- Email: [email protected]
Destination appraisals
RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS
541
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 541–544, 2007 0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
Destination Appraisals John C. Crotts Bing Pan College of Charleston, USA Pritchard and Havitz’s study (2006) on destination appraisal using critical incidents is a pioneering effort in capturing complex tourism experiences and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of a destination. The purpose of this research note is to highlight additional utilities in ways that the authors did not illuminate. According to them, various qualitative and quantitative questions can be used to evaluate destination images. However, for self-administered surveys, there is always a need to keep a balance between the length of the survey and the amount of information needing to be captured (Dillman 1978). Open-ended questions asking tourists to describe their experiences can be an overly cumbersome means for producing results one can generalize to the population at large, and are not recommended for self-administered surveys (Fowler 2002). On the other hand, quantitative approaches employing attitude ratings on fixed attributes need focus groups or interviews to obtain those traits, and they can also be too broad to serve as a useful instrument for providing detailed information to destination marketers. For example, questions like ‘‘Please rate the quality of food and beverages purchased at restaurants’’ are gross assessments of the experience in that they do not pin-point specific strengths or weaknesses of a destination. Given the complexity and uniqueness of services provided at individual places, the utility and validity of these types of importance/performance analyses have come into question, according to Prichard and Havitz. Another option involves using a mixed method approach, with both open and closed questions and a later triangulation analysis of the responses. However, it runs the risk of significantly increasing the length of the survey and necessitating too much cognitive effort from the respondents. One solution to this has been to adopt a method of using two open-ended questions, as described by the authors. The two open-ended questions, ‘‘What are three things you enjoyed most about your visit?’’, and ‘‘What are three things you enjoyed least about your visit?’’ reveal both the positive and negative attributes of a destination, require very little space in survey instruments, and produce personally meaningful responses that can be generalized to the population. The first researcher in the current study is assigned the task of categorizing the content into unlimited numbers of categories, which allows for assessments at both the macro- and micro-environment levels. Further, the relationship between different comments from the same respondent can provide holistic insights into tourists’ experiences and the strengths and weaknesses of the destination, which may not be reflected in mere counts of positive and negative comments. The following details from an inquiry survey will demonstrate the utilities of the two open-ended questions, using Charleston, South Carolina, as the example destination. It was conducted online during April, 2006, using a random sample of potential tourists who telephoned or emailed the Charleston Area Convention and Visitors Bureau for destination information. In total, 1,242 completed
542
RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS
Table 1. Counts of Comments on Likes Likes
Counts
Food History/old city charm Friendliness of locals and employees Heritage attractions Heritage tours/rides Shopping Architecture/beauty Beach/waterfront Scenery/cleanliness/sightseeing Walk/bike safety Relaxation/slow pace/ culture/charm Weather Lodging Parks
Likes
Counts
376 240 169
Gestalt/everything was great Variety of things to do Festivals and events
31 30 23
166 163 156 125 116 101 84 80
Easy access/navigation by car Attractions/education VFR/spending quality time with FR Golf/fishing Art galleries Entertainment/cooking demonstrations Welcome centers Attractions/African American history
15 13 13 11 10 9 8 8
57 53 38
Getting married/engaged Affordability Music
3 2 1
questionnaires were returned from a total of 15,000 email solicitations sent. The survey mainly focused on Charleston tourists’ utilization of information sources, demographics, and trip characteristics. The survey also included the two questions on the most and least enjoyed things about the destination. Using a bottom-up approach, one researcher freely coded each comment into unlimited categories and grouped them according to their similarities and dissimilarities. Two additional researchers then independently validated the categories through a blind review process. The final coded likes and dislikes agreed upon by all three researchers are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 2. Counts of Comments on Dislikes Dislikes
