25
CONSTANTINE PORPHYROGENETUS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Journal of Management Sciences and
Regional Development
Issue 7, December 2011
http://www.stt.aegean.gr/geopolab/GEOPOL%20PROFILE.htm
ISSN 1107-9819
Editor-in-Chief: John Karkazis (ikarkazis@aegean.gr)
ANALYSING TOURIST’S PROFILE, HOLIDAYS’
CHARACTERISTICS AND PERCEIVED TOURIST
COST AT LESVOS ISLAND, GREECE
Kostas Rontos, Efstratios Papanis and Eleni Kitrinou
Department of Sociology,
University of the Aegean
Abstract. This paper aims at identifying the demographic profile, the characteristics of the
tourists’ holidays, additionally to their perception about the tourist cost at Lesvos Island in
Greece, in order to obtain a better understanding of the tourism demand at the island. Data
were collected from 499 tourists (both Greek and foreigners) at the island during summer
2005. The demographic profile of the visitors at the island during the period in question is
firstly described. The purpose of travel to Lesvos, together to the reasons for choosing the
island for holidays is then considered. The characteristics of tourists’ holidays at the island
(accommodation type, length and cost of stay, sources of information about the island, etc)
together to characteristics of the trips to /from and within the island are also described.
Following, analysis of variance and cross-tab statistical analysis are applied, indicating that
the socioeconomic characteristics of the tourists significantly affect their purpose of travel to
the island, while significant differences are found between Greek and foreigner tourists, with
regards to the way they organise and have their holidays at the island, additionally to their
perceived satisfaction from the tourist cost at the island (indicating by accommodation,
transport, eating and leisure cost).
Keywords: Lesvos Island, profile of tourists, tourist cost, perceived satisfaction.
26
1. INTRODUCTION
Tourism and recreation are two of the most important social activities. Tourism
generates more income and jobs, increases understanding of other cultures, and
preserves cultural and national heritage and investment in infrastructure, which in turn
brings social and cultural benefits. For many small states with favourable natural
resources, tourism was regarded as an easy, low cost/profit source of income (OECD,
1967). It is noted that while tourists are popularly assumed to be synonymous with
holidaymakers, the official definition propagated by the World Tourism Organisation
(WTO, 2004) includes travel motivated by business, conference and visiting friends
and relatives purposes.
In Europe, it is common place to state that the demand for tourism services has
increased significantly over the last few decades. At the local level (Brett, 1987)
particularly in Southern Europe, tourism has often been seen as a means of generating
economic prosperity (Brotherton & Mooney, 1992; Burkart & Medlik, 1981; Buhalis,
1993) and playing a role previously attributed to manufacturing (Bruce, 1987).
Additionally, tourism can enable public authorities to achieve a variety of social
objectives, such as improving employment (Brymer, 1991) and the physical
environment of an area (Burkart, 1982).
Greece attracts more than 16 million tourists each year, thus contributing 15% to the
nation's Gross Domestic Product Economy. Greece has been an attraction for
international visitors since antiquity for its rich and long history and more recently for
its glorious Mediterranean coastline and beaches. Rontos and Sfakianakis (2009)
analysed the basic variables that represent the development of tourism in Greece
during the period 1999–2002, via time series analysis on structural and other basic
features of tourism. They suggested that Greece is a middle and low-class summer
seaside tourist destination; attracting tourists rather from Europe than from Northern
America or Asia, while due to income increases and their preference for short but
qualitative holidays, Greek tourists have reinforced high-class tourism. They also
suggested that the attraction of higher-class tourists is of great importance for a
rational and effective policy as they spend more money per day of stay and present
lower price elasticity in the relevant services, while nationality plays an important role
27
in the subject studied as tourists from different origin places have different
preferences and needs during holidays.
Regarding the tourism research in Greece, Galani-Moutafi (2004) presented a
categorization of the bibliography and suggested that the thematic axes of the relevant
research in Greece focus mainly on the development of mass tourism and its effects at
the macro-level. She emphasised that researchers should consider directing their
attention to the symbolic economy of tourism and the cultural processes involved in
its development. She also suggested that tourism constitutes a field where the local–
global nexus emerges, while tourists should not to be considered as homogeneous.
Regarding island areas, they have enormous potential to develop a tourism industry,
which is a future-oriented industry. Tourism is becoming the most important source of
foreign exchange income for islands in the last decades. Especially for the Greek
islands and specifically for Lesvos, the main advantage is the tourism product, which
includes the culture, the history, the environment and the geographical location of the
island.
