tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of...

26
Tourism Economics, 2016, 22 (1), 5–30 doi: 10.5367/te.2014.0410 Tourists’ expenditure behaviour: the influence of satisfaction and the dependence of spending categories MARTA DISEGNA Department of Accounting, Finance & Economics, Faculty of Management, Bournemouth University, Executive Business Centre, 89 Holdenhurst Road, Bournemouth, BH8 8EB, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. (Corresponding author.) LINDA OSTI Competence Centre in Tourism Management and Tourism Economics (TOMTE) and School of Economics and Management, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Piazzetta dell’Università, 39031 Brunico (Bolzano), Italy. E-mail: [email protected]. A review of the literature shows that the relationship between sat- isfaction and tourism expenditure, as well as the dependence among different tourist expenditure categories, are under-researched topics. The aim of this study is twofold: first, to investigate the influence on tourism expenditure of tourists’ satisfaction with the destination, correcting for the effect of some socio-demographic and trip-related variables; second, to study the dependence among tourist expenditure on the different tourist categories that create the overall expenditure for the trip. This study focuses on an analysis of the expenditure behaviour of a sample of international visitors who travelled in an area around the Dolomites in Northern Italy, adopting the double- hurdle model with the Heien and Wessells estimator. In discussing the results, policy implications and managerial issues for tourism destinations are presented. Keywords: tourist expenditure; tourist satisfaction; double–hurdle model; spending behaviour; dependence among expenditure JEL Classification: C19; D12; L83 Tourism has long been recognized as an instrument for local economic devel- opment and regeneration of rural areas, due to its ability to increase profits and Our research was supported by STTOBS – South Tyrolean Tourism OBServatory – a research project by the Free University of Bolzano, Banca di Trento e Bolzano and Banca Intesa Sanpaolo. The authors are listed in alphabetical order since they contributed equally to the work.

Upload: others

Post on 30-Mar-2020

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

Tourism Economics 2016 22 (1) 5ndash30 doi 105367te20140410

Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour theinfluence of satisfaction and the dependence

of spending categories

MARTA DISEGNA

Department of Accounting Finance amp Economics Faculty of ManagementBournemouth University Executive Business Centre 89 Holdenhurst Road

Bournemouth BH8 8EB UK E-mail disegnambournemouthacuk(Corresponding author)

LINDA OSTI

Competence Centre in Tourism Management and Tourism Economics (TOMTE) and Schoolof Economics and Management Free University of Bozen-Bolzano Piazzetta dellrsquoUniversitagrave

39031 Brunico (Bolzano) Italy E-mail lindaostiunibzit

A review of the literature shows that the relationship between sat-isfaction and tourism expenditure as well as the dependence amongdifferent tourist expenditure categories are under-researched topicsThe aim of this study is twofold first to investigate the influenceon tourism expenditure of touristsrsquo satisfaction with the destinationcorrecting for the effect of some socio-demographic and trip-relatedvariables second to study the dependence among tourist expenditureon the different tourist categories that create the overall expenditurefor the trip This study focuses on an analysis of the expenditurebehaviour of a sample of international visitors who travelled in anarea around the Dolomites in Northern Italy adopting the double-hurdle model with the Heien and Wessells estimator In discussingthe results policy implications and managerial issues for tourismdestinations are presented

Keywords tourist expenditure tourist satisfaction doublendashhurdlemodel spending behaviour dependence among expenditure

JEL Classification C19 D12 L83

Tourism has long been recognized as an instrument for local economic devel-opment and regeneration of rural areas due to its ability to increase profits and

Our research was supported by STTOBS ndash South Tyrolean Tourism OBServatory ndash a research projectby the Free University of Bolzano Banca di Trento e Bolzano and Banca Intesa Sanpaolo The authorsare listed in alphabetical order since they contributed equally to the work

6 TOURISM ECONOMICS

generate economic benefits to host regions and communities (Craggs andSchofield 2009) In this context understanding and measuring tourism ex-penditure are essential for those tourism destinations whose major source ofincome is based on tourism revenues (Hung et al 2012) Although internationaltourism demand is principally analysed at the macro level in which the unitof analysis is an aggregated data (such as total arrivals nights spent at touristaccommodation and total tourist receipts) to measure and determine the depthof the economic benefits experienced by the destination it is necessary to analysemicrodata in which individuals or households are the principal unit of analysisIn fact the analysis of individual tourist expenditure and of visitor spendingbehaviour can play a crucial role in achieving a better understanding of theeconomic benefits that a destination experiences when engaging in tourism

