The international journal of tourism research tập 12, số 06, 2010 11 + 12

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
Published online 27 April 2010 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.780

Differences in Travel Objectives between
First-time and Repeat Tourists: An Empirical
Analysis for the Kansai Area in Japan
Kaoru Okamura1 and Mototsugu Fukushige2,*
1
Competition Policy Research Center, Japan Fair Trade Commission, Tokyo, Japan
2
Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the differences in
travel objectives between first-time and
repeat tourists. We conduct a questionnaire
survey of travel agencies, which asked
about specific tour plan for target tourists,
their experiences and travel objectives in
the Kansai area in Japan. We estimate a
logit model for the relationship between
travel objectives and visiting experiences.
The results indicate that the first-time
tourists’ main objective is to enjoy looking
around sightseeing spots, while the repeat
tourists’ objective is simply to enjoy the
stay, including the hotel visit and
participating in events. Copyright © 2010
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 19 September 2009; Revised 16 February 2010;
Accepted 1 March 2010

Keywords: first-time tourists; repeat tourists;
visiting experiences; logit model.
1. INTRODUCTION

B

utler (1999, 2004) pointed out that to preserve sightseeing spots, it is important
not to increase the number of tourists but
rather to encourage previous tourists to visit
an area again. This paper examines how repeat
tourists differ from first-time tourists in terms
*Correspondence to: Mototsugu Fukushige, Professor,
Graduate School of Economics, Osaka University
1-7, Machikaneyama-cho, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043,
Japan.
E-mail:

of their travel objectives. This analysis provides an important clue to understanding why
a first-time visitor becomes a repeat visitor or
what type of first-time visitor becomes a repeat
visitor. We also distinguish between the sightseeing spot’s attractiveness for first-time tourists and for repeat tourists by investigating the
changes in each type of visitor’s objectives.
This research is also useful when promoting a
sightseeing spot that corresponds to a particular visit frequency.
We conducted a questionnaire survey of
travel agencies to create a tourist database of
visitor characteristics, frequency of visits and

travel objectives for the Kansai area, which
includes Kyoto, the most popular sightseeing
spot in Japan (see Figure 1). Our approach,
which conducts questionnaire survey to travel
agencies, is an unique approach in this type
researches. But travel agencies are always
facing travel demand market and analyzing
tourists’ tastes. We consider that they know
the tourists’ tastes exactly, so to conduct a
questionnaire survey to the travel agencies is
more comprehensive than to conduct a questionnaire survey to tourists themselves. The
latter is also expensive because we have to
collect a large number of answer sheets to
cover most of the sightseeing spots in Kansai
area. Exactly speaking, our research is to
analyse the travel agencies’ viewpoint for the
differences between first-time visitors and
repeat visitors. However, to conduct a questionnaire survey for tourists’ characteristics or
objectives in a wide area like Kansai, this type
survey is inexpensive and useful for the
purpose of our research. The results of our
paper will also make clear the advantages of
our approach in the rest of the paper.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


648

K. Okamura and M. Fukushige

Figure 1. Kansai area.

We estimate a logit model to analyse the
relationship between the objectives of the tourists and their visit frequency. The results indicate that there are two types of tourists: one
whose main objective is sightseeing and
another whose objective is to enjoy the stay.
The former is characteristic of first-time tourists and the latter is observed in repeat tourists.
This finding is supported by three results.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

First, first-time tourists are likely to have the
travel objective of visiting sightseeing spots
such as ‘historical buildings or streets’. Second,
a visitor who has visited four times or more
chooses with a high probability ‘accommodation facilities (including spas)’. In this paper,
we call this type of tourists ‘repeat tourist’.
Third, a visitor who has visited two or three
times lies in the middle of the first and repeat
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Differences in Travel Objectives
tourists, displaying a mixture of characteristics
of both first-time and repeat tourists. In this
paper, we call this type of tourists, who has
visited two or three times, ‘second time tourist’
for convenience sake. Of course, we can classify tourists who has visited once or more into
second time, third time, forth time and so on,
but such a classification seems complicated

and troublesome, so we categorise the tourists
into three categories for simplicity: first-time,
second-time and repeat tourists.
The remainder of the paper is organised as
follows. Section 2 surveys the existing literature. Section 3 describes the questionnaire and
target of the survey, and provides a summary
of the survey results. Section 4 conducts an
empirical study of the choice probabilities of
travel objectives. Section 5 analyses the relationships between visit frequency and travel
objectives. Section 6 provides conclusions and
discusses the remaining problems.
2. LITERATURE SURVEY
Before going into the analysis, we conduct a
literature survey to place this paper in context.
Our analysis relates the co-called destination
loyalty. Several papers analyse the characteristics of the destination from this point of view,
e.g. Clottey and Lennon (2003) analysed the
relationships between frequency of visits and
types of information received for German tourists to Lithuania. However, in this paper, we
focus on the relationships between the tourists’
objectives and frequencies with controlling
tourists’ characteristics for segmenting tourists
into first-time tourists and repeat tourists. To
understand what encourages a tourist to visit
a place again, some previous studies investigated the types of sightseeing spots likely to be
visited or the types of tourists that are likely to
visit a place again. Some researchers focused
on the characteristics of first-time tourists and
repeat tourists. For example, Kozak (2001)
found the importance of the experience of previous visit and the satisfaction at the previous

visit for revisit; Ledesma et al. (2005) also found
that the information obtained from previous
visit and/or relatives and friends is important;
Truong and King (2009) showed that tourists
who are highly satisfied with their previous
visit tend to visit again. Correia et al. (2007),
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

649
using the random parameter logit model,
found that the upkeep is important for golfplaying repeaters. These researches imply that
the satisfaction, including costs, is important to
revisit. However, our analysis focuses on the
changes of objectives when the tourist becomes
a repeat tourist. In other words, we focus on
what kind of properties in sightseeing spots
satisfies the repeat tourists.
Light (1996) and Law (2002) reported that a
sightseeing spot could easily attract a visitor
who has visited previously by introducing a
new event. McWilliams and Crompton (1997)
also found that tour promotions, such as advertising or direct mail, which introduce a sightseeing spot, also show that these are more
effective for tourists who have been there previously than for those who have not. These
previous studies mainly analysed tourism
marketing to reveal what encourages tourists
who have already visited to visit again;
however, these studies also did not investigate
tourists’ objectives when visiting or whether
they change their objectives according to their
visiting experience. Stewart and Vogt (1999), in

an analysis of the city of Branson, Missouri,
pointed out that repeat tourists tend to reduce
their time spent on sightseeing activities;
however, they did not analyse why travel
objectives changed. Lam and Hsu (2006) also
examined repeat tourists’ behaviour by breaking down the frequency of visits; however,
they did not analyse the relationship between
the frequency of visits and travel objectives.
As for the analyses about the differences
between first time and repeat visitors, there
exist several researches. For example, Litvin
(2007) focused on the fact that the attendance
on the visitor attraction activity is important
for making repeat visitors. Vassiliadis (2008),
using CHAID and CRT model, analyse the
repeat visiting and recommendation behaviours. Additionally, Tiefenbacher et al. (2000),
Correia et al. (2008) and Fallon and Schofield
(2004) analysed the differences between firsttime tourists’ and repeat tourists’ images of a
destination or perceptions of its attractive attributes; Hughes and Allen (2008) compared the
images of resorts held by visitors and nonvisitors; Beaman et al. (2001) estimated a
Markov matrix for visitors moving from firsttime tourists to repeat tourists; and Darnell
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


650
and Johnson (2001) analysed repeat visits to
attractions. However, these researches seem to
assumed that the taste of the tourists do not
change with their experience, implicitly. In the

present paper, we consider that tourists’ taste
change with their visiting experience or frequencies. From this point of view, Wang et al.
(2006) might be closely related to our investigation. They analysed the changes in consumers’ expenditure patterns. The changes in
objectives between first-time tourists and
repeat tourists and these changes might be
revealed in changes in consumption patterns.
3. METHODOLOGY
We needed a specific data set indicating tourists’ frequency of visits to sightseeing spots
and travel objectives to investigate whether
travel objectives change according to visit
experience. The Japan Tourism Association
(JTA) and the Japan National Tourist Organization (JNTO) have conducted and published
surveys of visitor behaviour in Japan. JNTO
(2006) conducted questionnaire survey only
for the foreign tourists who visit Japan, but
reported the tourists’ objectives by countries.
JTA (2006) reported the frequencies, objectives
and other characteristics of the tourists, but
most of them are reported in a simple aggregated data or cross tabulated. We cannot obtain
any information about the repeater for specific
sightseeing spot from neither of them. Therefore, using these data, we cannot examine the
relationship between visit frequency and travel
objectives for a specific sightseeing spot.
In conducting an original questionnaire
survey, it is necessary to consider its cost and
method. Past studies have used several survey
methods for examining visitor behaviour. One
is to directly ask tourists questions relating to
a specific sightseeing spot and another is to
send a questionnaire to households (Tiefenbacher et al., 2000). The former possibly has

seasonal or site bias depending on the survey
site and period, and the latter involves significant cost because of the need to distribute an
enormous number of surveys to assemble
responses. To avoid these problems, we elected
to use a survey asking tour operators and
tourism authorities about visitor behaviour at
sightseeing spots. Because travel agencies have
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