Having in mind the importance of tourism especially for countries like Greece, this
paper aims at identifying the demographic profile and the holidays’ characteristics of
the tourists at Lesvos, a large island in North-eastern Greece, in order to obtain a
better understanding of the tourism demand at the island. Emphasis is given at the
cost per day of stay for both Greek and foreigner tourists at the island, while their
perceived satisfaction from the tourist cost at the island (indicating by
accommodation, transport, eating and leisure cost) is also to be analysed in order to
estimate the capability of the island to attract higher-class tourists, which will impact
to the economic development of the island.
The remaining of the paper is organised as follows: A theoretical framework with
regards to estimating tourists’ profile and behaviour is presented in section 2. Section
3 presents the basic characteristics of tourism at Lesvos Island. The empirical research
developed for estimating the profile of tourists at Lesvos Island and their perception
about tourist cost (both methodology and results) is presented at section 4. Finally,
section 5 concludes the paper and gives directions for further research.
28
2. THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
ON
TOURISTS’ PROFILE AND BEHAVIOUR
ESTIMATING
An important issue in tourism research concerns the types and the characteristics of
the tourists. An understanding of the profile of tourists at a specific geographical area
is of great interest to: a) public decision makers who make either policy or
management decisions on tourist behavior; b) marketers in joint public-private
cooperative endeavors whose interests include such factors as what influences tourists
to visit a particular place; c) business decision makers concerned to the design and
financial success of tourism; d) tourism industry lobby groups interested in tourist
profile issues, especially tourist cost; e) academic researchers (Pearse, 2005:9). It
must also be noted that the profile of tourists at an area influences only peripherally
major financial decisions on infrastructure investment and as a specific topic it attracts
attention mainly in local governmental policies.
Different categorisations of tourists can be found at the literature. For example,
Cohen’s (1972, 2004) typology of tourists is based on the institutional setting of the
tour. He identifies two basic types of tourists, called institutionalized and noninstitutionalized tourist roles. The first type represents the tourists who are dealt with
in a routine way by the tourist establishment (the complex of travel agencies, travel
companies, hotel chains etc, which cater to the tourist trade), while the second type
(non-institutionalized tourists) represent more open tourist roles. Additionally, within
each type he considers the following two variants:
For the institutionalized tourists: a) the organized mass tourist, who follows a guided
tour (familiarity here is at a maximum, while novelty at a minimum); b) the individual
mass tourist, who is similar to the previous one, except that the tour is not entirely
pre-planned. However, all of tourist’s major arrangements are still made through a
tourist agency (familiarity is not dominant, but somewhat less, while novelty is
somewhat greater.
On the other hand, for the non-institutionalized tourists, he considers the following
two types: a) the explorer, who arranges the trip alone, tries to get off the beaten
track, but he nevertheless looks for comfortable accommodations and reliable means
29
of transportation. He also tries to associate the people he visits (novelty dominates,
but tourist does not immerse completely himself in his host society); b) the drifter,
who immerses almost completely in his host culture (novelty here is at a maximum
and familiarity at a minimum level).
Additionally, Urry (2000) likewise has conceived of types of tourists, associated with
different gazes: the romantic gaze, the collective gaze, and the spectatorial gaze.
(Urry, 1995) differentiated tourists by how they look at objects. Although Urry claims
to have based his typology on “different socialities” (2000:150), both Urry and
Cohen’s typologies lack an emphasis on the social dynamics of the tourist role;
favouring, as do most perspectives on tourists, a solitary or co-present social
orientation. It is also noted that Poon (1993) provided the following list of
characteristics of the new tourists: they have: more experience; changing lifestyles;
changing values and more flexibility.
Kuo (2009) suggested that international tourist profiles and controlled assessments of
hotel employee service attitudes are among the most important tools for research in
the tourism service industry. Through a cross-sectional analysis of survey
respondents’ profiles, he identified three different segments of the international tourist
market in terms of demographics and characteristic features: business customers;
leisure-trip customers, and single women.
Pearse (2005:25-27) discussed about the “social roles” of tourists, in order to explain
tourists’ behavior. More contemporary work on tourist roles has included an attempt
to develop role schemes as a kind of indirect access to tourist motivation (Foo et al,
2004; Yiannakis and Gibson, 1992). Additionally, Pearse (2005) suggested that the
types of tourists and the social roles they occupy have raised a number of recurring
themes and it is not easy to fulfill the tourist role. He provided a categorization of the
specific variables describing tourist grouping, as follows: a) demographic factors
(mainly: age, gender, nationality and, occasionally: education, occupation,
expenditure); b) traveling style distinctions (like: accommodation type, length of stay,
trip purpose, transport mode); and c) product and activity classifications (like:
cultural, business, education, adventure, sex).
