the use of travel guidebooks by packaged and non-packaged japanese travellers: a comparative study

Academic Papers

The use of travel guidebooks by packagedand non-packaged Japanese travellers:A comparative study

Sachiko Nishimura*, Brian King and Robert WaryszakReceived (in revised form): February 2007Anonymously refereed paper

*Faculty of Commerce, Doshisha University, Kyoto, 602–8580, Japan

E-mail: [email protected]

Sachiko Nishimura has a PhD in tourism from

Victoria University, Australia, and is a lecturer in

Faculty of Commerce, Doshisha University,

Japan. Her current research interests include the

use of information sources by tourists, the charac-

teristics of package tours and other forms of travel.

Brian King is Professor and Head of the School of

Hospitality, Tourism and Marketing at Victoria Uni-

versity, currently on secondment as Director of the

University’s Repositioning Project (Making VU).

He is Co-editor-in-Chief of the journal Tourism,

Culture and Communication and Visiting Profes-

sor at AILUN University, Sardinia, Italy. His re-

search interests include tourism/migration

linkages, tourism in the Asia-Pacific region, resort

destination marketing, the role of marketing in

tourism planning and cultural dimensions of tour-

ism.

Robert Waryszak is an Adjunct Senior Lecturer

in the School of Hospitality, Tourism and Market-

ing at Victoria Univeristy.

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS: guidebooks, package tourists,non-packaged tourists, tourism marketing,Japanese

This article attempts to ascertain whether touristtype (based on the degree of freedom exercisedduring travel) influences the use of travel infor-mation sources for decision-making, particularlyin the case of guidebooks. A model is proposedincorporating the travel decision-making processand the selection of information sources. Fourhypotheses are tested and the results indicate thattourist type has a considerable influence over thechoice of travel information source. It was foundthat the greater the degree of freedom exercisedby respondents during travel, the more that theyused guidebooks both prior to and during travel.Guidebook usage was found to be widespreadamong all three segments of the Japanese market,though different patterns are evident at thevarious stages of the trip – before and afterdeparture.

INTRODUCTIONInformation search has been a prominenttopic for investigation within the tourismliterature since Nolan’s pioneering study.1

Research on the information search behav-iour of prospective and actual tourists iscomplex because many factors must betaken into account. Despite this complex-ity, it should be possible to identify behav-ioural characteristics on the part of different

Page 291

Journal of Vacation Marketing Volume 13 Number 4

Journal of Vacation MarketingVol. 13 No. 4, 2007, pp. 291–310& SAGE PublicationsLos Angeles, London, New Delhiand Singapore.www.sagepublications.comDOI: 10.1177/1356766707081006

at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University on December 11, 2014jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jvm.sagepub.com/

segments by locating the factors influencinginformation search behaviour and by con-necting the use of specific informationsources and travel decision-making on thepart of tourist types. Previous studies havealready identified some general relationshipsbetween information search behaviour,tourist demographics and characteristics andtrip behaviours.2–4 The objective of thepresent study is to ascertain the extent towhich tourist type is one of such factors,when determined on the basis of degree of‘freedom’ exercised during travel decision-making. Of the various travel informationsources, this study focuses specifically onthe use of travel guidebooks (hereafter re-ferred to as guidebooks). This is consistentwith the findings of many previous studieswhich have repeatedly identified guide-books as one of most important informa-tion sources for tourists.5–7

TOURIST TYPE AND TRAVEL

INFORMATION SEARCHPrevious studies on travel information searchhave suggested that demographic character-istics are becoming less useful for segmentingthe tourist market.8–10 Instead, it has beensuggested that travel-related variables may bemore productive in explaining the range ofinformation gathered and the degree of in-fluence exercised on travel decision-makingby each of these sources. It has been notedthat the type of tourist is likely to influencethe search and use of information sources.For example, Snepenger11 employed Co-hen’s typology of tourists12 and found thatfirst-time travellers to Alaska used informa-tion sources to varying degrees. Thesesources include travel agents, state-sponsoredadvertisements, tour brochures and guide-books, and friends and relatives. ‘Tour bro-chures/guide books’ were used more in thecase of ‘individual mass tourists’ (sightseeingor excursion tours purchased during thevacation and undertaken as part of a group),followed by ‘explorers’ (a travel party under-taking a self-guided vacation) and ‘organizedmass tourists’ (a travel party participating in

an organized tour for most or all of thevacation). In their study of Swiss pleasuretravellers, Bieger and Laesser13 found that thedegree of trip packaging is related to thecluster of information source usages. Of thefour clusters that were identified the authorsfound that the ones attaching the greatestimportance to ‘travel guides/travel books/journals’ were those undertaking ‘no packageat all’ (46 per cent), followed by ‘singlepackage tour’ (30 per cent). Those under-taking ‘group package tour’ recorded a muchlower 9 per cent.

From the findings of these studies, itappears that the type of tourist may influencethe levels and types of information needed.It may also have an impact on the level andtype of information search employed. Pur-chasers of package tours appear to do so forreasons of convenience, price, unfamiliaritywith the destination, or because they thinkthat they will have an opportunity to see anddo more.14 The capacity to simplify thedecision-making process may also play apart.

