11th Global Forum on Tourism Statistics
Reykjavík, 14 to 16 November 2012
SESSION 4: HOW TO USE TOURISM STATISTICS AND
TSA FOR BUSINESS DECISIONS AND POLICY MAKING
Propensity to travel – The
household perspective
Travel survey of residents and other social
statistics data
Statistics Portugal
Maria João Molina Vicente
Porfírio Norberto Dias Leitão
September | 2012
Abstract
In tourism statistics, the observation unit is often the individual. This is enough for most
approaches within the tourism industry, because their focus lies mainly on the financial side
(revenue per room and traveller expenses). However, travelling decisions, particularly when
households experience income shortages, are often collective. Therefore, we propose an analysis to
tourism data that surpasses the traditional approach to what is viewed as an individual trip. The
household perspective seems to matter when it comes to the propensity to travel. The key elements
to our analysis are based on the household aggregated sample of the 2011 Portuguese Travel
Survey of Residents (TSR) and show that the average travel propensity (45,3%) is surpassed for
households with higher earnings (80,9%), younger households (53,7%), households having
students (53,6%) and households that do not include retired members (50,8%). The higher the
income, the higher the propensity for households to travel. It rises from 39,5% in households with
incomes under EUR 2000 to 80,9% in households with incomes of EUR 2000 or more.
Key Words: Household travelling; travelling decision; tourism industry.
2
1. Frame of reference
Travelling is usually at the centre of all touristic activity, namely because it expresses a journey that
involves income spending and, thus, contributes to the touristic national accounts. Tourism is often
thought of as an activity where the main focus is on the individual – the tourist. Nevertheless, any
journey is preceded by a decision to travel that is often made within the household. This is rarely
considered in most of tourism approaches which tend to view the individual as a single traveller.
There is usually a great deal of ‘negotiation’ within the household members when it comes to
travelling decisions because it implies significant logistic and financial resources usage that no
longer remain available for the family. Moreover, there is a certain amount of expenditure made by
the households that does not correspond to the mere sum of its single individual’s expenditure. A
trip taken by a single individual in the household involves costs that may not necessarily be
multiplied by the number of the individuals in the household, if they travel together.
This paper intends to cast attention to the fact that household’s characteristics influence the
travelling decision and, thus, more analytic effort should be drawn to the household perspective.
The results of the Portuguese Travel Survey of Residents (TSR) for the year 2011 provide the basis
for an assessment of household travel behaviour rather than the usual individual trips analysis.
2. Investigation focus and limitations
This study is mainly concerned with giving focus to the household as a statistical unit. Due to the
fact that the approach is based on the household as a whole, there are many variables of the TSR,
which are collected at the individual level 1 that cannot be considered for the purpose of household
analysis. With the remaining variables that are collected at the household level in this survey, the
framework of analysis was narrowed to the variables listed in Annexe I.
These variables by themselves somehow limit the flexibility to group households by a larger
number of characteristics that may influence the travelling decision. The sample size itself was
significantly reduced when changing from an individual oriented sample (more than 59 000
individuals) to a household oriented sample (6 775 households). Moreover, the travelling
phenomenon in Portugal, as in other countries, has low frequencies (and, therefore, low counts
when grouping data), which inhibits the usage of statistical tests for a number of cross tabled data.
1
The original sample was not sized to match the national household distribution but the individual stratification.
3
However, using the survey variables that can be assigned to households, data was grouped and
cross tabulated in order to find differences between sub-samples of households and a series of tests
were used to evaluate quantitative data.
3. The Portuguese Travel Survey of Residents set of data
This study is based on the analysis of trips outside the household’s usual environment that involve
spending at least one night away from that environment, according to data from the Portuguese
Travel Survey of Residents (TSR) that is conducted at a national level on a monthly basis, with the
sample being renewed every 24 months.
For the purpose of this analysis, data was weighted to account for the calibration2 of household’s
geographical distribution, according to the placement of Census3 lodgements4. These weights were
calculated to expand the sample to match the 2011 Census results by household size, number of
people under 15 years old and over 65 years old, in order to better express the contribution of each
household travelling occurrence in terms of its representativeness in the Census main sample.
These variables were considered the most relevant in terms of the calibration with the Census data,
given the fact that not every variable of the TSR is compatible or comparable to the set of variables
used in Census, because of methodological differences that underlie each statistical operation 5.