Research studies suggest that expenditure is influenced by a wide range ofsociondashdemographic and economic variables psychological variables trip-relatedand destination-related variables (Gyte and Phelps 1989 Godbey and Graefe1991 Davies and Morgan 1996 Oppermann 1997 Legoherel 1998 Agarnaland Yochum 2000 Downward and Lumsdon 2000 Mok and Iverson 2000Downward and Lumsdon 2003 Ryan 2003 Lehto et al 2004 Jang et al 2004Laesser and Crouch 2006 Craggs and Schofield 2009 Wang and Davidson2010 Kim et al 2011) and by satisfaction (Anderson et al 1994 cited in Zhanget al 2010) In fact a review of the literature on customer satisfaction revealsthat satisfaction stimulates repeat visits positive recommendations and therebynew customers reputation enhancement higher acceptance of price increasesand consequently overall higher profitability (Anderson et al 1994 Baker andCrompton 2000 Kozak and Rimmington 2000 Homburg et al 2005 Munierand Camelis 2013) However so far no studies have specifically addressed therelationship between satisfaction with destination attributes and expenditure(Zhang et al 2010)

Moreover analyses at the micro level allow researchers to be closer to twofundamental economic consumer theories the consumer choice theory (Pudney1989) and the neoclassical economic theory of consumer behaviour (Deaton andMuellbauer 1980) In particular the latter theory was reformulated by Syriopoulosand Sinclair (1993) to adapt it to the tourism field This last theory suggeststhat considering a single trip it is unrealistic to assume that the expenditureof tourists on different expenditure categories (such as accommodation trans-portation shopping food and beverages other services) is independent None-theless after a review of the literature we have observed a lack of researchdevoted to the analysis of dependence among the different tourist expenditurecategories encountered during a trip

Therefore analysis of the influence of satisfaction and the interrelationshipamong different tourism expenditure categories is an essential step for tourismdecision makers in setting adequate planning strategies and stimulating anincrease in visitorsrsquo expenditure at the destination In this context after thecorrection of the effect of the socio-demographic and trip-related variables thispaper analyses and describes the characteristics of touristsrsquo spending behaviourby investigating

(a) the influence of satisfaction on tourism expenditure(b) the dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

7Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Specifically the study investigates visitorsrsquo expenditure divided into spendingfor transportation accommodation food and beverage shopping and otherservices such as museums shows entertainment guided tours language coursesand so on The data used for this study were retrieved from the 2011 AnnualSurvey conducted by the Bank of Italy (Banca drsquoItalia) entitled lsquoInternationalTourism in Italyrsquo Although the main aim of this survey is to monitor travelexpenditure and length of stay of international tourists visiting Italy the levelof satisfaction with different aspects of the trip and the overall satisfaction werealso investigated

The results of this study are essential for destination managers who wish tohave a clear understanding of the relationship between satisfaction and expendi-ture and the dependence among the tourism expenditure categories Thisinformation provides destination managers and private tourism businesses withpractical knowledge useful for the management of customer service and thestrategic planning and packaging of accommodation attractions and othertourism and non-tourism services The results of this study can also guidetourism planners in expanding their market share by seeking visitors who willspend money on as many services as possible at the destination

Literature review

Customer satisfaction and expenditure

A considerable body of literature in both general service management and morespecifically in tourism and hospitality management has focused on customersatisfaction since the late 1970s Over the years satisfaction has been analysedfrom different perspectives and for different purposes Several studies havedemonstrated that customer satisfaction is capable of stimulating repeat visitspositive recommendations and consequently new customers reputation en-hancement higher acceptance of price increases and higher profitability (Andersonet al 1994 Baker and Crompton 2000 Kozak and Rimmington 2000Homburg et al 2005 Munier and Camelis 2013) Satisfaction has been ana-lysed in terms of satisfaction with the single servicesproducts at the destina-tion with the destination and with the holidaytrip as a whole Although mostsatisfaction studies concentrate on single aspects of the tourism experience ithas been argued that satisfaction in tourism should be studied as a systemprocess in which the several stages of the trip (pre-trip services services at thedestination and transit route services) are analysed collectively (Neal and Gursoy2008) In the tourism and hospitality industry satisfaction has been furtherinvestigated for controllable items such as standard of the services offeredcleanliness availability of information and prices and for uncontrollable itemssuch as culture scenery and weather Nevertheless some researchers argue thatany satisfaction study on uncontrollable items is limiting because of the dif-ficulty in taking any corrective actions when dissatisfaction with such itemsoccurs Additionally most of these items are the underlying reasons for choosinga destination rather than causes of dissatisfaction provided that there has beenan adequate pre-holiday information search (Kozak and Rimmington 2000)

