocupational group
Level of
significance Chi-square
d.f.
(a)
101,496
4
(a)
149,432
7
(a)
17,415
2
57,7
33,1
(b)
6,234
1
70,9
58,8
29,1
41,2
(b)
4,313
1
75,0
81,1
25,0
18,9
22,366
5,103
1
17,0
83,0
(a)
(b)
*
*
(a)
*
65,243
1
*
Legend
* not possible to perform the analysis because there were few people answering affirmatively to this question and, consequently,
more than 20% of the cells of the crosstabs table had expected values lower than 5.
(a) p<0,01
(b) p<0,05
These segments were further analyzed with regard to other aspects of their sociodemographic profile and their travel behaviour, revealing significant differences between
groups. It is clear that there is a high prevalence of foreigners and individuals who were
professionally active in cluster 1 than in cluster 2 (table 3). In contrast, there was a
predominance of students in cluster 2, eventually explaining the fact that cluster 2 had a
relatively lower level of income.
In terms of travel behaviour it is interesting to notice that, despite there is not a significant
difference between the two groups concerning the duration of their stay in Coimbra,
respondents from cluster 1 spent more money during their stay than those from cluster 2.
However, respondents from cluster 2 are more likely to travel alone or with friends,
whereas those belonging to cluster 1 tend to travel with their partner or family, which may
partly explain the differences in travel spending patterns. There seem to be some
differences between individuals from these groups concerning the accommodation they
prefer. People from the wealthier cluster (cluster 1) were more likely to stay in hotels than
those from the other cluster, whereas the opposite happened concerning bed and breakfast
option (table 4). Visitors of cluster 1 were also more likely to rent cars than visitors of
cluster 2, whereas the opposite happened concerning the use of the train. Although not
many differences were found concerning the kind of attractions people wanted to visit,
visitors from cluster 1 demonstrated to be much more interested in visiting museums than
the other group. As far as travel arrangements are concerned, the main difference found
between clusters is that the wealthier visitors were more likely to book transportation via
internet than the other visitors. This trend, probably related to the higher levels of income
and education of visitors belonging to cluster 1, should not be ignored by tourism suppliers
and, especially, by those who commercialize these products.
Table 4 – Differences between the two clusters of cultural visitors interviewed in Coimbra,
concerning travel behaviour characteristics
Chi-square tests
Kind of persons people are travelling with
Alone
Partner
Family
Friends
Tour group
Other
Accommodation
Own home
Second residence
Hotel
Self catering accommodation
Bed & breakfast/room in private house
Caravan/ tent
With family and friends
Youth hostel
Other
Forms of transport
Air
Own car
Hire car
Coach
Train
Local transport (bus, metro, taxi)
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Walking
Other
Cultural attractions people have visited or
are planning to visit
Museums
Monuments
Art galleries
Religious sites
Historic sites
Theatres
Heritage/crafts centres
Cinema
Pop concerts
World music events
Classical music events
Dance events
Traditional festivals
Sources of information people have
consulted about the city before arriving there
Family/friends
Tourist information centre
Internet
Tour operator information
Newspapers/magazines
Local brochures
Guidebooks
TV/radio
Other
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
N=176
(64,7% of respondents)
N=96
(35,3% of respondents)
(%)
(%)
36,4
76,1
75,4
45,6
63,6
23,9
24,6
54,4
76,6
23,4
43,5
56,5
74,2
25,8
42,9
57,1
72,3
27,7
Level of
significance Chi-square
(a)
(a)
(b)
(a)
Not significant
*
*
*
(a)
*
(b)
Not significant
Not significant
*
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
(b)
Not significant
(a)
*
*
*
*
*
(a)
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
*
Not significant
*
*
*
*
*
Not significant
d.f.
8,419
11,6
4,265
14,51
1
1
1
1
13,359
1
5,216
1
5,57
1
8,39
1
8,335
1
Not significant
Not significant
Not significant
*
*
Not significant
Not significant
*
Not significant
Legend
* not possible to perform the analysis because there were few people answering affirmatively to this question and, consequently,
more than 20% of the cells of the crosstabs table had expected values lower than 5.
(a) p<0,01
(b) p<0,05
Table 4 (continued) – Differences between the two clusters of cultural visitors interviewed
in Coimbra, concerning travel behaviour characteristics
Chi-square tests
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
N=176
(64,7% of respondents)
N=96
(35,3% of respondents)
(%)
(%)
Arrangement of the trip
All inclusive package
Transport booked separately
Booked via travel agent or tour operator
Booked via Internet
Made own travel arrangements directly (phone, fax)
Nothing booked in advance
81,6
52,0
69,2
58,6
18,4
48,0
30,8
41,4
Total travel expenditure
(b)
9,903
3
Not significant
Having already visited the city before
Duration of the stay in Coimbra (number of nights)
d.f.
Not significant
Accommodation booked separately
Mann-Whitney U tests
Level of
significance Chi-square
Not significant
Mean rank
Mean rank
Level of
significance
110,3
85,5
(a)
Not significant
Legend
* not possible to perform the analysis because there were few people answering affirmatively to this question and, consequently,
more than 20% of the cells of the crosstabs table had expected values lower than 5.