Each household in the dataset was assigned a household weight, based on the area of residence and
two age categories (under 15 years old and over 65 years old). According to these weightings, in the
2011 TSR sample there were 6 775 households which account for 4 040 985 households in the
Census main sample6.
The method used to launch the weighting process was Jackknife and there were deduced two weighting factors: one
considering the geographical approach of NUTS II and the other not considering this spatial approach. Since the travelling
decision is not irrespective of the household location, the geographical weighting factor was used for the computations.
2
3
In Portugal, the latest Census operation took place on the 21st of March 2011 and preliminary results were available in
April 2012, when TSR final results of 2011 were also closed.
The main sample used in Census refers to lodging units, not exactly households. However, for weighting purposes this does
not imply significant differences to the final weighting factors.
4
Many more variables could theoretically have been considered. However, their contribution to the final weighting factor
would be minimal.
5
6
All the computations were conducted with these weighing factors on set, except when calculating TSR unweighted sample
frequencies or when the weighting factor induced system overload.
4
4. The household point of view
Low income households and one third with at least one senior
The average Portuguese household in the sample has a low income category. In fact, 86% of the
expanded sample households have incomes no higher than EUR 2 000. Among the lowest income
group, one third of the households are single, whereas in the EUR 1001 to 2000 income group, only
9,4% are single households.
Table 4.1 – Percentage of households, by income group
Income
Group
Under EUR 1000
EUR 1001-2000
EUR 2001- 3000
EUR 3000 or over
%
53,2%
32,8%
9,3%
4,7%
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
Table 4.2 – Percentage of single and non single households, by income group
Income
Group
Under EUR 1000
EUR 1001-2000
EUR 2001-3000
EUR 3000 or over
Single household
Yes
No
%
%
33,2%
66,8%
9,4%
90,6%
4,5%
95,5%
4,2%
95,8%
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
Slightly more than one third of the households have at least one senior individual, whereas in
27,6% there is at least one person younger than 15 years old7.
7
For the purpose of this study, the Children group refers to people aged less than 15 years old.
5
Children
At least one children
Seniors
Fig. 4.1– Percentage of households with children and seniors
At least one senior
27,6%
72,4%
No children
34,0%
66,0%
No senior individuals
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
As for the size of the household, there are more than 20% of households which are single
households and, from those, 62,6% are elderly people living alone. The average household has 2,58
individuals and no people under 15 years old or over 65. The most frequent size of the household
(mode) is two people 8.
Fig. 4.2 – Percentage of households by size
Two person
Hh
31,6%
One person
Hh
21,4%
More than
two persons
Hh
47,0%
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
The percentage of households with at least one senior and with lower incomes (under EUR 2 000)
is 71,7%, whereas if there is no senior within the household that percentage drops to 43,7%.
8
More detailed results for the TSR 2011 households characteristics can be found in Annexe I.
6
Fig. 4.3 – Percentage of households with at least one senior and with no seniors, by income group
At least one
senior
No senior
71,7%
19,7%
43,7%
Under EUR 1000
39,6%
EUR 1001-2000
EUR 2001-3000
5,8%
11,1%
2,8%
5,7%
EUR 3000 or over
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
High percentages of households with no trips
In every country, even those with higher propensities to travel, there is always a significant part of
the population that is “disenfranchised and not part of such movement” (Lohmann & Danielsson,
2001). Portugal is one of these cases with 54,7% of the TSR sample not having made any trip of any
kind, outside the usual environment, over the year 2011. Even admitting that there are always
people absent from the tourism phenomenon, this expresses both a culturally and an income driven
absence of trips that has been persistent over the years.
Fig. 4.4 – Percentage of households with no trips and with one or more trips
One or
more trips
45,3%
No trips
54,7%
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
7
Travel propensity higher for households with higher earnings, students and
non retired
The travelling propensity, measured by the percentage of the households in the sample that took at
least one touristic trip outside their usual environment in 2011, exhibits some differences 9 that
suggest further analysis on this phenomenon, taking the household unit as reference. This bivariate
analysis falls short to explain other cultural and socio-economic factors that underlie a population
travelling habits. However, for the purpose of this study it is important to assess aggregated and
cross tabled data, comparing variables that may influence the travelling decision. Data in Table 4.3
shows the existence of trips, according to the size of the household, income group, average age of its
members and existence of at least one employed or unemployed, retired or student in the
household.