K. Okamura and M. Fukushige
the most extensive information, this enabled
us to investigate visitors’ behaviour with no
seasonal bias and at a much lower cost. In
evaluating the appropriateness of the questionnaire asking travel agencies or municipal
tourism authorities their observations of the
behaviour of tourists, the questionnaire conducted by the JTA (2006) provided helpful
information. According to the results of this
survey, a visitor may use information sent by
travel agencies or tourism authorities extensively when he or she travels, which shows
there is little difference between what the
travel agency thinks and what the actual visitor
wants. In this paper, we use a questionnaire
survey for four categories of businesses:
domestic travel agencies (registered travel
agencies approved by the Minister of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport), land operators,
national government (or municipal) tourism
offices and hotels affiliated with the Japan
Hotel Association. This survey was designed
by Fukushige and conducted through the

Kansai Institute of Social and Economic
Research (KISER). We are grateful to the KISER
for their kind permission to use and analyse
the survey. As this questionnaire was sent to
all registered travel agencies and tourism
authorities in the Kansai area, this is not a randomly gathered sample.
This paper investigates the relationship
between visit frequency and travel objectives
for Japanese tourists because very few foreign
tourists frequently visit Japanese sightseeing
spots and they may have different perceptions
of sightseeing spots in Japan compared with
the Japanese. In the questionnaire, we asked
the respondents to develop a tour plan for
Japanese tourists and for foreign tourists.
However, this paper focuses on the analysis of
Japanese visitor behaviour; therefore, we do
not discuss tour plans for foreigners.
We provide an English translation of the
questionnaire in the appendix. Here, we summarise the questionnaire and explain its objectives. The main question was: ‘If you were to
plan and market travel or tours to the Kansai
area in Japan targeting Japanese customers,
what would they be? Please provide two different plans’. In response to this question,
the respondent provides answers to three parts
of the questionnaire: A. details of the tour; B.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Differences in Travel Objectives

destination; and C. objective of the tour. Each
part contained essential details for developing
a tour plan, and the respondent created his or
her ideal tour plan by selecting the appropriate
answers from the choices provided.
Part A of the survey contains detailed characteristics of the plans, the length of tour,
season, numbers of tourists and visitor characteristics (age, sex, visit frequency and residence). In this part, the respondent may
develop a suitable tour by choosing one aspect
of the travel plan to attract customers. In part
B, the respondent selects between two and 10
visitor destinations from 77 listed sightseeing
spots and events. In part C, the respondent
chooses his or her travel objective depending
on the answers in parts A and B. The response
sheet provides 15 options for travel objectives
and the respondent may choose multiple items
as long as they match his or her tour plan.
The target area of this analysis is an area
called Kansai, which contains Kyoto, one of the
most popular cities in Japan. Kyoto was the
capital of Japan from 794 to 1868 A.D., and is
famous both in Japan and worldwide for its
historical buildings or streets and beautiful
natural scenery throughout the year. Nara,
located south of Kyoto, which was the capital
of Japan before it moved to Kyoto, is also
famous for the historical buildings or streets in
the old town. Tourists to the area can not only
visit the historical buildings or streets but also
participate in traditional cultural events such

as festivals.
As for urban tourism in the Kansai area, the
cities of Osaka and Kobe have modern buildings or streets. There is also a range of other
sightseeing spots, such as Lake Biwa, the
largest lake in Japan; Wakasa Bay, on the Rias
coast; Kumano-Kodou, a sacred site and pilgrimage routes in the Kii Mountain Range,
also listed as a World Heritage site; and Universal Studios Japan, a theme park opened in
2001. As this list shows, the Kansai area contains almost every kind of sightseeing spot that
may interest tourists, including natural scenery,
historical buildings or streets, modern buildings or streets, and cultural events. The diversity of resources for sightseeing in the Kansai
area is confirmed by the survey conducted by
the JTA called ‘A questionnaire survey for
individual tourists’. This survey lists travel
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

651
objectives, almost all of which are met in this
area. Furthermore, these sightseeing resources
are located within a 200-km radius of Osaka,
which is the central transportation terminal.
As tourists can therefore easily move between
individual sightseeing locations by car or train,
we can consider the Kansai area one big sightseeing spot. We assume that we can observe
whether tourists change their travel objectives
according to their visiting experience.
We mailed the questionnaires to domestic
travel agencies on 19 December 2004, and
asked them to return their responses within
two weeks. Of the 953 surveys sent out, 140
were returned (response rate of 14.7%); the

total number of travel plans completed on the
answer sheet was 231 because some agencies
responded with only one plan in spite of asking
two plans.
Tables 1 and 2 show the results of questionnaire part A and part C, which are used for our
econometric analysis in the next section. Each
item selected by a respondent from the questionnaire is assigned a value of 1; items not
chosen are assigned a value of 0. The aggregated results are shown in Table 1. The most
common answers are: ‘2 or 3 days’ for the
length of the tour; ‘autumn’ for the season of
travel; ‘group travelers’ for the type of traveler;
and ‘sixties’, ‘both sexes’, a ‘Kanto’ resident
and someone who has been to Kansai ‘2 or 3
times’ for visitor characteristics. In part C, as
in part A, we aggregate the answers if a respondent chooses travel objectives from the 15
listed objectives. Each objective chosen is
assigned a value of 1, and 0 otherwise. We
show the results in Table 2. The most popular
travel objective according to travel agencies is
‘to see the historical buildings or streets’. This
result contrasts with that of the questionnaire
survey of the JTA (2006), in which ‘natural
scenery’ is the most popular. The result of our
survey seems to reflect the fact that the Kansai
area has many historical buildings or streets as
sightseeing spots. Other objectives such as
‘natural scenery’, ‘cuisine’, ‘theme parks’ and
‘festivals or special events’ follow these two
major objectives: ‘to see the historical buildings
or streets’ and ‘natural scenery’. These results

are similar to the results of the JTA (2006)
survey except for the reversal of the first and
second objectives.
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


652

K. Okamura and M. Fukushige
Table 1. Summary statistics of part A
Abbreviations
A1
A2
A3
A4
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
A41
A42
A43
A44
A45
A51
A52
A53
A54

A55
A56
A57
A58
A61
A62
A63
A71
A72
A73
A81
A82
A83
A84
A85
A86
A87
A88
A89
A810
A811

Variables

Sum

Std Dev

Mean

One day
2–3 days
4–6 days
More than one week
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Winter
Throughout the year
Solo travelers
Couples
Families
Group travelers
Other
Teens
Twenties
Thirties
Forties
Fifties
Sixties
Seventies
All age groups
Female
Male
Both
First time
Two or three times
Four times or more
Hokkaido
Tohoku

Kanto
Hokuriku
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu
Okinawa
Any area

20
154
24
5
63
16
84
14
88
20
96
43
134
18
10
26
38
45
94
109

42
25
53
8
141
59
110
34
19
19
69
6
29
11
7
13
21
12
38

0.299
0.429
0.324
0.155
0.464
0.270
0.494
0.254
0.497
0.299

0.501
0.410
0.475
0.285
0.217
0.335
0.391
0.416
0.500
0.500
0.406
0.329
0.440
0.195
0.462
0.455
0.499
0.374
0.292
0.292
0.475
0.170
0.351
0.227
0.183
0.245
0.305
0.236
0.391

0.099
0.759
0.118
0.025
0.310
0.079
0.414
0.069
0.433
0.099
0.473
0.212
0.660
0.089
0.049
0.128
0.187
0.222
0.463
0.537
0.207
0.123
0.261
0.039
0.695
0.291
0.542
0.167
0.094
0.094

0.340
0.030
0.143
0.054
0.034
0.064
0.103
0.059
0.187

4. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
To investigate the relationships between visit
frequency and travel objective, using the
results from our questionnaire, a multinomial
choice model should be suitable. However, as
there are 15 objects in a binary form, it is very
hard to estimate a multinomial choice model
and obtain stable estimates. In the present
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

paper, for simplicity and efficiency, we adopt
a binary choice model where a visitor chooses
a specific objective or not. This model explains
choice behaviour with a latent index. For
example, when a tourist visits a sightseeing
spot with his or her travel objective ‘being
seeing the natural scenery’, his or her latent
index y* of ‘seeing the natural scenery’ has a
positive number. Additionally, we set y* to be
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Differences in Travel Objectives

653

Table 2. Summary statistics of part C
Abbreviations
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15

Variables

Sum

Variance

Natural scenery
Historical buildings or streets
Modern buildings or streets
Cuisine
Shopping
Parks or wandering
Accommodation facilities (including spas)
Art galleries and museums (including treasure
houses in temples and shrines)
Concerts or performances at music halls or theaters
Festivals or special events
Nightlife
Night views
Theme parks
Sports (such as golf and skiing)
Industrial facilities

135
158
20
73
52
17
51
42

0.224
0.173
0.089

0.231
0.191
0.077
0.189
0.165

8
57
18
16
59
7
13

0.038
0.203
0.081
0.073
0.207
0.033
0.060

a single index, written as y* = x′β + ε (note that
x is a vector of non-stochastic independent
variables, β is a vector of unknown parameters
and ε is an error term). We cannot estimate this
model directly, because y* is an unobserved
variable. However, we can observe a stochastic
variable (y). If y* > 0, the visitor chooses ‘seeing
the natural scenery’ as a travel objective

(y = 1). If y* ≤ 0, he or she does not choose
it (y = 0). The observed stochastic variable y is
written as follows:
Pr [ y = 1 x ] = Pr [ y* > 0 ] ,
This equation means that the event to choose
‘seeing the natural scenery’ coincides with the
event that y* is positive, so both the probabilities for these events are mutually equal. Then,
we rewrite y* with x′β + ε:
Pr [ y = 1 x ] = Pr [ y* > 0 ] = Pr [ x ′β + ε > 0 x ]
The inequality
rewritten:

in

parentheses

can

be

Pr [ y = 1 x ] = Pr [ y* > 0 ] = Pr [ x ′β + ε > 0 x ]
= Pr [ − ε < x ′ β x ]
Replacing the probability function of error
term (−ε) Pr[*] with the cumulative distribution function F(•), the above equation becomes:
Pr [ y = 1 x ] = F ( x ′β ) .

