Health, Wellness and Tourism: healthy tourists, healthy business ...

four lines of extensions. First, the preparation steps of collecting free elicited arguments for
visiting a destination took place with travellers of different age, gender, prior destination
experience and situations (at home vs. at the destination). While the individual salience of
arguments was limited to an average of 4 to 5 the content analysis and categorization into
more abstract benefits resulted in 48 different aspects out of which 31 have been used to
develop benefit proxy prototypes covering the five consumption value domains outlined by
Sheth et al. (1991). Compared to Tapachai and Waryczak’s study using predominantly
students as respondents this study reveals a broader scope in functional, emotional, epistemic
and social aspects, however a narrower perspective of conditional benefits (rather limited to
price and accessibility arguments) which seems rather due to the geographic location between
generating and receiving country. In addition, the preparatory data collection steps did
consider two different contextual views: a) a European – short distance – vs. Asian – long
distance and b) a seaside/lakeside vs. wellness trip purpose. Differentiating by two completely
contrasting geographic regions it became quickly evident that travellers developed at least two
different sub-types of destination categories. However, the specific travel purpose did not
seem to be a sufficient condition that respondents elaborated or referred to a different subtype
of a destination category (Zins and Prompitak 2009).
The second extension to the initial study aimed at testing the proxy prototype instrument for
measuring destination images with ‘real’ travellers. The sample taken in Slovenia served the
purpose to have easy access to travellers of different national backgrounds with a high
propensity to belong to either a segment with a strong preference for sun and beach vacations
or with a strong affinity towards wellness trips. The samples were split into half covering
selected European destinations on the side and Asian destinations on the other. Both samples
shared very similar socio-demographic and travel characteristics which reduced unintended
impacts on the image measurement results.
The third extension dealt with the influence of a particular travel context. While the
preparatory studies stated the main purpose of the fictitious trip explicitly (sun and beach vs.
wellness) the main study investigated the destination images from the perspective of two
different traveller segments (wellness vs. non-wellness). Apart from their general travel
preferences towards wellness and spa activities travellers belonging to this segment
demonstrated straight behavioural differences relevant for tourism marketing: gender,
nationality, accommodation types and quality levels, past and future travel experiences. From
this approach of competitive analysis it can be concluded that Hungary and Croatia – apart
from Austria, Germany and Slovenia – have positioning advantages as wellness destinations
within the wellness segment; much in contrast to other European destinations like Turkey,
Greece or Spain. Among the Asian countries a similar advantage can be observed for
Thailand, the Philippines, and Maldives.
By considering not only one destination but a number of current or potential competitors the
current study made a fourth extension. A contrasting analysis for both traveller segments and
for each of the ten destinations revealed relatively outstanding assets and weaknesses which –
of course – can only be assessed finally by comparing positioning goals of an individual
destination. Yet, it is rather intriguing that the much stronger image associations for Indonesia
and India create some mental obstacles to position Thailand as a wellness destination more
favourably, particularly among wellness travellers.
Assuming that the category-based processing theory holds in the context of destination
competition: what are the consequences for destination marketing managers? Under the