INFORMATION SOURCES FOR

TRAVEL DECISION-MAKINGStudies on the travel decision-making pro-cess have often viewed destination choice asthe key element in the process and manyhave focussed exclusively on this aspect. It isacknowledged here that destination choice isof paramount importance in travel decision-making from a destination marketing per-spective. Nevertheless, destination choice isa single element of the various travel deci-sions, even in the case of those made prior tothe trip itself. Given this diversity of influ-ences, other elements of the travel-relatedexperience need to be considered.15–17 Deci-sion-making about the various elements ofthe trip may occur at different times, includ-ing prior to the choice of destination. It mayinclude the selection of restaurants, the pur-chase of gifts and of destination-basedactivities.18 From these observations, it maybe concluded that travel decisions are notsingle, independent choices about separate

92

The use of travel guidebooks



elements but involve complex interrelation-ships.

Individual travel decisions may occur indifferent ways, and the selection of particulartrip components seems likely to depend onthe type of tourist. Of the various studieswhich provide insights into decision-makingon different types of trip, the greatest focushas been on the distinction between packagetour participants and independent travellers.19

It is widely accepted that decision-making byindependent travellers involves multiple deci-sions, ranging from ‘which destination?’ to‘which restaurant for dinner?’. A study onindependent travellers by Hyde20 has pro-vided some support for the view that suchtourist types exercise distinct decision-making processes. He reported that approxi-mately 80 per cent of vacation elements wereunplanned either specifically or generally.This finding highlights the inherent flexibilityof independent holiday itineraries and thelikelihood that decision-making is underta-ken en route. By way of contrast, participantsin comprehensive package tours are generallynot required to make multiple decisions,since their only major decision is ‘whichtour?’. For such tourists, travel decision-making is ‘all-in-one’. Recognizing thesedifferent characteristics, it may be more ap-propriate to take account of the differentdegrees of choice exercised by independenttravellers and package tour participants whenmaking decisions about multiple travel ele-ments.

It is timely to re-examine the way inwhich information is searched for and usedin the context of how decisions are made bya wide range of tourists, including bothindependent travellers and package tour par-ticipants. In the case of independent travel-lers, travel decision-making may be anongoing process that continues throughoutthe travel experience, incorporating externalsearching for information. Pre-purchasesearch is likely to be supplemented bysearching undertaken during travel. If theseassumptions are correct, then external infor-mation search does not necessarily occurwithin a decision-making context confinedto a specific point in time (i.e. prior to

travel). Rather, it involves every phase of thetravel decision-making process. Having de-parted for their destination, for example,independent travellers may continue tosearch for information both en route andafter their arrival at a destination. Although itis likely that information sources available totravellers during travel are different fromthose available at the point of origin, nodetailed studies have been undertaken on thevarious choices about information sourcesmade during travel. The present study at-tempts to investigate the use of travel infor-mation sources both prior to and duringtravel.

A conceptual model is proposed (Figure1) and depicts the relationship between traveldecision-making and the use of a variety ofinformation sources, with particular refer-ence to the variable ‘type of tourist’. Themodel is best explained by following thevarious stages of travel including the periodprior to departure. The first phase involvesconsideration on the part of the tourist aboutwhether or not to have a holiday. This phaseis generally not included in models whichaim to investigate travel motivations. Thepresent model aims to clarify two optionsthat are available to travellers during theensuing phase. In the event of a decision toproceed with a holiday, the second phasefollows, including interrelated decisionsabout ‘where’ and ‘how’ to go.21

It is proposed that tourist type may exer-cise an influence on the decision about‘how’ to go. To address the prospectiverelationship, a continuum of tourists is pro-posed based on the degree of freedom ex-ercised by the traveller when making traveldecisions. A similar classificatory system hasbeen used by Yamamoto and Gill,22 thoughit was not based on a continuum. In thecurrent paper, the continuum that is pro-posed by the researchers places comprehen-sive package tour participants at one end ofthe spectrum and independent travellers atthe other. It is suggested that tourists aredispersed across the spectrum between thesetwo extremes, based on the degree of free-dom or flexibility that they exercise overtheir travel decision-making. The concept

Page 293

Nishimura, King and Waryszak



can also be operationalized based on thedegree of inclusivity of the various packagetour elements.23 The continuum aims toaccommodate all tourist types. Package tourparticipants without any meal arrangements

are situated closer to the left of the spectrum.Independent travellers who book accommo-dation prior to their trip are found to theright of the spectrum. Finally, tourists whopurchase a basic package tour, or so-called

Figure 1 The travel decision-making process and selection of information sources

Page 294




‘free-time’ or ‘skeleton tour’ (consisting ofair ticket, accommodation and transportationfrom and to the destination airport only)may be located somewhere between thetwo. The model assumes that comprehensivepackage tour participants make a single deci-sion, namely the choice of tour. By way ofcontrast, independent travellers need tomake multiple decisions. The differences be-tween the two groups are likely to produce avariety of choices and uses of informationsource. The continuum aims to acknowl-edge the likelihood that different marketsegments make distinct use of travel informa-tion sources. The inclusion of ‘skeletontours’ has particular relevance to the Japanesemarket with increasing numbers of touriststravelling more independently than before.