(1)

If we assume the cumulative distribution function F(•) of the error term −ε to be a logistic
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

distribution function, then F(•) can be written
using x′β as:
F ( x ′β ) =

e x ′β
.
(1 + ex′β )

Therefore, we can construct a simultaneous
probability density function for all the observations with assuming mutual independence of
each observation. We can consider this density
function to be a likelihood function for unknown
parameters, so that we can obtain the maximum
likelihood estimator to maximise it.
We apply a logit model for each of the 15 objectives in the questionnaire. We adopt visitor attributes as the independent variables. These
variables are obtained from the answers in part
A of the questionnaire. As additional independent variables, we also adopt some cross products of independent variables relating to the visit
frequency, such as age, residence, length of stay
and visitor type, but we omit cross products with
all the observations taking the values of 0 or 1
because most of the independent variables are
dummy variables. As a result, the number of
candidates for the independent variables including cross products of the attributes of tourists
and tour plans is 40. The summary statistics of
the cross products are given in Table 3.
We select a model by minimizing Akaike
(1973)’s information criteria because, in the
estimation results with all independent variables, many variables with insignificant
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Four times or more

Two or three times

First time

Four times or more

Two or three times

First time

×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

TYEX11
TYEX21
TYEX31
TYEX51
TYEX12
TYEX22
TYEX32
TYEX52
TYEX13
TYEX23
TYEX33
TYEX53
AEX11

AEX21
AEX31
AEX41
AEX51
AEX71
AEX81
AEX12
AEX22
AEX32
AEX42
AEX52
AEX72
AEX82
AEX23
AEX33
AEX43
AEX53
AEX73

Solo travelers
Couples
Families
Other
Solo travelers
Couples
Families
Other
Solo travelers
Couples
Families

Other
Teens
Twenties
Thirties
Forties
Fifties
Seventies
All age groups
Teens
Twenties
Thirties
Forties
Fifties
Seventies
All age groups
Twenties
Thirties
Forties
Fifties
Seventies

Variable

Abbreviations

Table 3. Summary statistics of cross products

4
26
15

8
10
53
26
8
6
17
2
2
9
12
15
12
22
11
8
1
10
17
27
57
21
15
4
6
6
15
10

Sum

0.139
0.335
0.262
0.195
0.217
0.440
0.335
0.195
0.170
0.278
0.099
0.099
0.206
0.236
0.262
0.236
0.312
0.227
0.195
0.070
0.217
0.278
0.340
0.451
0.305
0.262
0.139
0.170
0.170
0.262

0.217

Std Dev
DEX11
DEX31
DEX41
DEX12
DEX32
DEX42
DEX13
DEX33
LEX11
LEX12
LEX14
LEX15
LEX16
LEX19
LEX110
LEX21
LEX22
LEX24
LEX25
LEX26
LEX27
LEX28
LEX29
LEX210
LEX211
LEX31
LEX36

LEX37
LEX38
LEX311

Abbreviations
One day
4–6 days
More than one week
One day
4–6 days
More than one week
One day
4–6 days
Hokkaido
Tohoku
Hokuriku
Chubu
Kinki
Kyusyu
Okinawa
Hokkaido
Tohoku
Hokuriku
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu
Okinawa
Any area

Hokkaido
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Any area

×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×
×

×
×
×
×
×
×

Variable

Four times or more

Two or three times

First time

Four times or more

Two or three times

First time

5
9
3
8
12
2
7
3
8

6
2
5
4
5
5
9
13
4
18
4
3
6
14
6
14
2
3
3
6
6

Sum

0.155
0.206
0.121
0.195
0.236
0.099

0.183
0.121
0.195
0.197
0.099
0.155
0.139
0.155
0.155
0.206
0.245
0.139
0.270
0.139
0.121
0.170
0.254
0.170
0.254
0.099
0.121
0.121
0.170
0.170

Std Dev

654
K. Okamura and M. Fukushige

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Differences in Travel Objectives

655

coefficients are included, which may cause
inefficient estimation. The estimation results
are given in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, there
are some cases where the dummy variables
representing visiting experience to Kansai are
not chosen as independent variables. However,
if the cross products are considered, the visit
frequency affects the choice probability of the
travel objectives in all cases. The cross products selected in each model are different, and
include frequency of traveling, age or type of
travel. These results make the effects of the
frequency on the choice probability complex.

We compared the choice ratios of the surveys
with the estimated choice probability model,
and calculated the ‘hit or lose ratio’ as a goodness of fit measure of the selected model in
Table 5. According to the results, the prediction accuracies of the models are low in the
model that sets travel objectives such as
‘modern buildings or streets’, ‘parks or wandering’, ‘concerts or performances at music
halls or theaters’, ‘night views’ and ‘industrial
facilities’. We should pay attention to these
low explanatory power when we interpret the

estimation results in the next section.

Table 4. Results of estimation
Natural scenery: Observations = 208,
C1 = 0.569
+1.649 ∗ A 3
(1.974)
(1.702)
−2.894 ∗ DEX 32 −2.618 ∗ AEX11
( −2.441)
( −2.310)

Log-likelihood =
+1.115 ∗ A 21
( 2.872)
+2.217 ∗ AEX 41
( 2.372)

−106.483, AIC = 117.483
−1.423 ∗A 54
+1.224 ∗ A 55
−1.122 ∗ A71
( −2.961)
( 3.278)
( −2.342)
−2.570 ∗ TYX52 +1.823 ∗ LEX19
( −2.788)
(1.500)

Historical buildings or streets: Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −82.702, AIC = 93.702

C2 = 0.886
+1.746 ∗ A 23 −1.646 ∗ A 24
+1.698 ∗ A 41
+1.382 ∗ A 42
−1.033 ∗ A71
( 2.172)
( 3.672)
( −2.258)
(1.962)
( 2.567 )
( −1.838)
−1.053 ∗ A73 +1.053 ∗ A 85 −1.737 ∗ AEX 42 +2.626 ∗ AEX 51 −1.960 ∗ TYEX 21
( −1.757 )
(1.478)
( −2.831)
( 2.693)
( −2.108)
Modern building or streets: Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −45.514, AIC = 56.514
C3 = −3.494
+2.400 ∗ A 41
+1.977 ∗ A 43
+2.793 ∗ A621
−2.202 ∗ A 811 +2.345 ∗ DEX 32
( −5.979)
( 3.672)
( 2.922)
( 2.930)
(1.962)
( 2.229)
+1.587 ∗ AEX 31 +2.436 ∗ TYEX 51 −2.617 ∗ TYEX 52 +4.097 ∗ LEX 26

(1.978)
( 2.230)
( −2.068)
( −2.487)
Cuisine: Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −121.614, AIC = 128.614
C 4 = −0.655 −1.743 ∗ A1 +2.723 ∗ A 4 −2.272 ∗ A 51 +2.398 ∗ DEX12 +0.992 ∗ DEX 32 +3.322 ∗ LEX19
( −3.865) (1.647)
( 2.029)
( −1.788)
(1.901)
(1.627)
( 2.161)
Shopping: Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −103.542, AIC = 111.542
C5 = −1.710
+0.846 ∗ A 3
+1.145 ∗ A 22 −0.536 ∗ A 55 +0.929 ∗ A 85 +1.372 ∗ A 811
( −5.341)
(1.690)
(1.969)
( −1.475)
(1.823)
( 3.164)
+1.844 ∗AEX 22 +1.910 ∗ LEX11
(1.844)
( 2.479)
Parks or wandering: Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −47.132, AIC = 56.132
C6 = −.3.335
−1.956 ∗ A 43
+1.560 ∗ A 45
+0.988 ∗ A 54 −1.132 ∗ A61 +1.764 ∗ DEX 32