Around 60% of the single households took no trips over the year 2011, which compares to 54,7% of
households which also made no trips in the global weighted sample and 53,2% of non single
households that didn’t travel. Furthermore, within the households with higher earnings, the
percentage of those with no trips over the year of 2011 falls considerably. It drops from 60,5% to
19,1% for households with incomes of EUR 2 000 or more. This is the most dramatic drop from one
category to another, suggesting that income is in fact of major importance to differentiate those
who travel at least once, from those who don’t travel at all.
More than half of younger households made at least one trip compared to 39,5% of households
whose member average ages is 40 or over. Among the households where at least one person is
employed, more than half did travel in 2011 vis-à-vis with 34,1% where no one is employed10.
Having one person unemployed or retired in the household also increases the no trip parcel in 8,2
and 7,1 basis points, respectively, when comparing with the total no trip parcel in the weighted
sample. The households with at least one student are less represented in the no trips group.
9
These differences were all found significant at a 95% level of confidence.
The latter group includes households with retired people.
10
8
Table 4.3 – Propensity to travel for households according to its characteristics
Trips made
No
trips
One or
more trips
54,7%
45,3%
Yes
60,1%
39,9%
No
53,2%
46,8%
< EUR 2000
60,5%
39,5%
>= EUR 2000
19,1%
80,9%
Under 40
46,3%
53,7%
40 or over
60,1%
39,9%
At least one person employed within
the household
Yes
48,5%
51,5%
No
65,9%
34,1%
At least one person unemployed
within the household
Yes
62,9%
37,1%
No
52,6%
47,4%
At least one person retired within the
household
Yes
61,8%
38,2%
No
49,2%
50,8%
At least one student within the
household
Yes
46,4%
53,6%
No
58,7%
41,3%
All households
Single household
Income
Average age of the households
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
Regarding the propensity to travel, in general, and to take long trips (three or more night trips) or
abroad trips, there are also some differences that are worthy of further insight, especially when
analysing data by age groups. For the purpose of this analysis only younger and older groups were
considered11.
The results for the 2011 Portuguese TSR show that among those households with at least one
younger member (under 15 years old), the propensity to travel is actually higher than average. The
same applies to long trips and abroad trips. In this latter case, only when children are very young
(under four years old) does the propensity to travel fall a little below average. It also decreases by
the time children are at the age of 10 to 14 years old.
11
A more exhaustive breakdown would be required in order to reveal age patterns that could also be assessed by means of
a cohort longitudinal study.
9
Fig. 4.5 – Propensity to travel for households with children, by age group
52,7%
53,7%
37,6%
39,4%
51,6%
45,3%
36,5%
31,2%
17,6%
12,7%
12,1%
All Households
=<4 years old
12,9%
5-9
Trips made
10-14
Long trips
Abroad trips
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
Considering older age groups, the households including middle aged people until 59 years old
exhibit higher travelling propensities than average (except for long trips from 55 to 59 years old). It
is only for households with people from 60 years old on, that the propensity to travel starts to fall
slightly below the average. However, the 65 to 69 age group shows a recovery attempt and it is only
from 70 years old onwards that the rate at which the travel propensity declines is irrevocable.
Fig. 4.6 – Propensity to travel for households with middle aged or senior individuals, by age group
45,3%
31,2%
48,3%
48,0%
43,6%
32,6%
43,5%
36,9%
30,8%
28,7%
31,1%
26,4%
29,5%
20,1%
12,7%
All
Households
15,5%
50-54
14,0%
11,2%
55-59
60-64
Trips made
Long trips
11,6%
65-69
8,6%
70-74
Abroad trips
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
10
4,8%
75 or more
Less than one trip on average by purpose
For those who did take a trip, the average of trips taken is low, not surpassing one trip, for any of
the purposes considered. The unweighted sum of trips adds up to 7 763, which represents 6,7
million trips in the main sample i.e. weighing data. With the application of weightings, the average
number of trips also rises from 1,15 to 1,6512, although the most frequent result is still the non
existence of trips. Additionally, no trip purpose by itself both in the weighted or unweighted sample
induced on average more than one trip in 2011.
Although crucial to the tourism industry, the motivation to travel is difficult to assess because
subjective factors emerge in the travelling decision such as the travelling experience itself (Sharma,
2005). The TSR collects three main purposes for the trip - Leisure, Visiting family or friends and
Business – and not the reasons for travelling themselves.
Data reveals that adding up all kinds of trips made by the household in 2011 the average trips is
1,65 over the year 2011 although the median and mode are zero.
