activity (Regan, Carlson & Rosenberger, 2012). Whether it is in .... Sparks (2012) argue that value is multi-determined, where consumers anticipate and derive.
Modelling value drivers of group oriented travel experiences to major events and its influences on satisfaction and future travel intentions Jamie Carlson, PJ Rosenberger III, University of Newcastle, Australia, Mohammad M. Rahman, Shandong University, P.R. China INTRODUCTION Group travel behaviour to large-scale major events (e.g. FIFA World Cup’s, Olympics, music festivals) has been recognised as an important market segment and driver of tourism activity (Regan, Carlson & Rosenberger, 2012). Whether it is in informal groups comprising immediate family members, other family members or friends, or as part of formally organised tour groups, studies suggest that group-based travel accounts for a sizable portion of tourist trips (e.g. Dunne, Flanagan & Buckley, 2011; Wu, Zhang, & Fujiwara, 2011). Major events act as a catalyst for increasing destination visitation, improving a destination’s position in the travel market and fostering destination development for communities (Martin & Bath, 2013). Such tourism activity draws significant numbers of both domestic and international tourists to the regions in which events are hosted, resulting in increased consumer spending on accommodation, food and recreational activities (Getz, 2008). Major events are thus attractive to all levels of government due to the positive, economic flow-on effects they have. Despite this practical significance, understanding in the literature is limited on what value travel consumers perceive and derive from a major-event, group-based travel experience that helps explain why they engage in this form of travel behaviour. Understanding the concept of value in the experience from the customer perspective is a particularly relevant concept for tourism marketing managers because group travel experiences can be argued to be embedded and formed within the broader domain of the cumulated reality and ecosystem of the customer (Heinonen, Strandvik, & Voima, 2013). On this basis, rather than solely focus on the core service experience, it is important to examine this issue as a process that includes anticipated and remembered consumption experiences as well (Helkkula, Kelleher, & Pihlström, 2012). As such we follow Tynan, McKechnie and Hartley (2014) and take a ‘value in the experience’ approach in understanding customer perceived value of group travel experiences rather than the more traditional service-provider centric view. Importantly, various stakeholders including tourist firms, event-management and destination-marketing organisations need to acknowledge what their customers value to strengthen a tourism product’s features and predict tourist purchase behaviours, and ultimately to be competitive (Prebensen, Woo, Chen & Uysal, 2013). Yet, there have been limited efforts in the literature to conceptualise and empirical validate hierarchical models of perceived value of the group-travel experience broadly, and specifically in a major-event context. Thus, a deeper understanding of what value travel consumers perceive and derive from a group-travel experience in a major event context is important managerially in order to attract more tourists to a destination, with a particular regard for group-oriented, event-based tourism. To this end, using 424 Australian consumers who travelled as part of group to a major event in the past 12 months, this study advances the current marketing and tourism literature in two key areas: (1) draws on current customer-perceived-value theory and posits a hierarchical, multidimensional model of perceived group-travel value; and (2) empirically examines this model in a nomological network with satisfaction and future group-travel intentions to provide predictive ability and further theory development in this domain.
1
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Customer Perceived Value Despite the growing coverage of customer perceived value over the past decade, researchers have varied in their views and definitions of it. Perceived value has been defined as the “consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on the perception of what is received and what it is given” (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 4). In this context, it has been treated as a unidimensional construct including give (e.g., payment/effort) and take (e.g., quality) aspects together. However, studies addressing customer perceived value have suggested that the construct is too complex to be operationalised as unidimensional and solely utilitarian-based (e.g. Woodall, 2003), where it loses conceptual richness. Scholars suggest that consumers in tourism industries do not assess value in purely economic terms, and that a broad view of consumer value with multiple dimensions is more appropriate (Bradley & Sparks, 2012; Gallarza & Gil Saura, 2006). In taking the multidimensional perspective of value, marketing scholars view perceived value as the customer’s perception of the benefits or advantages arising out of a customer’s association and use with an organization’s offering (Bradley & Sparks, 2012). In this area of research, Sweeney and Soutar (2001) advanced the perceived-value scale (or PERVAL) based on Sheth, Newman and Gross (1991) consumption-values work, which identified four dimensions: emotional value; social value; and two types of functional value (price/value for money and performance/quality). In tourism research, Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006) distinguished five value dimensions relating to benefits—including efficiency, quality, social, play and aesthetics—relevant to student travellers. Using hedonic (emotional) and utilitarian (functional) value in investigating festival visitors’ behaviours, Gursoy, Spangenberg