Of the various sources of travel informa-tion considered in the model, one may beclassified as ‘internal’ (past experience) and13 as ‘external’ sources. The latter groupincludes travel agent, package tour brochure,guidebook, TV, newspaper/magazine, desti-nation marketing organization (DMO) in-formation pack, word-of-mouth (WoM)from friends and relatives, tour guide, on-siteinformation centre, WoM from other tour-ists, WoM from local residents, and othersource. As indicated earlier, the use of travelinformation sources may differ depending onthe type of tourist. Comprehensive packagetour participants make a single decision(namely ‘which tour?’). Having chosen theirtour, package tour participants do not re-quire any further information for decision-making purposes. Consequently they do notmake use of information sources that areonly available at the destination. By way ofcontrast, it appears unlikely that independenttravellers will use tour operator brochuresand travel agents for their decision-making.A recent study of independent travellers toNew Zealand has indicated that most infor-mation search and planning occurs after arri-val at the destination. It has found thatdetailed plans about attraction and activitychoices are confined to the up-coming 24-hour period.24 This suggests that indepen-dent travellers confine their informationsearch about a sub-destination to those in-

formation sources which are available duringthe trip and only undertake search activitywhen they are approaching that sub-destination.

HYPOTHESESFor the purposes of this empirical investiga-tion, and as outlined in Figure 1, it isassumed that the closer the tourist is locatedtowards the right of the continuum (greaterfreedom exercised during travel decision-making; i.e. independent traveller), the morelikely that guidebooks will be used. Thissituation arises because such tourists are re-quired to make multiple decisions, includingduring travel and because decisions are madecontinuously throughout the trip. Informa-tion search is likely to be occurring simulta-neously. Where tourists rely on travelinformation sources readily available duringtravel, it is likely that they will use a guide-book, one of the few information sourcesavailable both prior to and during travel.Based on such assumptions, the followinghypotheses have been formulated.

Hypothesis 1:For travel decision-making prior to travel,guidebooks are used more than other infor-mation sources by all tourists.

Hypothesis 2:For travel decision-making during travel,guidebooks are used more than other infor-mation sources by all tourists.

Hypothesis 3:For travel decision-making prior to travel,guidebooks are used more than other infor-mation sources by tourists who exercisegreater ‘freedom’ in their decision-making.

Hypothesis 4:For travel decision-making during travel,guidebooks are used more than other infor-mation sources by tourists who exercisegreater ‘freedom’ in their decision-making.

Page 295




METHODOLOGYA survey was conducted using a self-admin-istered questionnaire (see Appendix). Part ofthe questionnaire focused on the use ofinformation sources for various travel com-ponents, including destination and accom-modation. Since the present study isconcerned with the temporal dimension ofinformation use, survey respondents wereasked to provide responses about their use ofinformation sources both prior to and duringtheir trip.

Usable responses were collected from1211 Japanese who had travelled overseaswithin the previous five years. The samplewas made up of Japanese overseas touristsexhibiting a variety of demographic andtravel-related characteristics (see Table 1).The study employed a purposive samplingstrategy. This approach cannot guarantee therepresentativeness of the chosen sample interms of all salient characteristics. However,the possibility of covering the whole Japa-nese population in such a study is impracti-cal. Given the exploratory nature of thestudy, the sample population was consideredto be acceptable for the purposes of statisticalanalysis.

Two Melbourne-based travel companiesassisted the researchers in Australia by gath-ering information from their Japanese in-bound customers. One of the companiesdeals with tourists sent by a wide range ofJapan outbound travel agents. In this casethe target audience consisted of travellerslocated at the more packaged end of thespectrum. The other company specializes inhandling more independent Japanese travel-lers. In Japan, the questionnaires wereadministered at a university lecture withabout 300 students in attendance. Theywere also administered to the principalresearcher’s acquaintances and in turn totheir acquaintances who had travelled over-seas over the course of the five precedingyears. This approach involved a snowballsampling strategy and generated responsesfrom a wide range of Japanese tourist types,including both package tour participantsand independent travellers.

The data analysis focused primarily on

the variable ‘tourist type’. Respondentswere categorized into three groups, namely‘comprehensive package tour participant’,‘flexible package tour participant’ and ‘in-dependent traveller’. These distinctionswere based on responses to the question,‘which components of your trip were ar-ranged (or booked) by yourself (or yourtravel companion)?’. Those who indicatedthat they had not arranged (or booked) anytravel components by themselves were ca-tegorized as ‘comprehensive package tourparticipant’ and those who had arranged(or booked) at least one component (eithertheir air ticket or accommodation) bythemselves were categorized as ‘indepen-dent traveller’. The other respondents (i.e.,those who had not arranged an air ticketand accommodation but had arranged someother component[s]) were allocated to thecategory ‘flexible package tour participant’.The distribution based on this variable wasfairly balanced, with 29.6 per cent (358respondents) being classified as comprehen-sive package tour participants, 39.8 per cent(482 respondents) as flexible package tourparticipants, and 36.0 per cent (371 respon-dents) as independent travellers. In terms ofexternal validity, it was found that thedistribution over the three groups on thebasis of tourist type was similar to thefindings of a report by JTB Corp.25 where‘full package tours’ accounted for 30.6 percent, ‘free-time type tours’ 24.8 per cent,‘individually arranged travel’ 33.9 per cent,and ‘group travel’ 6.7 per cent. This overallconsistency indicates that the sample usedin the present study was reasonably repre-sentative of the population on the basis ofthis fundamental variable.