Table 4.4 – Trips taken by purpose – descriptive measures
Number of trips - All purposes (Sum)
Number of trips - Leisure
Number of trips - Visiting family or friends
Number of trips - Professional/business
Number of trips - Other purposes
Mean
Median
Mode
Std. Dev
Sum
%
1,65
0,71
0,74
0,17
0,03
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,47
1,78
2,40
0,93
0,23
6.664.213
2.853.276
2.990.100
697.621
123.216
100,0%
42,8%
44,9%
10,5%
1,8%
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
For larger households with lower incomes, the average of trips is smaller, suggesting that even
when one member travels, no other members go along. In turn, for larger households, the average
trip almost doubles if the household has at least two persons13.
12
13
Considering the sum of all kinds of trips, regardless of the purpose.
More figures concerning average trips can be found in Annexe III .
11
Table 4.5 – Average trips (all purposes) by household characteristics and household size
Household Size
All households
Income
Average age of the households
At least one person employed within the
household
At least one person unemployed within
the household
At least one person retired within the
household
At least one student within the
household
One
person
Two
persons
More than
two persons
All households
1,41
1,56
1,82
Until EUR 2000
EUR 2000 or
over
Under 40
40 or over
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
1,37
1,10
1,12
2,53
4,89
4,57
3,09
1,29
2,40
1,09
1,24
1,42
1,10
1,97
,81
2,27
1,42
2,04
1,09
1,21
1,62
1,37
1,87
1,66
1,91
1,60
1,87
1,16
1,15
2,12
1,55
1,89
1,93
No
1,41
1,55
1,62
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
Groups of households with different travelling propensities and trip averages
This bivariate analysis can be further extended, allowing additional insight on the households
travelling behaviour. In fact, by concatenating household characteristics that are assumed to
influence the travelling decision, a new dimension of analysis emerges. The travelling literature
suggests that the travelling decision largely surpasses the mere individual will. Life-stages and lifecycle concepts are dominant to approach the so called contemporary tourist behaviour. This
approach also highlights that the “travel propensity for any country's population is likely to
improve with the rise in income levels, greater urbanization, higher educational attainment, smaller
family size, greater paid leave entitlement,...” (Bowen & Clarke, 2009, p.9).
The socio-cultural aspects that intervene in the process make it difficult to find a model that covers
all the relevant details, although numerous attempts show encouraging results14. Moreover, there
are notably absent in this study all the variables that could comprise a more exhaustive analysis.
However, as a result of the concatenation of the main variables in this study, there are eight
mutually exclusive combinations that emerge, corresponding to eight groups 15 in the 2011 TSR
14
c.f. Jafari, 1987 and Oh, Fiore, & Jeoung, 2007
It has been argued in the literature (c.f. Smithson, 2000) that some of the limitations of using groups in social sciences
have to do with this procedure failing to be unarguable, i.e., many more other groups can be drawn from the variables,
depending on the specific criteria considered. In this study, mutually exclusive groups were drawn from the main variables
and these groups were sorted according to their weight in the sample.
15
12
sample. These groups account for 73,8% of the unweighted sample and 75% of the weighted
sample16 and combine the following variables:
-
Income group
Household size (single vs non single)
Existence of at least one retired person
Existence of at least one student person
Existence of at least one employed person
Existence of at least one unemployed person
Table 4.6– Sample aggregation groups
Group
GROUP 1
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
GROUP 5
GROUP 6
GROUP 7
GROUP 8
Households with at least…
one retired person that does not live alone, with
earnings under EUR 2000
one employed person that does not live alone
and one student, with earnings under EUR 2000
one employed person that does not live alone,
has no students, with earnings under EUR 2000
one retired person that lives alone with
earnings under EUR 2000
one person retired and other employed with
earnings under EUR 2000
one person employed and other unemployed,
with one student and with earnings under EUR
2000
one person employed and other unemployed,
with no students and with earnings under EUR
2000
one person employed, with one student and with
earnings of EUR 2000 or over
Group short
description
Retired, not alone, low
income
Empl, not alone, wth
student, low income
Empl, not alone, no
student, low income
Retired, alone, low
income
Retired and empl, low
income
Empl and unempl, wth
stud, low income
Empl and unempl, no
stud, low income
Empl, wth student, high
income
% of the
weighted sample
12,8
15,0
10,8
13,3
5,9
6,5
5,5
5,1
These groups can only be moderately framed into the life-cycle theory, although they express some
important features of the Portuguese households: retired people living with a non retired spouse or
descendant, employed couples with children, retired people living alone or households with at least
one unemployed member.