Counts
Weather
129
Parking Disappointing service encounter Traffic Prices Wayfinding/signage/maps Too little time for visit Highway driving conditions Public transport
103 87
Timeshare/tour OPCs Smells, cleanliness, run down places Too crowded Safety/security Construction Poverty/run down neighborhoods
22 21
82 67 57 32 32 27
21 18 17 16
Dislikes
Counts
Lack of commercial and Public facilities Businesses closed too early Too commercial/tacky
16
Travel distance to get to Charleston Airlines Not friendly Needed park amenities Late night noise Restrictions on tour companies to visit Neighborhoods Liquor laws Smoking in public places
9 7 5 4 4 3
Lack of variety of things to do Visitors’ lack of planning Accessibility for handicapped
2 1 1
14 11
2 2
543
RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS
The first discovery from this test study was that the categories generated from free coding are destination-specific, in contrast to the 13 elements in Murphy, Pritchard and Smith’s (2000) model. For example, several provided detailed comments on the smells of a certain location downtown, which provided a clear indication of a problematic area associated with horse-drawn carriage operators. Categorizing this problem into ‘‘downtown ambiance’’ or ‘‘cleanliness’’ would not offer such valuable feedback. Though attitudinal ratings of fixed attributes or categories do allow comparisons with other studies, identifying particular problems/issues in specific places is more easily achieved using the free coding process. Second, identifying the relationship of one concept to another (such as likes with likes, dislikes with dislikes, likes with dislikes) provides a wealth of useful information both for image creation and destination management. To illustrate, 37 respondents noted positive comments about food while also noting negative comments regarding a ‘‘disappointing service encounter’’, and this represented 42.5% of all such complaints. This correlation indicates that service in restaurants can be a major complaint regardless of the enjoyable food quality as one of the top enjoyments. Figure 1 illustrates a network structure of the most frequently mentioned likes and dislikes. The numbers on the connecting lines denote the number of times the two types of comments were voiced by the same respondent. This information is valuable in assessing the opportunities and challenges for marketers as well as managerial priorities for restaurateurs, which are not available through mere number counts in each category of complaints and enjoyments. Using both quantitative and qualitative data in a mixed-method approach might produce similar results but it might significantly increase the length of the survey as well. In conclusion, the intent here is to justify and highlight an insightful and actionable destination appraisal method proposed by Pritchard and Havitz that requires very little space on surveys. Each destination is idiosyncratic; generalizing feedback into 13 categories can obscure a destination’s strengths and weaknesses. Coding openended responses to likes and dislikes using unlimited categories could reveal the uniqueness of a destination and provide direction for future marketing and administration. An illustration of this was provided by one respondent, who stated one of his/her likes as ‘‘sitting in the swings at the riverfront park overlooking the water’’. This comment may well become one of the major themes for a future advertising message. Linking different likes and dislikes can uncover a better representation of the true experience in ways actionable for destination managers. Furthermore, the ability to link a respondent’s likes and dislikes to their responses in demographic data allows for a rich level of sub-analysis of market segments.
Tours Weather
71
38 69 History
114
16
12
30
Service
34
45
72
11
25
13
Service
Dislikes
History
Likes
33 People
10 Traffic
Attractions
57 Food
Parking
Price
64
Shopping
Navigation
72
Figure 1. The Networks of Likes and Dislikes
Number of Co-Occurrence
544
RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS
Additionally, there might be significant differences in needs and motivations among separate travel market segments. Thus each tourism segment needs to be examined on a different set of attributes and their subcategories. John Crotts: Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, College of Charleston, Charleston SC 29424, USA. Email
REFERENCES Dillman, D. 1978 Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley. Fowler, F. 2002 Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Murphy, P., M. Pritchard, and J. Smith 2000 The Destination Product and Its Impact on Traveler Perceptions. Tourism Management 27:43–52. Pritchard, M., and M. Havitz 2006 Destination Appraisal: An Analysis of Critical Incidents. Annals of Tourism Research 33:25–46.
