Cruiseship Travel in Alaska: A Profile of Passengers

Field, Donald R.; Clark, R. N.; Koth, Barbara

doi:10.1177/004728758502400201

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Components of the tourism economy that relate to nonconsumptive uses of wildlife include transportation, accommodations, shopping, and other activities (McIntosh and Goeldner, 1986). Tourists visit Alaska primarily for its scenery and wildlife (Field et al, 1985). Hence, we believe the economic viability of Alaska's tourism industry rests largely on how natural resources are perceived, managed, and used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences among Nonresident Tourists Making Consumptive and Nonconsumptive Uses of Alaskan Wildlife

Snepenger¹,

Bowyer²

1990

ARCTIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Tourism is an important sector of Alaska's economy; 23% of 4202 parties of tourists vacationing in Alaska from October 1982 to September 1983 indicated they hunted or fished. Tourists making consumptive use (hunting or fishing) of wildlife differed significantly from other visitors. Those who hunted or fished 1) were in larger groups that contained a higher proportion of males; 2) tended to be younger; 3) were more involved in planning their vacation as indicated by starting the planning for their trip earlier and using more sources of information; 4) spent longer in the state and camped more often; 5 ) were more likely to charter aircraft within Alaska; 6) rated their experience highly, but thought they received a lower value for monies spent: 7) expended fewer total funds on their vacation; and 8) were more likely to return to Alaska than their counterparts who neither hunted nor fished. Visitors who used wildlife consumptively provided funds directly to the state for the conservation of these species through the purchase of hunting and fishing licenses and the subsequent receipt by the state of federal funds via the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson acts. No formal mechanism exists for nonconsumptive users to aid wildlife conservation even though some nonconsumptive uses of resources are detrimental to wildlife. Although wildlife and their habitats are an important attractor for tourists, too little attention is given to the long-term benefits from the tourism industry in assessing the economic value of resource development and use that affects wildlife. Key words: Alaska, fishing, hunting, tourists, wildlife RÉSUM~. Le tourisme represente un secteur important de 1'Cconomie alaskienne, et 23% des 4202 groupes de touristes qui ont passe des vacances en Alaska entre octobre 1982 et septembre 1983, ont indique qu'ils avaient chasse ou pêche. Les touristes qui consommaient le produit de leur chasse ou de leur pêche differaient sensiblement des autres visiteurs sur les points suivants: 1) ils formaient de plus grands groupes qui contenaient une plus grande proportion d'hommes; 2) leur moyenne d'âge etait genedement plus basse; 3) ils s'impliquaient plus dans la planification de leurs vacances en commençant les prkparatifs de leur voyage plus tôt par exemple et en utilisant plus de sources d'information; 4) ils passaient plus de temps en Alaska et campaient plus souvent; 5 ) ils avaient plus tendance B noliser un avion tI l'interieur de l'Alaska; 6) ils haluaient leur experience de façon trks positive, mais pensaient qu'ils n'en avaient pas eu autant pour leur argent; 7) ils depensaient moins d'argent au total durant leurs vacances et 8) ils etaient plus susceptibles de revenir en Alaska. Les visiteurs qui consommaient le produit de leur chasse et de leur *he apportaient directement des fonds B l'État pour la conservation de ces espbces avec l'achat de leur permis de chasse et de pêche, ainsi qu'avec l'application des lois Pittman-Robertson et DingellJohnson concernant le versement subsequent de fonds...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences among Nonresident Tourists Making Consumptive and Nonconsumptive Uses of Alaskan Wildlife

Snepenger¹,

Bowyer²

1990

ARCTIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As mentioned, this result was corroborated by responses in the CLIA market profile studies where, in the five most recent CLIA market profile studies (2004,2006,2008,2011,2014), the destination was always rated more highly than the property/ ship in terms of influencing the vacation selection (CLIA, 2011b(CLIA, , 2015b. Additionally, when inferring the relative importance of onboard and onshore items in the studies by Field et al (1985) and Teye and Paris (2011), the average score of the onshore items was greater than the average score of onboard items.…”

Section: The Relative Importance Of Onboard and Onshore Attributesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Few researchers have conducted dedicated studies into the pull factors of cruise motivation (Field et al, 1985;T. Huang, 2009;Jones, 2011;Xie et al, 2012) and only Jones (2011) and T.…”

Section: Cruise Vacation Pull Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to CLIA reports, several academic studies contain examples of onboard attributes (Field et al, 1985;Jones, 2011;Teye & Paris, 2011); however, these studies present onboard and onshore attributes as a single item set without distinction. Furthermore, item sets containing a mix of onboard and onshore attributes often also contained push factors (travel motives) within the same item set.…”