Results of group analysis show that the groups 1 and 8 present, respectively, the lowest number
and the highest number of trips, long trips and trips abroad. According to this analysis, the
households that have at least one retired person who does not live alone and shares a relatively low
income with other person or persons (group 1) have the lowest average trips of all eight groups 17.
The following group with fewer propensities to travel is the one that is constituted by households
with at least one unemployed person, one student and low income (group 6). The group of people
retired and living alone is the third group with fewer propensities to travel.
The remaining combinations are each less representative than 4% of the total sample.
The Qui-square statistics shows differences between the travelling and non travelling categories, for all groups, which
showed to be statistically significant at the level of confidence of 95%.
16
17
13
Fig. 4.7 - Propensity to travel of households according to sample groups characteristics
87,7%
74,4%
53,5%
45,3%
38,0%
31,2%
42,4%
28,8%
20,4%
24,4%
13,7%
12,7%
Empl, not
alone, wth
student, low
income
21,8%
26,6%
19,8%
8,1%
Empl, not Retired, alone, Retired and
alone, no
low income
empl, low
student, low
income
income
Empl and
unempl, wth
stud, low
income
8,2%
Trips made
6,6%
Long trips
40,5%
37,4%
33,0%
9,9%
5,1%
All households Retired, not
alone, low
income
40,5%
34,5%
18,3%
10,5%
Empl and
unempl, no
stud, low
income
Empl, wth
student, high
income
Abroad trips
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
Analysing by household size, for most groups and for all trip purposes combined, the predominant
effect of having more than two persons in the household is to diminish the average of trips, except
for group 6 and group 818.
Table 4.7 - Average of trips (sum of all purposes trips), for each sample group, by size of the household
Household Size
All households
One
person
Two
persons
More
than two
persons
1,41
1,56
1,82
GROUP 1
Retired, not alone, low income
,75
,54
GROUP 2
GROUP 3
GROUP 4
GROUP 5
GROUP 6
GROUP 7
Empl, not alone, wth student, low income
Empl, not alone, no student, low income
Retired, alone, low income
Retired and empl, low income
Empl and unempl, wth stud, low income
Empl and unempl, no stud, low income
1,64
1,61
1,40
,97
1,19
,33
1,60
1,19
,77
,95
GROUP 8
Empl, wth student, high income
2,35
5,02
1,09
Source: Portuguese TSR, 2011 (results for the weighted sample)
18
Further group results available in Annexe IV.
14
5. Key findings
The analysis of the 2011 TSR results shows that Portuguese households have not intense travelling
patterns - the aggregated propensity to travel is below 50%. Although the degree of influence that
each factor has over the travelling decision cannot be entirely assessed using only data available19,
this study shows some evidence which suggests that the household perspective is, in fact, relevant.
Data portrays an overall scenario as follows:
1.
Slightly more than one third of the households have at least one senior member, whereas
in 27,6% there is at least one person younger than 15 years old. The average household
income is no higher than EUR 2 000;
2.
There is a high percentage of households with no trips (54,7%). However, the average
travel propensity (45,3%) is surpassed for households with higher earnings (80,9%),
younger households (53,7%), households having students (53,6%) and households that do
not include retired members (50,8%);
3.
The higher the income, the higher the propensity for households to travel. Gross numbers
point out that the propensity to travel rises from 39,5% in households with incomes under
EUR 2000 to 80,9% in households with incomes of 2000 or more EUR;
4.
The percentage of non travellers among single households (60,1%) is higher than average
(54,7%) and higher than that found for households with at least two persons (53,2%).
Considering that most of single households include a retired person (64,9%), and that
87,6% of these households earn no more than 1000 EUR, this does not come as surprising.
If the single retired households effect was to be disregarded, the travel propensity of single
households would rise from 39,9% to 49,5% and the average number of trips (all purposes
considered) would go from 1,65 to 1,91;
5.
Households with children present higher propensities to travel, including long trips (three
or more nights) and abroad trips except when children are very young (under four years
old). In households with older members, it is not until the age of 70 years old that the
propensity to travel starts to drop irrevocably;
6.
Having one person unemployed or retired in the household increases the no trip group of
households by 8,2 and 7,1 basis points, respectively;
7.