(a) p<0,01
(b) p<0,05
5. Conclusions
Cultural tourism may be clearly identified as an important tourism form, with increasing
relevance visible in studies and statistics worldwide. Although some studies point at
specific features and trends within this market, the here presented study highlights the
existence of different cultural tourist segments. The two segments, identified through a
cluster analysis, based on educational level, income and age, revealed significant
differences in terms of other socio-demographic variables and travel behaviour. One
cluster, containing the relatively older, wealthier and more educated respondents, tended to
be mostly foreign tourists, travelling with their partner or family, revealed higher
expenditure levels, a preference for hotel accommodation, rent-a-car arrangements and
internet reservation of transportation, and were relatively more interested in museums. On
the other hand, the other segment was relatively younger, poorer and less educated,
including many Portuguese and students, travelling alone or with friends, preferring bed
and breakfast accommodation and the train as a means of transportation.
Consequently, these cluster results may represent a useful segmentation solution,
considering the criteria of: measurability, accessibility (i.e. “effectively reached and
served” via some kind of marketing vehicle), substantiality (constituting “the largest
possible homogeneous group worth going after with a tailored marketing-program”),
differentiability (conceptually distinguishable, responding differently to different
marketing-mix elements and programs) and actionability (meaning that “effective
programs can be formulated for attracting and serving the segments”) (Kotler, 1997: 268269).
In conclusion, this segmentation study may be very useful for planners and managers of
cultural tourist destinations, revealing the existence of clearly identifiable clusters that not
only differ as far as socio-demographics are concerned, but also in terms of travel
behaviour and preferences. Thereby, destination planners and managers may increase the
attractiveness of cultural destinations, by designing appealing products and promotional
strategies to each of the identified segments.
References
Baker, M. 1991. Marketing: An Introductory Text. 5th edition. London: Macmillan.
Baloglu, S. and D. Brinberg. 1997. “Affective Images of Tourism Destinations.” Journal of
Travel Research 35 (4): 11-15.
Bonink, G., and Richards, G. (1992). Cultural Tourism in Europe. ATLAS Research
Report. London: University of North London.
EU. 1998. Facts and Figures on The Europeans on Holidays. Madrid: European
Comission – DGXXIII.
Gitelson, R.J. and. Kerstetter, D. L. 1990. “The Relationship between sociodemographic
variables, benefits sought and subsequent vacation behaviour: a case study.” Journal
of Travel Research, 28 (3): 24-29.
INE. 2004. Anuário Estatístico da Região Centro 2003. Instituto Nacional de Estatística
(INE), Lisboa
Kastenholz, E., 2002, “The role and marketing implications of destination images on
tourist behavior: The case of northern Portugal.” phd dissertation, Universidade de
Aveiro. UMI dissertation Services.
Kastenholz, E., 2004. “«Management of Demand» as a Tool in Sustainable Tourist
Destination Development.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 12 (5): 388-408.
Kotler, P. 1994. Marketing Management- Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control.
8th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P. 1997. Marketing Management- Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control.
9th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G. Saunders, J. and V. Wong. 1999. Principles of Marketing. (2nd European
edition) London: Prentice Hall Europe.
Kotler, P., Haider, D.H. and I. Rein. 1995, Marketing Places. 2nd ed. New York, Oxford,
Singapore, Sydney: The Free Press Maxwell Maxmillan International.
Lawson, R. 1995. “Demographic Segmentation.” In Tourism Marketing and Management
Handbook. Eds. Witt, S. and L. Moutinho. London: Prentice Hall, 306-315.
Loker, E.L. and R.R. Perdue. 1992. “A Benefit-based Segmentation of a Nonresident
Summer Travel Market.” Journal of Travel Research (Summer 1992): 30-35.
McKercher, B. 1995. “The Destination-Market Matrix: A tourism market portfolio analysis
model.” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 4 (2): 23-40.
Medlik, S. 2003. Dictionary of Travel Tourism & Hospitality. Third edition. ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford
Middleton, V. T.C. 1988. Marketing in Travel & Tourism. Oxford: Heinemann
Professional Publishers.
Mill, R.C. and A.M. Morrison. 1992. The Tourism System. (2nd edition) Englewood-Cliffs, New
York: Prentice Hall.
Pender, L. 1999. Marketing Management for Travel and Tourism. Cheltenham: Stanley
Thornes
Poon, A. 1993. Tourism Technology and Competitive Strategies, C.A.B International,
Wallingford.
Richards, G. 1994. “Cultural Tourism in Europe”, in Cooper and Lockwood
(Eds.),
Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, Vol. 5, John Wiley
and Sons, Chichester, England, pp.99-115
Richards, G. 1996. ”Cultural Tourism in Context”, in Greg Richards (ed.) Cultural
Tourism in Europe, CAB INTERNATIONAL, Wallingford.
WTO. 2001a. Cultural Heritage Tourism Development – A Report on the International
Conference on Cultural Tourism. World Tourism Organization Conference
Proceedings. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
WTO. 2001b. Global Forecasts and Profiles of Market Segments. Tourism 2020 Vision.
Volume 7. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.