( −5.780)
( −1.779)
( 2.083)
(1.527)
( −1.310)
(1.806)
+1.971∗ AEX72 +1.982 ∗ TYEX 21 +2.730 ∗ LEX19
( 2.533)
( 2.558)
( 2.064)
Accommodation facilities (including spas): Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −97.741, AIC = 108.741
C7 = −1.497
+1.935 ∗ A 55
−3.722 ∗ A71
+0.887 ∗ A 811
+3.856 ∗ DEX 31 +3.303 ∗ DEX41
( −4.792)
( 3.505)
( −2.990)
(1.900)
( 2.796)
(1.856)
+3.963 ∗ AEX 81 −1.732 ∗ AEX 52 +2.930 ∗ TYEX 21 −3.395 ∗ TYEX 31 +3.583 ∗ LEX19
( 2.882)
( −2.966)
( 2.377)
( −2.385)
( 2.020)
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


656

K. Okamura and M. Fukushige

Table 4. Continued
Art galleries and museums: Observations = 208,
C8 = −0.542
−3.534 ∗ A 42 −5.021∗ A 43
( −1.780)
( −2.900)
( −2.960)
+1.314 ∗A 82 +2.493 ∗ A 84 +4.962 ∗ A 87
(1.936)
(1.736)
( 3.289)

Log-likelihood =
−3.009 ∗ A 52
( −2.364)
+2.344 ∗ AEX71
(1.806)

−72.822, AIC = 83.722
−1.476 ∗ A73
−2.091∗ A 81
( 2.567)

( −1.838)
+3.339 ∗ TYEX 22
( 2.667 )

Concert or performances at music halls or theaters: Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −23.204, AIC =
31.204
C9 = −6.136
+1.694 ∗ A 24
+3.097 ∗ A73 +2.813 ∗ A 82 +2.346 ∗ DEX 32 +2.346 ∗ AEX 43
( −4.565)
(1.567)
( 2.217)
( 2.366)
(1.642)
(1.960)
+3.865 ∗ LEX110 +2.655 ∗ LEX 25
( 2.239)
(1.478)
Festivals or special events: Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −106.598, AIC = 114.598
C10 = −1.554
+0.676 ∗ A 42
+1.327 ∗ A 58 −1.490 ∗ A71 +2.110 ∗ A 84 +2.591∗ AEX 41
( −5.140)
(1.914)
( 2.714)
( −2.355)
( 2.267)
( 2.965)
+1.848 ∗ AEX71 +1.701∗ AEX 22
( 2.068)

( 2.451)
Nightlife: Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −42.034, AIC = 53.034
C11 = −4.241
+3.645 ∗ A 22
+2.280 ∗ A 42
+1.143 ∗ A 54
+1.716 ∗ A62
+2.737 ∗ AEX71
( −5.76)
( 4.239)
( 2.338)
(1.598)
(1.623)
( 2.283)
+2.624 ∗ AEX 22 −3.848 ∗ TYEX 21 −3.394 ∗ TYEX 22 +2.704 ∗ LEX13 +3.470 ∗ LEX16
( 2.525)
( −2.484)
( −2.700)
( 2.742)
( 2.100)
Night views: Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −39.785, AIC = 50.785
C12 = −5.654
+1.423 ∗ A 3
+1.477 ∗ A 22
+1.879 ∗ A 42
+1.612 ∗ A 89
+3.351∗ AEX 21
( −5.567)
(1.627)
(1.885)

( 2.308)
(1.948)
( 2.947)
+2.370 ∗ TYEX 31 +2.452 ∗ LEX110 +1.732 ∗ LEX 25 +2.245 ∗ LEX 211 +2.918 ∗ LEX 38
( 2.847)
(1.765)
(1.728)
( 2.219)
( 2.164)
Theme parks: Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −89.461, AIC = 100.461
C13 = −0.089
+1.601∗ A 52
−1.576 ∗ A 55
−1.551∗ A 57
−2.803 ∗ A73
+4.001∗ A 85
( −0.302)
( 3.018)
( −3.770)
( −2.403)
( −2.997 )
( 3.737 )
−1.004 ∗A 811 −1.888 ∗ TYEX 21 +2.525 ∗ TYEX 31 −4.254 ∗ LEX 25 +3.620 ∗ LEX 311
( −1.822)
( −2.347)
(1.478)
( −3.330)
( 2.573)
Sports (such as golf and skiing): Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −18.254, AIC = 23.253
C14 = −5.959 +2.818 ∗ A 24 +2.662 ∗ A 54 +3.714 ∗ DEX11 +4.404 ∗ TYEX 52

( −4.930) ( 2.363)
( 2.156)
( 2.881)
( 3.020)
Industrial facilities: Observations = 208, Log-likelihood = −31.895, AIC = 40.895
C15 = −4.438
−1.917 ∗ A 42
+3.746 ∗ A62
+1.926 ∗ A73 +3.001∗ A 84 +2.381∗ A 89
( −5.400)
( −1.910)
( 3.808)
( 2.163)
( 2.134)
(1.593)
+1.415 ∗A 811 +2.232 ∗ DEX 32 +2.237 ∗ AEX11
(1.593)
(1.709)
( 2.031)
* C1, . . . C15 represent dependent variables.
** t-values are in parentheses.

5. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VISIT
FREQUENCY AND OBJECTIVES
In this section, we analyse how the choice
probabilities of the travel objectives change
according to visit experience, using the estiCopyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

mated coefficients of the logit model and substituting mean values for other independent
variables. Here, we explain the estimation of

the effect of frequency, using an estimated
model for ‘to see natural scenery’ as an
example. In this estimation, we make clear the
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Differences in Travel Objectives

657

Table 5. Hit or lose ratio of estimated results

C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15

Natural scenery

Historical buildings or streets
Modern buildings or streets
Cuisine
Shopping
Parks or wandering
Accommodation facilities (including spas)
Art galleries and museums (including treasure houses
in temples and shrines)
Concerts or performances at music halls or theaters
Festivals or special events
Nightlife
Night views
Theme parks
Sports (such as golf and skiing)
Industrial facilities

effect of the visit frequency on the choice probabilities. First, we describe the estimated result
for the objective of ‘to see natural scenery’.
y* = 0.569 + 1.649 ∗ ( 4 − 6days ) + 1.155 ∗ (spring )
− 1.423 ∗ (forties ) + 1.2224 ∗ (fifties )
− 1.122 ∗ (first-time)
− 2.894 ∗ ( 2 or 3 times × 4 − 6days )
− 2.618 ∗ (first-time × teens )
+ 2.217 ∗ (first-time × forties )
− 2.57 ∗ ( 2 or 3 times × other style )
+ 1.823 ∗ (first-time × Kyusyu )
Using this equation, we estimate the choice
probability of ‘to see natural scenery’ of a firsttime visitor as follows. First, we set the value
of the independent variable for ‘first-time’ to
1 and those for ‘2 or 3 times’ and ‘4 times or

more’ to 0. We set the value of the other independent variables equal to their mean values,
which are obtained from the survey results
(Table 1). However, in the case of the cross
products such as ‘first time’ and ‘forties’, e.g.
we set the term ‘first time’ equal to 1 and
multiply the ‘first time’ by the average of
‘forties’. After estimating the value of y*, we
substitute it into the logistic distribution
function:
F ( y* ) =

e y*
,
(1 + e y* )

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mean

Fraction of correct
prediction

Hit or
lose ratio

0.665
0.778
0.099
0.360
0.256

0.084
0.251
0.207

0.704
0.818
0.916
0.685
0.783
0.921
0.798
0.828

0.567
0.677
0.166
0.448
0.362
0.157
0.251
0.308

0.039
0.281
0.089
0.079
0.291
0.034
0.064

0.961
0.749
0.946
0.941
0.803
0.975
0.951

0.075
0.391
0.332
0.129
0.373
0.058
0.107

to obtain an estimated choice probability.
According to this procedure, the probability of
a first-time visitor choosing the objective ‘to
see natural scenery’ is 0.691. In a similar
manner, the probabilities of a second-time
visitor, who has made two or three visits, and
a repeat visitor, who has made four or more
visits, are estimated.
Figure 2 shows the choice ratios according
to visit frequency calculated by averaging the
answers in the questionnaire. Figure 3 shows
the results of the estimated choice probabilities. The results in the two figures are similar.
First, the probabilities of ‘natural scenery’ and
‘historical buildings or streets’ are higher than

the other probabilities. Second, the next most
common objectives are ‘cuisine’, ‘shopping’,
‘accommodation facilities (including spas)’,
‘festivals or special events’ and ‘theme parks’.
These results are also approximately the same
as the results of the JTA (2006).
However, when comparing Figure 3 with
Figure 2, the effects of visit frequency on travel
objectives become clear. For example, in Figure
2, the probability of choosing ‘cuisine’ as a
travel objective seems to increase in accordance
with visit frequency, but Figure 3 shows that
visit frequency is not a necessary factor for
increasing the probability of choosing ‘cuisine’
as a travel objective. In Figure 2, the probability of choosing ‘accommodation facilities
(including spas)’ also seems to increase rapidly
for repeat tourists, but in Figure 3, it turns out
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Industrial facilities

Two or three times

Industrial facilities

Sports (such as golf and

skiing)

Theme parks

Two or three times

Sports (such as golf and
skiing)

Theme parks

First-time

Night views

Night excitement

Festivals or special events

Concerts or performances at
music halls or theaters

Art galleries and museums
(including treasure houses
in temples and shrines)

Accommodation facilities
(including spas)

Parks or wandering

Shopping

Cuisine

Modern buildings or streets

Historical buildings or streets

Natural landscapes

First-time

Night views

Night excitement

Festivals or special events

Concerts or performances at
music halls or theaters

Art galleries and museums
(including treasure houses in
temples and shrines)

Accommodation facilities
(including spas)

Parks or wandering

Shopping

Cuisine

Modern buildings or streets

Historical buildings or streets

Natural landscapes

658
K. Okamura and M. Fukushige

1.000

0.900
Four times or more

0.800

0.700

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000

Figure 2. The average choice ratio of travel objectives according to visit frequency.