30
Additionally, tourist satisfaction is commonly used for estimating tourist profile at
specific areas, constituting one of the most investigated topics in the tourism and
hospitality research, due to its role in the survival and future of any tourism products
and services (Gursoy, and Gavcar, 2003). Customer satisfaction is defined as a
psychological concept that involves the feeling of well-being and pleasure that results
from obtaining what one hopes for and expects from an appealing product and/or
service (WTO, 1985). According to Kozak and Rimmington (2000), it considerably
impacts on the tourist’s choice of the holiday destination, the consumption of products
and services, and the decision to visit the destination in the future.
3. TOURISM IN LESVOS ISLAND
Lesvos Island belongs to the islands of the North Aegean region in Greece. It is the
third largest island in Greece: its total extend is 2.154 km2, while the total length of
coasts is 696 km, and the total population is 105.194 residents. It is also one of the
forested islands of the Aegean, apart from the olives groves found everywhere; pines,
oaks, chestnuts etc cover a great proportion of its land. The primary sector is the most
important one of Lesvos' economy, because of the enormous olive oil and ouzo
production. Lesvos Island has innumerable beaches to satisfy all its visitors, like
Vatera, Varia, Agios Isidoros, Skala Eresou, Molyvos, Thermi and Anaxo, which are
main destinations for 'sun, sea and sand' holidays (which means mass, cheap tourism).
Equally notable and peaceful is Sigri with its petrified forest. A map of Lesvos is
following presented:
31
MAP 1: Lesvos island (copyright: www.greeka.com)
The island is also rich in religious buildings. There are many monasteries, which
exhibit various icons. Of special importance are the old picturesque villages, e.g.
Molyvos, and the traditional industries, like olive oil production, ouzo production,
leather, wood carving and pottery industries. Archaeological sites, folk and art
museums, Byzantine castles and cathedrals, ancient theatres, and Roman aqueducts
can also be visited.
The capital of the island is Mitilini that pinpoints the economic growth of the island
from the 18th century. Its castle was one of the most powerful in the eastern
Mediterranean. It is also noted that the central offices of the Ministry of Aegean, the
Regional Authority of Northern Aegean and the Rectorate of Aegean University are
located at Mytilni. The location of Lesvos Island in the context of Greece is presented
at the map below.
32
MAP 2: Location of Lesvos Island at the map of Greece
(Source: www.greeka.com)
The number of hotels and accommodation units has grown significantly in the last
three decades. Molyvos is the main tourist place which maintains the market share in
quality units, as each hotel is attaining a grade B from the Hellenic National Tourist
Organization. In other areas the quality of accommodation tends to be more
diversified, while also more lower class accommodation can be found. The average
utilization rate of accommodation is low for the island due to the short effective
tourist season (June - September).
Support services such as tourism agencies, tour guides, vehicle rent shops and
souvenir shops are not yet very wel1 developed on the island. Tourist facilities, like
hospitals, banks, sports and transport (bus) facilities play a complementary role at
tourist services.
The road network of the island contains many secondary unpaved roads which would
be insufficient to accommodate future tourist growth. The road system focuses upon
the main places on the island. The physical geography of the mountainous area makes
33
development of new roads expensive and difficult, although upgrading and
maintenance of existing roads is of critical importance.
Furthermore, particularities in the transport system of the wider Aegean Island area,
regarding the island character, are attributed to the fact that access to and from the
islands occur mainly via the sea. The main characteristics of the island’s transport
system are the following: High duration of marine travel; High transport cost
(especially in air travel); Problems regarding frequency, regularity, quality of
transport services; and Problems regarding the infrastructure in ports and airports
(Kitrinou and Polydoropoulou, 2007).
4. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH FOR LESVOS ISLAND
4.1 Methodology
The current research was conducted during summer, in July and August of 2005,
because the vast majority of tourists visited Lesvos within that period. The sample
was accumulated at random. Questionnaires were distributed at the airport and at the
port of Mitilini one hour prior to tourist’s departure. This period of time was most
appropriate because it allowed participants to have an integrated opinion for the
touristic infrastructure of Lesvos and the pros and cons of their stay on the island. The
sample consisted of 499 tourists, 202 foreigners and 297 Greeks. The majority of
Greek participants came from Athens and Thessaloniki, although there was a small
amount of people that originated from the rest of the country. The foreigners were,
mostly, from UK and the Netherlands.
For the purposes of the research, the questionnaire was translated into English.