Overall, the average number of trips is low for any of the purposes considered, it is only
when adding up trips for all purposes that a 1,64 average number of trips emerges,
accounting for the fact that there are households more prone to travelling which make
more than one trip a year, for different purposes;
The regression analysis that was conducted involved as independent variables the income group, the existence of people
unemployed, the existence of student’s within the household and the age group, having the number of trips as dependent,
showed relatively low figures for R2 and for the parameters. However, the regression essays suggest that low income and the
existence of at least one person unemployed in the household are the most negative contributors to the absolute number of
trips.
19
15
8.
Grouping sample results shows some particularities, namely that the lowest numbers of
travel propensity (28,8%) and trips average (0,74) are to be found for households where
there is at least one retired person with income below EUR 2000 . In turn, the highest
figures belong to the least expressive group which is also the one with incomes of EUR
2000 or over. In this case, the propensity to travel rises to 87,7% and the number of
average trips to 4,95.
16
6. Next steps
The main purpose of this work is to cast attention to the household as an observation unit in the
travelling context. Over the past decades, one can say that developed countries have made their
way towards an almost optimum set of conditions to travel. The main favourable conditions to this
were raising incomes, diminishing of travelling overall expenses, the aviation industry expansion
and the emergency of the so called subjective reasons to travel as key motivations.
The literature on tourist’s motivations by nationality and destination is growing in number and
exhaustiveness. However, the household point of view is not perhaps fully addressed, especially in
the European context where some countries household’s budgets are expected to be affected by the
economic crisis. In fact, this overall scenario leads to rethinking the decision on whether or not to
travel. If households still decide to travel, a much more careful planning is likely to take place.
Expanding the analysis to the household approach should involve combining different data sources
because data immediately available in most national tourism statistics systems may not be
extensive enough in every country to assist this enterprise. However, given the right amount of
comprehensive and complementary information, such as household expenditures surveys, a
satisfactory household travelling model should be attainable.
Additionally, more attention should be driven to the reasons not to travel in the context of the
household. This would be especially useful in counties with low travel propensities as Portugal. Is it
mainly a budget restraint matter, as data suggests? Or are there other relevant behavioural aspects
that influence the decision not to travel? If so, what other tourism marketing approaches could
captivate more people and more families to the travelling experience? In this regard, the household
perspective has certainly a significant contribution to make, extending the possibilities to address
travelling behaviour in a different angle.
17
7. References
Bowen, D., & Clarke, J. (2009). Contemporary Tourist Behaviour: Yourself and Others as Tourists.
CABI.
Hsu, C. H. C., & Cai, L. A. (2009). Expectation, Motivation, and Attitude: A Tourist Behavioral Model.
Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 282–296.
Jafari, J. (1987). Tourism models: the sociocultural aspects. Tourism Management, 8(2), 151–159.
Keller, P., & Bieger, T. (2006). Marketing Efficiency in Tourism: Coping with Volatile Demand. Erich
Schmidt.
Kozak, M. (2002). Comparative analysis of tourist motivations by nationality and destinations.
Tourism Managment, 23(3), 221–232.
Lohmann, M., & Danielsson, J. (2001). Predicting travel patterns of senior citizens: How the past
may provide a key to the future. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 357–366.
Oh, H., Fiore, A. M., & Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring Experience Economy Concepts: Tourism
Applications. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 119–132.
Sharma, K. K. (2005). Tourism And Development. Sarup & Sons.
Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and possibilities. Social Research
Methodology, 3(2), 103–109.
18
8. Annexes
19
Annexe I - Travel Survey of Residents - Set of variables used in the study
Type of Variable
Time
Variable
Year
Factors
2011
Household Characteristics
Number of individuals within the household
Min- max
Household Characteristics
Number of individuals under 15 years old
Min- max
Household Characteristics
Number of individuals over 65 years old
Min- max
Under EUR 1000 | EUR
1001- 2000| EUR 20013000 | EUR 3000 or over
Household Characteristics
Income Group
Household Characteristics
Average age of the households
Household Characteristics
At least one person employed within the household
Yes | No
Household Characteristics
At least one person unemployed within the household
Yes | No
Household Characteristics
At least one person retired within the household
Yes | No
Household Characteristics
At least one student within the household
Yes | No
Number of Trips
Number of Trips
Number of trips taken (all purposes)
Min- max
Number of trips taken - Leisure
Min- max
Number of Trips
Number of trips taken - Visiting family or friends
Min- max
Number of Trips
Number of trips taken - Professional/business
Min- max
Number of Trips
Number of trips taken - Other purposes
Min- max
Duration of Trips
Three or more nights trips
Yes | No
Trips
Abroad trips
Number
Trips
National trips
Trips
Number of nights spent
Weighing
Under 40 years old |
40 years old or over
Number
Min- max
Drawn from 2011 Census
data, considering the
number of individuals
under 15 years old and the
number of individuals over
65 years old
Weight factor with NUTS II
20
Annexe II - Travel Survey of Residents – household’s main characteristics
Weighted Weighted Unweighted
Count
N%
Count
Number of households - Total
4.040.985
100,0%
6.775
Average age of the household
49,1 years
Most frequent income group
Households with income under EUR 2000
50,4 years
Under EUR 1000 (53,1%)
86,0%
At least one person employed
64,3%
At least one person unemployed
20,5%
At least one person retired
43,8%
At least one student
32,7%
Single households
Single households with at least one senior
865.046
541.547
21,4%
62,6%
1.068
685
Senior individuals within the household
1.373.522
34,0%
2.937
Junior individuals within the household
1.113.989
27,6%
1.646
21
Annexe III - Travel Survey of Residents – Average trips of households
Average leisure trips, by household size
Household Size
All households
Income (under or over 2000)
Average age of the households
under or over 40 years
At least one person employed
within the household
At least one person
unemployed within the
household
At least one person retired
within the household
At least one student within the
household
One person
Two persons
Number of trips
- Leisure
Mean
,40
,38
,90
,80
,37
,74
,29
,41
Number of trips
- Leisure
Mean
,68
,38
2,73
1,04
,61
,87
,48
,46
More than two
persons
Number of trips
- Leisure
Mean
,86
,53
2,18
,92
,73
,89
,50
,48
No
,40
,72
1,04
Yes
No
Yes
No
,31
,56
,00
,40
,64
,75
,71
,68
,70
,91
,96
,70
All households
Until EUR 2000
EUR 2000 or over
Under 40
40 or over
Yes
No
Yes
Average of visiting family or friends trips, by household size
Household Size
All households
Income (under or over 2000)
Average age of the households
under or over 40 years
At least one person employed
within the household
At least one person
unemployed within the
household
At least one person retired
within the household
At least one student within the
household
One person
Two persons
Number of trips
- Visiting family
or friends
Mean
,89
,90
,58
1,73
,83
1,26
,77
,76
Number of trips
- Visiting family
or friends
Mean
,73
,58
1,86
1,03
,67
,93
,53
,67
More than two
persons
Number of trips
- Visiting family
or friends
Mean
,68
,42
1,68
,69
,66
,69
,53
,51
No
,89
,74
,76
Yes
No
Yes
No
,76
1,13
,81
,89
,61
,92
,74
,73
,63
,69
,66
,72
All households
Until EUR 2000
EUR 2000 or over
Under 40
40 or over
Yes
No
Yes
22
Average of professional/business trips, by household size
Household Size
All households
Income (under or over 2000)
Average age of the households
under or over 40 years
At least one person employed
within the household
At least one person
unemployed within the
household
At least one person retired
within the household
At least one student within the
household
One person
Two persons
Number of trips
Professional/bu
siness
Mean
,10
,07
1,04
,55
,07
,37
,01
,05
Number of trips
Professional/bu
siness
Mean
,12
,10
,26
,14
,11
,19
,05
,05
More than two
persons
Number of trips
Professional/bu
siness
Mean
,24
,14
,66
,27
,18
,26
,07
,15
No
,10
,13
,29
Yes
No
Yes
No
,01
,26
,00
,10
,09
,16
,12
,12
,19
,26
,28
,17
All households
Until EUR 2000
EUR 2000 or over
Under 40
40 or over
Yes
No
Yes
Average trips for households with at least one person unemployed, by purpose of the trip
At least one
unemployed
Mean
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Number of trips - All purposes
Number of trips - Leisure
Number of trips - Visiting family or friends
Number of trips - Professional/business
Number of trips - Other purposes
1,77
1,17
,77
,47
,79
,56
,19
,12
,03
,02
Std.
Dev.
3,633
2,702
1,884
1,300
2,507
1,938
,980
,658
,245
,206
Std.
Error
Mean
,002
,003
,001
,001
,001
,002
,001
,001
,000
,000
Average trips for households with at least one person retired, by purpose of the trip
Number of trips - All purposes
Number of trips - Leisure
Number of trips - Visiting family or friends
Number of trips - Professional/business
Number of trips - Other purposes
At least one
person retired
within the
household
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
23
Mean
1,90
1,33
,83
,55
,80
,66
,24
,09
,03
,03
Std. Dev.