1.000

0.900
Four times or more

0.800

0.700

0.600

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000

Figure 3. The estimated choice probabilities of travel objectives according to visit frequency.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Differences in Travel Objectives
that the probability increases gradually as visit
frequency increases. As for ‘festivals and
special events’, the estimated probability is
reversed in Figure 3 and Figure 2: its probability for repeat tourists is the lowest in Figure 2,
but is the highest in Figure 3. It should also be
noted that the choice probability of ‘theme
parks’ for the repeat visitor declines drastically
in Figure 3 while it does not decline drastically
in Figure 2. The probability of the first-time
visitor choosing ‘natural scenery’ is lower than
that of choosing ‘historical buildings or streets’
in Figure 2, but this relation is reversed in
Figure 3. These differences indicate that the
estimated probabilities in Figure 3 are important to the analysis. In other words, the effect
of visit frequency on the choice probabilities of
travel objectives is observed only in Figure 3.
Next, we focus on the changes in choice probabilities through first-time, second-time and
repeat tourists. Comparing the probabilities of
second-time and repeat tourists, we find that
not only do ‘historical buildings or streets’,
‘cuisine’ and ‘theme parks’ decline sharply but

so do ‘shopping’ and ‘festivals or special events’.
On the other hand, the probabilities of ‘natural
scenery’ and ‘accommodation facilities (including spas)’ increase with visit frequency. The
results are summarised as follows. The main
objective of first-time and second-time tourists
is to visit sightseeing spots such as ‘natural
scenery’, ‘historical buildings or streets’ or
‘theme parks’, followed by secondary objectives
such as ‘cuisine’ or ‘shopping’ in urban areas.
By contrast, the objectives of repeat tourists shift
from visiting sightseeing spots around the
Kansai area to staying and experiencing ‘accommodation facilities (including spas)’. These conclusions are confirmed by Table 6. In this table,
we aggregate the choice ratios of the sightseeing
spots located in Kyoto and Shiga, which is to
the east of Kyoto, in accordance with visit frequency by using the answers from part B of the
questionnaire. All of the choice ratios of the
sightseeing spots in the central part of Kyoto
city, which are enclosed by a rectangle in Table
6, decrease; however, the choice ratios of the
sightseeing spots in Shiga increase when we
compare the choice ratios of second-time and
repeat tourists. This indicates that visitors’
sightseeing objectives shift to the sightseeing
spots around Kansai.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

659
However, it is too hasty to conclude that
most tourists go to sightseeing spots in peripheral areas because the probability of choosing
‘historical building or streets’ exceeds 80% in

Figure 3 for the repeat tourists. Table 7 shows
the correlation coefficients between the choices
of ‘natural scenery’, ‘historical buildings or
streets’, ‘cuisine’, ‘shopping’, ‘accommodation
facilities (including spas)’, ‘festivals or special
events’ and ‘theme parks’ by visit frequency.
From this table, we can see the following. For
first-time tourists, the correlation of ‘natural
scenery’ and ‘accommodation facilities (including spas)’ is high and that of ‘historical buildings or streets’ and ‘accommodation facilities’
is almost zero. By contrast, for repeat tourists,
the correlation between ‘natural scenery’ and
‘accommodation facilities (including spas)’ is
lower and that of ‘historical buildings or
streets’ and ‘accommodation facilities (including spas)’ increases to 0.277.
If we interpret these two changes in a comprehensive manner, we can draw the following conclusions. While first-time or second-time
tourists are characterised as location-based
tourists who mainly visit sightseeing spots
such as ‘natural scenery’ and ‘historical buildings or streets’, repeat tourists are divided
into two types: one that aims to visit sightseeing spots in peripheral areas and another that
aims to experience ‘accommodation facilities
(including spas)’ in urban areas. Table 1 indicates that while about half of the tourists come
from the Kanto area, which includes Tokyo, to
visit sightseeing spots in peripheral areas, they
cannot complete the sightseeing in one day, so
they need to stay overnight somewhere in the
Kansai region; ‘cuisine’ may therefore become
important for them. This is indicated by the
fact that the correlation between ‘natural
scenery’ and ‘cuisine’ for repeat tourists is
0.159. Therefore, we can conclude that repeat

tourists are the staying type, regardless of
whether their objectives include experiencing
‘accommodation facilities (including spas)’.
6. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we investigated the differences
in travel objectives between first-time and
repeat tourists using a questionnaire survey of
travel agencies that asked about specific tour
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


660

K. Okamura and M. Fukushige

Table 6. Relationship between visit frequency and objectives
Destination
<Shiga Prefecture>
Enryakuji Temple on Mt. Hiei
Miidera and Ishiyamadera temples and Lake Biwa cruise
Biwako Valley on Mt. Horai
Northern Lake Biwa and Lake Yogo and their vicinities,
Nagahama
Hikone Castle and town
Azuchi, Notogawa, Gokasho and Ohmihachiman

Two or
three times

Four times
or more

Difference of
choice ratio

0.031
0.014
0.000
0.016

0.034
0.023
0.006
0.011

0.004
0.009
0.006
−0.005

0.010
0.000

0.023
0.023

0.013
0.023

0.061

0.046

−0.016

0.012

0.006

−0.007

0.086

0.074

−0.011

0.022
0.014
0.010
0.006
0.037

0.011
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.034

−0.011
−0.003
−0.010
−0.006
−0.002

0.000
0.000
0.002
0.016
0.031

0.000
0.000
0.000
0.023
0.040

0.000
0.000
−0.002
0.007
0.009

<Kyoto prefecture>
Sanjusangendo, Nijo Castle, Kyoto Imperial Palace, Ginkakuji
Temple and its vicinity, Kiyomizudera Temple and its
vicinity
Nishijin-ori, Kiyomizu-yaki and kabuki at Minamiza
Theater

Kinkakuji, Ryoanji and Ninnaji Temples; Arashiyama and
Sagano (Tenryuji Temple); Uji (Byodoin Temple); Daigoji
Temple; Nanzenji Temple and Biwako Canal; and Katsura
and Shugakuin Detached Palaces
Gion and Shimabara
Kamo River and Shijo-kawaramachi area
Nishiki Market
Toei Uzumasa Studio Park
Aoi, Jidai and Gion festivals and Gozan Okuribi (Five
Mountain Bonfires)
Kyoto International Conference Hall
Kyocera and Shimadzu museums and Horiba
Fukujuen CHA Research Center
Kameoka, Hozu-River boat trip, Torokko Ressha train ride
Amanohashidate, Ine Town and Tango (silk crepe production
region)
Places inside the frame are located in the central part of Kyoto city.

plans for target tourists, and their experiences
and travel objectives in the Kansai area in
Japan. We applied a logit model for the relationship between travel objectives and visiting
experiences. From the empirical results, we
found that tourists can be divided into spotbased types or staying types by analysing the
relation between visit frequency and travel
objectives. Although the main objectives of
travel for both types are ‘natural scenery’ and
‘historical buildings or streets’, tourists of the
staying type shift their preferences towards
visiting sightseeing spots in peripheral areas or
experiencing

‘accommodation
facilities
(including spas)’, while spot-based tourists
tend to visit relatively convenient spots in
urban areas.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

We did not mention a specific promotion
plan or method, or how to change spot-based
tourists into staying tourists, which is the most
important objective for agencies and other
tourism-related organisations. A relatively
high correlation between ‘natural scenery’ and
‘accommodation facilities (including spas)’ for
first-time tourists in Table 7 implies that tourists who visit to see ‘natural scenery’ are likely
to be repeat tourists who prefer ‘accommodation facilities (including spas)’. It seems important for the tourism industry to change
first-time tourists who are interested in ‘natural
scenery’ to repeat tourists who are interested
in ‘accommodation facilities (including spas)’.
In other words, finding ways to promote the
attractiveness of accommodation facilities in
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Travel objectives

Natural scenery
Historical buildings or streets
Cuisine

Shopping
Accommodation facilities
(including spas)
Festivals or special events
Theme parks

Natural scenery
Historical buildings or streets
Cuisine
Shopping
Accommodation facilities
(including spas)
Festivals or special events
Theme parks

Natural scenery
Historical buildings or streets
Cuisine
Shopping
Accommodation facilities
(including spas)
Festivals or special events
Theme parks