Demographic questions recorded characteristics of each participant, such as gender,
age, educational and financial level, place of origin etc. The main part of the
questionnaire consisted of variables referring to the reasons for choosing Lesvos
Island for their holidays; the length and the cost of their stay at the island; the type of
accommodation at the island, the information sources they had about the culture and
34
the physical environment of the island. Variables referring to characteristics of the
trips to/from and within the island were also included. Finally, tourists had to perceive
the degree of their satisfaction about the tourist cost at Lesvos, indicating by
accommodation; leisure; transport and eating cost. Data is firstly descriptively
presented, while Analysis of Variance and Crosstab Statistics (based on chi-square
tests) are applied, identifying statistically significant relationships between the
variables.
4.2 Results
Socioeconomic characteristics of the sample tourists
In the survey sample, 59,9% are Greek, while the remaining 41,5% are foreigners
(specifically: 25% from the UK, 13,9% from the Netherlands, while the remaining
1,2% from other countries).
The socioeconomic characteristics of the survey respondents are the following: 38%
of the respondents are male, while the remaining 62% are female. The distribution of
the respondents regarding the age group is as follows: 9,3% are up to 20 years old,
30% belong to the 20-30 age group, 21,7% belong to 30-40 age group, 21,3% are
between 40-50 years old, 11,4 % are between 50-60 years old, while the remaining
5,6% are greater than 60 years old. Regarding their marital status, 44,9% are
unmarried, while the remaining 55,1% are married. Referring to the educational level,
the majority of the respondents have a graduate degree (63,8%), following by those
having a secondary education level (30%) and by those having a basic education level
(6,3%). With regards to their income level, 13,9% of the survey respondents state that
“I can hardly make ends meet”, the majority -41,1%- state that “my earnings are
sufficient”, followed by a 38,9% which state “my earnings allow me to live a decent
life”, while the remaining 6,1% state that “I earn more than average”. It is also noted
that the 24,8% of the survey respondents have a descent from the island in question.
The following Graph 1 presents demographic characteristics of the visitors at Lesvos
Island, during the period in question.
35
GRAPH 1: Demographic profile of tourists at Lesvos Island
Characteristics of tourists’ holidays at Lesvos Island
The majority of the sample tourists visited Lesvos Island for vacations (64%), while a
3% for educational purposes, a 6% for family purposes, another 1% for work
purposes, while the remaining 6% of the tourists visited the island for other purposes.
It is also noted that only 4% of the tourists organised their holiday via a travel agency.
The main reasons for choosing to have holidays at Lesvos are the following: a) the
physical environment and the culture of the island (66%); b) the low tourist cost at the
island (including accommodation, transport, eating and leisure: 22%); and c) the
36
island’s tourism infrastructure (8%). It is noted that the remaining 4% of the tourists
stated “other” reason for choosing the island for holidays.
It is found that most of the tourists (61%) were informed about the history and the
culture oft the island, before visiting it. They stated that, they had be informed by: a)
friends and relatives (60,3%); b) the Internet (22,8%); c) travel agents /tour operators
(21,3%); d) books/ tourist guides (19,1%); and e) the media (9,7%). (Note: in this case
percentage exceeds 100 because of multiple responses).
Referring to accommodation, most of the tourists stated that they stayed at renting
rooms (43%), following by those stayed at hotel rooms (30%), and those stayed at the
houses of friends and relatives (22%), while a percentage of 2% stayed at camping
and the remaining 3% at the island’s monasteries. Graph 2 following presents most of
the above mentioned Characteristics of the tourists’ holiday at Lesvos Island.
Regarding to the average holiday cost at the island, this is about 1254 euro for the
overall sample, 781 euro for the Greek tourists and about 2000 euro for the foreigner
tourists. On the other hand, foreigners are likely to stay more days at the island (on
average 13,5 days), Greek tourists are likely to stay about 9,6 days on average, while
the average length of holiday for the total sample is about 11 days. It is noted that
foreigner tourists stay more days at the island, and, as a consequence, they spend
more.
37
GRAPH 2: Characteristics of the tourists’ holiday at Lesvos Island
38
In addition, the average cost per day of stay was estimated as follows: about 100 euro
per day for the Greek tourists, about 156 euro per day for foreigners, while the
relevant value for the total sample estimated at about 123 euro per day. Furthermore,
in order to examine if foreigners spend statistically significant more money on their
holidays at the island, than Greek tourists do, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the
variable “tourist cost per day of stay” between the two groups of tourists indicates a
statistically significant difference (F= 44,813>F1,488, and sig: 0,000) between Greek
and foreigner tourists. It is also noted that the values of typical skewness and kurtosis
are found to be between [2, 2] therefore, the population presents a normal distribution,
while the statistical significance of the differences in the population variation checked
via Cochran’s, Bartlett, Harley’s and Levine’s tests, which suggest no violation of
variances’ equality., . The relevant ANOVA table is following presented:
TABLE 1. ANOVA of the “tourist cost per day of stay” between the two groups of
tourists (Greeks and foreigners)
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Sum of Squares
379052,704
4085467,633
4464520,336
Df
1
498
499
Mean Square
379052,704
8458,525
F
44,813
Sig.