Section: Onboard Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additionally, some items were specific to the ports of call or the itinerary of the particular cruise under study (e.g., "cruise the Caribbean" and "enjoy mild tropical weather"), while others were general onshore attributes that could be used in cruise studies from other regions (e.g., "interesting ports-of-call" and "experience nature, the outdoors, beautiful scenery"). 3 Item from Convenience/ ship-based factor, but considered to be an onshore attribute for this study 4 Item not included in any factor, not mentioned in removed items 5 Although this item clearly relates to ports of call (onshore attributes), taking cruises to sample destinations for future land-based visits is a noted attribute of cruise vacations (CLIA, 2011a), as are guided tours Another study where it was possible to draw inferences about the relative importance of onboard and onshore attributes is Field et al (1985). This was a study to determine the sociodemographic profiles of Alaskan cruise passengers, including a minor component measuring the importance of 11 cruise features as a proxy for motivation.…”

Section: Figure 25 Factors Influencing Cruise Selection By Yearmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cruise tourists’ perceptions of destination: Exploring push and pull motivational factors in the decision to take a cruise vacation

Whyte¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cruise tourism is an increasingly popular and profitable industry that has been experiencing growth rates since the 1980s that are greater than the travel industry as a whole. Despite this growth, research about cruise tourism remains relatively underrepresented in the academic literature, with limited research into the motivational factors that influence the decision to take a cruise vacation. This research explores the motivational factors that influence the decisions of tourists to take a cruise vacation by using the push-pull framework. Push factors are the internal psychological motives that drive the need or desire to travel (Crompton, 1979) while pull factors are the specific attributes of the cruise destination (onboard and onshore) that draw tourists towards a specific cruise line, ship, or destination.Research was conducted using a mixed-methods approach in a three-stage sequential design. In the first stage of research, one-on-one interviews (20 participants) were conducted to explore participants' personal constructs of destination image in the context of cruise vacations. RepertoryGrid Analysis and open-ended questions were used to identify the onboard and onshore attributes that travellers use to compare and differentiate between cruise vacations. The responses were presented from the cruise travellers' point of view, representing personally relevant criteria that are used in the decision-making process (Coshall, 2000;Hankinson, 2004;Young, 1995).These results were then used to create a new measurement scale for cruise destination attributes that accounts for the unique aspects of cruising and that allows researchers to separately measure the importance of both onboard and onshore attributes.In the second stage, online surveys (344 participants) were conducted to refine the list of attributes elicited from Stage 1 to a quantity that is suitable for inclusion in a quantitative survey instrument in Stage 3. The online survey also tests the ability of the instrument to determine the relative importance of onboard and onshore attributes in tourists' choice of a specific cruise.The refined cruise destination attribute scale in the Stage 3 online study (503 participants) permitted, for the first time, an effective measurement of the relative importance of onboard and onshore attributes in tourist choices of a specific cruises. The results revealed that, when deciding on a cruise vacation, the majority of travellers place greater importance on the onboard attributes than on the onshore attributes. This supports the recent development by the cruise industry of new ships that are self-contained destinations, and of marketing campaigns that position the cruise ship as the focal point of cruise vacations, with cruise destinations being of secondary importance (Weaver, 2005c;Weeden et al., 2011;Wood, 2000). Although onboard attributes were of greater importance overall to many participants, this was not true for all. Further analysis identified three distinct groups: firstly, the onboard preference gro...

show abstract

Understanding the relationship between push and pull motivational factors in cruise tourism: A canonical correlation analysis

Whyte

2017

Journal of Tourism Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motivation is one of the greatest drivers of human behavior, yet travel motivation in the context of cruise tourism remains an understudied topic. Although a limited number of cruise specific studies focus on push (travel motives) and pull (destination attributes) factors, the push–pull relationship has not been directly measured. Furthermore, pull factors have not been examined in detail in terms of onboard (ship) and onshore (ports of call) attributes. Understanding this relationship can help inform the marketing and development of the cruise product. This study measures the importance of push and pull factors and the relationship between them in the decision‐making process of cruise travelers. Results identify the main motives driving the desire to travel and the cruise destination attributes that draw travelers to a specific cruise vacation. A number of potential “product bundles” or market segments are also identified on the basis of strongly related push and pull factors.

show abstract

Cruiseship Travel in Alaska: A Profile of Passengers

Abstract: The socio-demographic characteristics of Alaskan cruiseship clientele are described. In general these passengers are older, well educated, retired from or employed in a professional capacity, and enjoy a high income. Married couples predominate, but widowed women comprise a large segment.

Cited by 20 publications

References 11 publications

Differences among Nonresident Tourists Making Consumptive and Nonconsumptive Uses of Alaskan Wildlife

Differences among Nonresident Tourists Making Consumptive and Nonconsumptive Uses of Alaskan Wildlife

Cruise tourists’ perceptions of destination: Exploring push and pull motivational factors in the decision to take a cruise vacation

Understanding the relationship between push and pull motivational factors in cruise tourism: A canonical correlation analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About