3,701
3,124
1,818
1,725
2,562
2,181
1,077
,670
,242
,231
Std.
Error
Mean
,002
,002
,001
,001
,002
,002
,001
,001
,000
,000
Average of trips for households with at least one student, by purpose of the trip
Number of trips - All purposes
Number of trips - Leisure
Number of trips - Visiting family or friends
Number of trips - Professional/business
Number of trips - Other purposes
At least one
student within
the household
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
24
Mean
1,52
1,91
,59
,94
,78
,66
,13
,27
,03
,04
Std. Dev.
3,376
3,649
1,698
1,928
2,434
2,338
,830
1,086
,213
,281
Std. Error
Mean
,002
,003
,001
,002
,001
,002
,001
,001
,000
,000
Annexe IV - Travel Survey of Residents – Groups of households and average trips in 2011
Average and sum of trips, for each group, by trip purpose
All purposes
GROUP 1 - Retired, non single
household, income under EUR
2000
GROUP 2 - Employed, non single
household, with students, income
under EUR 2000
GROUP 3 - Employed, non single
household, with no students,
income under EUR 2000
GROUP 4 - Retired, single
household, income under EUR
2000
GROUP 5 - Employed and retired,
with no students, non single
household, income under EUR
2000
GROUP 6 - Employed and
unemployed, with students, non
single household, income under
EUR 2000
GROUP 7 - Employed and
unemployed,
non
single
household, with no students,
income under EUR 2000
GROUP 8 - Employed, non single
household, with students, income
EUR 2000 or over
Leisure
Visiting family
or friends
Professional/
business
Other purposes
Mean
Sum
Mean
Sum
Mean
Sum
Mean
Sum
Mean
Sum
,74
384.321
,28
143.752
,40
206.470
,04
21.987
,02
12.112
1,42
862.324
,77
466.224
,43
260.884
,18
110.853
,04
24.363
1,32
575.853
,47
203.827
,67
290.274
,16
67.834
,03
13.919
1,09
584.608
,29
156.648
,76
408.370
,01
5.853
,03
13.736
1,19
283.329
,39
94.095
,62
147.642
,15
36.134
,02
5.457
,77
202.373
,29
76.131
,34
89.974
,11
28.152
,03
8.116
1,22
272.759
,54
121.063
,61
136.524
,06
13.104
,01
2.067
4,95
1.024.075
2,55
527.439
1,55
320.144
,79
164.484
,06
12.009
25
Average trips, for each group, by trip purpose and size of the household
Household size
GROUP 1 - Retired, non single
household, income under EUR
2000
Number
of trips Leisure
Number of trips
- Visiting family
or friends
Number of
trips Professional/b
usiness
Number of
trips Other
purposes
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
One person
Two persons
,75
,28
,40
,04
,02
More than two
persons
,54
,14
,30
0,00
,10
Two persons
1,64
,76
,63
,09
,16
More than two
persons
1,40
,77
,41
,19
,03
1,61
,50
,86
,22
,03
,97
,42
,43
,08
,03
1,09
,29
,76
,01
,03
Two persons
1,19
,34
,65
,18
,01
More than two
persons
1,19
,46
,58
,11
,03
Two persons
,33
0,00
,33
0,00
0,00
More than two
persons
,77
,29
,34
,11
,03
1,60
,59
,94
,05
,02
,95
,51
,38
,06
,00
Two persons
2,35
1,11
,58
,65
0,00
More than two
persons
5,02
2,59
1,57
,80
,06
GROUP 2 - Employed, non
single household, with
students, income under EUR
2000
One person
GROUP 3 - Employed, non
single household, with no
students, income under EUR
2000
One person
GROUP 4 - Retired, single
household, income under EUR
2000
Number of
trips - All
purposes
Two persons
More than two
persons
One person
Two persons
More than two persons
GROUP 5 - Employed and
retired, with no students, non
single household, income
under EUR 2000
One person
GROUP 6 - Employed and
unemployed, with students,
non single household, income
under EUR 2000
One person
GROUP 7 - Employed and
unemployed, non single
household, with no students,
income under EUR 2000
One person
GROUP 8 - Employed, non
single household, with
students, income EUR 2000 or
over
One person
Two persons
More than two
persons
26