IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prp/jattij/v15y2022i2p217-231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Travellers’ Destination Attribute Preferences: A Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Meltem Altinay Özdemir

    (Mugla Sitki Koçman University, Turkey)

Abstract

The study used a choice-based conjoint analysis to investigate Turkish travellers’ preferences for destination choice based on five attributes (destination type, distance, length of stay, season, and value for money). Using purposive sampling, data were obtained from Turkish travellers in Istanbul with an experimental questionnaire between April and May 2019. The questionnaire included sixteen destination profiles produced using an orthogonal experimental design. Travellers had one go-to code for all profile cards from highest to lowest preference. The data were analysed with SPSS Conjoint. The findings revealed that destination type was the most important attribute, followed by the length of stay, season, distance, and value for money. T-test and ANOVA results showed that travellers’ destination preferences also differed by their socio-demographic characteristics. The study provides an alternative perspective for future research by examining destination choice using an experimental approach. Furthermore, it offers practical implications for travel companies seeking to understand Turkish travellers’ destination preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Meltem Altinay Özdemir, 2022. "Travellers’ Destination Attribute Preferences: A Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) Analysis," Academica Turistica - Tourism and Innovation Journal, University of Primorska Press, vol. 15(2), pages 217-231.
    • Handle: RePEc:prp:jattij:v:15:y:2022:i:2:p:217-231
    DOI: 10.26493/2335-4194.15.217-231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hippocampus.si/ISSN/2335-4194/15.217-231.pdf
    File Function: full text in English
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26493/2335-4194.15.217-231?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, January.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    3. Oppewal, Harmen & Huybers, Twan & Crouch, Geoffrey I., 2015. "Tourist destination and experience choice: A choice experimental analysis of decision sequence effects," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 467-476.
    4. Almeida-Santana, Arminda & Moreno-Gil, Sergio, 2018. "Understanding tourism loyalty: Horizontal vs. destination loyalty," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 245-255.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    2. Guang Yang & Yan Han & Hao Gong & Tiantian Zhang, 2020. "Spatial-Temporal Response Patterns of Tourist Flow under Real-Time Tourist Flow Diversion Scheme," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-28, April.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Yegoryan, Narine & Guhl, Daniel & Klapper, Daniel, 2018. "Inferring Attribute Non-Attendance Using Eye Tracking in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 111, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    5. Côté, Elizabeth & Đukan, Mak & Pons-Seres de Brauwer, Cristian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2022. "The price of actor diversity: Measuring project developers’ willingness to accept risks in renewable energy auctions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    6. Alisa E White & David A Lutz & Richard B Howarth & José R Soto, 2018. "Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: An empirical study of Vermont Current Use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.
    7. Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian & Tyfield, David & Soopramanien, Didier, 2021. "On the heterogeneity in consumer preferences for electric vehicles across generations and cities in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    8. Alexandra König & Tabea Bonus & Jan Grippenkoven, 2018. "Analyzing Urban Residents’ Appraisal of Ridepooling Service Attributes with Conjoint Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, October.
    9. Christian Schlereth & Bernd Skiera, 2017. "Two New Features in Discrete Choice Experiments to Improve Willingness-to-Pay Estimation That Result in SDR and SADR: Separated (Adaptive) Dual Response," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 829-842, March.
    10. Côté, Elizabeth & Salm, Sarah, 2022. "Risk-adjusted preferences of utility companies and institutional investors for battery storage and green hydrogen investment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    11. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    12. Viglia, Giampaolo & Dolnicar, Sara, 2020. "A review of experiments in tourism and hospitality," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    13. Kemperman, Astrid, 2021. "A review of research into discrete choice experiments in tourism: Launching the Annals of Tourism Research Curated Collection on Discrete Choice Experiments in Tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    14. Katharina Saunders & Christian Hagist & Alistair McGuire & Christian Schlereth, 2020. "Preferences of a new health care profession. A pilot study with anaesthesia technologist trainees in Germany," WHU Working Paper Series - Economics Group 20-01, WHU - Otto Beisheim School of Management.
    15. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    16. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    17. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    18. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    19. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    20. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prp:jattij:v:15:y:2022:i:2:p:217-231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alen Jezovnik (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://academica.turistica.si .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.