RESULTSThis section consists of two sub-sections:respondents as a whole; and three groups ofrespondents categorized by tourist type(comprehensive package tour participant,flexible package tour participant, and inde-pendent traveller).

Page 296




All respondentsThe McNemar test (or paired Chi-squaretest) was employed to investigate whetherthe proportion of guidebook users differssignificantly from the proportion of those

who used each of the other informationsources for the same travel component. Thistest was considered appropriate for investi-gating the question because it compares theproportions for two correlated dichotomous

Table 1: Respondent profiles

All respondents (N ¼ 1211)

N %

Type of touristComprehensive package tour 358 29.6Flexible package tour 482 39.8Independent traveler 371 36.0

GenderMale 409 33.8Female 802 66.2

Age18–25 345 28.526–35 361 29.836–55 299 24.756+ 206 17.0

Overseas travel experience in generalLess experienced 663 54.7More experienced 548 45.2

English fluency1 (not fluent at all) 409 33.82 379 31.33 (more fluent) 423 34.9

Destination region*Australia 234 20.1North America 308 25.4Europe 229 18.9North East Asia 199 16.4South East Asia 170 14.0Other region 62 5.1

Purpose of travelHoliday 916 75.6Visiting friends and/or relatives (VFR) 98 8.1Business 61 5.0Study 80 6.6Other 56 4.6

Duration of tripUp to 10 days 960 79.3More than 10 days 251 20.7

First time/repeater to the destination regionFirst time 816 67.4Repeater 395 32.6

* ‘North America’ includes Canada and USA; ‘North East Asia’ includes China, Korea and Taiwan;‘South East Asia’ includes Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand andVietnam.

Page 297




variables – ‘used/not used’. In undertakingthe McNemar test, all respondents wereallocated into dichotomous variables of‘users’ and ‘non-users’ for each of the nineinformation sources and seven travel compo-nents. The test evaluates whether the pro-portion of participants who fall into acategory on one variable differs significantlyfrom the proportion who fall into the samecategory on the second variable.26–27 Analysesfor the McNemar test involve comparing theproportion of guidebook users for a particu-lar travel component with the proportion ofusers of other information sources for thesame travel component. As indicated inTable 2, the McNemar tests showed that, forthe prior to travel stage, all items have asignificantly smaller proportion of users thanthe proportion of guidebook users, with theexception of ‘travel agent for accommoda-tion information’. These results provide sup-port for Hypothesis 1 in terms of almost alltravel components.

In the case of information use duringtravel, the McNemar tests showed that all ofthe items have a significantly smaller propor-tion of users than the proportion of guide-book users, with the exception of ‘tourguide for accommodation information’.These results indicate (as indicated in Table3) that once the trip is underway, guide-books were generally used more than othersources of information for almost all travelcomponents among all respondents. Thisfinding provides support for Hypothesis 2.

Type of touristThe following sub-section examines at thenumber of users of various informationsources across three different types of tour-ists, categorized on the basis of degree offreedom exercised in travel decision-making.These were respectively: comprehensivepackage tour participants (N ¼ 358); flexiblepackage tour participants (N ¼ 482); and in-dependent travellers (N ¼ 371).

As indicated in Table 4, the results of theMcNemar test show that, at the prior totravel stage, across the three types of tourist,the proportion of ‘guidebook’ users within T

able

2:Comparisonofthenumberofusers

betw

eenguidebooksandotherinform

ationsourcesamongallrespondents

(N1211):Priorto

travel

Guidebook

Travel

agent

Package

tour

brochure

TV

Newspaper/

magazine

Internet

DMO

information

pack

WoM

from

family/

friends

Past

experience

Des

tinat

ion

681

552

497

216

220

336

226

416

403

Acc

om

modat

ion

535

542

425

147

171

266

184

301

324

Loca

ltr

ansp

ort

643

431

339

141

160

213

210

287

345

Pla

ces

tovisit

683

411

380

162

188

244

217

352

326

Act

ivitie

s560

372

309

152

168

212

189

295

311

Mea

ls631

393

340

163

184

212

184

374

355

Shoppin

g666

361

330

161

194

209

188

364

364

Sig

nifi

cantitem

satp.,

0.0

01

are

inbold

(McN

emar

test

).Shad

edar

easin

dic

ate

signifi

cantitem

sw

ith

asm

alle

rnum

ber

ofuse

rsth

an‘g

uid

ebook’.

Note

:T

his

isa

sum

mar

yta

ble

.D

etai

led

info

rmat

ion

can

be

obta

ined

from

the

firs

tnam

edau

thor.

Page 298




each group were significantly greater thanthe proportion of users of ‘TV’, ‘newspaper/magazine’, ‘internet’, ‘DMO informationpack’, ‘WoM from family/friend’ and ‘pastexperience’ for all travel components priorto travel. However, in terms of the propor-tions of ‘travel agent’ and ‘package tourbrochure’ users compared to ‘guidebook’users, the results were inconsistent across thethree groups. While independent travellerswere likely to depend on guidebooks morethan any other source, ‘travel agent’ and‘package tour brochure’ were used by asimilar or greater number of tourists amongflexible and comprehensive package tourparticipants. These results indicate that themore freedom exercised by respondents intheir travel decision-making, the more thatthey used guidebooks for most travel com-ponents prior to travel. Such results providesupport for Hypothesis 3.