Submitted 24 June 2006. Resubmitted 8 September 2006. Resubmitted 28 November 2006. Accepted 1 December 2006
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2006.12.002
541
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 541–544, 2007 0160-7383/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
Destination Appraisals John C. Crotts Bing Pan College of Charleston, USA Pritchard and Havitz’s study (2006) on destination appraisal using critical incidents is a pioneering effort in capturing complex tourism experiences and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of a destination. The purpose of this research note is to highlight additional utilities in ways that the authors did not illuminate. According to them, various qualitative and quantitative questions can be used to evaluate destination images. However, for self-administered surveys, there is always a need to keep a balance between the length of the survey and the amount of information needing to be captured (Dillman 1978). Open-ended questions asking tourists to describe their experiences can be an overly cumbersome means for producing results one can generalize to the population at large, and are not recommended for self-administered surveys (Fowler 2002). On the other hand, quantitative approaches employing attitude ratings on fixed attributes need focus groups or interviews to obtain those traits, and they can also be too broad to serve as a useful instrument for providing detailed information to destination marketers. For example, questions like ‘‘Please rate the quality of food and beverages purchased at restaurants’’ are gross assessments of the experience in that they do not pin-point specific strengths or weaknesses of a destination. Given the complexity and uniqueness of services provided at individual places, the utility and validity of these types of importance/performance analyses have come into question, according to Prichard and Havitz. Another option involves using a mixed method approach, with both open and closed questions and a later triangulation analysis of the responses. However, it runs the risk of significantly increasing the length of the survey and necessitating too much cognitive effort from the respondents. One solution to this has been to adopt a method of using two open-ended questions, as described by the authors. The two open-ended questions, ‘‘What are three things you enjoyed most about your visit?’’, and ‘‘What are three things you enjoyed least about your visit?’’ reveal both the positive and negative attributes of a destination, require very little space in survey instruments, and produce personally meaningful responses that can be generalized to the population. The first researcher in the current study is assigned the task of categorizing the content into unlimited numbers of categories, which allows for assessments at both the macro- and micro-environment levels. Further, the relationship between different comments from the same respondent can provide holistic insights into tourists’ experiences and the strengths and weaknesses of the destination, which may not be reflected in mere counts of positive and negative comments. The following details from an inquiry survey will demonstrate the utilities of the two open-ended questions, using Charleston, South Carolina, as the example destination. It was conducted online during April, 2006, using a random sample of potential tourists who telephoned or emailed the Charleston Area Convention and Visitors Bureau for destination information. In total, 1,242 completed
542
RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS
Table 1. Counts of Comments on Likes Likes
Counts
Food History/old city charm Friendliness of locals and employees Heritage attractions Heritage tours/rides Shopping Architecture/beauty Beach/waterfront Scenery/cleanliness/sightseeing Walk/bike safety Relaxation/slow pace/ culture/charm Weather Lodging Parks
Likes
Counts
376 240 169
Gestalt/everything was great Variety of things to do Festivals and events
31 30 23
166 163 156 125 116 101 84 80
Easy access/navigation by car Attractions/education VFR/spending quality time with FR Golf/fishing Art galleries Entertainment/cooking demonstrations Welcome centers Attractions/African American history
15 13 13 11 10 9 8 8
57 53 38
Getting married/engaged Affordability Music
3 2 1
questionnaires were returned from a total of 15,000 email solicitations sent. The survey mainly focused on Charleston tourists’ utilization of information sources, demographics, and trip characteristics. The survey also included the two questions on the most and least enjoyed things about the destination. Using a bottom-up approach, one researcher freely coded each comment into unlimited categories and grouped them according to their similarities and dissimilarities. Two additional researchers then independently validated the categories through a blind review process. The final coded likes and dislikes agreed upon by all three researchers are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 2. Counts of Comments on Dislikes Dislikes
Counts
Weather
129
Parking Disappointing service encounter Traffic Prices Wayfinding/signage/maps Too little time for visit Highway driving conditions Public transport
103 87
Timeshare/tour OPCs Smells, cleanliness, run down places Too crowded Safety/security Construction Poverty/run down neighborhoods
22 21
82 67 57 32 32 27
21 18 17 16
Dislikes
Counts
Lack of commercial and Public facilities Businesses closed too early Too commercial/tacky
16
Travel distance to get to Charleston Airlines Not friendly Needed park amenities Late night noise Restrictions on tour companies to visit Neighborhoods Liquor laws Smoking in public places
9 7 5 4 4 3
Lack of variety of things to do Visitors’ lack of planning Accessibility for handicapped
2 1 1
14 11
2 2
543
RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS
The first discovery from this test study was that the categories generated from free coding are destination-specific, in contrast to the 13 elements in Murphy, Pritchard and Smith’s (2000) model. For example, several provided detailed comments on the smells of a certain location downtown, which provided a clear indication of a problematic area associated with horse-drawn carriage operators. Categorizing this problem into ‘‘downtown ambiance’’ or ‘‘cleanliness’’ would not offer such valuable feedback. Though attitudinal ratings of fixed attributes or categories do allow comparisons with other studies, identifying particular problems/issues in specific places is more easily achieved using the free coding process. Second, identifying the relationship of one concept to another (such as likes with likes, dislikes with dislikes, likes with dislikes) provides a wealth of useful information both for image creation and destination management. To illustrate, 37 respondents noted positive comments about food while also noting negative comments regarding a ‘‘disappointing service encounter’’, and this represented 42.5% of all such complaints. This correlation indicates that service in restaurants can be a major complaint regardless of the enjoyable food quality as one of the top enjoyments. Figure 1 illustrates a network structure of the most frequently mentioned likes and dislikes. The numbers on the connecting lines denote the number of times the two types of comments were voiced by the same respondent. This information is valuable in assessing the opportunities and challenges for marketers as well as managerial priorities for restaurateurs, which are not available through mere number counts in each category of complaints and enjoyments. Using both quantitative and qualitative data in a mixed-method approach might produce similar results but it might significantly increase the length of the survey as well. In conclusion, the intent here is to justify and highlight an insightful and actionable destination appraisal method proposed by Pritchard and Havitz that requires very little space on surveys. Each destination is idiosyncratic; generalizing feedback into 13 categories can obscure a destination’s strengths and weaknesses. Coding openended responses to likes and dislikes using unlimited categories could reveal the uniqueness of a destination and provide direction for future marketing and administration. An illustration of this was provided by one respondent, who stated one of his/her likes as ‘‘sitting in the swings at the riverfront park overlooking the water’’. This comment may well become one of the major themes for a future advertising message. Linking different likes and dislikes can uncover a better representation of the true experience in ways actionable for destination managers. Furthermore, the ability to link a respondent’s likes and dislikes to their responses in demographic data allows for a rich level of sub-analysis of market segments.
Tours Weather
71
38 69 History
114
16
12
30
Service
34
45
72
11
25
13
Service
Dislikes
History
Likes
33 People
10 Traffic
Attractions
57 Food
Parking
Price
64
Shopping
Navigation
72
Figure 1. The Networks of Likes and Dislikes
Number of Co-Occurrence
544
RESEARCH NOTES AND REPORTS
Additionally, there might be significant differences in needs and motivations among separate travel market segments. Thus each tourism segment needs to be examined on a different set of attributes and their subcategories. John Crotts: Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, College of Charleston, Charleston SC 29424, USA. Email
REFERENCES Dillman, D. 1978 Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley. Fowler, F. 2002 Survey Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Murphy, P., M. Pritchard, and J. Smith 2000 The Destination Product and Its Impact on Traveler Perceptions. Tourism Management 27:43–52. Pritchard, M., and M. Havitz 2006 Destination Appraisal: An Analysis of Critical Incidents. Annals of Tourism Research 33:25–46.
Submitted 24 June 2006. Resubmitted 8 September 2006. Resubmitted 28 November 2006. Accepted 1 December 2006
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2006.12.002