Satisfaction has also been studied to improve the productservice and effec-

8 TOURISM ECONOMICS

tively design management and marketing strategies (Kozak and Rimmington2000 Munier and Camelis 2013) Customer satisfaction has finally been seenas an indicator of destination competitiveness and performance (Enright andNewton 2004 Alegre and Garau 2010 Munier and Camelis 2013)

As reported by Neal and Gursoy (2008) most satisfaction studies are basedon expectation and perception models (Oliver 1980) cognitive evaluation(Klaus 1985 Chadee and Mattsson 1996) congruity models (Sirgy 1984)equity models (Oliver and Swan 1989) and perceived overall performance(Fuchs and Weiermair 2004 Thompson and Schofield 2007) So far the issueof customer satisfaction consumer expenditure and consequently firmsrsquo eco-nomic benefits remains only partially examined and Anderson (1996) Andersonet al (1994 1997) and Anderson and Mittal (2000) can be considered thepioneers in studies related to the link between customer satisfaction andprofitability According to these authors firms that invest in customer satis-faction will enjoy economic returns The main conceptual rationale behind theirstudies is that lsquohigh customer satisfaction should indicate loyalty for currentcustomers reduced price elasticities insulation of current customers formcompetitive efforts lower costs of future transactions reduced failure costslower costs of attracting new customers and an enhanced reputation for the firmrsquo(Anderson et al 1994 p 55) Although further research (Anderson et al 1997)has examined the differences in this nexus between goods and services loyaltyremains one of the pillars on which the theory of the satisfactionndashprofitabilitychain is based However in that respect it is important to note that loyaltymight not be as important to destinations as it is for other businesses or services(Kozak and Rimmington 2000) Although past studies (Oliver and Burke1999 Hui et al 2007) have demonstrated that touristsrsquo overall level of satis-faction with the destination influences the intention to revisit the dissatisfac-tion with various components of the holiday experience (pre-trip servicesservices at the destination transit route services) leads to overall dissatisfaction(Neal and Gursoy 2008) influencing future intentions (Kozak and Rimmington2000) Furthermore although loyal customers mean more customers in generallower impact of price fluctuations and less cost for the firm in attracting newcustomers due to positive word of mouth in an industry like tourism affectedby fixed capacity are loyal (repeat) customers more likely to spend more at thedestination Past research has reported contradictory results (Oppermann 1996Alegre and Juaneda 2006 cited in Zhang et al 2010 Chang et al 2013)

Along the continuum of the satisfactionndashprofitability chain but with adifferent approach from Anderson et al (1994) Homburg et al (2005) inves-tigated the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to payBased on equity theory they hypothesized that lsquowhen customer experienceelevated states of satisfaction they perceive a high outcome of an exchange andtherefore are willing to pay more hellip because this still results in an equitableration of outcome to inputrsquo (Homburg et al 2005 p 85) The findings of theirstudy revealed a positive relationship between consumer satisfaction and will-ingness to pay

In the tourism literature few studies have examined the relationship betweenconsumer satisfaction and expenditure (Zhang et al 2010) and there is the needto better understand the role of visitorsrsquo satisfaction in influencing an individu-alrsquos expenditure patterns (Kim et al 2010) In existing studies satisfaction has

9Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

been seen as a significant predictor of expenditure in the case of festival andevents (Kim et al 2010) at exhibitions (Zhang et al (2010) in the case ofpurchases at travel agencies (Chen and Chang 2012) at theme parks (Bigneacuteet al 2005) and in the hotel industry (Kim and Cha 2002) So far therelationship between satisfaction with destination attributes and expenditure isunder-researched and in light of neoclassical theory a new approach to this issuemust be taken