Frequency of visits

First-time

Two or three times

Four times or more

Table 7. Correlation of visit objectives

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1.000
0.205
0.296
−0.256
0.055

−0.107
0.075
0.045
0.045

0.007
−0.051

1.000
0.074
−0.019
0.277

0.180
−0.064

0.032
−0.247

1.000
0.403
0.162

1.000
0.575
0.159
−0.061
0.073

1.000
−0.005
−0.019
0.038

0.269
−0.047

−0.003
−0.177

0.107
−0.547
1.000
0.336
0.098
−0.175
0.101

1.000
0.635
0.092

Cuisine

1.000
0.039
0.096
−0.003

Historical
buildings
or streets

1.000
0.500
0.099
0.146
0.190

Natural
scenery

−0.075
0.471

1.000
−0.277

0.030
0.055

1.000
0.153

0.384
−0.167

1.000
0.204

Shopping

−0.309
−0.154

1.000

−0.012
−0.071

1.000

−0.085
−0.373

1.000

Accommodation

facilities
(including spas)

1.000
−0.012

1.000
0.058

1.000
−0.042

Festivals
or special
events

1.000

1.000

1.000

Theme
parks

Differences in Travel Objectives
661

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

662
the Kansai area to first-time tourists is important. Such promotion should include providing travel plans or information about events,
when promoting sightseeing in the Kansai
area, to make first-time tourists aware of the
attractiveness of accommodation.
Finally, we should mention a remaining
problem. Our research is based on a questionnaire for travel agencies and tourism authorities, which was designed to save costs. In such
a survey, there might be misunderstandings
between travel agencies and the actual tourists
over the travel objectives. To avoid this type of
problem, we need to conduct a large-scale
survey of actual tourists, although this will
involve significant costs in terms of both money
and time. This will be the subject of future
research.
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR USE
Questionnaire about Attractiveness of Kansai
Tourism Spots
<Face Sheet>
Question 1: What is the company or organization you work for?
Please choose your answer and circle the corresponding letter (A to F).
A. Travel agency (only for domestic travel)
B. Travel agency (for both domestic and overseas travel)
C. Travel agency (only for overseas travel)
D. Travel agency (land operator: specializing
in foreign customers)
E. National government (or municipal)
tourism office

F. Hotel
Question 2: If you were to plan and market
travel or tours to the Kansai region in Japan
targeting Japanese customers, what would
they be? Please show two different plans.
Please fill out the following sheet ‘Domestic
Tour Plan 1’ and ‘Domestic Tour Plan 2’ in
pages 4 to 5. Furthermore, there is no matter
what travel modes you have chosen to Kansai.
omitted.>
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

K. Okamura and M. Fukushige
<Questions about Domestic Plan>
A. What type of travelers do you target and
what kind of travel or tours do you plan?
Please choose your answer and circle the
number(s) that apply.
(1) For how long?
1. one day 2. 2–3 days 3.4–6 days 4. more
than one week
(2) Which season? (Multiple choices are
possible.)
1. spring 2. summer 3. autumn 4. winter 5.
throughout the year
(3) What is the purpose of the travel? (Multiple choices are possible.)
1. for tourism 2. for leisure or sports 3. for
conferences or seminars 4. for incentive
tours 5. for visiting acquaintances 6. for

school trips
(4) What type of travelers do you market to?
(Multiple choices are possible.)
1. traveling alone 2. traveling as a couple 3.
traveling in a family 4. traveling in a group
5. other (please be specific.)
(5) What age groups do you market to? (Multiple choices are possible.)
1. teens 2. twenties 3. thirties 4. forties
5. fifties 6. sixties 7. seventies 8. all age
groups
(6) What is the sex of the travelers you market
to?
1. female 2. male 3.both
(7) Have the travelers been in Kansai before?
1. never 2. two or three times 3. four times
or more
(8) Where is the residential area of travelers
whom are targeting.
1. Hokkaido 2. Tohoku 3. Kanto 4. Hokuriku
5. Chubu 6. Kinki 7. Chugoku 8. Shikoku 9.
Kyushu 10. Okinawa 11. any area

B. Specific Destinations
Please choose destinations you are interested
in from the enclosed ‘List of Destinations’ and
put the corresponding numbers in. Choose
two or more and 10 or less
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Differences in Travel Objectives

Example: If ‘1 Eiheiji, Tojinbo, Awara Onsen’,
‘16 Gion, Shimabara’, ‘50 Kinosaki Onsen,
Yumura Onsen’ are chosen, then the following
numbers should be filled out.
1

16

50

*When you have chosen some numbers from
above, you may attach a sightseeing brochure
that your company has issued.
C. Why did you choose the numbers in B?
Please choose your reasons from the following
choices 1 to 15 and circle number(s) that apply.
(Multiple choices are possible.)
Because we want our customers to experience/
enjoy:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

natural landscapes
historical buildings or streets
modern buildings or streets
cuisine
shopping
parks or wandering
accommodation facilities(including spas)
art galleries and museums (including treasure houses in temples and shrines)
concerts or performances at music halls or
theaters
festivals or special events
night excitement
night views
theme parks
sports (such as golf and skiing)
industrial facilities

REFERENCES
Akaike H. 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In 2nd
International Symposium on Information Theory,
Petrov BN, Csaki F (eds). Akademiai Kiado:

Budapest, Hungary; 267–281.
Beaman J, Huan T-CC, Kozak M. 2001. Estimating
a Markov model that incorporates first visit decisions and varying repeat frequency. Tourism
Analysis 6(2): 81–97.
Butler RW. 1999. Problems and issues of integrating
tourism development. In Contemporary Issues in
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

663
Tourism Development, Pearce DG, Butler RW (eds).
Routledge: London; 65–80.
Butler RW. 2004. The tourism area life cycle in the
twenty-first century. In A Companion to Tourism,
Lew AA, Hall CM, Williams AM (eds). Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.: Oxford; 159–170.
Clottey B, Lennon, R. 2003. Transitional economy
tourism: German travel consumers’ perceptions
of Lithuania. International Journal of Tourism
Research 5: 295–303.
Correia A, Barros CP, Silvestre AL. 2007. Golf
tourism repeat choice behaviour in the Algarve:
a mixed logit approach. Tourism Economics 13(1):
111–127.
Correia A, Oliveira N, Butler R. 2008. First-time and
repeat visitors to Cape Verde: the overall image.
Tourism Economics 14(1): 185–203.
Darnell A, Johnson PS. 2001. Repeat visit to attractions: a preliminary economic analysis. Tourism
Management 22: 119–126.
Fallon P, Schofield P. 2004. First-time versus repeat
visitor satisfaction: the case of Orlando, Florida.

Tourism Analysis 8(2): 205–210.
Hughes HL, Allen D. 2008. Visitor and non-visitor
images of Central and Eastern Europe: a quantitative analysis. International Journal of Tourism
Research 10: 27–40.
Japan National Tourism Organization (JNTO). 2006.
Destination Survey of Overseas Visitors to Japan
2004–2005. Japan National Tourism Organization: Tokyo.
Japan Tourism Association (JTA). 2006. Current
Status of Tourism and Tourists’ Preferences. The 24th
Survey of Public Behavior. Japan Tourism Association: Tokyo.
Kozak M. 2001. Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct
destinations. Annals of Tourism Research 28(3):
784–807.
Law CM. 2002. Urban Tourism: The Visitor Economy
and the Growth of Large Cities.2nd edn. London:
Continuum.
Lam T, Hsu CHC. 2006. Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tourism
Management 27: 589–599.
Ledesma FJ, Navarro M, Pérez-Rodríguez JV.
2005. Return to tourist destination. Is it reputation, after all? Applied Economics 37: 2055–
2065.
Light D. 1996. Characteristics of the audience for
‘events’ at a heritage site. Tourism Management
17(3): 183–190.
Litvin S. 2007. Marketing visitor attractions: A segmentation study. International Journal of Tourism
Research 9: 9–19.
McWilliams EG, Crompton JL. 1997. An expanded
framework for measuring the effectiveness of
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

664
destination advertising. Tourism Management
18(3): 127–137.
Stewart SI, Vogt CA. 1999. A case-based approach
to understanding vacation planning. Leisure
Science 21: 79–95.
Tiefenbacher JP, Day FA, Walton JA. 2000. Attributes of repeat visitors to small tourist-oriented
communities. The Social Science Journal 37(2):
299–308.
Truong T-H, King B. 2009. An evaluation of satisfaction levels among Chinese tourists in Vietnam.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

K. Okamura and M. Fukushige
International Journal of Tourism Research, 11:
521–535.
Vassiliadis CA. 2008. Destination production characteristics as useful predictors for repeat visiting
and recommendation segmentation variable in
tourism: a CHAID exhaustive analysis. International Journal of Tourism Research 10: 439–452.
Wang Y, Rompf P, Severt D, Peerapatdit N. 2006.
Examining and identifying the determinants of
travel expenditure patterns. International Journal
of Tourism Research 8: 333–346.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 647–664 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 665–679 (2010)
Published online 14 April 2010 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.782

