Factors Influencing Visitor's Choices of Urban Destinations in North ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 9: Michelin’s RatingsRating SymbolText3-star *** Highly recommended / Worth a journey2-star ** Recommended / Worth a detour1-star * Interesting / InterestingSource: Michelin, 2003.Michelin contained a comprehensive list of accommodations and restaurants andprovided a rating for these attractions.Frommer'sTable 10: Michelin’s Ratings for Accommodations and RestaurantsHotels Prices Hotel Rating Restaurants Prices Restaurant Rating$$$$$ over $300 3 $$$$ over $50 3$$$$ $200-$300 2 $$$ $35-$50 2$$$ $125-$200 1 $$ $20-$35 1$$ $75-$125 1 $ under $20 0$ under $75 0Source: Michelin, 2003.Frommer's was a secondary source and was used to complement Michelin's travel guide.Frommer's contained a comprehensive list of sport events, festivals, and theatre, ballet,and opera performances available in each city.Fodor’sFodor’s was used to complement the attractions data obtained from Michelin andFrommer's. Fodor’s contained a comprehensive list of accommodations and restaurantsand ranked these attractions in a manner consistent with Michelin.Table 11: Fodor’s Ratings for Accommodations and RestaurantsHotels Prices Hotel Rating Restaurants Prices Restaurant Rating$$$$ over $250 3 $$$$ over $32 3, 2$$$ $170-$250 2 $$$ $22-$32 1$$ $90-$170 1 $$ $13-$21 0$ under $90 0 $ under $13 0Source: Fodor’s, 2002.G. Measures of Attraction CountThree types of attraction count were used to identify the types of attractions that wereimportant in explaining tourist visitations 9 . This approach was taken because our analysiscentred on the influence of attractions (and some non-attraction type variables) indetermining city visitations. Because this project chose not to focus on economic or otherinfluences of travel, Global Insight did not expect to develop an optimum model to9 To some extent, Global Insight used Richard Florida's approach to develop these three types of attractioncount.15
explain city visitations. Consequently, Global Insight focused on a series of models thatemploy several attraction count methodologies. It was gratifying that all three measuresof attraction count yielded generally consistent results.Number of AttractionsThe first type of attraction count was a simple measure of the number of attractions:Visitors city = F (# of Attractions city ) (1)This specification postulates a direct relationship between attractions and the number ofvisits. As the number of tourist attractions increases, the number of visits will alsoincrease. This formula was used to estimate an individual relationship between touristvisits and each attraction category, sub-category, and types of attractions using theattractions matrix.Normalized AttractionsThe second type of attraction count normalized the attraction count by city population inorder to reduce the influence of a city’s size or population in determining visitor counts:Visitors city = F (# of Attractions city / Population city ) (2)The count of attractions is often affected by the population size of the MSA or CMA. Forexample, the total count of attractions in New York is close to 300 and the populationbase is about 9.5 million, while the attractions count in Edmonton is 60 with thepopulation size close to 1 million.To correct for the population bias, the first equation was normalized by the populationsize. In the new equation, there is a direct relationship between the attractions count percapita and the number of visits. Therefore, as the number of attractions per capitaincreases, the number of visits will also increase.Normalized Share of AttractionsThe third type of attraction count measures shares of both visitors and normalizedattractions:Visitors city / Visitors NA = F ( # of Attractions city / # of Attractions NA ) (3)(Population city / Population NA )This formula is a location quotient that measures the percentage of a total attraction countin a particular city compared to the North American (NA) total count of attractionsdivided by the percentage of total population in this city compared to the total NorthAmerican population. It is important to note that the left-hand side of this equation isslightly different from two previous notations. This time the left-hand side measures thenumber of visits to a particular city compared to the total number of visits to NorthAmerica.This measure is a ratio. If the value of this ratio is greater than one, this shows that aparticular city has a greater share of attractions than the North American average, while a16
Page 2 and 3: Table of ContentsI. EXECUTIVE SUMMA
Page 4 and 5: I. Executive SummaryHighlightsThe r
Page 6 and 7: Next StepsThis project has surfaced
Page 8 and 9: IV.coefficients from these models p
Page 10 and 11: series, simple autoregressive and
Page 12 and 13: Arts & Culture Museums Historymuseu
Page 14 and 15: The tourist visitations data was al
Page 16 and 17: Hotel Room Count and Hotel Property
Page 20 and 21: value below one suggests that the s
Page 22 and 23: Table 13: Individual Attractions Th
Page 24 and 25: Table 16: Significant Results 14Equ
Page 26 and 27: The adjusted R 2 for this model is
Page 28 and 29: • On average across all cities, b
Page 30 and 31: Model 5C 17 : In Model 5C, the numb
Page 32 and 33: The model overpredicts the number o
Page 34 and 35: Attraction Elasticities for Ottawa
Page 36 and 37: Table 22: Marketing Budget Elastici
Page 38 and 39: VII.Technical AppendixA. Attraction
Page 40 and 41: • Metropolitan Opera House in New
Page 42 and 43: Model 3: Three-Star Quality-Rated A
Page 44 and 45: Model 5B: Three-Star Quality-Rated
Page 46 and 47: 3. The cognitive perspective involv
Page 48 and 49: also found that almost half of the
Page 50 and 51: Also, the model seems to completely
Page 52 and 53: strengths and its weaknesses, devel
Page 54 and 55: Items from QuestionnaireTable 23: M
Page 56 and 57: Tourism Demand/Econometric Modellin
Page 58 and 59: Table 25: Types of Explanatory Vari
Page 60 and 61: Results: Lim and McAleer found that
Page 62 and 63: Richards, Greg. (2002). “Tourism
Page 64 and 65: Figure 4: Overseas Visitors to U.S.
Page 66 and 67: Figure 6: Cities Person-Trips Volum

Factors Influencing Visitor's Choices of Urban Destinations in North ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?