Search results

This study proposes an extension of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) model to understand international travellers' intentions to visit Spain. This study aims to compare whether the predictive variables of the intention to travel differ depending on nationality. The extension includes: perceived risk, loyalty to the destination, past travel experience, public opinion climate and electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM).

A multiple-indicator, multiple-cause (MIMIC) model was developed as a structural equational model to predict the 1,978 participants' intention to travel. The structural model was used to determine the theoretical model for the total sample and by nationality (Germans, Britons and those from other European countries).

The extended models fitted the data well, explaining 64%–68% of the total variance, while differences depending on tourist nationality were also found. The MIMIC model indicated that German people's intention to travel to a holiday destination was influenced by their perception of risk, eWOM and loyalty to the country. In the British group, only the TPB variables were relevant. For those of other European nationalities, loyalty and eWOM were also significant. Travel experience, used as a variable in previous studies, was shown not to be significant. Overall, these results offer insights into how people from diverse countries and cultures embrace the aforementioned constructs when making travel decisions.

This study also has practical implications for policymakers in holiday tourism destinations, such as Spain. In particular, this study provides a better understanding of Britons' and Germans' travel intentions and could be beneficial for guiding policies for the recovery of the tourism industry in major tourism destinations.

Previous studies have applied various extended TPBs to one specific country or made comparisons between Asian countries. This study’s proposal makes a comparison of the variables used to predict the intention to visit a holiday destination among the European countries.

本研究提出了计划行为理论 (TPB) 模型的扩展, 以了解国际旅行者访问西班牙的意图。目的是比较旅行意图的预测变量是否因国籍而异。扩展包括：感知风险、对目的地的忠诚度、过去的旅行经历、舆论氛围和电子口碑（eWOM）。

开发了一个多指标、多原因 (MIMIC) 模型作为结构方程模型来预测 1,978 名参与者的旅行意图。结构模型用于确定总样本和国籍（德国人、英国人和来自其他欧洲国家的人）的理论模型。

扩展模型很好地拟合了数据, 解释了总方差的 64%–68%, 同时还发现了取决于旅游国籍的差异。 MIMIC 模型表明, 德国人前往度假目的地的意愿受到他们对风险、eWOM 和对国家忠诚度的认知的影响。在英国组中, 只有 TPB 变量是相关的。对于其他欧洲国家的人来说, 忠诚度和 eWOM 也很重要。旅行经验, 在以前的研究中用作变量, 被证明并不重要。总体而言, 这些结果提供了有关来自不同国家和文化的人们在做出旅行决定时如何接受上述结构的见解。

以前的研究已经将各种扩展的 TPB 应用于一个特定的国家或在亚洲国家之间进行了比较。我们的建议对用于预测欧洲国家旅游目的地意图的变量进行了比较。

Este estudio propone una extensión del modelo de la teoría del comportamiento planificado (TPB) para comprender las intenciones de visitar España de los viajeros internacionales. El objetivo es comparar si las variables que predicen la intención de viajar difieren según la nacionalidad. Esta extensión del modelo incluye variables como: riesgo percibido, lealtad al destino, experiencia de viaje anterior, clima de la opinión pública y el boca a boca electrónico (eWOM).

Se desarrolló un modelo de indicadores y causas múltiples (MIMIC) como modelo de ecuaciones estructurales para predecir la intención de viajar de los 1978 participantes. El modelo estructural se utilizó para comprobar el modelo teórico para la muestra total y por nacionalidades (alemanes, británicos y otros países europeos).

Los modelos ampliados propuestos se ajustaron bien a los datos, explicando entre el 64% y el 68% de la varianza total, si bien se encontraron diferencias en función de la nacionalidad del turista. El modelo MIMIC indicó que la intención de los alemanes de viajar a un destino de vacaciones estaba influenciada por su percepción de riesgo, el eWOM y la lealtad a España. En el grupo británico, solo las variables TPB resultaron relevantes. Para el grupo de otras nacionalidades europeas, la lealtad y el eWOM también fueron significativas. Sin embargo, la experiencia de viaje, utilizada en estudios previos, se mostró no significativa en todos los grupos. En general, estos resultados ofrecen información sobre cómo las personas de diversos países y culturas adoptan los constructos antes mencionados cuando toman decisiones de viaje.

Estudios previos han aplicado varios TPB extendidos a un país específico o han comparado los resultados entre países asiáticos. Nuestra propuesta hace una comparación de las variables utilizadas para predecir la intención de visitar un destino vacacional entre países europeos.

Destination management is in urgent need of analytical and policy tools, and even more so in the context of tourism for development programs. Understanding both structural elements and dynamic processes are essential. This chapter describes a model of destinations which considers three types of structural components: factors/resources, attractors (of tourism demand), and support systems. It analyzes as well the optimizing behavior of destination stakeholders, both endogenous and exogenous, as a way to understand destination dynamics. The model can be applied in the strategic positioning of destinations as well as in achieving competitiveness and sustainability—ultimately contributing to development—through tourism policy plans and governance processes. The model was born in the context of a European Eureka–ComTur research project, and has been tested in a variety of destinations.

A broad agreement exists that tourism is an effective instrument for social and economic development. However, there is no specific theoretical or practical framework of tourism for development to be found. Even the key issues have remained unformulated: concept of development, tourism's contributions to development, and tourism policy and governance for development. This chapter first summarizes the development paradigms held in the last decades (modernization, neoliberalism, dependency, and sustainability) vis-à-vis tourism, and then goes on to consider proposals emanating from New Institutional Economics and the Theory of Social Capital. It concludes with the results of a 2011 enquiry, involving some 60 international experts.

Previously disregarded factors are now included in development theory and practice. A narrow understanding of capital has had profound effects on development as well as on tourism policy and governance. In this framework, purpose-designed tourism for development has been the exception. Contemporary ideas of other forms of capital playing a key role in a broader concept of development are examined, specifically the central function of human and social-institutional capital. Human capital is seen in the light of capabilities, attributes, and knowledge possessed by individuals. Social-institutional capital may empower individuals as it refers to the value of trust and cooperation deriving from formal and informal sets of behavioral rules. This chapter clarifies the foundations of tourism as an instrument for development if tourism policy and governance are designed and implemented within an adequate framework.

The concept of development has gone through several paradigm shifts in the last six decades, from the post World War II idea of “modernization” to sustainability and gradualist institutions-concerned strategies, although the neoliberal laissez-faire approaches still hold considerable influence, even in international organizations. Development is a complex concept. Definitions have changed throughout time and it is crucial to understand the concept vis-à-vis tourism. It is no longer possible to defend that tourism investments will automatically create development. Understanding the nuances of the concept has become essential if one is to sustain that tourism does play a role in development.

There is no clear understanding on the terms and concepts of development, both in the academic literature of tourism and in general. What constitutes “growth”, and what is “development”? The emphasis on mathematical modeling has favored the use of simplifying hypothesis, with dubious practical results for the real problems of development. This chapter discusses the most relevant aspects of theories of development, enunciated at different times in the course of the last two centuries, with the purpose of illuminating different theoretical approaches to analysis and policy formulation that may support actual strategy and practice in tourism.

Charles Arcodia <c.arcodia@griffith.edu.au> is Associate Professor in the Department of Tourism, Sport and Hotel Management, Griffith University, Australia. He has held leadership positions in a variety of educational and business service contexts. An experienced educator having taught and researched in the tertiary sector for over 15 years, he has broad research interests working primarily within the fields of event management, tourism education, and intangible heritage. He is on the editorial board of a number of journals and serves as the Editor of the International Journal of Event Management Research.