To provide a graphic illustration of theresults described above, a two-dimensionalperceptual map was produced using corre-spondence analysis. The relevant graph isshown as Figure 2. By employing such aperceptual map, the relative position of in-formation sources including guidebooks canbe presented visually in relation to threetypes of tourist prior to travel. The closenessbetween a type of tourist and a particularinformation source indicates the extent towhich the source matches the type of tourist.

The measure of goodness-of-fit, R2 for thesolution was 1.00, indicating that the twodimensional map is representative of themodel.

The dispersal of points within Figure 2indicates that different tourist types havestrong attachments to different sources ofinformation. Participants in comprehensivepackage tours and ‘travel agent’ are locatedin close proximity to one another and in thesame quadrant, indicative of a tight and closeassociation. ‘Package tour brochure’ isroughly equi-distant from comprehensivepackage tour participants and flexible pack-age tour participants, which suggests a similarlevel of usage by both groups. A close asso-ciation is also evident between independenttravellers and ‘internet’, ‘WoM’, ‘past ex-perience’, and ‘DMO information pack’.The positioning of ‘guidebook’ on the per-ceptual map does not indicate a strong rela-tionship to any particular type of tourist.This is because guidebooks were found to bethe most popular information source acrossthe three tourist types. However, a closeexamination indicates that the use of ‘guide-book’ is located relatively closer to flexiblepackage tour participants. In part this findingmay be due to the fact that the number ofrespondents within this group (N ¼ 482,39.8 per cent) was larger than was the casefor the two groups. Consequently the num-ber of guidebook users within this group was

Table 3: Comparison of the number of users between guidebooks and otherinformation sources among all respondents (N 1211): During travel

GuidebookTourguide

Onsiteinformationcentre Internet

WoMfrom localresidents

WoMfrom othertourists

Pastexperience

Accommodation 488 474 228 125 214 170 292Local transport 576 465 289 117 264 182 327Places to visit 628 501 284 125 293 198 305Activities 531 439 267 120 275 186 282Meals 611 461 242 111 327 207 339Shopping 630 446 231 108 296 201 350

Significant items at p.,0.001 are in bold (McNemar test).Shaded areas indicate significant items with a smaller number of users than ‘guidebook’.Note: This is a summary table. Detailed information can be obtained from the first named author.

Page 299




Table 4: Information use by tourist type: Prior to travel

GuidebookTravelagent

Packagetourbrochure TV

Newspaper/magazine Internet

DMOinformationpack

WoM fromfamily/friends

Pastexperience

Comprehensive Destination 165 166 154 57 57 61 45 87 78package tour Accommodation 124 166 136 42 46 47 38 59 73participants Transport 123 140 110 38 41 36 40 53 67(N ¼ 358) Places to visit 146 138 128 47 48 43 42 73 72

Activities 114 121 99 40 39 35 36 56 67Meals 141 145 117 47 49 40 42 76 79Shopping 161 128 117 44 47 42 42 82 80

Flexible Destination 276 261 259 95 91 122 73 150 147package tour Accommodation 215 256 220 64 64 93 56 99 106participants Transport 265 197 170 61 63 72 71 102 106(N ¼ 482) Places to visit 293 195 184 68 74 90 70 130 103

Activities 237 173 152 64 68 75 61 114 106Meals 273 172 164 71 73 77 60 142 132Shopping 292 159 154 71 80 74 62 137 135

Independent Destination 240 125 84 64 72 153 108 179 178travellers Accommodation 196 121 69 41 61 126 90 143 145(N ¼ 371) Transport 225 94 59 42 56 105 99 132 138

Places to visit 244 78 68 47 66 111 105 149 151Activities 208 78 58 48 61 102 92 125 138Meals 217 76 59 45 62 95 82 156 144Shopping 213 74 59 46 67 93 84 145 149

Significant items at p.,0.001 are in bold, significant items at p.,0.01 are in italic, and a significant item at p.,0.05 is underlined (McNemar test).Shaded areas indicate significant items with a larger number of users and a smaller number of users than ‘guidebook’, respectively.Note: This is a summary table. Detailed information can be obtained from the first named author.

Page300

Theuseoftra

velg

uidebooks

at The H

ong Kong P

olytechnic University on D

ecember 11, 2014

jvm.sagepub.com

Dow

nloaded from


larger in absolute terms. Nevertheless, theperceptual map indicates a relatively highdependence on ‘guidebook’ by this groupand by independent travellers, and a lowerdependence on the part of comprehensivepackage tour participants.

In the case of the during travel stage, theMcNemar tests show that across the threetourist types, the proportion of ‘guidebook’users was significantly greater than the pro-portion of those using information sourcessuch as ‘onsite information centre’, ‘inter-net’, ‘WoM from local residents’, ‘WoMfrom other tourists’ and ‘past experience’(see Table 5). This was the finding for alltravel components during travel, with theexception of ‘WoM from local residents formeals information’ in the case of indepen-dent travellers. The results for the proportionof ‘tour guide’ users relative to ‘guidebook’users were inconsistent across the three tour-ist types. Collectively, the results providesupport for Hypothesis 4. Interestingly, asimilar pattern was observed in the case of‘travel agent’ and ‘package tour brochure’ atthe prior to travel stage.