,000
Furthermore, a Crosstab-based Statistical Method is applied in order to identify
statistically significant relationships between the demographic characteristics of the
tourists at Lesvos Island and variables referring to the way they organized and had
their holidays at the Island. Table 2 presents cross-tab statistics between Greek and
foreigner tourists and the way they organised holidays at Lesvos Island (by a travel
agency or not):
TABLE 2. Cross-tab statistics between Greek and foreigner tourists and the way they
organised holidays at Lesvos Island
Holidays organized by a travel agency
Yes
Nationality
No
Total
Greek
8 (2,7%)
289 (97,3%)
297 (100%)
Foreigner
14 (6,9%)
188 (93,1%)
202 (100%)
Total
22 (4,4%)
477 (95,6%)
499 (100%)
39
It is noted that, even though the majority of tourists (both Greek and foreigners) have
not organised their holidays via a travel agency, there is a statistically significant
relationship (Chi-sq= 5,122, p=0,024) between the nationality of tourists and the
dummy variable Holidays organized by a travel agency. It is noted that the foreigner
tourists are likely to prefer to have holidays at Lesvos Island organised by a travel
agency, more than Greek tourists do, as expected.
Additionally, nationality significantly affects the way of having holidays (alone or
not): it is found that Greek tourists are likely to visit the island alone more than
foreigner tourists are (Chi-sq= 3,950, p=0,047), probably because they are more
familiar to the place, the language and the culture of the island. The relevant
frequencies are presented at the Table 3 following:
TABLE 3. Cross-tab statistics between Greek and foreigner tourists and the way of
having holidays at Lesvos Island
Way of having holidays
Alone
Nationality
With friends/ family /
Total
partner
Greek
21(7,1%)
276 (92,9%)
297 (100%)
Foreigner
6 (3%)
196 (97%)
202 (100%)
Total
27 (5,4%)
477 (94,6%)
499 (100%)
Table 4 presents cross-tabs statistics between the purposes of travel to Lesvos Island,
with regards to socioeconomic characteristics of the tourists. It is found that there is
statistically significant relationship between the Purpose of travel to Lesvos Island
and a) the age group of the respondents (Chi-sq= 78,781, p=0,001), b) the Income
level (Chi-sq= 48,637, p=0,000) and c) the dummy variable Descent from Lesvos
Island (Chi-sq= 30,635, p=0,002).
From the descriptive statistics presented at Table 4, we can note the following: The
majority of the respondents visited Lesvos Island on summer 2005 for vacations.
Tourists up to 20 years old and greater than 60 years old are more likely to visit the
40
island for vacations, than tourists from other age groups. Additionally, tourists
between 40-60 years old are more likely to visit the island for educational purpose
than other tourists (maybe because they have a child studying at the island’s
University, or they study at postgraduate programs). Regarding income level, the
results suggest that, the more the tourists earn, the more likely they are to visit the
island for vacations, while if they “can hardly make ends meet” are more likely to
visit the island for family, educational or other purposes, than tourists from other
income level groups. Finally, the tourists having a descent from the island are more
likely to visit the island for family reasons, than other tourists, as expected.
TABLE 4. Cross-tab statistics of the purpose of travel to Lesvos Island, with regards to
socioeconomic characteristics of the tourists
Purpose of travel to Lesvos Island
Vacations
Work
Family
Educational
purposes
purposes
purposes
Other
Age group
Up to 20
35(76,1%)
0(0%)
8(17,4%)
0(0%)
3(6,5%)
20- 30
122(76,5%)
4(2,5%)
16(10,2%)
8(5%)
6(3,8%)
30-40
95(88%)
1(0,9%)
4(3,7%)
0(0%)
7(6,5%)
40-50
96(91,4%)
1(1%)
0(0%)
4(3,8%)
4(3,8%)
50-60
57(86,5%)
1(1,5%)
1(1,5%)
3(4,5%)
4(6%)
60 plus
13(72%)
0(0%)
1(5,6%)
1(5,6%)
3(16,8%)
52(75,4%)
2(2,9%)
6(8,7%)
3(4,3%)
6(8,7%)
are
166(81,4%)
2(1%)
11(4,9%)
9(3,9%)
19(8,8%)
my earnings allow me
178(92,2%)
0(0%)
9(4,7%)
4(2,1%)
2(1%)
25(83,3%)
2(6,7%)
2(6,7%)
0(0%)
1(3,3%)
Income level
I can hardly make ends
meet
my
earnings
sufficient
to live a decent life
I
earn
more
than
average
Descent from Lesvos Island
Yes
92(74,2%)
2(1,6%)
22(17,7%)
1(0,8%)
7(5,6%)
No
331(88,3%)
4(1,1%)
6(1,6%)
14(3,7%)
20(5,3%)
41
Characteristics of the travel to/from the island and the trips within the island
Regarding to the tourists’ travel to/from the island, it is found that, the majority
(56,9%) traveled by ship from the mainland, the 41,3% traveled by airplane, while the
remaining 1,8% combined ship and plane. Additionally, a 16% of the tourists visited
(or had to visit) Turkey too at those holidays, another 12% visited (or had to visit)
another neighboring island, while for the vast majority of the tourists (72%) Lesvos
was their only holiday destination.