Visitorsrsquo expenditure theories and models

There is a substantial body of literature relating to tourismrsquos economic impactat the macro level but less is known about visitorsrsquo expenditure at a micro scaleAs stated by Alegre and Pou (2004) studies at the micro level have severaladvantages first they are closer to theoretical economic consumer modelssecond they preserve the choice by individuals not to spend any money fortourism services third they preserve the heterogeneity and diversity of indi-vidual consumer behaviour More recently Belenkiy and Riker (2013) under-lined that the main advantages in using micro data lie in the fact that thesedata report the expenditure of individual travellers together with demographicsocial or other characteristics that can be used to control (or profile) the unitsof analysis Nonetheless the main limitation is that it is not possible to modeldynamic adjustments because the datasets are not time-series

In a review of the literature Lim (2006) found only nine studies among the124 analysed in which ad hoc designed surveys were employed to take into examindividual economic units More recently Wang and Davidson (2010) identifiedand analysed 27 studies that used expenditure as the measure of individualsrsquodemand for tourism These studies clearly support the idea that the micro levelneeds to be studied further to fill a gap in the literature

Most of the microdata studies investigating tourism expenditure have usedordinary least squares (OLS) estimation in linear regression models (Wang andDavidson 2010 Brida and Scuderi 2013 Wu et al 2013) However thepresence of a high proportion of expenditure values equal to zero presentstourism spending as a non-negative (that is left-censored) distribution Thusthe OLS method may lead to inconsistent and bias parameter estimates (Maddala1983 Amemiya 1984) since the normal assumption of the dependent variableis often unrealistic To address the problem of zero expenditure and providea suitable estimation for censored dependent variables the Tobit regressionmodel (Tobin 1958) has been applied in the tourism field Leones et al (1998)Lee (2001) Zheng and Zhang (2011) Barquet et al (2011) Kim et al (2011)among others estimate tourism expenditure applying the Tobit model

A further evolution of the Tobit model is the lsquodoublendashhurdlersquo (Cragg 1971)model The main advantage of this model is that it enables the decision-makingprocess to be split into two natural stages or decisions following consumerchoice theory (Pudney 1989) (a) the decision to spend (selection stage) and(b) the choice of how much to spend (outcome stage) These stages are modelledthrough two separate models whereas in the Tobit model the two stages aretreated as if they were generated from the same consumer decision processassuming that the sets of independent variables influencing the selection stageare the same that influence with the same direction and intensity the outcome

10 TOURISM ECONOMICS

stage The Cragg model assumes that the two decisions are independent Thisimplies that the model applied at the second stage estimates the averagetourism spending using the data collected from a population in which indi-viduals who do not spend are excluded by self-selection The Heckman (1976)model allows the sample selection problem to be treated as a problem ofomitted variables and it corrects for bias in the estimation of the second stageequation by introducing a new variable ndash the inverse Millrsquos ratio ndash calculatedon the basis of the estimations obtained through the first stage equation Inthis way the Heckman model allows for the error term of both equations tobe correlated and the two decisions to be dependent More recently Heien andWessells (1990) proposed an alternative formula of the Millrsquos ratio that allowsall observations to be used in each stage whereas in the Heckman model thezero observations are omitted from the second stage Studies in which thedouble-hurdle model has been applied include Weagley and Huh (2004) whoanalysed leisure expenditure of retired and near-retired Americansrsquo householdsand Hong et al (1999) who investigated the travel expenditure patterns ofelderly households in the USA Recent applications of the Heckman modelinclude Alegre et alrsquos (2013) application to tourism participation and expendi-ture by Spanish households and Jang and Hamrsquos (2009) application to leisuretravellersrsquo expenditure distinguishing between baby boomer senior householdsand older senior households in the USA Finally the double-hurdle modelestimated by means of the Heien and Wessells two-step estimator has beenadopted by Marzetti and Disegna (2012) Brida et al (2012 2013a) and Bridaet al (2013b)

In addition to consumer choice theory according to which each decision-making process to purchase can be described as a two-step process anotherimportant economic theory must be taken into consideration when modellingexpenditure the neoclassical economic theory of consumer behaviour (Deatonand Muellbauer 1980) According to this theory consumers are rational andwish to maximize their utility function by choosing among a set of availablealternatives Thus the utility function can be described as the maximumsatisfaction that consumers obtain from the consumption of various goods andservices that they purchase at a certain level of income (budget) In fact whenundertaking an expenditure tourists first decide whether to incur such a costby comparing their purchase with other opportunities in other industries thenthey decide on the goods and services to buy based on the goods and servicesoffered on the market and the budget available Tourism expenditure is there-fore a consumer choice first between goods and services in various industriesand then between various expenditure in the tourism industry (Tribe 2005Zheng and Zhang 2011)