Figure 3 is a two-dimensional perceptualmap produced using correspondence analysisand drawing upon the results describedabove. The R2 measure for the solution was1.00, indicative that the two dimensionalapproach is fully representative of the model.

The obvious conclusion to be drawn fromthe positioning of the various points in Fig-ure 3 is that different tourist types havevarying levels of attachment to the alterna-tive sources of information that are availableduring travel. The locations for comprehen-sive package tour participants and ‘tourguide’ are found in close proximity and inthe same quadrant, suggestive of a strongassociation. Relative to the location for flex-ible package tour participants, ‘guidebook’ isfound closest, indicative of a higher degreeof use compared with other sources of in-formation. A close association is also evidentconnecting independent travellers with‘WoM from local residents’ and ‘WoM fromother tourists’. These provide evidence ofheavy use by independent travellers, thoughnot by others. Based on the close juxtaposi-tion of the various points, the extent to

Figure 2Use of information source: Prior to travel

Page 301




Table 5: Information use by tourist type: During travel

Guidebook Tour guide

Onsiteinformationcentre Internet

WoMfrom localresidents

WoMfrom othertourists Past experience

Comprehensive Accommodation 118 209 46 27 40 32 68package tour Local transport 122 197 48 26 40 32 67participants Places to visit 138 222 48 27 48 37 67(N ¼ 358) Activities 111 178 40 25 48 33 62

Meals 139 211 45 26 51 41 71Shopping 151 197 42 26 51 42 76

Flexible Accommodation 190 212 82 35 57 51 95package tour Local transport 251 217 101 31 83 64 118participants Places to visit 268 223 105 35 85 70 105(N ¼ 482) Activities 233 207 113 34 88 68 106

Meals 278 202 107 33 105 70 126Shopping 288 199 103 32 93 72 132

Independent Accommodation 180 53 100 63 117 87 129travellers Local transport 203 51 140 60 141 86 142(N ¼ 371) Places to visit 222 56 131 63 160 91 133

Activities 187 54 114 61 139 85 114Meals 194 48 90 52 171 96 142Shopping 191 50 86 50 152 87 142

Significant items at p.,0.001 are in bold, significant items at p.,0.01 are in italic, and a significant item at p.,0.05 is underlined (McNemar test).Shaded areas indicate significant items with a larger number of users and with a smaller number of users than ‘guidebook’, respectively.Note: this is a summary table. Detailed inofrmation can be obtained from the first nambed author.

Page302

Theuseoftra

velg

uidebooks

at The H

ong Kong P

olytechnic University on D

ecember 11, 2014

jvm.sagepub.com

Dow

nloaded from


which information sources such as ‘past ex-perience’ and ‘on-site information centre’were used by independent travellers and byflexible package tour participants was similar.By comparing the relative proximity of thethree tourist types to ‘guidebook’, it may beconcluded that ‘guidebook’ use during travelhas the strongest relationship with flexiblepackage tour participants, followed by inde-pendent travellers, and finally comprehensivepackage tour participants. This ordering mayin part be due to the fact that the number ofrespondents classified as flexible package tourparticipants (N ¼ 482, 39.8 per cent) wasslightly higher than was the case for the othertwo groups. For this reason, the number ofguidebook users within the group would begreater. The relative positioning of ‘guide-book’ in the context of independent travel-lers is greater because this group also madeuse of sources which were rarely used byother groups. These sources include ‘WoMfrom local residents’, ‘WoM from othertourists’, ‘past experience’ and ‘onsite infor-mation centre’.

DISCUSSIONThe following section investigates the ap-plicability of the four hypotheses with re-spect to all respondents and then on the basisof tourist type.

All respondentsGuidebooks were heavily used by respon-dents generally. The high level of use ofguidebooks relative to other sources of in-formation is notable. Compared to otherinformation sources, guidebooks were usedby significantly larger numbers of respon-dents both prior to and during travel. Onthis basis, Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2were supported. Guidebooks were used forall travel components by roughly half of allrespondents at both stages. The only travelcomponent showing insignificant reliance onguidebooks both prior to and during travelwas information about ‘accommodation’.Even in this case, no other informationsource was used more than guidebooks.Apart from guidebooks, all of the other more

Figure 3Use of information source: During travel

Page 303




popular sources of information were relatedin some way to package tours, notably ‘travelagent’ and ‘package tour brochure’ for theprior to travel stage, and ‘tour guide’ for theduring travel stage. Given that approximatelytwo-thirds of the respondents had travelledon a package tour (either a comprehensiveor flexible tour), the popularity of ‘travelagent’ and ‘package tour brochure’ prior totravel is understandable. The popularity of‘tour guide’ during the course of travel is alsoreasonable because approximately one-thirdof the respondents had travelled on a com-prehensive package tour.

These results confirm the findings of anumber of other studies on the informationuse of Japanese tourists. These studies havereported the Japanese preference for printedmedia.28–30 In the present study, the category‘newspaper/magazine’ (also a print medium)was not found to be popular among respon-dents. It remains unclear whether Japanesetourists prefer printed information sourcesgenerally or whether they like guidebooksand package tour brochures in particular. Italso remains unclear whether the popularityof guidebooks applies to tourists from othercountries, or whether the preference is attri-butable to the overall liking for printedmedia among Japanese overseas tourists.