Referring to the tourists’ mobility within the island, it is found that most of the
tourists even had their own car (28,2%) even they rented a car (29,7%) in order to
travel within the island. A percentage of 24,5% used the public transport (bus), while
the remaining 17,4%
stated that they moved at the island by foot. The above
characteristics of the tourists’ travel to/from and within Lesvos Island are also
presented at the following Graph 3:
GRAPH 3: Characteristics of the tourists’ travel to/from and within Lesvos Island
42
How do the tourists perceive the tourist cost at Lesvos Island?
As mentioned previously, one of the basic reasons for choosing to have holidays at
Lesvos Island is the low tourist cost at the island (including accommodation,
transport, eating and leisure. It was also pinpointed that foreigner tourists spend
significantly more money per day of holidays at the island, than Greek tourists do.
At this paragraph, the tourists’ perceptions, regarding different types of tourist
costs(accommodation, transport, eating and leisure cost) are tested within the two
different groups of tourists (Greeks and foreigners). Table 5 following presents the
effect of nationality on the tourists’ perceptions about the tourist costs at Lesvos
Island. It is found that nationality significantly affects the tourists’ perception about
the level of: a) accommodation cost (Chi-sq= 15,905, p=0,014), b) transport cost
((Chi-sq= 162,726, p=0,000), c) eating cost (Chi-sq= 80,810, p=0,000), and d) leisure
cost (Chi-sq=37,395, p=0,000).
TABLE 5. Cross-tab statistics of Greek and foreigners tourists’ perceptions about the
tourist costs at Lesvos Island
Tourists’ perceptions about the tourist costs at Lesvos Island
43
Extremely
Very low
Low
Satisfactory
High
low
Very
Extremely
High
High
Accommodation cost
Greek
16(5%)
19(6,1%)
27(8,6%)
173(59,7%)
49(16,2%)
11(3,6%)
2(0,7%)
Foreigners
5(2,5%)
21(12,1%)
18(9%)
134(66,3%)
16(8%)
4(2%)
0(0%)
Transport cost
Greek
4(1,4%)
9(3,1%)
11(3,5%)
104(35,1%)
104(35,1%)
35(11,5%)
32(10,4%)
Foreigners
18(9,1%)
37(18,2%)
34(16,7%)
103(51%)
7(3,5%)
2(1%)
1(0,5%)
Greek
6(2%)
16(5,4%)
42(142%)
184(61,7%)
40(13,6%)
6(2%)
3(1%)
Foreigners
20(10,1%)
40(20,1%)
57(28,1%)
78(38,7%)
4(2%)
1(0,5%)
1(0,5%)
Greek
8(3%)
11(4,1%)
48(17,7%)
162(598%)
31(11,4%)
7(2,6%)
4(1,5%)
Foreigners
21(11,2%)
28(15%)
28(15%)
96(51,3%)
12(6,4%)
0(0%)
2(1,1%)
Eating Cost
Leisure Cost
It is noted that the majority of tourists (both Greek and foreigners) perceive that the
tourist cost (comprising by accommodation, transport, eating and leisure cost) is
satisfactory. Furthermore, accommodations cost, together to eating cost and to leisure
cost are perceived lower by the foreigner tourists, than by the Greek tourists. This
suggests that Lesvos Island is a cheap tourist destination, comparing to other
destinations. On the other hand, transport cost is perceived lower by the Greek
tourists, than by the foreigner ones, maybe because the majority of foreigner tourists
have travelled by air from their countries and from the capital of Greece in order to
visit the island
5. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
Island areas have enormous potential to develop a tourism industry, which is a futureoriented industry and an important factor for regional development, especially in the
last decades. The aim of the paper has been to identify the demographic profile and
the characteristics of the tourists’ holidays at Lesvos Island in Greece, based on tourist
grouping of both Pearce (2005) and Cohen (1972, 2004), in order to obtain a better
understanding of the tourism demand at the island. The perceived satisfaction from
the tourist cost at the island (indicating by accommodation, transport, eating and
leisure cost) has additionally been analysed in order to estimate the capability of the
44
island to attract higher-class tourists, which will impact to the economic development
of the island.