Consumers are assumed to be able to rank goods and services in such a waythat they can select the particular combinations for which their utility functiontakes the largest value at a certain level of income (budget) Furthermore theconsumerrsquos utility function is lsquoseparablersquo The separability and in particular theassumption of weak separability assumes independence only among groups ofcommodities instead of among individual commodities Focusing on tourismthis implies (Syriopoulos and Sinclair 1993) that first tourists allocate theirbudget between tourism activities and other goods and services second touristsallocate their tourism budget to a specific or multiple destinations including

11Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

the home country third tourists choose how to allocate their tourism budgetamong various goods and services offered by the selected destination(s) There-fore considering one single trip it is realistic to assume that the differenttourist expenditure categories are dependent on each other Until now littleattention has been paid to analysis of the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories the studies of Bilgic et al (2008) and Divisekera (2010)represent two important exceptions in the tourism demand literature

Data and structure of the questionnaire

The survey

The Bank of Italy (Banca drsquoItalia) annually conducts a survey entitled lsquoInter-national Tourism in Italyrsquo to determine the tourism balance of payments Themain aim of this survey is to monitor the travel expenditure and length of stayof inbound and outbound visitors fromto Italy Travel expenditure includes thetotal consumption of goods and services in the country visited divided into fiveexpenditure categories The inboundndashoutbound frontier survey is the techniqueadopted for the collection of the data

Figure 1 Study site

Belluno

VENETO

Trento

BolzanoTRENTINO-

SOUTH TYROL

12 TOURISM ECONOMICS

The stratified sampling method is applied (using different types of stratifiedvariables per each type of frontier) and facendashtondashface interviews are carried outat national borders (including highways railway airports and harbours) Sam-pling is done independently at each type of frontier Tourists are interviewedat the end of the trip when they are returning to their place of habitualresidence Interviews are conducted at different times of the day during bothworking days and holidays and month by month with a fixed number ofinterviews per each period of survey The questionnaires are anonymous and areoffered in 14 languages

The questionnaire can be divided into four main sections 1 sociondashdemo-graphic characteristics of the interviewee (gender age occupation and resi-dence) 2 information on the trip (number of nights spent type of accommo-dation cities visited means of transportation motives organization) 3 infor-mation on expenditure (total expenditure divided into different categories ofexpenditure means of payment) 4 level of satisfaction with different aspectsof the trip and overall satisfaction with the destination

In this study we focus on the 1030 foreign visitors who visited the provincesof Bolzano Trento and Belluno in 2011 (Banca drsquoItalia 2011) The first twoprovinces compose the Trentino South Tyrol region while Belluno is a provinceof the Veneto region These three provinces are located in Northern Italy (seeFigure 1) and are famous for the Dolomite range which stretches across all thethree Finally we take into consideration only international visitors whose mainpurpose of trip is lsquotourism holiday and leisurersquo

Descriptive analyses

The survey offers detailed information on the amount of money spent in thefive main categories of a typical travel budget (a) lsquoAccommodationrsquo (hotelapartment for rent campsite etc) which also includes expenditure on food andbeverage on the accommodation premises (b) lsquoFood and beveragesrsquo consumedoutside the accommodation premises (c) lsquoInternal transportationrsquo in the visiteddestination including purchase of fuel (d) lsquoShoppingrsquo including souvenirsgifts clothes food and beverages etc purchased only for personal use (e) lsquoOtherservicesrsquo like museums shows entertainment guided excursions languagecourses and so on

The sample consists of 8913 tourists (that is people who spent at leastone night in South Tyrol) and 1087 day-visitors During the trip the greatmajority of the sample said they had incurred costs for food and beverages(8592) internal transportation (7816) shopping (7767) and as ex-pected on the trip as a whole (978) In contrast only 3971 of the samplesaid they had incurred costs for other services When describing the expenditurebehaviour of the whole sample (see Table 1 for the average and median amountspent per night per person) we can observe that visitors typically spent a largepart of their travel budget on accommodation (about 43) spending on averageeuro42 per night per person This is followed by expenditure on food and bev-erages which accounts for 19 of the total travel budget with an averageexpenditure per night per person of euro19 and shopping (18 of the total travelbudget and euro18 spent on average per night per person) The least importantexpenditure categories are internal transportation and other services which

13Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Table 1 Mean (median) expenditure by different tourism categories per night per person

Item Whole sample Sub-sample of spenders

Accommodation 4224 (3000) 4739 (3500)Food and beverages 1232 (415) 2183 (1429)Transportation 1862 (833) 1576 (667)Shopping 1806 (625) 2325 (1000)Other services 714 (000) 1799 (918)Total travel expenditure 9851 (7517) 10076 (7700)

account for 13 and 7 respectively with an average expenditure per nightper person of euro12 and euro7

Another important group of variables collected through the survey concernsthe overall level of satisfaction with the destination and with the followingaspects of the trip hospitality and friendliness of the local inhabitants (lsquoFriend-linessrsquo) cities and works of art (lsquoArtrsquo) landscape and natural environment(lsquoLandscapersquo) hotels and other accommodation (lsquoAccommodationrsquo) lsquoFood andbeveragesrsquo price and cost of living (lsquoPricersquo) quality and variety of productsoffered in stores (lsquoProducts soldrsquo) information and tourist services (lsquoInforma-tionrsquo) safety of tourists (lsquoSafetyrsquo) A 10-point Likert scale was used with (1)indicating lsquoVery unsatisfiedrsquo and (10) lsquoVery satisfiedrsquo Figure 2 displays thepercentage distribution of the level of satisfaction per each observed item Thepercentage of visitors who attributed a value lower than 6 to the differentaspects of the trip is very low with the exception of lsquoPricersquo which shows thelowest mean and median value (both approximately equal to 7)

On average (see Table A1 in the Appendix) tourists spent 9 nights in the

Percentage

20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Very unsatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very satisfied

Hospitality

Art

Landscape

Accommodation

Food and beverages

Price

Products sold

Information

Safety

Overall

Figure 2 Level of overall satisfaction and satisfaction with different aspects ofthe trip

14 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Dolomite area mainly visiting only one city during the trip (79) and trav-elling with other people (79) For approximately 22 of the sample this wastheir first visit to Italy while 42 had already been to Italy more than fivetimes Visitors came mainly from Germany (38) Austria (14) and otherEuropean countries (39) while only 9 came from a country outside EuropeFinally about half of the sample was under 45 years of age

The econometric model

In order to investigate (a) the influence of the satisfaction both on overallexpenditure and on different expenditure categories and (b) the dependenceamong different tourist expenditure categories the Tobit model (Tobin 1958)or one of its generalizations can be adopted In fact this category of modelis the most suitable when the dependent variable is non-negative and thusessentially continuous over strictly positive values and it also takes zero valueswith positive probability (that is a non-trivial fraction of the population takeszero value) For this type of dependent variable the use of the multipleregression model estimated by using the well-known OLS method wouldproduce biased and inconsistent estimates of parameters (Maddala 1983Amemiya 1984)

Another important characteristic of the expenditure is that the monetaryvalue declared by the individual is the result of two possible processes assuggested by consumer choice theory (Pudney 1989) the individual decideswhether or not to purchase something (selection stage) and then he or shedecides how much money to spend on that purchase (outcome stage) Thereforeto observe a positive level of expenditure two distinct hurdles must be clearedIn this context it is preferable to adopt a two-stage generalization of the Tobitmodel the double-hurdle model (Cragg 1971) This model is performedthrough the estimation of two separate regression models the selection stageis estimated by the Probit model in order to estimate the probability ofspending or not spending on something the outcome stage is estimated by theOLS regression model to estimate the average amount of money spent in aparticular expenditure category In this way throughout the estimation of thedouble-hurdle model we can obtain two different sets of relevant independentvariables (one for each stage) whereas the estimation of the standard Tobitmodel identifies a single set of variables to measure the effect of both theselection and the outcome stage