Attributes Affecting the Level of Tourist
Satisfaction with and Loyalty towards
Theatrical Performance in China:
Evidence from a Qualitative Study
Hanqun Song and Catherine Cheung*
School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon,
Hong Kong

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

This study seeks to explore attributes
affecting the level of tourist satisfaction
with and loyalty towards theatrical
performance in China. Based on four focus
group discussions with 31 participants, the
study identifies 34 attributes that affect the
level of tourist satisfaction with theatrical
performance, and groups them into five
categories: stage, performance, venue,
service and tourist-related attributes. The
findings on tourist loyalty reveal that 21 of
the 31 respondents would not watch the
same theatrical performance alone in the

future; however, they would recommend it
to others. The study concludes with a
discussion of the rich and insightful
findings and their implications for tourism
industry practitioners. Copyright © 2010
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

hina’s tourism industry has developed
rapidly in the three decades since the
implementation of the open-door policy
in 1978, as reflected in the increasing number
of domestic and international tourist arrivals
(WTTC, 2004). In the early stage of the tourism
industry in China, there were only a few kinds
of tourism activities and entertainment. A
Chinese saying sums up the itinerary —
‘daytime activity for tourists is visiting temples,
nighttime activity is sleeping.’ However, with
the enormous growth in the tourism industry,
the number and types of tourism activities
have increased dramatically, especially in
tourism entertainment. Tourism entertainment
can not only enhance the tourist experience but
also improve destination competitiveness (Xin
Jing News, 2008).
There are many types of tourism entertainment in the tourism industry. Pearce (2008)
defined tourism entertainment as structured
and managed situations designed for a predominantly visitor audience, which include
cultural shows, dance performances, theme
park presentations, fun guided tours and film

and video presentations tailored exclusively
for visitors. In China, theatrical performance, a
type of tourism entertainment, can be divided
into many types based on various criteria. It
can showcase the local culture, the culture of
ethnic minorities, or traditional Chinese
culture. Small live performances feature one
or two performers, whereas large-scale live

Received 21 October 2009; Revised 2 March 2010; Accepted 9
March 2010

Keywords: theatrical performance; tourist
satisfaction; tourist loyalty; qualitative
method; China.

*Correspondence to: Catherine Cheung, PhD, School of
Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
E-mail:

C

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


666
performances involve from one hundred to
more than 300 performers. The former may be
short 15-minute shows, whereas the latter normally last from 1 to 2 hours. Some live shows

are performed outdoors near hills, rivers or
lakes. Examples include The Impression of Liusanjie, The Impression of Lijiang, The Impression
of West Lake, The Song of Eternal Sorrow and Zen
Music Shaolin Grand Ceremony. Indoor performances of well-known productions that are
staged in a theater include The Romance of the
Song Dynasty, The Night of West Lake and The
Legend of Kung Fu.
In 2008, 300 large-scale theatrical performances in China generated more than RMB3
billion in tourism income (Xin Jing News,
2008). Theatrical performance has become a
major tourist attraction in China (Xu, 1998),
and more and more cities are presenting theatrical performances to visitors. Almost every
major city in China now stages theatrical productions following the success of The Impression of Liusanjie at Guilin in 2004 (Zhuge and
Cui, 2005). Nevertheless, only a small number
of tourism studies have investigated theatrical
performance in China. Li et al. (2005) studied
the production system of tourist-directed performing arts using a theme park in Shenzhen
Overseas Chinese Town as a case study. Tian
and Bao (2005) did an authenticity study of
cultural performances of the Dai minority in
Xishuangbanna.
In China, theatrical performance is a product
of the culture and tourism industries. China’s
Ministry of Culture and National Tourism
Administration highly encourage the entrance
of the performing arts into the tourism industry, and promote the development of theatrical
performance (Central People’s Government of
the People’s Republic of China, 2009). Theatrical performance combines the performing arts
with high-technology facilities, and in some
cases, beautiful natural surroundings (Shanghai Daily, 2006). It is developing at a fast pace.

In 2007 alone, around RMB179 million was
invested in theatrical productions that involved
17.6 thousand professional and amateur performers and 167 million audience members
(Wei, 2007b). The investment in theatrical performance is huge. For instance, in 1998, the
production cost of The Romance of the Song
Dynasty was RMB60 million (Jiang, 2006), in
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

H. Song and C. Cheung
2004, The Impression of Liusanjie cost RMB70
million (Wei, 2007a) and in 2006, The Impression
of Lijiang had a budget of US$31 million, while
Zen Music Shaolin Grand Ceremony cost US$12.5
million (Shanghai Daily, 2006). Theatrical performance also has an economic impact on the
local tourism industry. The Impression of Liusanjie, for example, increased the gross domestic
product of Yangshuo County in Guilin by
more than 10%, and increased the length of
stay of tourists in the County by 8 hours per
person (Wang, 2008).
The goal of theatrical performance of a destination is to boost the local tourism industry,
whereas that of stakeholders is profitability. In
previous studies, consumer satisfaction has
been linked to higher business profits through
loyalty (Alegre and Juaneda, 2006; Gupta et al.,
2007). Hence, there is an urgent need to study
tourist satisfaction with and loyalty towards
theatrical performance in China. However,
such studies are scarce. To fill this research
gap, the study aims to explore the attributes
affecting the level of tourist satisfaction with,

and to determine whether there is tourist
loyalty towards, theatrical performance in
China.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Tourism entertainment
The literature related to theatrical performance
is rooted in the tourism entertainment research.
According to Hughes (2000), entertainment
includes live performances of music, dance,
shows, and plays, going to the cinemas, clubs,
discos and sport matches, watching television,
playing computer games, and listening to CDs.
Hughes and Allen (2008) defined entertainment as live performances of plays, music,
dance and the like that are different from the
fine arts as experienced in developed, longestablished tourist destinations. Pearce (2008)
identified common and noteworthy characteristics of tourism entertainment from a range of
micro-cases, and defined tourism entertainment as structured and managed situations
designed for a predominantly visitor audience.
Ryan and Collins (2008) were the first to
analyse the construction of theater entertainment with their examination of An Eastern
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 665–679 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Theatrical Performance in China
Odyssey in Japan. They stated that within a
trilogy of fantasies, production, the nature of
Huis Ten Bosch (a theme park in Nagasaki
Prefecture that recreates the Netherlands),
and a financial fantasy, An Eastern Odyssey

becomes itself a metaphor for much postmodern tourism (Ryan and Collins, 2008).
Most studies of tourism entertainment consider one instance of the phenomenon, and
approach that setting with one guiding set of
ideas (Prentice, 2003; Harris, 2005).
Theatrical performance
One definition of theatrical performance is ‘a
performance of a play.’1 In the present study,
theatrical performance refers to large-scale live
performances staged indoors or outdoors, that
are predominantly designed for tourists. Chen
et al. (2008) analysed inbound tourist satisfaction and future revisit intention regarding a
theatrical production, Zen Music Shaolin
Grand Ceremony, a traditional cultural
product, based on three intangible factors: traditional, education and fascination. They found
a significant relationship between the three
factors and tourist satisfaction and revisit
intention, respectively. However, little is found
about the attributes of theatrical performances
in the tourism research. Some useful studies
are found in the hospitality field. For instance,
Hede et al. (2004) measured eight attributes of
a theater event, ‘storyline’, ‘stage work’, ‘costumes’, ‘acting and singing’, ‘ambience of the
theater’, ‘service at the theater’, ‘value for
money’ and ‘vision from the seats’, to test a
conceptual framework that included personal
values, satisfaction and post-consumption
behavioural intentions. They found that with
the exception of ‘vision from the seats,’ these
attributes were significantly related with
tourist satisfaction.

Tourist satisfaction
Tourist satisfaction is defined as post-consumption evaluation concerning a specific
product or service (Westbrook and Oliver,
1991), and proposed to be one of the key judg1

This definition of theatrical performance was available at
(accessed April 2009).
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

667
ments that tourists make regarding a tourism
service. Hence, it is a well-established, longstanding focus marketer attention (Yuksel and
Yuksel, 2002).
There are many tourism and hospitality
studies of the factors affecting the level of
tourist satisfaction. In the tourism research
investigating destination, Chi and Qu (2008)
chose 33 destination items to measure tourist
satisfaction, and distinguished seven key
factors: lodging, dining, shopping, attractions,
activities and events, environment and accessibility. Master and Prideaux (2000) selected
eight attributes to assess Taiwanese tourist satisfaction in South East Queensland. Heung
and Qu (2000) examined the satisfaction levels
of Japanese tourists to Hong Kong in terms of
31 travel attributes. Mazanec (2006) studied
tourist satisfaction with ski resorts using six
satisfaction indicators: ease of access, situation
at ticket selling points, level and variety of
prices, cableways and ski lifts, skiing area,
skiing runs, services and restaurants. In the

hospitality research, Yuksel and Yuksel (2002)
investigated restaurant selection and foodservice evaluation by measuring the level of
tourist satisfaction with dining based on 10
factors: service quality, product quality, menu
diversity, hygiene, convenience and location,
noise, service speed, price and value, facilities
and atmosphere.
Tourist loyalty
Tourist loyalty is commonly measured by
three indicators: intention to continue buying
the same product, intention to buy more of the
same product and willingness to recommend
the product to others (Hepworth and Mateus,
1994). However, various tourism products
have different loyalty measurements. Chen
and Gursoy (2001) used inclination to use the
same airline and stay in the same franchised
hotel whenever traveling to measure tourist
loyalty, and willingness to recommend the
product to others to measure tourist loyalty
towards a destination. However, other studies
have chosen two indicators to measure destination loyalty, such as tourist intention to
revisit the destination and willingness to recommend it to others as a favourable destination (Chi and Qu, 2008).
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 665–679 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