Data were collected from 499 tourists (both Greek and foreigners) at Lesvos Island
during summer 2005. The demographic profile of the tourists considers characteristics
like: nationality, age, gender, educational and income level and marital status (based
on the categorization of Pearce (2005, pp.27). It is found that, in the survey sample,
59,9% are Greek, while the remaining 41,5% are foreigners. Additionally, 38% of the
respondents are male, while the remaining 62% are female (this finding was expected,
due to the fact that Lesvos –the island of lesbian poetess Sappho- usually attracts
lesbian women for holidays, especially in summer time. In addition, the majority of
the tourists at the island in the summer time (both Greek and foreigners) are between
20-40 years old, they hold a graduate educational degree, while they have sufficient
income earnings. It is also found that the more the tourists earn, the more likely they
are to visit the island for vacations, while if they “can hardly make ends meet” are
more likely to visit the island for family, educational or other purposes. These
findings suggest that Lesvos is a middle and low-class summer seaside tourist
destination, as Rontos and Sfakianakis (2009) have also emphasised for tourism in
Greece. It is also noted that they have the characteristics of the new tourists suggested
by Poon (1993). In addition, the tourists having a descent from the island are more
likely to visit the island for family reasons, than other tourists.
The survey has also considered the holidays’ characteristics at the island in question,
together to the travel characteristics to/from the island, based on Pearse (2005) joint
category called “traveling style distinctions”, presented at section 2.
Referring to the characteristics of the holidays at the island, the results suggest that
most of the tourists visit Lesvos Island for vacations while a few for educational and/
or work purposes, indicating the additional role of the University of the Aegean for
the tourism development of the island and the wider Aegean island area. It is also
estimated that the vast majority organise their holidays from their own, and not via a
travel agency. This fact, classifies tourists visiting Lesvos to the third Cohen’s tourist
type (non- institutionalised tourist- explorer) suggesting a possibility of higher per
capita expense of tourists and thus a higher profit for local business in the tourism
45
sector, as travel agencies (especially the international) control prices for relevant
services, a common practice for most of the Aegean Islands (Buhalis, 1999).
Additionally, the main reasons for choosing Lesvos for holidays are both the physical
environment and the culture of the island and the low tourist cost at the island, while
they are usually informed about the history and the culture of the island. Most of the
tourists accommodate at renting rooms and less at hotels, friends or relatives, and
camping, within the island. It is also found that foreigners are likely to stay more days
at the island than Greek tourists do, while they spend statistically significant more
money per day of stay.
Regarding to the characteristics of the tourists’ travel to/from the island, it is found
that, the majority travel by ship from the mainland, while many of them have
combined the holidays at Lesvos with a visit to Turkey and /or another neighboring
island, which indicates that the Aegean Island region, together to the neighboring
casts of Turkey should sometimes been considered as a common tourist destination.
Additionally, referring to the tourists’ mobility within the island, it is found that most
of the tourists even take their own car even they rent a car at the island.
It is also noted that the majority of the tourists significantly perceive that the tourist
cost (comprising by accommodation, transport, eating and leisure cost) at the island in
question is satisfactory. This suggests that Lesvos Island is a relative cheap tourist
destination, related to other destinations, referring to its tourism product.
Additionally, due to Kozak and Rimmington (2000), this finding suggests that the
perceived low tourist cost at the island in question affects the tourist’s choice of the
holiday destination and the decision to visit the island in the future.
Referring to the foreigner tourists, they come mainly from the UK and the
Netherlands (this finding is relevant to Rontos and Sfakianakis, 2009). The profile of
the foreigner tourists at the island consists (additionally to the above presented
common characteristics) by the following: they usually come to Lesvos Island with
company (partner, friends, and family), more than Greek tourists do, while they have
organized their holidays via a travel agency. This suggests that the foreigner tourists
at the island belong to the second tourist type regarding Cohen’s categorisation
46
(institutionalised—individual mass tourist). In addition, foreigners perceive that
accommodation cost, eating cost and leisure cost at the island is lower related to other
tourism destinations, while they perceive that the cost of travel to and from the island
is higher compared to other places.
Finally, it could be said that, when considering the totality of tourists (both Greek and
foreigners) at Lesvos Island, the majority of them belong to the Cohen’s tourist type
called explorer, while the majority of foreigner tourists belong to the type individual
mass tourist, suggesting that Greek and foreigner tourists have to be considered (by
the public and business decision makers, the marketers, the tourism industry lobby
groups, etc) as separate market segments within the tourist market for the island in
question, in order to advance their services and to increase profit for local business in
the tourism sector at the island.
Concluding, it is noted that it is common place that tourism industry is the most
important source of foreign exchange income for the island economies. Especially for
the Greek islands, their main advantage is the tourism product, which includes the
culture, the history, the environment and the geographical location of the islands. This
suggests that alternative types of tourism (culture tourism, ecotourism, agro tourism)
could also become an income source for the economies of the Greek islands. It is also
noted that these forms of tourism are based on the unique characteristics and
resources of each area (Lagos, 1998). Future research has to consider Pearse’s (2005),
third type of tourists’ categorization: “product and activity classifications”, via
considering the estimation of the profile of the tourists who are prone to visit Lesvos
Island for the above mentioned alternative types of tourism.
References
1. Brett, P., (1987). The development of tourism. Tourism Management, 1.
2. Brotherton, B. and Mooney, S., (1992). Yield management-progress and
prospects. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 11(1), 23-32.
3. Bruce, M., (1987). New technology and the future of tourism. Tourism
Management, 2.
47
4. Brymer, R., (1991). Employee empowerment: A guest-driven leadership
strategy. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly.
5. Buhalis, D., (1993). RICIRMS as strategic tool for small and medium tourism
enterprises. Tourism Management.
6. Buhalis, D., (1999). Tourism on the Greek Islands: issues of peripherality,
competitiveness and development. International Journal of Tourism Research,
1(5), 341-358.
7. Burkart, A. J. and Medlik, S., (1981). Tourism: Past, present and future.
Heinemann, London.
8. Burkart, A. J., (1982). Tourism key issue for the 1980s. Long Range
Planning 15(4).
9. Cohen, E., (1972). Toward a Sociology of International Tourism. Social
Research, 39, 164-182.
10. Cohen, E., (2004). Contemporary Tourism: Diversity and Change. New York,
Elsevier.
11. Foo, J-A., McGuiggan, R. and Yiannakis, A., (2004). Roles tourists play:
An
Australian
perspective.
Annals
of
Tourism
Research,
31(2), 408-427.
12. Galani-Moutafi, V., (2004). Tourism research on Greece: A critical overview.
Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 157-179.
13. Gursoy, D. and Gavcar, E., (2003). International leisure tourists’
involvement profile. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(4), 906-926.
14. Kitrinou, E. and Polydoropoulou, A., (2007). Competitiveness of Travel
Modes in Island Areas due to Relocation and Teleworking. Proceedings of the
1st
International
Scientific
Conference:
«Competitiveness
and
Complementarity of Transport Modes, Perspectives for the Development of
Intermodal Transport», University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece, 10, 11 and
12 May 2007.
15. Kozak, M. and Rimmington, M., (2000). Satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as
an off-Season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 260269.
16. Kuo, C-M., (2009). The managerial implications of an analysis of tourist
profiles and international hotel employee service attitude. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(3), 302-309.
48
17. Lagos, D., (1998). Tourism and sustainable development at regional level:
The case of Greek island region. Proceedings of the International Congress on
Sustainable Development in theIslands and the Role of Research and Higher
Education. Rhodes, Greece.
18. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, (1967).
Tourism Development and Economic Growth, OECD, Paris, 11-15.
19. Pearce, P. L, (2005). Aspects of Tourism: Tourist Behaviour. Viva Books
Private Limited
20. Poon, A., (1993). Tourism, Technology, and Competitive Strategies. Cab
Intern., Wallingford.
21. Rontos, K. and Sfakianakis, M. E., (2009). Recent development and
prospects of qualitative tourism in Greece: a statistical approach. Int. J.
Applied Systemic Studies, 2(3), 226–241.
22. Urry, J., (1990). The Tourist Gaze. California, Sage Publications.
23. Urry, J., (1995). Consuming Places. New York, Routledge.
24. Urry, J., (2000). Sociology beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-first
Century. New York, Routledge.
25. WTO, (1985) Regional Breakdown of World Travel and Tourism Statistics.
26. WTO, (2004). Sustainable Development of Tourism - Conceptual definition.
27. Yiannakis, A. and Gibson, H., (1992). Roles tourists play. Annals of Tourism
Research, 19(2), 287-303.