and Rutherford (2006) found that hedonic value explains festival attendance better than utilitarian value. In later work, Williams and Soutar (2009) developed a five-dimension model of value—including functional, value for money, emotional, social and novelty. Conceptualising Perceived Value of the Group-travel Experience Reflecting the trend towards increasing complexity in dimensionality, Bradley and Sparks (2012) argue that value is multi-determined, where consumers anticipate and derive value through many sources including product search, product purchase and direct experience and usage, amongst others. On this basis, we argue that the nature of the group-travel experience to major events dictates that some portion of value creation will occur due to the group nature of the travel format along with the direct interactions that take place amongst the group members (e.g. emotional, social), as well as any potential functional, financial and convenience benefits that occur with the tourism experience, such as with the event itself and related tourism infrastructure (i.e. transport, attractions and accommodation facilities). Despite the growth in value research in marketing and tourism specifically, studies are yet to investigate the value perceptions derived from a group-travel consumption experience in the event-tourism context. Thus, for the purpose of this study, we follow the approach of Bradley and Sparks (2012), Sanchez et al. (2006) and Sweeney and Soutar (2001), whereby value as a construct is directly related to the perceived benefit or advantage one derives from a use situation that motivates future behaviour. It is a subjective, contextually based, comparative judgment that varies widely between individuals and between groups (Bradley & Sparks, 2012; Tynan et al. 2014). Since the travel consumer evaluates both the consumption and purchase experience (Sanchez et al., 2006), we conceive perceived value in the context of this study as value derived by the customer of the group-travel consumption experience encompassing interactions with service providers and other travellers to a major event, which is likely to be a critical determinant of future decisions to travel in a group to a major event.
2
Subsequently, we conceptualise perceived value of the group-travel experience (PGTVAL) as a hierarchical, multidimensional construct with six dimensions as described below. Social Value. Social value is defined as ‘the perceived utility derived from the relational association with one or more specific social groups in the group-travel experience’. Value in the group-travel context comprises an ‘interactive experience’ with a particular social dimension (Gallarza & Gil Saura, 2006). Interactions and socialisation arising from people undertaking the trip, whether between passengers and the tour guide on an organised travel package or amongst friends/family, may create social value (Williams & Soutar, 2009). Emotional Value. Following Sweeney & Soutar (2001), emotional value is defined as ‘the utility that is derived from the feelings or affective states that are generated from the group-travel experience’. Prior research has demonstrated the importance of the hedonic dimension in the experiences of buying and consuming in leisure, aesthetic, creative and religious activities (Williams & Soutar, 2009). Emotional responses are likely in grouporiented, event-tourism experiences, including not only the emotional highs of excitement and entertainment that are associated with event (Gursoy et al., 2006; Lee, Lee & Choi, 2011), but also the interactions that take place with fellow travellers (Sparks et al., 2011). Functional Value. Functional value is defined as ‘the utility derived from the perceived quality and performance of the group-travel format’. In this travel context, we argue that the quality of hotel accommodation, airline/rail/car travel, event facilities and attractions visited and such may all influence functional-value perceptions (Gursoy et al., 2006; Sánchez et al., 2006; Sparks et al., 2011). For example, in a group-travel situation, there could be a choice made for better quality travel and/or accommodation than in an individual-travel context. Novelty Value. Following Sheth et al. (1991), novelty value is defined in this study as ‘the utility derived from the arousal of curiosity, novelty and desire for knowledge generated from the group travel experience’. Prior studies in the adventure-tourism context have found novelty value to be a key component of the adventure-tourism experience, as it includes the novelty of the activity and the destination (Williams & Soutar, 2009). Furthermore, novelty, uniqueness and seeking new knowledge are significant motives for travel (Weber, 2001) due to tourists’ desire for exploratory, novelty-seeking and variety-seeking behaviour. Monetary Value. Following Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006), Sánchez et al. (2006) and Sparks et al. (2011), monetary value is defined as ‘the utility derived from the reduction of perceived monetary costs by the group-travel format’. Travel as part of a group has the potential for monetary savings through things such as sharing the costs of transportation, accommodation and food compared to travelling alone or as a couple. Therefore, the money saved by participating in the group-travel format is valuable to the travel consumer. Convenience Value. Convenience value is defined as ‘the utility derived from the ease of planning and organising the trip when traveling as part of a group’. We argue that the travel consumer makes an overall post evaluation of the group-travel experience, which includes a joint evaluation of the ease with which the tourism product was planned and purchased (Sparks et al., 2011). We view convenience value being separate to the functional-value dimension (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001), which refers more closely to the quality, reliability and performance of the tourism infrastructure associated with the group-travel format. Whereas, convenience value refers specifically to the notion that a group-event travel experience provides advantages in the ease and speed of planning and organising a trip to a major event (Sparks, Butcher & Pan, 2007). In essence, the time and effort saved and convenience gained by the group-travel format can be advantageous and valuable to the travel consumer. Having established the multidimensional nature of tourism consumption value, we argue that the PGTVAL dimensions outlined above have a positive effect on an index of perceived group-travel value formed by these dimensions. Drawing upon Jarvis, MacKenzie and Podsakoff ’s (2003) model-specification typology, we conceptualise PGTVAL as a 3
hierarchical second-order, reflective-formative Type II construct, since a change in one of the observed variables is not necessarily accompanied by changes in any of the other observed dimensions. As such, the PGTVAL dimensions do not necessarily co-vary, and, thus, do not satisfy the conditions for reflective factor modelling (Edwards, 2001). Therefore, with Chen (2013), Sánchez et al. (2006) and Sweeney and Soutar (2001) as the theoretical platform, we hypothesise the value dimensions as reflective (first-order), which then form the second, higher-order PGTVAL construct in a major-event context (as shown in Figure 1). Thus, H1a-f: Each value dimension contributes significantly to PGTVAL. Relationships amongst PGTVAL, Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions Prior perceived-value research in marketing has focused on its consequences, including satisfaction and behavioural intentions (e.g. Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000). Tourism research has since shown similar effects for perceived-value assessment of tourism services and experiences by consumers in its being a key predictor of satisfaction and future intentions. For example, research shows that favourable perceived-value assessments influence satisfaction with tourism service, tours, package holidays, travel agencies and timeshare accommodation, as well as future behavioral intentions (Bradley & Sparks, 2012; Williams & Soutar, 2009). On this basis, we argue that positive assessments of PGTVAL are directly correlated with being satisfied with the group-travel experience and engaging in future group-travel intentions to a major event (as shown in Figure 1). Therefore, H2: PGTVAL positively influences satisfaction with group travel to a major event. H3: PGTVAL positively influences future group-travel intentions to a major event. H4: Satisfaction positively influences future group-travel intentions to a major event. The Mediating Role of Satisfaction The tourism marketing literature lacks agreement on the relationship nature amongst perceived value, satisfaction and behavioural intentions (Chen & Tsai, 2007; He & Song, 2009). However, He and Song (2009) found that perceived value of packaged-tour services was fully mediated by satisfaction. Similarly, Bradley and Sparks (2012) found support for their fully mediated model for timeshare accommodation. Thus, we posit that satisfaction mediates PGTVAL’s influence on future group-oriented travel intentions to a major event. H5: Satisfaction mediates PGTVAL effect on future group-travel intentions to a major event. Figure 1: Hierarchical Model of PGTVAL PGTVAL Dimensions: 1. Social Value 2. Emotional Value 3. Monetary Value 4. Functional Value 5. Novelty Value 6. Convenience Value
Satisfaction H1a-f +
H2 + Perceived Group-Travel Value*
H5 + H4 + H3 +
* = Formative, Type II construct
Group Travel Intentions
METHODOLOGY A self-administered, web-based survey was used to collect the data to evaluate the relationships posited in Figure 1. Data collection involved an Australian online-panel survey conducted by a reputable market-research firm of randomly selected members 18+ years of age who had travelled as part of a group to a major event involving at least an overnight stay within the previous 12 months. Respondents nominated a major event attended in the past 12 months and answered all questions with respect to attending this event. Twenty-three items 4
adapted from the literature (e.g. Sánchez et al., 2006; Sparks et al., 2011; Williams & Soutar, 2009) tapped six PGTVAL dimensions: social value, functional value, novelty value, monetary value, emotional value and convenience value. A single global item (Bolton & Lemon, 1999) measured overall satisfaction with the respondent’s group-travel experience to their nominated major event. Two items adapted from Kim and Chalip (2004) and Regan et al. (2012) measured future group-oriented travel intentions to a major event. RESULTS In this study, 424 usable responses were collected, comprising 52% female (48% male) respondents, with ages ranging 18 to 79 (mean = 44 years). Respondents travelled with friends (41%), family (30.2%), family and friends (23.4%) and packaged tours (5.4%). The median group size and trip length were four people and three days, respectively. Various major events were attended in the past 12 months, including music (29%), sport (32%) and cultural and other events (39%). Analysis of the hierarchical PGTVAL construct and its consequences (Figure 1) was conducted using Partial Least Squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS v2 (Ringle, Wende & Will, 2005). PLS allows for the simultaneous analysis of reflective and formative constructed models and is ideal for studies where the investigation of relationships is in a predictive rather than confirmatory fashion (Hair et al. 2014). Using a two-step analytical procedure, the measurement model was assessed and then the structural model. Measurement-model analysis