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

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Compare uses of electronic media among urban nature-based tourists

103
views

Published on

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

Published in: Travel

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
103
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 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)