Type of touristAs illustrated in Figure 1, this study hasinvestigated guidebook use by different tour-ist types according to the degree of freedomthat they exercised in their travel decision-making. The results indicate that thoseexercising greater freedom in their decision-making are significantly more likely to useguidebooks both prior to and during travel.This finding is supportive of Hypothesis 3and of Hypothesis 4. While independenttravellers generally prefer ‘guidebooks’, thepreferred information sources among com-prehensive package tour participants andflexible package tour participants were ‘travelagent’ and ‘package tour brochure’ prior totravel, and ‘tour guide’ during travel.

Such results are largely consistent withprevious studies which have suggested that

the type of tourist is likely to influence thesearch and use of information sources.31,32

The present study provides additional evi-dence that guidebooks are more likely to beused by those who have greater flexibility intheir travel itineraries. However, it is worthnoting that 30–40 per cent of comprehen-sive package tour participants in the presentstudy made use of guidebooks for each of thedifferent travel elements and 72.1 per cent ofcomprehensive package tour participantsmade some use of guidebooks.

The results offer support for the model oftravel decision-making and use of informa-tion sources (Figure 1). The informationsource preferences among respondents werefound to differ on the basis of tourist type.Nevertheless, the results revealed that guide-books were a popular information sourceamong all tourist types. We may concludethat the reasons for using a guidebook arenot confined to decision-making. This sug-gests that those who do not have to makemultiple travel decisions during travel stillmake use of guidebooks, albeit for otherpurposes.

CONCLUSIONSThe objective of this article was to ascertainwhether tourist type (based on the degree offreedom exercised during travel) influencesthe use of travel information sources fordecision-making, particularly in the case ofguidebooks. This was accomplished throughthe testing of four hypotheses. It was foundthat tourist type has a considerable influenceover the choice of travel information source.Among survey respondents, the greater thedegree of freedom exercised during travel,the more that guidebooks were used bothprior to and during travel. However, itshould be noted that the incidence of guide-book use by comprehensive package tourparticipants was a substantial 72.1 per cent,indicative that guidebook use is not re-stricted to pre-purchase search or planning.

The study has also identified the temporaldimensions of travel information use byshowing that use occurs both prior to andduring travel. It is apparent that the search of

Page 304




travel information extends beyond the pre-trip travel decision-making stage, particularlyfor making destination choices. Activity hasbeen shown to occur throughout the courseof the trip. To extend the consequences ofthis finding, it is proposed that future investi-gations of travel information searchingshould fully integrate the temporal dimen-sion, given the incidence of repeated traveldecision-making in the during travel stage.

The study has provided an enhanced un-derstanding of how guidebooks are used inthe course of tourist decision-making. Theresearchers have explored how this form ofindependent and less marketer-dominatedinformation is used by different segments ofthe Japanese tourist market. The results haveindicated a heavy reliance on guidebooks byJapanese overseas tourists both prior to andduring travel. From a destination marketingperspective, the findings highlight the im-portance of acknowledging that the mostsought after sources of travel information arenot necessarily those over which destinationsauthorities exercise direct control. The re-sults have indicated that few other informa-tion sources offer access to an equivalentnumber of users, at least in the case of theJapanese market; travel agents and packagetour brochures during the prior to travelphase; and tour guides during travel. Sincethese sources are provided directly by thetourism industry, they may be more readilyinfluenced. By way of contrast, guidebooksare produced by relatively peripheral forces.Although guidebooks may play a minor rolein creating travel demand, they appear to bemore widely used than other informationsources. The ubiquitous use of guidebookssuggests that an opportunity may exist toconsider them as a tool to influence destina-tion choice as well as on-site behaviour. Thisstudy has provided some insights into howthe Japanese outbound travel segment makesuse of travel information sources, especiallyguidebooks. The findings may inform thedevelopment of marketing programmes tar-geted at particular segments of this significantmarket, notably group-based travellers andindependent travellers.

As an exploratory study, this investigation

should be seen as a starting point rather thanas conclusive. Future studies could examinea number of issues in more detail. Thesampling method of selecting Japanese over-seas tourists on a non-random basis in theabsence of sampling frame is acknowledgedas a potential source of error. Although thesurvey respondents consisted of a relativelybroad cross-section of the population ofJapanese overseas tourists, there is no guaran-tee that they are representative of the targetpopulation of this study – Japanese overseastourists. While the likelihood of achievingcoverage of all of the population is particu-larly remote in the case of a low budget studysuch as the present one, it is recommendedthat alternative sampling strategies are con-sidered for the purposes of future research. Asuitable approach would be to sample Japa-nese tourists who are returning home fromtheir destination via interception at airportdeparture lounges.

The study would also benefit for replica-tion in other contexts and on different sam-ples. The present study has covered onlyoutbound tourists from a single countrywithin the Asia-Pacific region, namely Japan.Travel information source preferences maybe different in the case of tourists from dif-ferent countries and/or cultural backgroundsand with different travel information needs.The findings of this study cannot thereforebe automatically generalized beyond the spe-cific setting within which it was undertaken.Reasonable caution should be exercisedwhen applying these results to differentpopulations. The study could be replicatedand conducted in other settings with a viewto establishing the external validity of thefindings. Further research using samples fromother parts of the world, such as Europe,would be particularly useful.