668
In the theatrical performance research, Chen
et al. (2008) measured tourist loyalty towards

theatrical performance using two indicators:
would you recommend the theatrical performance you have seen to your friends and relatives, and would you watch the same theatrical
performance in the future? They found that
inbound tourists were willing to revisit the
same theatrical performance and to recommend it to others. Petrick et al. (2001) examined
tourist intention to revisit an entertainment
destination, live theater entertainment, and
take advantage of an entertainment package
again, and found that past behaviour, satisfaction and perceived value are not good predictors of intention to revisit live theater
entertainment.
METHODOLOGY
Because of the lack of theatrical performancespecific research in the tourism literature, this
study tried to gain detailed information and
uncover issues related to this topic for discussion in future research (Cole, 2004). To meet
these goals, it used a qualitative method —
focus group discussion. Focus group samples
can be selected by age in order to create a permissive atmosphere, or can be balanced by different age, sex and economics status groups
(Finn et al., 2000). By following these two selection guidelines, members in Group 1, 2, 3 were
recruited from universities, and all of the participants had similar age; Group 4 members
were selected from the community, and they
had different age, sex and economics status. In
total four focus group discussions, with a total
of 31 participants, were held in Hong Kong
and Shenzhen in February 2009. Email invitations were sent to the mainland Chinese students studying at the School of Hotel and
Tourism Management in Hong Kong, and participants were directly recruited from a course
with a large number of students at Shenzhen
University in China. Group members were
also recruited by poster advertisements from a
community in Shenzhen. In order to ensure the
validity of the sample, all participants in the

focus groups were screened to ensure that they
had watched at least one theatrical performance in China in the past 12 months.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

H. Song and C. Cheung
The researcher facilitated and mediated
every section. An assistant helped to distribute
the open-ended questions, took notes and
recorded the discussions. The researcher first
explained the definition of theatrical performance being used in this study. Then, four
open-ended questions stimulated the discussion among participants. Finally, participants
were asked to provide demographic information. Open-ended questions were used in the
focus group discussions, as they can reveal
the world as seen by respondents and capture
the points of view of other people through
prior selection of questionnaire categories
(Patton, 2002). The open-ended questions used
in the discussions are as follows.
(1) What kind of stage attributes affected the
level of your satisfaction with the theatrical
performance that you saw in China?
(2) What other attributes do you think affected
the level of your satisfaction?
(3) Would you watch the same theatrical performance in the future? Why or why not?
(4) Would you recommend the theatrical performance that you saw to others? Why or
why not?
Data coding and analysis of the audio recordings and notes of the discussions were carried
out by two researchers to develop a categorisation scheme. Two researchers participated in
this data analysis to ensure the high credibility
of the process and the interpretation. First, one

researcher (A) transcribed the audio recordings into text version. Second, researcher (A)
conducted the data coding according to the
nature of the theatrical performance attributes.
When the data coding procedure was completed, another researcher (B) independently
examined the data to come up with the data
coding results, a kind of inter-coder reliability
check (Berg, 2007), at the same time provide
suggestions to the terms of the coding and
names of the theatrical performance attributes.
Third, researcher (A) compiled the data coding
results from previous procedures. The final
resulting categories were created under a consensual process of interpretation by the two
researchers. Both researchers discussed and
compromised with the resulting categories.
Direct quotations from the focus group participants were used in the data analysis and are
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 665–679 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


Theatrical Performance in China
included in the Findings section as they demonstrate the depth of emotion, thoughts, experiences and perceptions of the participants
(Patton, 2002), and provide a trail of evidence
to support the categorisation scheme.

669
should be noted that the five categories are
analytically developed by the researchers, and
they are not wholly independent and relationships exist among them.
Stage attributes

FINDINGS
Profile of the participants
A total of 31 people, all mainland Chinese, participated in the four focus group discussions.
The Group 1 and 2 discussions were conducted
in Hong Kong, while the Group 3 and 4 discussions were conducted in Shenzhen. The demographic characteristics of the participants are
presented in Table 1.
Nineteen females and twelve males participated in the study. The majority (90%) of participants was aged between 20 to 30 years old,
and there were also more single than married
interviewees. Among the 31 participants, 12
were students. Twenty-eight out of thirty-one
respondents had a higher educational degree.
One third respondents, full-time students, had
no income (10), followed by those with an
unstable income (7) and those with a monthly
income of more than RMB5000 (7). Seventeen
respondents were in families of 2–3 persons,
and twelve were in families of 4–5 persons.
Tourist satisfaction and attributes affecting
the level of tourist satisfaction with
theatrical performance in China
Almost all of the focus group participants said
that they were satisfied with the performance
they had seen. Most reported a very high level
of satisfaction. Experiencing a theatrical performance, an innovative tourism product, was
perceived by respondents to be a valuable
opportunity to enjoy fantastic scenery and
culture, amazing performing arts and hightechnology effects.
Analysis of the audio recordings and
researcher’s notes from the focus group discussions yielded 34 attributes affecting the level of
tourist satisfaction with theatrical performance.

In order to sustain an order of categorisation,
these attributes were then divided into five
categories: stage, performance, venue, service
and tourist-related attributes (see Figure 1). It
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Stage attributes are items associated with stage
facilities and equipments. Hede et al. (2004)
assessed tourist satisfaction with theater events
based on three attributes: ‘costumes’, ‘acting
and singing’ and ‘stage work’; and found a
significant relationship between each of these
and tourist satisfaction. However, the three
attributes are general features of theater events.
Therefore, the current study considered nine
attributes: ‘costumes’, ‘stage decorations’,
‘background scenery or screen’, ‘scale of the
stage’, ‘water and a waterfall on the stage’,
‘smoke’, ‘lighting’, ‘music and songs’ and ‘loud
sounds.’
The nine attributes provide a detailed picture
of the stage facilities and the high-technology
effects incorporated into the performance. A
lot of respondents mentioned that these tangible stage-related attributes played a great
role in the level of their satisfaction, as these
features drew their attention to the stage and
the show being performed. Regarding common
stage facilities, namely, ‘costumes of the performers’, ‘stage decoration,’ ‘background
scenery or screen’ and ‘scale of the stage’, most
respondents said that these could have been

better, which resulted in lower levels of satisfaction with the performance. However, most
participants said that the high-technology
effects, including ‘water and a waterfall on the
stage’, ‘smoke’ and ‘lighting’, exceeded their
expectations. They were very surprised when
they first saw these effects. Some respondents
mentioned that the beautiful music and songs
really impressed them. However, some said
that the loud sounds made them uncomfortable. The stage items and related quotations
drawn from the focus group discussions are
presented in Table 2.
Performance attributes
Performance attributes concern both the performance and performers. Hede et al. (2004) found
that storyline had a significant relationship with
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 665–679 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr


670

H. Song and C. Cheung

Table 1. Profile of the focus group participants
N = 31

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Total

2
5

2
4

4
4

4
6

12
19

5
2

5
1

8

1
5

3
1

19
8
3
1

4
3

5
1

7
1

1
9

17
14

1
2

1

1
5

2
5
3
1
12
2

2
1
5
2

2
1
13
15

Gender
Male
Female
Age
19–29
30–39
40–49
50 or above
Marital status
Single
Married
Occupation
Businessperson

Civil servant
Teacher
Clerk/White-collar worker
Blue-collar worker
Retired
Student
Other
Education
High school
Vocational college
4 years of university
Postgraduate or above
Personal monthly income:
RMB1 001–2 000
RMB2 001–3 000
RMB3 001–4 000
RMB4 001–5 000
More than RMB5,000
No income
Unstable income
Family size
2–3 persons
4–5 persons
6 or more persons

3
1
1

2

2
1

2
3
1
8

8
7

6
2

2
2
3
5
2

tourist satisfaction in the theater-event context.
This study considered seven performance
attributes: ‘performance is special and unique’,
‘professional performers’, ‘good coordination
among
performers’,
‘performers
show
emotion’, ‘performers show enthusiasm’, ‘good

order of performance’ and ‘punctual start of
performance’.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1
2

1
1
2

5
1

2

2
1
2
2
7
10
7

2
7
1

17
12

2

1
2
1
4
6
2
5
3

Many respondents mentioned that they
prefer a unique and special performance. They
appreciated a unique storyline or new kind of
production. The Impression of Liusanjie, for
example, was staged outdoors in a natural
environment, unlike other productions. ‘Professional performers’, ‘good coordination
among performers’, ‘performers show emotion’
Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 665–679 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr