- Email: [email protected]
Spatial patterns of leisure travel by trip purpose
S P A T I A L P A T T E R N S OF L E I S U R E T R A V E L BY T R I P PURPOSE R i c h a r d R. P e r d u e North Carolina State University, USA
L a r r y D. G u s t k e U n i v e r s i t y of N e w H a m p s h i r e , U S A
ABSTRACT T h i s article reports t h e p r o b l e m s e n c o u n t e r e d a n d proced u r e s developed to c o n d u c t a s e c o n d a r y a n a l y s i s of t h e 1977 National Travel Survey. Using t h e travel regions developed by t h e Travel I n d u s t r y Association of America, t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s were applied in a n a n a l y s i s of t h e interregional d i s t r i b u t i o n of leisure travel by trip purpose. T h e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t differences in travel p a t t e r n s exist a m o n g different leisure purposes; t h a t t h e S o u t h a n d Great L a k e s were t h e major a t t r a c t o r a n d g e n e r a t o r , respectively, of leisure travel for all purposes; a n d t h a t int e r a c t i o n existed a c r o s s p u r p o s e s b e t w e e n t h e New Eng l a n d a n d E a s t e r n G a t e w a y regions a n d b e t w e e n t h e M o u n t a i n W e s t a n d F a r W e s t regions. K e y w o r d s : travel flows, leisure travel, n a t i o n a l travel survey, n e t flows.
R i c h a r d P u r d u e {Dept. of R e c r e a t i o n R e s o u r c e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , N o r t h C a r o l i n a S t a t e Univ., R a l e i g h , NC 2 7 6 9 5 - 8 0 0 4 , USA) c o o r d i n a t e s t h e t o u r i s m a n d c o m m e r cial r e c r e a t i o n o p t i o n . His r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s a r e in t o u r i s m a n d s p a t i a l b e h a v i o r . He r e c e i v e d h i s Ph.D. f r o m T e x a s A & M U n i v e r s i t y . L a r r y G u s t k e is c o o r d i n a t o r of t h e t o u r i s m a n d p a r k m a n a g e m e n t o p t i o n . His r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s i n c l u d e t r a v e l b e h a v ior, g e o g r a p h i c i m a g e s , a n d t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s of t r a v e l i n f o r m a t i o n . He a l s o received h i s Ph.D. f r o m T e x a s A & M U n i v e r s i t y . Annals of Tourlsm Research, Vol. 12, pp. 167-180, 1985
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
167
o16o-7383/85 $3.00 + .0o © 1985 J. Jafarl and Pergamon Press Ltd
SPATIALPATTERNS OF LEISURETRAVEL RI~SUMI~ La d i s t r i b u t i o n spatiale des voyages selon leur object. Cet article p r e s e n t e les difficultes q u ' o n a affrontees et les procedes q u ' o n a developpes pour m e n e r u n e a n a l y s e seco n d a i r e de l ' e n q u e t e n a t i o n a l e s u r les voyages de 1977. E n se s e r v a n t des regions de voyages qui o n t ete definies par l'Association de l ' I n d u s t r i e Touristique des EtatsUnis, on a applique ces procedes d a n s u n e a n a l y s e de la d i s t r i b u t i o n interregionale de voyages d ' a g r e m e n t selon l'object de ces voyages. Les r e s u l t a t s indiquent: qu'il y a des differences de d i s t r i b u t i o n de voyages p a r m i les divers objects de loisirs; que le Sud et la region des G r a n d s Lacs e t a i e n t le plus g r a n d a t t r a c t e u r et le plus g r a n d gene r a t e u r , r e s p e c t i v e m e n t , de voyages d ' a g r e m e n t pour t o u s l e s objects; et qu'il existait u n e i n t e r a c t i o n &t r a v e r s les objets e n t r e les regions de la Nouvelle Angleterre et la Porte de l'Est, et e n t r e les regions du F a r West et des m o n t a g n e s R o c h e u s e s . Mots clef: c o u r a n t s de voyages, voyages d ' a g r e m e n t , e n q u e t e n a t i o n a l e s u r les voyages, riots nets.
INTRODUCTION Identification a n d m e a s u r e m e n t of t h e s p a t i a l p a t t e r n s of leisure travel is a major focus of t o u r i s m r e s e a r c h ( H u d m a n , Budge, a n d H u d m a n 1977; Mitchell 1979, 1980). T o u r i s m p l a n n i n g , m a n a g e m e n t , a n d m a r k e t i n g are e n h a n c e d by a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e s p a t i a l p a t t e r n s of leisure b e h a v i o r (Crampon 1966; R o b i n s o n 1979). However, for m o s t agencies, t h e cost of developing t h e d a t a sets n e c e s s a r y to e x a m i n e n a t i o n a l travel p a t t e r n s is prohibitively high. C o n s e q u e n t l y , m o s t s t u d i e s are limited to specific d e s t i n a t i o n s a n d focus on t h e travel flows from v a r i o u s origins to t h a t d e s t i n a t i o n (Cline 1975; Doering 1977; Pearce 1979). A relatively i n e x p e n s i v e d a t a set is, however, available for c o n d u c t i n g a n a l y s e s of n a t i o n a l travel p a t t e r n s . T h e National Travel S u r v e y (NTS), a c o m p o n e n t of t h e 1977 C e n s u s of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , provides a n e x t e n s i v e a n d relatively reliable d a t a set on d o m e s t i c travel p a t t e r n s in t h e United S t a t e s (Bure a u of t h e C e n s u s 1978a, 1979); previous National Travel S u r v e y s were c o n d u c t e d in 1967 a n d 1972, b u t t h e s c h e d u l e d 1982 National Travel S u r v e y w a s cancelled as a r e s u l t of t h e federal b u d g e t cuts. D u r i n g e a c h q u a r t e r of 1977, t h e B u r e a u of t h e C e n s u s inter168
1985 ANNALSOF TOURISMRESEARCH
RICHARD PERDUE AND LARRY GUSTKE
viewed m e m b e r s of 19,112 h o u s e h o l d s c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r domestic, n o n i n s t i t u t i o n a l travel of o n e - w a y d i s t a n c e s g r e a t e r t h a n I 0 0 miles. Two t y p e s of d a t a were collected. First, t h e h o u s e h o l d m e m b e r w a s a s k e d a series of q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of all h o u s e h o l d m e m b e r s a n d overall travel. Second, for e a c h trip t a k e n by a m e m b e r of t h e household, a series of q u e s t i o n s w a s a s k e d a b o u t t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h a t specific trip. T h e d a t a are s t r u c t u r e d so t h a t i n d e p e n d e n t a n a l y s i s c a n be c o n d u c t e d of e i t h e r t h e h o u s e h o l d d a t a or t h e trip data. T h e B u r e a u of t h e C e n s u s report (1978b) provides a n a r r a y of f r e q u e n c y a n d cross-classification d a t a s u m m a r i e s , s o m e of w h i c h h a s b e e n reported in t h e travel literature (Editor 1978). T h e d a t a include travel by trip purpose, mode of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , t h e region of origin at b o t h t h e n a t i o n a l level a n d for e a c h of t h e eight Travel I n d u s t r y Association of America (TIA) d e s t i n a t i o n regions. A q u e s t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to t o u r i s m m a n a g e m e n t a n d m a r k e t i n g w h i c h c a n n o t be a d d r e s s e d u s i n g t h e existing C e n s u s B u r e a u report is t h e t h r e e - w a y classification of travel by trip purpose, by region of origin, a n d by region of d e s t i n a t i o n . In t h e s t u d y reported by t h i s paper, t h i s q u e s t i o n w a s a d d r e s s e d t h r o u g h seco n d a r y a n a l y s i s of t h e data. T h e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e of t h e p a p e r is to p r e s e n t i n f o r m a t i o n o n c o n d u c t i n g s e c o n d a r y a n a l y s e s of t h e 1977 National Travel S u r v e y d a t a base. A s e c o n d a r y p u r p o s e is to p r e s e n t n e t travel flow d a t a for inter-regional a u t o m o b i l e travel by four leisure purposes, visiting f a m i l y a n d friends, outdoor recreation, e n t e r t a i n m e n t , a n d sightseeing. T h i s is done to d e m o n s t r a t e t h e p r o b l e m s w h i c h c a n be e n c o u n t e r e d in u s i n g t h e NTS data. METHODOLOGY T h r e e significant methodological p r o b l e m s were e n c o u n t e r e d in c o n d u c t i n g s e c o n d a r y a n a l y s e s of t h e National Travel S u r v e y data. First, due to t h e s a m p l i n g design u s e d by t h e B u r e a u of t h e C e n s u s , it w a s n e c e s s a r y to use t h e w e i g h t i n g coefficients provided in t h e d a t a files a n d a n a l y z e p o p u l a t i o n travel p a t t e r n s i n s t e a d of only t h e s a m p l e d individuals. While t h e d a t a were collected from a n a t i o n a l probability sample, t h e selection probabilities were g r e a t e r for u r b a n r e s i d e n t s w i t h t h e p u r p o s e of a s s u r i n g s u b - s a m p l e s repres e n t a t i v e of selected S t a n d a r d Metropolitan Statistical Areas. T h e w e i g h t i n g coefficients m a k e it possible to avoid t h i s u r b a n bias. T h u s , while d a t a were collected from a s a m p l e of 19,112 households c o n c e r n i n g 7 9 , 3 0 9 trips, t h e a c t u a l d a t a a n a l y s i s w a s for t h e p o p u l a t i o n of 7 4 , 4 8 1 , 0 0 0 h o u s e h o l d s a n d 3 1 2 , 5 3 2 , 0 0 0 h o u s e h o l d 1985 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH
169
SPATIALPATTERNS OF LEISURETRAVEL Figure 1 Narrowing of the Study Population National Travel S u r v e y - - 7 6 % --~ Auto a n d T r u c k T r a v e l - - 9 8 % --> (312,532,000 trips) (239,077,612 trips) Domestic Travel - - 5 9 % ---> Leisure Travel --23%---> (235,055,078 trips) (139,365,086 trips) Inter-Regional Leisure Travel (31,838,661 trips)
trips. W e i g h t i n g coefficients are also provided to e x a m i n e p e r s o n trips. In t h i s s t u d y we were specifically c o n c e r n e d w i t h d o m e s t i c inter-regional a u t o m o b i l e h o u s e h o l d trips for leisure purposes. Of t h e 312.5 million trips t a k e n in 1977, only 10.1E (31,838,661) were i n c l u d e d in t h i s s t u d y population. Figure 1 s h o w s t h e criteria a n d a s s o c i a t e d d a t a d i s t r i b u t i o n s u s e d to identify t h e s t u d y population. Second, a c c e s s i n g t h e d a t a files also proved a problem. T h e d a t a are a r r a n g e d in a h i e r a r c h i a l s t r u c t u r e (i.e., c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of h o u s e h o l d one, trips by h o u s e h o l d one, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of household two, trips by h o u s e h o l d two, etc.). A l t h o u g h t h e record l e n g t h s are t h e s a m e for t h e two record types, t h e n u m b e r of trips t a k e n varied widely a m o n g h o u s e h o l d s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e l e n g t h of t h e d a t a file for e a c h c o m b i n a t i o n of h o u s e h o l d a n d trip records varies, r e s u l t i n g in some difficulty r e a d i n g t h e d a t a set for c o m p u t e r a n a l y sis. In order to isolate t h e different t y p e s of records, it w a s n e c e s s a r y to read t h e record type variable a n d t h e n specify t h e variables a n d f o r m a t of t h e different record types. Since t h e a n a l y s e s focused on t h e trip data, fi]-st t h e trip records were identified, a n d t h e n t h e variables of i n t e r e s t a n d t h e i r respective f o r m a t s were specified. T h u s t h e n e e d e d d a t a were selected a n d isolated. Third, t h e origin a n d d e s t i n a t i o n d a t a are categorized by state. It would be virtually impossible to e x a m i n e t h e spatial p a t t e r n s of leisure travel at t h a t level of specificity. F u r t h e r , w h e n s e p a r a t e d by t h e four leisure p u r p o s e s (visiting f a m i l y a n d friends, outdoor recreation, sightseeing, a n d e n t e r t a i n m e n t ) , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of t h e d a t a would be questionable. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e travel regions developed by TIA a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d in t h e National Travel S u r v e y c e n s u s report were u s e d to aggregate t h e origin a n d d e s t i n a t i o n d a t a (Figure 2). A n a l y s i s of t h e d a t a w a s a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of a t h r e e - w a y c o n t i n g e n c y table s h o w i n g t h e n u m b e r 170
1985 ANNALSOF TOURISMRESEARCH
> ;o
~o u)
©
o~ ©
(3o O1 > Z Z >
NV
AZ
INCLUDES ALASKA AND HAWA I I
OR
Frontie=
NM
CO
WY
MT
TX
NE
SD
ND
OK
KS
TN
Figure 2 Travel Industry Association Travel Regions
NC
Gateway ~orge ish mgton
tl
pEngland
New
O C
>
>
C
~0
> ~o
SPATIALPATTERNS OF LEISURETRAVEL of trips by p r i m a r y leisure purpose, by region of origin, a n d by region of d e s t i n a t i o n . RESULTS Table 1 s h o w s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of inter-regional a u t o m o b i l e travel for e a c h d e s t i n a t i o n region by leisure purpose. E x a m i n a t i o n of t h e row p e r c e n t a g e reflects t h e following findings. Travel to visit f a m i l y a n d f r i e n d s w a s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y high for t h e Great L a k e s region as c o n t r a s t e d to t h e low p e r c e n t a g e of travel to t h e M o u n t a i n W e s t for t h a t purpose. Travel to t h e M o u n t a i n West w a s disproportionately h i g h for t h e p u r p o s e of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n and, to a lesser e x t e n t , sightseeing. A s e c o n d region w i t h a relatively h i g h percentage of travel for outdoor r e c r e a t i o n w a s New E n g l a n d , T h e entert a i n m e n t capitals of Nevada, California, a n d Hawaii are evident in t h e travel for t h a t p u r p o s e to t h e F a r W e s t region. Additionally, b u t to a lesser extent, t h e F a r West h a d a relatively high p e r c e n t a g e of s i g h t s e e i n g travel. Of more i m p o r t a n c e t h a n t h e overall level of leisure travel bet w e e n regions, t h e n e t travel flows were also e x a m i n e d . Specifically, c o m p a r i s o n s were c o n d u c t e d of t h e travel b e t w e e n e a c h pair of regions for t h e p u r p o s e of i d e n t i f y i n g w h i c h regions were t h e n e t a t t r a c t o r s a n d w h i c h regions were t h e n e t g e n e r a t o r s of leisure travel. Over t h e four purposes, t h e S o u t h a n d M o u n t a i n West were t h e n e t a t t r a c t o r s of leisure travel (Table 2). Conversely, t h e Great L a k e s a n d E a s t e r n G a t e w a y regions were t h e n e t leisure travel g e n e r a t o r s . For e a c h of t h e four purposes, t h e S o u t h a t t r a c t e d t h e h i g h e s t level of travel. Conversely, t h e G r e a t Lakes, also for e a c h purpose, g e n e r a t e d t h e g r e a t e s t level of travel. To f u r t h e r e x a m i n e t h e n e t flows b e t w e e n regions, a n origin by d e s t i n a t i o n table w a s c o n s t r u c t e d for e a c h of t h e four leisure purposes (Tables 3, 4, 5, a n d 6). T h e d o m i n a n c e of t h e S o u t h as t h e major a t t r a c t o r of leisure travel is evident for all four purposes. However, t h e M o u n t a i n W e s t region e x p e r i e n c e d a n e t inflow of travel from t h e S o u t h for outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a n d sightseeing. Similarly, t h e F a r W e s t w a s a n e t a t t r a c t o r of travel from t h e S o u t h for outdoor recreation, sightseeing, a n d e n t e r t a i n m e n t . T h e only sign i f i c a n t n e t travel flow to t h e Great L a k e s region w a s for e n t e r t a i n m e n t from t h e George W a s h i n g t o n region. I n s t a n c e s of significant i n t e r a c t i o n a c r o s s trip p u r p o s e s i n c l u d e t h a t b e t w e e n t h e New Eng l a n d a n d E a s t e r n G a t e w a y regions a n d b e t w e e n t h e M o u n t a i n W e s t a n d F a r W e s t regions. Net flows from t h e E a s t e r n G a t e w a y 172
1985 ANNALSOF TOURISM RESEARCH
0
O
>
00 on >
Visit F a m i l y & Friends
4,659,009 .585 3,535,482 .712 2,756,938 .646 3,465,502 .848 2,175,806 .600 1,352,806 .500 1,431,776 .570 966,548 .567 20,343,867 .639
Destination Region
South
Total
F a r West
New E n g l a n d
M o u n t a i n West
Eastern Gateway
Great Lakes
F r o n t i e r West
George W a s h i n g t o n
Table I
1,170,548 .147 546,309 .110 611,882 .143 251,165 .061 588,163 .162 714,958 .264 618,045 .246 90,526 .053 4,591,596 .144
Outdoor Recreation 1,143,366 .144 377,013 .076 576,272 .135 295,217 .072 558,197 .154 255,137 .094 173,168 .069 396,919 .233 3,775,289 .I 19
Entertainment
Trip P u r p o s e
992,886 .125 507,585 .102 321,964 .075 73,403 .018 307,154 .085 383,952 .142 291,035 .116 249,930 .147 3,127,909 .098
Sightseeing
Distribution o f Inter-regional A u t o m o b i l e Travel by Leisure Purpose by R e g i o n o f D e s t i n a t i o n
1.000
31,838,661
1.000
1,703,923
1.001
4,267,056 .999 4,085,287 .999 3,629,320 1.001 2,706,853 1.000 2,514,024
1.000
7,965,809 1.001 4,966,389
Total
t~
,< O ~0
t-
t~ >
>
0
O
Go L~
Table 2
1,337,5224 280,233 199,766 305 -- 1 1 8 , 9 8 5 183,499 -- 7 5 5 , 8 5 5 -- 1 , 1 2 6 , 4 8 5
South Mountain West New England Frontier West Far West George Washington Eastern Gateway Great Lakes
964,355 584,369 428,067 137,259 -- 4 6 9 , 0 5 8 -- 3 7 2 , 4 5 2 -- 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 -- 1 , 0 1 3 , 2 7 4
Outdoor Recreation 749,304 21,942 -- 1 0 2 , 2 2 6 111,287 257,816 -- 2 7 3 , 1 4 1 97,265 -- 8 6 2 , 2 4 7
Entertainment
800,519 260,687 59,910 1,480 54,341 83,985 -- 1 4 9 , 2 7 5 -- 1 , 1 1 1 , 6 4 7
Sightseeing
3,851,700 1,147,231 585,517 250,331 -- 2 7 5 , 8 8 6 -- 3 7 8 , 1 0 9 -- 1 , 0 6 7 , 1 3 1 -- 4 , 1 1 3 , 6 5 3
Total
a Only n e t i n t e r - r e g i o n a l travel flows a r e reported. In t h i s c a s e , t h e r e w e r e 1 , 3 3 7 , 5 2 2 m o r e t r i p s to t h e S o u t h for v i s i t i n g f a m i l y a n d f r i e n d s t h a n t r i p s for t h a t p u r p o s e f r o m t h e S o u t h to all o t h e r r e g i o n s .
Visit Family & Friends
Destination Region
Trip Purpose
1 9 7 7 Net Inter-regional A u t o m o b i l e Travel F l o w s by Leisure Purpose b y R e g i o n of D e s t i n a t i o n
< t~ F"
t" t~
O
Z
F"
ol
>
0
©
>
> Z
Q0
-272,660
3,668 7,763 --11,431
.
----
Eastern Gateway
.
-429,317
79,116 6,786 --
-343,415 -.
George Washington
7,611 1,337,522
808,218 55,594 27,266
54,254 173,829 210,750 .
South
.
---
--.
----
Great Lakes
.
99,874 171,497
71,623 -. .
----
Frontier West
Region of Destination
86,313 307,499
102,087 94,788 .
.
5,083 11,899 7,329
Mountain West
.
-74,813
50,001 --
13,557 8,467 2,788
Far West
193,798 2,604,739
1,126,485 171,192 27,266
72,894 767,286 245,818
Total Outflows
a O n l y n e t t r a v e l f l o w s a r e r e p o r t e d . In t h i s e x a m p l e , t h e r e w e r e 2 2 9 , 6 7 6 m o r e t r i p s f r o m t h e E a s t e r n G a t e w a y to N e w E n g l a n d t h a n f r o m N e w E n g l a n d to t h e E a s t e r n G a t e w a y for t h e p u r p o s e of v i s i t i n g f a m i l y a n d f r i e n d s .
Far West Total Inflows
11,772 6,261 --
-229,676 a 24,951 .
New England Eastern Gateway George Washington South
Great Lakes Frontier West Mountain West
New England
Region of Origin
Table 3
1 9 7 7 Inter-regional A u t o m o b i l e Travel: Net F l o w s for Visiting F a m i l y a n d F r i e n d s
t~
O
>
> Z
t~ ~V
>
(3 .v
>
~0
©
~o O
> z z >
Ln
West
Mountain West Far West Total Inflows
Frontier
South Great Lakes
Eastern Gateway George Washington
New England
Region of Origin
. 2.764 445.995
--
. --7,115 248.991
.
.
. . 107.713
-134,163
--
394,075 49,156
--
Eastern Gateway
England
New
Table
4
George
. -133,623
--
. 133,623
---
--
Washington
-1,016,657
124.177
449.882
109,361 315,574
17,663
South
131,909
--
312,300 449,030
-265
--
--
--
--
--
--
-4,821 --
Frontier West
265
Great Lakes
Region of Destination
1977 Inter-regional Automobile Travel: Net Flows for Outdoor Recreation
584.369
172,547
187,594
171,949
45,097
25,668
--
--
18,463
7,205
----
West --7,182
Far West
Mountain
Total
2,904,598
494,726
311,771
1,013,539
52.302
17.928 508,257 506.075
Outflows
t~
>
~0
00
©
z
>
~o >
>
oo
7~
O
O
z >
>
New
West
Total Inflows
Far West
Mountain
West
34,498
--
--
12,759
Great
Frontier
--
18,436
South
Lakes
--
George
3,303
Gateway
Washington
Eastern
England
--
of Origin
New England
Region
Table
5
Eastern
196,731
--
--
--
24,098
--
69,633
--
103,000
Gateway
George
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Washington
754,804
6,186
17,821
468,665
.
142,216
86,192
33,724
South
Region
.
.
39,662
--
--
--
39,662
--
.
Lakes
Great
.
--
--
297,472
--
--
297,472
.
West
Frontier
of Destination
1977 Inter-regional Automobile Travel: Net Flows for Entertainment
.
77,598
--
21,652
55,946
--
--
.
West
Mountain
Far
257,816
49,470
133,953
37,292
5,500
18,327
13,274
West
Total
1,658,581
55,656
186,185
901,909
5,500
273,141
99,466
136,724
Outflows
t~
o~
O
> z
t~ >,
0
©
z z F-
00 ol
New England
-47,095 -. 65,736 -. 17,398 130,229
Region of Origin
New England Eastern Gateway George Washington South Great Lakes Frontier West Mountain West Far West Total Inflows
Table 6
. 82,979 10,425 . -93,404
----
Eastern Gateway 1,537 114,891 -. . 115,036 -. . 7,466 238,930
George Washington 58,720 52,482 120,996 . . 529,775 57,381 . -819,354
South
--. ---
----
Great Lakes
90,090 -. -123,140
6,837 -26,213
Frontier West
Region of Destination
1 9 7 7 Inter-regional A u t o m o b i l e Travel: Net F l o w s for S i g h t s e e i n g
3,225 12,697 7,736 6,338 142,686 47,093 . 40,912 260,687
Mountain West
. -120,117
-15,514 -12,497 85,345 6,761
Far West
65,776 1,785,861
70,319 242,679 154,945 18,835 1,111,647 121,660
Total Outflows
:a ;> <
©
Z
~o
RICHARDPERDUE AND LARRYGUSTKE region to t h e New E n g l a n d region were observed for visiting f a m i l y a n d friends, outdoor recreation, a n d sightseeing. T h e n e t travel from New E n g l a n d to t h e E a s t e r n G a t e w a y for e n t e r t a i n m e n t probably reflects t h e u r b a n n a t u r e of e n t e r t a i n m e n t activities. T h e s a m e p a t t e r n exists b e t w e e n t h e M o u n t a i n West a n d F a r West regions. Net travel w a s observed for visiting f a m i l y a n d friends, outdoor recreation, a n d s i g h t s e e i n g from t h e F a r W e s t to t h e more r u r a l M o u n t a i n West. Travel for e n t e r t a i n m e n t , however, t e n d e d to be from t h e M o u n t a i n West to t h e more u r b a n F a r West. CONCLUSIONS S e c o n d a r y a n a l y s i s of t h e National Travel S u r v e y provides a n excellent o p p o r t u n i t y for e x a m i n i n g n a t i o n a l travel a n d t o u r i s m t r e n d s . While t h e d a t a are relatively difficult to access, t h e r i c h n e s s a n d size of t h e d a t a set provides t h e o p p o r t u n i t y for e x a m i n i n g relatively specific i s s u e s at t h e n a t i o n a l level. For example, in t h e project reported by t h i s paper, it is r e a s o n a b l e to c o n c l u d e t h a t a significant a s s o c i a t i o n exists b e t w e e n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of leisure travel a n d trip purpose. A l t h o u g h t h e S o u t h a n d G r e a t L a k e s regions were c o n s i s t e n t l y t h e d o m i n a n t a t t r a c t o r a n d g e n e r a t o r , respectively, of inter-regional leisure travel in t h e United States, diff e r e n c e s are e v i d e n t in t h e spatial p a t t e r n s of travel by trip purpose. T h e t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h a t c o n c l u s i o n are of i m p o r t a n c e to t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d specification of trip d i s t r i b u t i o n models. T h e c o m m o n practice of a g g l o m e r a t i n g leisure travel for several purposes into a single model m a y not be appropriate. T h e more significant issue being raised by t h i s paper, however, is t h e availability a n d r i c h n e s s of t h e National Travel S u r v e y data. It is u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t t h e 1982 travel s u r v e y w a s not conducted. T h e lack of l o n g i t u d i n a l d a t a reflecting n a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s of leisure travel is a significant problem in t o u r i s m r e s e a r c h . T h e U.S. Travel D a t a C e n t e r a n n u a l l y c o n d u c t s a n a t i o n a l travel survey. Due to budget restrictions, however, t h e s a m p l e size is m u c h s m a l l e r t h a n t h a t for t h e B u r e a u of t h e C e n s u s National Travel Survey; in 1981, d a t a were collected for 4,990 trips as opposed to t h e 7 9 , 3 0 9 trips in t h e National Travel S u r v e y (U.S. Travel D a t a C e n t e r 1982}. While t h e U.S. Travel Data C e n t e r s u r v e y s are a n excellent i n d i c a t o r of t h e c h a n g e s a n d t r e n d s o c c u r r i n g in n a t i o n a l travel p a t t e r n s , t h e limited s a m p l e size m a k e s disaggregate a n a l y s i s , s u c h as t h a t reported in t h i s paper, difficult. Even w i t h t h e l i m i t a t i o n s a n d relatively c u m b e r s o m e process of a c c e s s i n g t h e NTS data, f u r t h e r a n a l y s e s of t h e d a t a are b o t h possible a n d encouraged. [] [] 1985 ANNALSOF TOURISMRESEARCH
179
SPATIAL PATTERNS OF LEISURE TRAVEL
REFERENCES Bureau of t h e C e n s u s 1978a C e n s u s of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 1977 National Travel Survey ( m a c h i n e - r e a d a b l e d a t a file). W a s h i n g t o n , DC: Bureau of t h e C e n s u s . 1978b C e n s u s of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 1977 National Travel Survey. W a s h i n g t o n , DC: U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g Office. 1979 C e n s u s of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 1977 National Travel Survey T e c h n i c a l Docum e n t a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , DC: Bureau of t h e C e n s u s . Cline, R. S. 1975 M e a s u r i n g Travel V o l u m e s a n d Itineraries a n d F o r e c a s t i n g F u t u r e Travel G r o w t h to Individual Pacific D e s t i n a t i o n s . I n M a n a g e m e n t S c i e n c e Applications to Leisure-Time O p e r a t i o n s , S. P. L a n d a n y , ed. New York: Elsevier P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y , Inc. C r a m p o n , J. L. 1966 A New T e c h n i q u e to Analyze Tourist Markets. J o u r n a l of M a r k e t i n g 30:27 31. Doering, T. R. 1977 Modeling Travel by R e c r e a t i o n i s t s a n d T o u r i s t s in a P a s s - T h r o u g h Region: The Case of Visits to E d u c a t i o n a l - R e c r e a t i o n a l A t t r a c t i o n s in Nebraska. Unp u b l i s h e d Ph.D. Dissertation, D e p a r t m e n t of Geography, The U n i v e r s i t y of N e b r a s k a - - L i n c o l n , Nebraska. Editor 1978 1977 National Travel Survey. J o u r n a l of Travel R e s e a r c h 16(4):34-39. H u d m a n , L. E., R. S. Budge, a n d H. L. H u d m a n 1977 An A n a l y s i s a n d Atlas of Travel in t h e United States. Boulder, Colorado: B u s i n e s s R e s e a r c h Division, University of Colorado. Mitchell, L. S. 1979 The Geography of Tourism: A n Introduction. A n n a l s of T o u r i s m R e s e a r c h 6(3):235-244. Mitchell, L. S. 1980 Geographic Analysis: Implications for Tourism. B u s i n e s s a n d E c o n o m i c Review 2 6 ( 5 ) : 3 8 - 4 2 . Pearce, D. G. 1979 T o w a r d s a G e o g r a p h y of Tourism. A n n a l s of T o u r i s m R e s e a r c h 6 ( 3 ) : 2 4 5 272. Robinson, H. 1979 A Geography of Tourism. Estover, Plymouth: McDonald a n d E v a n s , Ltd. U.S. Travel Data C e n t e r 1982 1981 National Travel Survey: Full Year Report. W a s h i n g t o n , DC: U.S. Travel Data Center. S u b m i t t e d 3 F e b r u a r y 1983 Revised v e r s i o n s u b m i t t e d 16 D e c e m b e r 1983 S e c o n d version s u b m i t t e d 28 M a r c h 1983 A c c e p t e d 10 J u l y 1984 Refereed a n o n y m o u s l y
180
1985 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH
L a r r y D. G u s t k e U n i v e r s i t y of N e w H a m p s h i r e , U S A
ABSTRACT T h i s article reports t h e p r o b l e m s e n c o u n t e r e d a n d proced u r e s developed to c o n d u c t a s e c o n d a r y a n a l y s i s of t h e 1977 National Travel Survey. Using t h e travel regions developed by t h e Travel I n d u s t r y Association of America, t h e s e p r o c e d u r e s were applied in a n a n a l y s i s of t h e interregional d i s t r i b u t i o n of leisure travel by trip purpose. T h e r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t differences in travel p a t t e r n s exist a m o n g different leisure purposes; t h a t t h e S o u t h a n d Great L a k e s were t h e major a t t r a c t o r a n d g e n e r a t o r , respectively, of leisure travel for all purposes; a n d t h a t int e r a c t i o n existed a c r o s s p u r p o s e s b e t w e e n t h e New Eng l a n d a n d E a s t e r n G a t e w a y regions a n d b e t w e e n t h e M o u n t a i n W e s t a n d F a r W e s t regions. K e y w o r d s : travel flows, leisure travel, n a t i o n a l travel survey, n e t flows.
R i c h a r d P u r d u e {Dept. of R e c r e a t i o n R e s o u r c e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , N o r t h C a r o l i n a S t a t e Univ., R a l e i g h , NC 2 7 6 9 5 - 8 0 0 4 , USA) c o o r d i n a t e s t h e t o u r i s m a n d c o m m e r cial r e c r e a t i o n o p t i o n . His r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s a r e in t o u r i s m a n d s p a t i a l b e h a v i o r . He r e c e i v e d h i s Ph.D. f r o m T e x a s A & M U n i v e r s i t y . L a r r y G u s t k e is c o o r d i n a t o r of t h e t o u r i s m a n d p a r k m a n a g e m e n t o p t i o n . His r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s i n c l u d e t r a v e l b e h a v ior, g e o g r a p h i c i m a g e s , a n d t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s of t r a v e l i n f o r m a t i o n . He a l s o received h i s Ph.D. f r o m T e x a s A & M U n i v e r s i t y . Annals of Tourlsm Research, Vol. 12, pp. 167-180, 1985
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
167
o16o-7383/85 $3.00 + .0o © 1985 J. Jafarl and Pergamon Press Ltd
SPATIALPATTERNS OF LEISURETRAVEL RI~SUMI~ La d i s t r i b u t i o n spatiale des voyages selon leur object. Cet article p r e s e n t e les difficultes q u ' o n a affrontees et les procedes q u ' o n a developpes pour m e n e r u n e a n a l y s e seco n d a i r e de l ' e n q u e t e n a t i o n a l e s u r les voyages de 1977. E n se s e r v a n t des regions de voyages qui o n t ete definies par l'Association de l ' I n d u s t r i e Touristique des EtatsUnis, on a applique ces procedes d a n s u n e a n a l y s e de la d i s t r i b u t i o n interregionale de voyages d ' a g r e m e n t selon l'object de ces voyages. Les r e s u l t a t s indiquent: qu'il y a des differences de d i s t r i b u t i o n de voyages p a r m i les divers objects de loisirs; que le Sud et la region des G r a n d s Lacs e t a i e n t le plus g r a n d a t t r a c t e u r et le plus g r a n d gene r a t e u r , r e s p e c t i v e m e n t , de voyages d ' a g r e m e n t pour t o u s l e s objects; et qu'il existait u n e i n t e r a c t i o n &t r a v e r s les objets e n t r e les regions de la Nouvelle Angleterre et la Porte de l'Est, et e n t r e les regions du F a r West et des m o n t a g n e s R o c h e u s e s . Mots clef: c o u r a n t s de voyages, voyages d ' a g r e m e n t , e n q u e t e n a t i o n a l e s u r les voyages, riots nets.
INTRODUCTION Identification a n d m e a s u r e m e n t of t h e s p a t i a l p a t t e r n s of leisure travel is a major focus of t o u r i s m r e s e a r c h ( H u d m a n , Budge, a n d H u d m a n 1977; Mitchell 1979, 1980). T o u r i s m p l a n n i n g , m a n a g e m e n t , a n d m a r k e t i n g are e n h a n c e d by a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e s p a t i a l p a t t e r n s of leisure b e h a v i o r (Crampon 1966; R o b i n s o n 1979). However, for m o s t agencies, t h e cost of developing t h e d a t a sets n e c e s s a r y to e x a m i n e n a t i o n a l travel p a t t e r n s is prohibitively high. C o n s e q u e n t l y , m o s t s t u d i e s are limited to specific d e s t i n a t i o n s a n d focus on t h e travel flows from v a r i o u s origins to t h a t d e s t i n a t i o n (Cline 1975; Doering 1977; Pearce 1979). A relatively i n e x p e n s i v e d a t a set is, however, available for c o n d u c t i n g a n a l y s e s of n a t i o n a l travel p a t t e r n s . T h e National Travel S u r v e y (NTS), a c o m p o n e n t of t h e 1977 C e n s u s of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , provides a n e x t e n s i v e a n d relatively reliable d a t a set on d o m e s t i c travel p a t t e r n s in t h e United S t a t e s (Bure a u of t h e C e n s u s 1978a, 1979); previous National Travel S u r v e y s were c o n d u c t e d in 1967 a n d 1972, b u t t h e s c h e d u l e d 1982 National Travel S u r v e y w a s cancelled as a r e s u l t of t h e federal b u d g e t cuts. D u r i n g e a c h q u a r t e r of 1977, t h e B u r e a u of t h e C e n s u s inter168
1985 ANNALSOF TOURISMRESEARCH
RICHARD PERDUE AND LARRY GUSTKE
viewed m e m b e r s of 19,112 h o u s e h o l d s c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r domestic, n o n i n s t i t u t i o n a l travel of o n e - w a y d i s t a n c e s g r e a t e r t h a n I 0 0 miles. Two t y p e s of d a t a were collected. First, t h e h o u s e h o l d m e m b e r w a s a s k e d a series of q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of all h o u s e h o l d m e m b e r s a n d overall travel. Second, for e a c h trip t a k e n by a m e m b e r of t h e household, a series of q u e s t i o n s w a s a s k e d a b o u t t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h a t specific trip. T h e d a t a are s t r u c t u r e d so t h a t i n d e p e n d e n t a n a l y s i s c a n be c o n d u c t e d of e i t h e r t h e h o u s e h o l d d a t a or t h e trip data. T h e B u r e a u of t h e C e n s u s report (1978b) provides a n a r r a y of f r e q u e n c y a n d cross-classification d a t a s u m m a r i e s , s o m e of w h i c h h a s b e e n reported in t h e travel literature (Editor 1978). T h e d a t a include travel by trip purpose, mode of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , t h e region of origin at b o t h t h e n a t i o n a l level a n d for e a c h of t h e eight Travel I n d u s t r y Association of America (TIA) d e s t i n a t i o n regions. A q u e s t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to t o u r i s m m a n a g e m e n t a n d m a r k e t i n g w h i c h c a n n o t be a d d r e s s e d u s i n g t h e existing C e n s u s B u r e a u report is t h e t h r e e - w a y classification of travel by trip purpose, by region of origin, a n d by region of d e s t i n a t i o n . In t h e s t u d y reported by t h i s paper, t h i s q u e s t i o n w a s a d d r e s s e d t h r o u g h seco n d a r y a n a l y s i s of t h e data. T h e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e of t h e p a p e r is to p r e s e n t i n f o r m a t i o n o n c o n d u c t i n g s e c o n d a r y a n a l y s e s of t h e 1977 National Travel S u r v e y d a t a base. A s e c o n d a r y p u r p o s e is to p r e s e n t n e t travel flow d a t a for inter-regional a u t o m o b i l e travel by four leisure purposes, visiting f a m i l y a n d friends, outdoor recreation, e n t e r t a i n m e n t , a n d sightseeing. T h i s is done to d e m o n s t r a t e t h e p r o b l e m s w h i c h c a n be e n c o u n t e r e d in u s i n g t h e NTS data. METHODOLOGY T h r e e significant methodological p r o b l e m s were e n c o u n t e r e d in c o n d u c t i n g s e c o n d a r y a n a l y s e s of t h e National Travel S u r v e y data. First, due to t h e s a m p l i n g design u s e d by t h e B u r e a u of t h e C e n s u s , it w a s n e c e s s a r y to use t h e w e i g h t i n g coefficients provided in t h e d a t a files a n d a n a l y z e p o p u l a t i o n travel p a t t e r n s i n s t e a d of only t h e s a m p l e d individuals. While t h e d a t a were collected from a n a t i o n a l probability sample, t h e selection probabilities were g r e a t e r for u r b a n r e s i d e n t s w i t h t h e p u r p o s e of a s s u r i n g s u b - s a m p l e s repres e n t a t i v e of selected S t a n d a r d Metropolitan Statistical Areas. T h e w e i g h t i n g coefficients m a k e it possible to avoid t h i s u r b a n bias. T h u s , while d a t a were collected from a s a m p l e of 19,112 households c o n c e r n i n g 7 9 , 3 0 9 trips, t h e a c t u a l d a t a a n a l y s i s w a s for t h e p o p u l a t i o n of 7 4 , 4 8 1 , 0 0 0 h o u s e h o l d s a n d 3 1 2 , 5 3 2 , 0 0 0 h o u s e h o l d 1985 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH
169
SPATIALPATTERNS OF LEISURETRAVEL Figure 1 Narrowing of the Study Population National Travel S u r v e y - - 7 6 % --~ Auto a n d T r u c k T r a v e l - - 9 8 % --> (312,532,000 trips) (239,077,612 trips) Domestic Travel - - 5 9 % ---> Leisure Travel --23%---> (235,055,078 trips) (139,365,086 trips) Inter-Regional Leisure Travel (31,838,661 trips)
trips. W e i g h t i n g coefficients are also provided to e x a m i n e p e r s o n trips. In t h i s s t u d y we were specifically c o n c e r n e d w i t h d o m e s t i c inter-regional a u t o m o b i l e h o u s e h o l d trips for leisure purposes. Of t h e 312.5 million trips t a k e n in 1977, only 10.1E (31,838,661) were i n c l u d e d in t h i s s t u d y population. Figure 1 s h o w s t h e criteria a n d a s s o c i a t e d d a t a d i s t r i b u t i o n s u s e d to identify t h e s t u d y population. Second, a c c e s s i n g t h e d a t a files also proved a problem. T h e d a t a are a r r a n g e d in a h i e r a r c h i a l s t r u c t u r e (i.e., c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of h o u s e h o l d one, trips by h o u s e h o l d one, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of household two, trips by h o u s e h o l d two, etc.). A l t h o u g h t h e record l e n g t h s are t h e s a m e for t h e two record types, t h e n u m b e r of trips t a k e n varied widely a m o n g h o u s e h o l d s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e l e n g t h of t h e d a t a file for e a c h c o m b i n a t i o n of h o u s e h o l d a n d trip records varies, r e s u l t i n g in some difficulty r e a d i n g t h e d a t a set for c o m p u t e r a n a l y sis. In order to isolate t h e different t y p e s of records, it w a s n e c e s s a r y to read t h e record type variable a n d t h e n specify t h e variables a n d f o r m a t of t h e different record types. Since t h e a n a l y s e s focused on t h e trip data, fi]-st t h e trip records were identified, a n d t h e n t h e variables of i n t e r e s t a n d t h e i r respective f o r m a t s were specified. T h u s t h e n e e d e d d a t a were selected a n d isolated. Third, t h e origin a n d d e s t i n a t i o n d a t a are categorized by state. It would be virtually impossible to e x a m i n e t h e spatial p a t t e r n s of leisure travel at t h a t level of specificity. F u r t h e r , w h e n s e p a r a t e d by t h e four leisure p u r p o s e s (visiting f a m i l y a n d friends, outdoor recreation, sightseeing, a n d e n t e r t a i n m e n t ) , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of t h e d a t a would be questionable. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e travel regions developed by TIA a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d in t h e National Travel S u r v e y c e n s u s report were u s e d to aggregate t h e origin a n d d e s t i n a t i o n d a t a (Figure 2). A n a l y s i s of t h e d a t a w a s a c c o m p l i s h e d t h r o u g h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of a t h r e e - w a y c o n t i n g e n c y table s h o w i n g t h e n u m b e r 170
1985 ANNALSOF TOURISMRESEARCH
> ;o
~o u)
©
o~ ©
(3o O1 > Z Z >
NV
AZ
INCLUDES ALASKA AND HAWA I I
OR
Frontie=
NM
CO
WY
MT
TX
NE
SD
ND
OK
KS
TN
Figure 2 Travel Industry Association Travel Regions
NC
Gateway ~orge ish mgton
tl
pEngland
New
O C
>
>
C
~0
> ~o
SPATIALPATTERNS OF LEISURETRAVEL of trips by p r i m a r y leisure purpose, by region of origin, a n d by region of d e s t i n a t i o n . RESULTS Table 1 s h o w s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of inter-regional a u t o m o b i l e travel for e a c h d e s t i n a t i o n region by leisure purpose. E x a m i n a t i o n of t h e row p e r c e n t a g e reflects t h e following findings. Travel to visit f a m i l y a n d f r i e n d s w a s d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y high for t h e Great L a k e s region as c o n t r a s t e d to t h e low p e r c e n t a g e of travel to t h e M o u n t a i n W e s t for t h a t purpose. Travel to t h e M o u n t a i n West w a s disproportionately h i g h for t h e p u r p o s e of outdoor r e c r e a t i o n and, to a lesser e x t e n t , sightseeing. A s e c o n d region w i t h a relatively h i g h percentage of travel for outdoor r e c r e a t i o n w a s New E n g l a n d , T h e entert a i n m e n t capitals of Nevada, California, a n d Hawaii are evident in t h e travel for t h a t p u r p o s e to t h e F a r W e s t region. Additionally, b u t to a lesser extent, t h e F a r West h a d a relatively high p e r c e n t a g e of s i g h t s e e i n g travel. Of more i m p o r t a n c e t h a n t h e overall level of leisure travel bet w e e n regions, t h e n e t travel flows were also e x a m i n e d . Specifically, c o m p a r i s o n s were c o n d u c t e d of t h e travel b e t w e e n e a c h pair of regions for t h e p u r p o s e of i d e n t i f y i n g w h i c h regions were t h e n e t a t t r a c t o r s a n d w h i c h regions were t h e n e t g e n e r a t o r s of leisure travel. Over t h e four purposes, t h e S o u t h a n d M o u n t a i n West were t h e n e t a t t r a c t o r s of leisure travel (Table 2). Conversely, t h e Great L a k e s a n d E a s t e r n G a t e w a y regions were t h e n e t leisure travel g e n e r a t o r s . For e a c h of t h e four purposes, t h e S o u t h a t t r a c t e d t h e h i g h e s t level of travel. Conversely, t h e G r e a t Lakes, also for e a c h purpose, g e n e r a t e d t h e g r e a t e s t level of travel. To f u r t h e r e x a m i n e t h e n e t flows b e t w e e n regions, a n origin by d e s t i n a t i o n table w a s c o n s t r u c t e d for e a c h of t h e four leisure purposes (Tables 3, 4, 5, a n d 6). T h e d o m i n a n c e of t h e S o u t h as t h e major a t t r a c t o r of leisure travel is evident for all four purposes. However, t h e M o u n t a i n W e s t region e x p e r i e n c e d a n e t inflow of travel from t h e S o u t h for outdoor r e c r e a t i o n a n d sightseeing. Similarly, t h e F a r W e s t w a s a n e t a t t r a c t o r of travel from t h e S o u t h for outdoor recreation, sightseeing, a n d e n t e r t a i n m e n t . T h e only sign i f i c a n t n e t travel flow to t h e Great L a k e s region w a s for e n t e r t a i n m e n t from t h e George W a s h i n g t o n region. I n s t a n c e s of significant i n t e r a c t i o n a c r o s s trip p u r p o s e s i n c l u d e t h a t b e t w e e n t h e New Eng l a n d a n d E a s t e r n G a t e w a y regions a n d b e t w e e n t h e M o u n t a i n W e s t a n d F a r W e s t regions. Net flows from t h e E a s t e r n G a t e w a y 172
1985 ANNALSOF TOURISM RESEARCH
0
O
>
00 on >
Visit F a m i l y & Friends
4,659,009 .585 3,535,482 .712 2,756,938 .646 3,465,502 .848 2,175,806 .600 1,352,806 .500 1,431,776 .570 966,548 .567 20,343,867 .639
Destination Region
South
Total
F a r West
New E n g l a n d
M o u n t a i n West
Eastern Gateway
Great Lakes
F r o n t i e r West
George W a s h i n g t o n
Table I
1,170,548 .147 546,309 .110 611,882 .143 251,165 .061 588,163 .162 714,958 .264 618,045 .246 90,526 .053 4,591,596 .144
Outdoor Recreation 1,143,366 .144 377,013 .076 576,272 .135 295,217 .072 558,197 .154 255,137 .094 173,168 .069 396,919 .233 3,775,289 .I 19
Entertainment
Trip P u r p o s e
992,886 .125 507,585 .102 321,964 .075 73,403 .018 307,154 .085 383,952 .142 291,035 .116 249,930 .147 3,127,909 .098
Sightseeing
Distribution o f Inter-regional A u t o m o b i l e Travel by Leisure Purpose by R e g i o n o f D e s t i n a t i o n
1.000
31,838,661
1.000
1,703,923
1.001
4,267,056 .999 4,085,287 .999 3,629,320 1.001 2,706,853 1.000 2,514,024
1.000
7,965,809 1.001 4,966,389
Total
t~
,< O ~0
t-
t~ >
>
0
O
Go L~
Table 2
1,337,5224 280,233 199,766 305 -- 1 1 8 , 9 8 5 183,499 -- 7 5 5 , 8 5 5 -- 1 , 1 2 6 , 4 8 5
South Mountain West New England Frontier West Far West George Washington Eastern Gateway Great Lakes
964,355 584,369 428,067 137,259 -- 4 6 9 , 0 5 8 -- 3 7 2 , 4 5 2 -- 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 -- 1 , 0 1 3 , 2 7 4
Outdoor Recreation 749,304 21,942 -- 1 0 2 , 2 2 6 111,287 257,816 -- 2 7 3 , 1 4 1 97,265 -- 8 6 2 , 2 4 7
Entertainment
800,519 260,687 59,910 1,480 54,341 83,985 -- 1 4 9 , 2 7 5 -- 1 , 1 1 1 , 6 4 7
Sightseeing
3,851,700 1,147,231 585,517 250,331 -- 2 7 5 , 8 8 6 -- 3 7 8 , 1 0 9 -- 1 , 0 6 7 , 1 3 1 -- 4 , 1 1 3 , 6 5 3
Total
a Only n e t i n t e r - r e g i o n a l travel flows a r e reported. In t h i s c a s e , t h e r e w e r e 1 , 3 3 7 , 5 2 2 m o r e t r i p s to t h e S o u t h for v i s i t i n g f a m i l y a n d f r i e n d s t h a n t r i p s for t h a t p u r p o s e f r o m t h e S o u t h to all o t h e r r e g i o n s .
Visit Family & Friends
Destination Region
Trip Purpose
1 9 7 7 Net Inter-regional A u t o m o b i l e Travel F l o w s by Leisure Purpose b y R e g i o n of D e s t i n a t i o n
< t~ F"
t" t~
O
Z
F"
ol
>
0
©
>
> Z
Q0
-272,660
3,668 7,763 --11,431
.
----
Eastern Gateway
.
-429,317
79,116 6,786 --
-343,415 -.
George Washington
7,611 1,337,522
808,218 55,594 27,266
54,254 173,829 210,750 .
South
.
---
--.
----
Great Lakes
.
99,874 171,497
71,623 -. .
----
Frontier West
Region of Destination
86,313 307,499
102,087 94,788 .
.
5,083 11,899 7,329
Mountain West
.
-74,813
50,001 --
13,557 8,467 2,788
Far West
193,798 2,604,739
1,126,485 171,192 27,266
72,894 767,286 245,818
Total Outflows
a O n l y n e t t r a v e l f l o w s a r e r e p o r t e d . In t h i s e x a m p l e , t h e r e w e r e 2 2 9 , 6 7 6 m o r e t r i p s f r o m t h e E a s t e r n G a t e w a y to N e w E n g l a n d t h a n f r o m N e w E n g l a n d to t h e E a s t e r n G a t e w a y for t h e p u r p o s e of v i s i t i n g f a m i l y a n d f r i e n d s .
Far West Total Inflows
11,772 6,261 --
-229,676 a 24,951 .
New England Eastern Gateway George Washington South
Great Lakes Frontier West Mountain West
New England
Region of Origin
Table 3
1 9 7 7 Inter-regional A u t o m o b i l e Travel: Net F l o w s for Visiting F a m i l y a n d F r i e n d s
t~
O
>
> Z
t~ ~V
>
(3 .v
>
~0
©
~o O
> z z >
Ln
West
Mountain West Far West Total Inflows
Frontier
South Great Lakes
Eastern Gateway George Washington
New England
Region of Origin
. 2.764 445.995
--
. --7,115 248.991
.
.
. . 107.713
-134,163
--
394,075 49,156
--
Eastern Gateway
England
New
Table
4
George
. -133,623
--
. 133,623
---
--
Washington
-1,016,657
124.177
449.882
109,361 315,574
17,663
South
131,909
--
312,300 449,030
-265
--
--
--
--
--
--
-4,821 --
Frontier West
265
Great Lakes
Region of Destination
1977 Inter-regional Automobile Travel: Net Flows for Outdoor Recreation
584.369
172,547
187,594
171,949
45,097
25,668
--
--
18,463
7,205
----
West --7,182
Far West
Mountain
Total
2,904,598
494,726
311,771
1,013,539
52.302
17.928 508,257 506.075
Outflows
t~
>
~0
00
©
z
>
~o >
>
oo
7~
O
O
z >
>
New
West
Total Inflows
Far West
Mountain
West
34,498
--
--
12,759
Great
Frontier
--
18,436
South
Lakes
--
George
3,303
Gateway
Washington
Eastern
England
--
of Origin
New England
Region
Table
5
Eastern
196,731
--
--
--
24,098
--
69,633
--
103,000
Gateway
George
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Washington
754,804
6,186
17,821
468,665
.
142,216
86,192
33,724
South
Region
.
.
39,662
--
--
--
39,662
--
.
Lakes
Great
.
--
--
297,472
--
--
297,472
.
West
Frontier
of Destination
1977 Inter-regional Automobile Travel: Net Flows for Entertainment
.
77,598
--
21,652
55,946
--
--
.
West
Mountain
Far
257,816
49,470
133,953
37,292
5,500
18,327
13,274
West
Total
1,658,581
55,656
186,185
901,909
5,500
273,141
99,466
136,724
Outflows
t~
o~
O
> z
t~ >,
0
©
z z F-
00 ol
New England
-47,095 -. 65,736 -. 17,398 130,229
Region of Origin
New England Eastern Gateway George Washington South Great Lakes Frontier West Mountain West Far West Total Inflows
Table 6
. 82,979 10,425 . -93,404
----
Eastern Gateway 1,537 114,891 -. . 115,036 -. . 7,466 238,930
George Washington 58,720 52,482 120,996 . . 529,775 57,381 . -819,354
South
--. ---
----
Great Lakes
90,090 -. -123,140
6,837 -26,213
Frontier West
Region of Destination
1 9 7 7 Inter-regional A u t o m o b i l e Travel: Net F l o w s for S i g h t s e e i n g
3,225 12,697 7,736 6,338 142,686 47,093 . 40,912 260,687
Mountain West
. -120,117
-15,514 -12,497 85,345 6,761
Far West
65,776 1,785,861
70,319 242,679 154,945 18,835 1,111,647 121,660
Total Outflows
:a ;> <
©
Z
~o
RICHARDPERDUE AND LARRYGUSTKE region to t h e New E n g l a n d region were observed for visiting f a m i l y a n d friends, outdoor recreation, a n d sightseeing. T h e n e t travel from New E n g l a n d to t h e E a s t e r n G a t e w a y for e n t e r t a i n m e n t probably reflects t h e u r b a n n a t u r e of e n t e r t a i n m e n t activities. T h e s a m e p a t t e r n exists b e t w e e n t h e M o u n t a i n West a n d F a r West regions. Net travel w a s observed for visiting f a m i l y a n d friends, outdoor recreation, a n d s i g h t s e e i n g from t h e F a r W e s t to t h e more r u r a l M o u n t a i n West. Travel for e n t e r t a i n m e n t , however, t e n d e d to be from t h e M o u n t a i n West to t h e more u r b a n F a r West. CONCLUSIONS S e c o n d a r y a n a l y s i s of t h e National Travel S u r v e y provides a n excellent o p p o r t u n i t y for e x a m i n i n g n a t i o n a l travel a n d t o u r i s m t r e n d s . While t h e d a t a are relatively difficult to access, t h e r i c h n e s s a n d size of t h e d a t a set provides t h e o p p o r t u n i t y for e x a m i n i n g relatively specific i s s u e s at t h e n a t i o n a l level. For example, in t h e project reported by t h i s paper, it is r e a s o n a b l e to c o n c l u d e t h a t a significant a s s o c i a t i o n exists b e t w e e n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of leisure travel a n d trip purpose. A l t h o u g h t h e S o u t h a n d G r e a t L a k e s regions were c o n s i s t e n t l y t h e d o m i n a n t a t t r a c t o r a n d g e n e r a t o r , respectively, of inter-regional leisure travel in t h e United States, diff e r e n c e s are e v i d e n t in t h e spatial p a t t e r n s of travel by trip purpose. T h e t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h a t c o n c l u s i o n are of i m p o r t a n c e to t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d specification of trip d i s t r i b u t i o n models. T h e c o m m o n practice of a g g l o m e r a t i n g leisure travel for several purposes into a single model m a y not be appropriate. T h e more significant issue being raised by t h i s paper, however, is t h e availability a n d r i c h n e s s of t h e National Travel S u r v e y data. It is u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t t h e 1982 travel s u r v e y w a s not conducted. T h e lack of l o n g i t u d i n a l d a t a reflecting n a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s of leisure travel is a significant problem in t o u r i s m r e s e a r c h . T h e U.S. Travel D a t a C e n t e r a n n u a l l y c o n d u c t s a n a t i o n a l travel survey. Due to budget restrictions, however, t h e s a m p l e size is m u c h s m a l l e r t h a n t h a t for t h e B u r e a u of t h e C e n s u s National Travel Survey; in 1981, d a t a were collected for 4,990 trips as opposed to t h e 7 9 , 3 0 9 trips in t h e National Travel S u r v e y (U.S. Travel D a t a C e n t e r 1982}. While t h e U.S. Travel Data C e n t e r s u r v e y s are a n excellent i n d i c a t o r of t h e c h a n g e s a n d t r e n d s o c c u r r i n g in n a t i o n a l travel p a t t e r n s , t h e limited s a m p l e size m a k e s disaggregate a n a l y s i s , s u c h as t h a t reported in t h i s paper, difficult. Even w i t h t h e l i m i t a t i o n s a n d relatively c u m b e r s o m e process of a c c e s s i n g t h e NTS data, f u r t h e r a n a l y s e s of t h e d a t a are b o t h possible a n d encouraged. [] [] 1985 ANNALSOF TOURISMRESEARCH
179
SPATIAL PATTERNS OF LEISURE TRAVEL
REFERENCES Bureau of t h e C e n s u s 1978a C e n s u s of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 1977 National Travel Survey ( m a c h i n e - r e a d a b l e d a t a file). W a s h i n g t o n , DC: Bureau of t h e C e n s u s . 1978b C e n s u s of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 1977 National Travel Survey. W a s h i n g t o n , DC: U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g Office. 1979 C e n s u s of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 1977 National Travel Survey T e c h n i c a l Docum e n t a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , DC: Bureau of t h e C e n s u s . Cline, R. S. 1975 M e a s u r i n g Travel V o l u m e s a n d Itineraries a n d F o r e c a s t i n g F u t u r e Travel G r o w t h to Individual Pacific D e s t i n a t i o n s . I n M a n a g e m e n t S c i e n c e Applications to Leisure-Time O p e r a t i o n s , S. P. L a n d a n y , ed. New York: Elsevier P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y , Inc. C r a m p o n , J. L. 1966 A New T e c h n i q u e to Analyze Tourist Markets. J o u r n a l of M a r k e t i n g 30:27 31. Doering, T. R. 1977 Modeling Travel by R e c r e a t i o n i s t s a n d T o u r i s t s in a P a s s - T h r o u g h Region: The Case of Visits to E d u c a t i o n a l - R e c r e a t i o n a l A t t r a c t i o n s in Nebraska. Unp u b l i s h e d Ph.D. Dissertation, D e p a r t m e n t of Geography, The U n i v e r s i t y of N e b r a s k a - - L i n c o l n , Nebraska. Editor 1978 1977 National Travel Survey. J o u r n a l of Travel R e s e a r c h 16(4):34-39. H u d m a n , L. E., R. S. Budge, a n d H. L. H u d m a n 1977 An A n a l y s i s a n d Atlas of Travel in t h e United States. Boulder, Colorado: B u s i n e s s R e s e a r c h Division, University of Colorado. Mitchell, L. S. 1979 The Geography of Tourism: A n Introduction. A n n a l s of T o u r i s m R e s e a r c h 6(3):235-244. Mitchell, L. S. 1980 Geographic Analysis: Implications for Tourism. B u s i n e s s a n d E c o n o m i c Review 2 6 ( 5 ) : 3 8 - 4 2 . Pearce, D. G. 1979 T o w a r d s a G e o g r a p h y of Tourism. A n n a l s of T o u r i s m R e s e a r c h 6 ( 3 ) : 2 4 5 272. Robinson, H. 1979 A Geography of Tourism. Estover, Plymouth: McDonald a n d E v a n s , Ltd. U.S. Travel Data C e n t e r 1982 1981 National Travel Survey: Full Year Report. W a s h i n g t o n , DC: U.S. Travel Data Center. S u b m i t t e d 3 F e b r u a r y 1983 Revised v e r s i o n s u b m i t t e d 16 D e c e m b e r 1983 S e c o n d version s u b m i t t e d 28 M a r c h 1983 A c c e p t e d 10 J u l y 1984 Refereed a n o n y m o u s l y
180
1985 ANNALS OF TOURISM RESEARCH