indicated that the reflective items of all constructs had component loadings > 0.70 benchmark. Compositereliability analysis showed all values > 0.70, indicating good reliability of all scales, with an average extracted variance of all constructs > 0.50. To test the structural model, we analysed the size and the significance of the pathcoefficients. The results in Table 1 show that each value dimension makes a significant contribution with a statistically significant β (t-values > 1.96, p > 0.01) to the PGTVAL construct, supporting H1a to H1f. In H2, we predicted that PGTVAL has a significant, positive influence on future group-travel intentions. Results provide evidence supporting H2, with β = 0.66 (t = 19.52). In H3, we predicted that PGTVAL has a significant, positive influence on future group-travel intentions. The results supported this hypothesis, with β = 0.46 (t = 10.10). In H4, satisfaction was predicted to influence future group-travel intentions to a major event, with the results supporting H3, with β = 0.58 (t = 12.18). Our results of the direct effects of the research model confirmed hypotheses H1-H4, with the explained variance in group-travel intentions accounted for by PGTVAL and satisfaction being R2 = 0.39. Table 1 PLS Results for the Hypotheses – Direct Effects Model Hypothesis H1a H1b H1c H1d H1e H1f H2 H3 H4
Predicted constructs
Predictor constructs
PGTVAL
Social value Functional value Novelty value Monetary value Emotional value Convenience value PGTVAL PGTVAL Satisfaction
Satisfaction Future group travel intentions Future group travel intentions
AVA * Meets or exceeds criteria of > 1.96; + Meets or exceeds criteria of > 0.10
5
R2
0.44+ 0.21+ 0.39+ 0.35
Path 0.26 0.21 0.16 0.22 0.24 0.15 0.66 0.46 0.58
Critical ratio 25.09* 27.15* 21.39* 23.23* 27.87* 20.78* 19.52* 10.10* 12.18*
Testing the Mediating Role of Satisfaction In order to assess H5, we tested the mediation between PGTVAL and future group-travel intentions. Mediation effects exist if the following criteria are met: 1) the independent variable (IV) affects the dependent variable (DV); 2) the IV affects the mediator variable; 3) the mediator variable must affect the DV; and 4) full mediation is established if the IV has a nonsignificant effect on the DV when the mediator is controlled (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The results show that: 1) PGTVAL had a significant positive influence on future group-travel intentions (β = 0.46; t = 10.10); 2) PGTVAL had a significant, positive influence on satisfaction (β = 0.66; t = 20.34); 3) satisfaction positively influenced group-travel intentions (β = 0.58; t = 12.18); and 4) the positive effect of PGTVAL on group-travel intentions was reduced significantly (β = 0.07; t = 1.56) with satisfaction included in the model. This result suggests that overall group-travel satisfaction fully mediates the influence of PGTVAL on future group-oriented travel intentions to a major event. DISCUSSION Results from this empirical study support all of the proposed hypotheses presented in figure 1 and contribute to theory development in two areas: 1) advancement of a customer perceived value of the group-travel experience (PGTVAL) hierarchical construct model; and 2) PGTVAL’s effects on satisfaction and future group-travel-behaviour intentions to major events. First, the study adds to the extant customer-perceived-value literature in the tourism marketing context in developing and validating a second-order hierarchical model. Whilst more research needs to be undertaken before tourism and major-event operators can draw inferential conclusions from the present study’s results, they can now better understand that PGTVAL to major events is a multidimensional construct, with social value, emotional value, novelty value, functional value, monetary value and convenience value all contributing to an overall perceived-value assessment. Managerially, focussing on these value dimensions in the marketing of (travel) experiences, and tourism product packaging, may become even more important as group-travel consumers become more discerning and sophisticated as they search for events that deliver experiences across these forms of value. Second, our empirical study illustrates that the PGTVAL higher order construct can be embedded in structural models as we provide empirical evidence of the positive impact of PGTVAL on satisfaction and future behavioural intentions. This investigation provides a clearer understanding of the influences of PGTVAL with major events. Furthermore, our empirical testing reveals satisfaction mediates the PGTVAL and future travel intentions relationship. Our contribution to knowledge lies in a more precise picture of the interaction between customers’ perceiving value and their satisfaction and intention towards the group travel experience. Whilst the tourism industry has long recognised the importance of providing satisfying experiences, the present study highlights that major-event and destination-tourism operators who provide value across the dimensions examined in this study are likely to generate greater satisfaction for their tourism products. In addition, customer satisfaction was found to mediate the relationship between the multi-dimensional perceivedvalue construct and future group-travel intentions to major events. Thus, the focus managerially on delivering travel consumption experiences which satisfy group travel consumers remains a strategic marketing objective for tourism operators and stakeholders. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH As with any empirical research, there are limitations that can be addressed in further research. First, we focussed on a very specific group-travel experience tourism context major events; therefore, extending its conclusions to tourism in general, or to other products and services, must be taken with care. Second, the study’s sample was focussed on one 6