REFERENCES

(1) Nolan, S. D. J. (1976) ‘Tourists’ Use andEvaluation of Travel Information Sources:Summary and Conclusions’, Journal of TravelResearch 14(Winter): 6–8.

(2) Capella, L. M. and Greco, A. J. (1987)‘Information Sources of Elderly for Vaca-

Page 305




tion Decisions’, Annals of Tourism Research14: 148–51.

(3) Raitz, K. and Dakhil, M. (1989) ‘A Noteabout Information Sources for PreferredRecreational Environments’, Journal of Trav-el Research 27(Spring): 45–9.

(4) Snepenger, D., Meged, K., Snelling, M.and Worrall, K. (1990) ‘Information SearchStrategies by Destination-Naive Tourists’,Journal of Travel Research 29(Summer):13–16.

(5) Gitelson, R. J. and Crompton, J. L. (1983)‘The Planning Horizons and Sources ofInformation Used by Pleasure Vacationers’,Journal of Travel Research 21: 2–7.

(6) Nolan, ref. 1 above.(7) Snepenger et al., ref. 4 above.(8) Schul, P. and Crompton, J. L. (1983)

‘Search Behavior of International Vaca-tioners: Travel-Specific Lifestyle and Socio-demographic Variables’, Journal of TravelResearch 22(Fall): 25–30.

(9) Bieger, T. and Laesser, C. (2001) ‘Segment-ing Travel on the Sourcing of Information’,in J. A. Mazanec, G. I. Crouch, J. R. B.Ritchie and A. G. Woodside (eds) ConsumerPsychology of Tourism (Volume 2), pp. 154–67. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

(10) Etzel, M. J. and Wahlers, R. G. (1985)‘The Use of Requested Promotional Mate-rial by Pleasure Travelers’, Journal of TravelResearch 23: 2–6.

(11) Snepenger, D. J. (1987) ‘Segmenting theVacation Market by Novelty-SeekingRole’, Journal of Travel Research 26: 8–14.

(12) Cohen, E. (1972) ‘Towards a Sociology ofInternational Tourism’, Sociological Research39(1): 164–82.

(13) Bieger and Laesser, ref. 9 above.(14) Sheldon, P. J. and Mak, J. (1987) ‘The

Demand for Package Tours: A ModeChoice Model’, Journal of Travel Research24(Winter): 13–17.

(15) Dellaert, B. G. C., Ettema, D. F. andLindh, C. (1998) ‘Multi-Faceted TouristTravel Decisions: A Constraint-BasedConceptual Framework to Describe Tour-ists’ Sequential Choices of Travel Compo-nents’, Annals of Tourism Research 19:313–20.

(16) Hyde, K. F. (2000) ‘A Hedonic Perspectiveon Independent Vacation Planning, Deci-

sion-Making and Behaviour’, in A. G.Woodside, G. I. Crouch, J. A. Mazanec,M. Oppermann and M. Y. Sakai (eds) Con-sumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality andLeisure, pp. 177–91. Wallingford: CABIPublishing.

(17) Woodside, A. G. and King, R. I. (2001)‘An Updated Model of Travel and TourismPurchase-Consumption Systems’, Journal ofTravel & Tourism Marketing 10(1): 3–27.

(18) Woodside and King, ref. 17 above.(19) Hsieh, S., O’Leary, J. T. and Morrison,

A. M. (1994) ‘A Comparison of Packageand Non-Package Travelers from the Uni-ted Kingdom’, Journal of International Con-sumer Marketing 6: 79–100.

(20) Hyde, ref. 16 above.(21) Woodside and King, ref. 17 above.(22) Yamamoto, D. and Gill, A. M. (2000)

‘Emerging Trends in Japanese PackageTourism’, Journal of Travel Research 38:134–43.

(23) Sheldon and Mak, ref. 14 above.(24) Hyde, ref. 16 above.(25) JTB Corp. (2002) JTB report 2002: All

About Japanese Overseas Travelers. Tokyo:JTB Corp.,

(26) Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J. and Akey, T.M. (1997) Using SPSS for Windows: Analyz-ing and Understanding Data. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.

(27) Siegel, S. and Castellan, N. J. Jr (1988)Nonparametric Statistics for the BehavioralSciences (2nd Edition). New York:McGraw-Hill.

(28) Uysal, M., McDonald, C. D. and Reid,L. J. (1990) ‘Sources of Information Usedby International Visitors to U.S. Parks andNatural Areas’, Journal of Park and RecreationAdministration 8: 51–9.

(29) Mihalik, B. J., Uysal, M. and Pan, M. -C.(1995) ‘A Comparison of InformationSources Used by Vacationing Germans andJapanese’, Hospitality Research Journal 18/19(3/1): 39–46.

(30) Andersen, V., Prentice, R. and Watanabe,K. (2000) ‘Journeys for Experiences: Japa-nese Independent Travelers in Scotland’,Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 9:129–51.

(31) Bieger and Laesser, ref. 9 above.(32) Snepenger, ref. 11 above.

Page 306




the use of travel guidebooks by packaged and non-packaged japanese travellers: a comparative study

Documents