To avoid the problem of sample selection ndash defined as an omitted variableproblem (Heckman 1976) ndash in this study the estimator proposed by Heien andWessells in the early 1990s is adopted (Heien and Wessells 1990 see forapplications Byrne et al 1996 Manrique and Jensen 1997) This estimatoris called inverse Millrsquos ratio (MR) and it is calculated for each observationthrough the estimates obtained in the first stage ndash that is through theestimation of the Probit model Contrary to the traditional Heckman two-stepestimator the MR variable allows correcting the problem of sample selectionusing all the observations in each stage Furthermore the MR variable isincorporated into the set of explanatory variables used in the regression esti-mated at the second stage playing a fundamental role in linking the two stages

15Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Figure 3 Schematic representation of research aims

It is important to note that if the estimated coefficient of the MR variable isnot significantly different from zero the decision to spend and the decision onhow much money to spend are independent and the sample selection problemis unimportant that is the sample selection rule ensures that all potentialobservations are sampled so that the Tobit model can be used instead of thedouble-hurdle model

The set of dependent and independent variables

Six suitable censored models one for the total tourist spending and one pereach expenditure item (lsquoAccommodationrsquo lsquoTransportationrsquo lsquoFood and bever-agesrsquo lsquoShoppingrsquo and lsquoOther servicesrsquo) were separately estimated Figure 3schematically represents the aims of this study to determine the influence ofsatisfaction on the tourist expenditure taking into consideration also the in-fluence of other independent variables listed and synthetically described inTable A1 of the Appendix and to study the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories This last aim has been analysed including among theset of independent variables the total travel expenditure allocated for a particu-lar tourist expenditure category excluding the one modelled Notice that allvariables regarding tourist expenditure (both dependent and independent) areper person per night and logarithmically transformed to handle more effectivelypossible non-linear relationships between the independent and dependent vari-ables

Model results

Since only 22 of the sample stated a zero value for the total visitor expendi-ture the Tobit model was used to identify the determinants of the totalexpenditure The five different expenditure categories were modelled using thedouble-hurdle model since it is interesting to estimate the selection and out-come stage separately thanks to the higher number of zero values

All the models were estimated using Whitersquos robust standard variancendashcovariance matrix (White 1980) to correct for possible heteroscedasticity of theerror term The backward results for the Tobit model are reported in Table 2

Independentvariables

Satisfaction

Dependent variables

Exp

endi

ture

cate

gorie

s

= Accommodation Transportation

Other services

Total expenditure

Characteristicsof the trip

Characteristicsof the visitor

16 TOURISM ECONOMICS

while Tables 3 and 4 present respectively the backward results for the first(selection) and second (outcome) stage of the five double-hurdle models esti-mated The results of the first stage model (Table 3) are reported as marginaleffects calculated at the median value of each explanatory variable (see TableA1 in the Appendix for the median values) Table 4 shows that MR issignificant for each model and this implies that the decisions (a) to spend ornot to spend and (b) how much to spend are dependent and can be explainedby different sets of explanatory variables for each of the tourism expenditurecategories considered Furthermore the significance of MR suggests that thedouble-hurdle model is appropriate

Influence of satisfaction on expenditure behaviour

Satisfaction with specific characteristics of the destination is found to besignificant in affecting visitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour in the willingness tospend in the amount of money spent within the different expenditure categoriesand finally in the total budget spent

As shown in Table 2 there is a strict correlation between satisfaction withlandscape and prices and the total expenditure per person per day Specificallyfor a one-unit increase in satisfaction with the landscape we expect to see abouta 76 increase in total visitor spending (e0073 asymp 1076) Similarly a one-unitincrease in satisfaction with prices produces about a 7 increase in totalexpenditure

Satisfaction with different characteristics of the destination exerts a positiveeffect also on the willingness to incur an expenditure within the differentspending categories As shown in Table 3 satisfaction with safety positivelyaffects the propensity to spend on accommodation food and beverages andshopping Satisfaction with landscape positively affects expenditure on acco-mmodation and transportation satisfaction with food and beverage positively

Table 2 Determinants of total tourist spending (ln transformed)

Independent variables Tobit model

Are you satisfied with the following aspects related to the tripLandscape 0073 (003)a

Price 0068 (002)Characteristics of tripNumber of nights ndash0033 (001)First time in Italy ndash0350 (012)Italy visited up to 5 times ndash0156 (008)Cities in the Dolomite area ndash0450 (009)Characteristics of touristAustria ndash0931 (017)Outside EU 0307 (016)Germany ndash0294 (008)Constant 3903 (036)

