Compare uses of electronic media among urban nature-based tourists
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Compare uses of electronic media among urban nature-based tourists

on

  • 262 views

A look at how tourists use e-travel in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, the difference in use between nature and non-nature based tourists, and resulting implications and opportunities for the ...

A look at how tourists use e-travel in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, the difference in use between nature and non-nature based tourists, and resulting implications and opportunities for the tourism and recreation industry

Statistics

Views

Total Views
262
Views on SlideShare
262
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Compare uses of electronic media among urban nature-based tourists Compare uses of electronic media among urban nature-based tourists Presentation Transcript

  • Compare uses of electronic mediaamong urban nature‐based touristsAndrew Oftedal, M.S., Arielle Courtney, Graduate Research Assistant, & Ingrid Schneider, Ph.D.Effective visitor communication is essential to market, plan, & manage tourism & outdoor recreation. Authors concur E‐travel is a major trend for trip research & online booking (Smith, 2012; Pew Research, 2012).  To better understand traveler use of internet, social  media, & technological devices, this project assessed visitor use & differences in use between nature‐ and non‐nature based tourists in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minnesota.Objectives• Compare socio‐demographic characteristics of nature‐based (NB) & non‐nature based tourists• Identify use of electronic media among nature‐based tourists• Compare electronic media & technology use between nature‐based & non‐nature based touristsOn‐site questionnaires• Administered to a convenience sample of Twin Cities (TC) Metropolitan Area visitors summer 2012• 13 communities across the 7 county TC MetroSelecting nature‐based tourists• Visitors who stayed 1‐30 nights or who were on a day trip 50+ miles from primary residence• Participated in outdoor recreation during their tripAnalysis• Descriptive & Chi‐square  (χ²) statisticsFindings: Comparison of nature & non‐nature based tourists media/device useSocio‐demographic comparisons• Younger & more frequently male than non‐NB tourists (average  43 vs. 45 yrs.; 59% vs. 51%, p< .01) • Similar income: Most frequently $50,000‐99,999 (41.2%), $100,000+ (38.6%)Trip planning & information sharing among NB‐tourists• Main planning resources: friends /family (67%), area or travel website (41%) (Fig. 1 to the right)• Main info sharing: websites (48%), Facebook (36%), smartphone (35%), & text message (23%) (Fig. 2,3 below)Background & ObjectivesMethodologyImplications & OpportunitiesThanks to the Metro Tourism Association for project support, data collectors, the University of Minnesota Center for Small Towns for data entry, Ryan Pesch for producing visitor maps, & the sites that allowed data collection. Photos courtesy of Anoka County Parks and Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board.• Balance marketing across channels , with attention to e‐placement• Maintain accurate & timely data on websites & other online sources• Monitor & respond to online reviews• Expand information where it does not exist on the web• Engage markets with opportunities to share pictures, experiences, or information via mobile devices in a variety of spaces with attention to Trip Advisor for nature‐based tourists• Format websites & other online resources for mobile & tablet design• Continue to monitor use & changes in use of social media electronic devicesFuture research• Replicate project in a rural tourism setting to identify possible differences in social media & e‐use• Explore what content was shared & why• Monitor multi‐device use & patterns of use for booking, reservationsAcknowledgementsFindings: Nature‐based tourists & media/device use48%36%5%4%3% 2% 2% WebsitesFacebookInstagramYelpTwitterFoursquarePinterest352315120 10 20 30 40SmartphoneText messageiPad/tabletMobile appsFigure 2. Internet sources nature‐based tourists used to share or access information about travel during trip (n=551)Figure 3. Electronic devices & methods used to share or access information about travel during trip (%; n=551)674116160 20 40 60 80Friends/familyArea/destination websiteOnline travel siteOnline travel reviewsFigure 1.  Primary sources of information nature‐based tourists used to plan trips (%; n=545)Figure 4. Differences in use of electronic media & devices to share/obtain information during trip between NB & non‐NB tourists (*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01) Figure 5.  Percent of respondents who changed trip plans due to social media (*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01) Nature‐based tourists• Information sources: 1 of 10 differs in use to plan trip: > Trip Advisor reviews among NB tourists• 5 of 12 > use e‐devices & apps to share trip info (Fig. 4)0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%Internet/websitesFacebookSmartphone**Text messageMobile appsiPad/tablet*Instagram**TwitterYelp*Foursquare*PinterestQR codesNon‐nature based (n=1476)Nature‐based (n=551)Non‐nature based tourists• Significantly less use of e‐media to plan trips & share/obtain info  (Fig. 4 to the left)• Fewer changed plans due to social media than NB tourists (Fig. 5 below)0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%I have notchangedplansI did make afew changesto myplans***I madesignificantchanges tomy plansNature‐based(n=540)Non‐naturebased (n=1432)