country, without taking into account the cultural differences that may exist in other regions of the world. Future research using representative samples from other parts of the world will help assess the framework and value construct developed in this study and the robustness of the current findings in other countries. It should also be analysed whether the heterogeneity of the market and the existence of segments imply changes in the importance of the dimensions of perceived value of the group-travel experience and if new dimensions should be added. SELECTED REFERENCES Bolton, R. N., & Lemon, K. N. (1999). A dynamic model of customers’ usage of services: Usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 171-186. Bradley, G. L., & Sparks, B. A. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of consumer value: A longitudinal study of timeshare owners. Journal of Travel Research, 51(2), 191-204. doi: 10.1177/0047287510396099. Chen, C.-F., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115-1122. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.007 Cronin Jr, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193-218. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00224359(00)00028-2 Dunne, G., Flanagan, S., & Buckley, J. (2011). Towards a decision making model for city break travel", International Journal of Culture. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 5(2), 158-172. Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144-192. doi: 10.1177/109442810142004 Gallarza, M. G., & Gil Saura, I. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management, 27(3), 437-452. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.12.002 Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management, 29(3), 403-428. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.017 Gursoy, D., Spangenberg, E. R., & Rutherford, D. G. (2006). The hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of attendees’ attitudes toward festivals. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30(3), 279-294. doi: 10.1177/1096348006287162 Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). California: Sage Publications Ld. He, Y., & Song, H. (2009). A mediation model of tourists’ repurchase intentions for packaged tour services. Journal of Travel Research, 47(3), 317-331. doi: 10.1177/0047287508321206 Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., & Voima, P. (2013). Customer dominant value formation in service. European Business Review, 25(2), 104–123. doi:10.1108/09555341311302639 Helkkula, A., Kelleher, C., & Pihlström, M. (2012). Characterizing value as an experience: Implications for service researchers and managers. Journal of Service Research, 15(1), 59–75. doi:10.1177/1094670511426897 Kim, N.-S., & Chalip, L. (2004). Why travel to the FIFA World Cup? Effects of motives, background, interest, and constraints. Tourism Management, 25(6), 695-707. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2003.08.011 7
Lee, J.-S., Lee, C.-K., & Choi, Y. (2011). Examining the role of emotional and functional values in festival evaluation. Journal of Travel Research, 50(6), 685-696. doi: 10.1177/0047287510385465 Prebensen, N. K., Woo, E., Chen, J. S., & Uysal, M. (2013). Motivation and involvement as antecedents of the perceived value of the destination experience. Journal of Travel Research, 52(2), 253-264. doi: 10.1177/0047287512461181 Regan, N., Carlson, J., & Rosenberger, P. J., III. (2012). Factors affecting group-oriented travel intention to major events. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(2), 185204. doi: DOI:10.1080/10548408.2012.648550 Sánchez, J., Callarisa, L., Rodríguez, R. M., & Moliner, M. A. (2006). Perceived value of the purchase of a tourism product. Tourism Management, 27(3), 394-409. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.11.007 Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159-170. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8
Sparks, B., Butcher, K., & Pan, G. (2007). Understanding customer-derived value in the timeshare industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 28-45. doi: 10.1177/0010880406294473 Sparks, B., Bradley, G., & Jennings, G. (2011). Consumer value and self-image congruency at different stages of timeshare ownership. Tourism Management, 32(5), 1176-1185. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.10.009
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220. doi: doi:10.1016/S00224359(01)00041-0 Tynan, C., McKechnie, S., & Hartley, S. (2014). Interpreting value in the customer service experience using customer-dominant logic. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(910), 1058-1081. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2014.934269 Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1-10. doi: 10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6 Weber, K. (2001). Outdoor adventure tourism: A review of research approaches. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2), 360-377. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01607383(00)00051-7 Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2009). Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in an adventure tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 413-438. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.02.002 Woodall, T. (2003). Conceptualising ‘value for the customer’: An attributional, structural and dispositional analysis. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 12(1), 1-42. Wu, L., Zhang, J., & Fujiwara, A. (2011). Representing tourists’ heterogeneous choices of destination and travel party with an integrated latent class and nested logit model. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1407-1413. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.01.017
8