Notes aEstimated coefficients and robust standard errors in brackets Number ofobservations = 959 Wald chi2(9) = 26111 prob gt χ2 = 0 log pseudo-likelihood = ndash14549951 McKelvey and Zavoinarsquos R2 = 0240

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 2: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

6 TOURISM ECONOMICS

generate economic benefits to host regions and communities (Craggs andSchofield 2009) In this context understanding and measuring tourism ex-penditure are essential for those tourism destinations whose major source ofincome is based on tourism revenues (Hung et al 2012) Although internationaltourism demand is principally analysed at the macro level in which the unitof analysis is an aggregated data (such as total arrivals nights spent at touristaccommodation and total tourist receipts) to measure and determine the depthof the economic benefits experienced by the destination it is necessary to analysemicrodata in which individuals or households are the principal unit of analysisIn fact the analysis of individual tourist expenditure and of visitor spendingbehaviour can play a crucial role in achieving a better understanding of theeconomic benefits that a destination experiences when engaging in tourism

Research studies suggest that expenditure is influenced by a wide range ofsociondashdemographic and economic variables psychological variables trip-relatedand destination-related variables (Gyte and Phelps 1989 Godbey and Graefe1991 Davies and Morgan 1996 Oppermann 1997 Legoherel 1998 Agarnaland Yochum 2000 Downward and Lumsdon 2000 Mok and Iverson 2000Downward and Lumsdon 2003 Ryan 2003 Lehto et al 2004 Jang et al 2004Laesser and Crouch 2006 Craggs and Schofield 2009 Wang and Davidson2010 Kim et al 2011) and by satisfaction (Anderson et al 1994 cited in Zhanget al 2010) In fact a review of the literature on customer satisfaction revealsthat satisfaction stimulates repeat visits positive recommendations and therebynew customers reputation enhancement higher acceptance of price increasesand consequently overall higher profitability (Anderson et al 1994 Baker andCrompton 2000 Kozak and Rimmington 2000 Homburg et al 2005 Munierand Camelis 2013) However so far no studies have specifically addressed therelationship between satisfaction with destination attributes and expenditure(Zhang et al 2010)

Moreover analyses at the micro level allow researchers to be closer to twofundamental economic consumer theories the consumer choice theory (Pudney1989) and the neoclassical economic theory of consumer behaviour (Deaton andMuellbauer 1980) In particular the latter theory was reformulated by Syriopoulosand Sinclair (1993) to adapt it to the tourism field This last theory suggeststhat considering a single trip it is unrealistic to assume that the expenditureof tourists on different expenditure categories (such as accommodation trans-portation shopping food and beverages other services) is independent None-theless after a review of the literature we have observed a lack of researchdevoted to the analysis of dependence among the different tourist expenditurecategories encountered during a trip

Therefore analysis of the influence of satisfaction and the interrelationshipamong different tourism expenditure categories is an essential step for tourismdecision makers in setting adequate planning strategies and stimulating anincrease in visitorsrsquo expenditure at the destination In this context after thecorrection of the effect of the socio-demographic and trip-related variables thispaper analyses and describes the characteristics of touristsrsquo spending behaviourby investigating

(a) the influence of satisfaction on tourism expenditure(b) the dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

7Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Specifically the study investigates visitorsrsquo expenditure divided into spendingfor transportation accommodation food and beverage shopping and otherservices such as museums shows entertainment guided tours language coursesand so on The data used for this study were retrieved from the 2011 AnnualSurvey conducted by the Bank of Italy (Banca drsquoItalia) entitled lsquoInternationalTourism in Italyrsquo Although the main aim of this survey is to monitor travelexpenditure and length of stay of international tourists visiting Italy the levelof satisfaction with different aspects of the trip and the overall satisfaction werealso investigated

The results of this study are essential for destination managers who wish tohave a clear understanding of the relationship between satisfaction and expendi-ture and the dependence among the tourism expenditure categories Thisinformation provides destination managers and private tourism businesses withpractical knowledge useful for the management of customer service and thestrategic planning and packaging of accommodation attractions and othertourism and non-tourism services The results of this study can also guidetourism planners in expanding their market share by seeking visitors who willspend money on as many services as possible at the destination

Literature review

Customer satisfaction and expenditure

A considerable body of literature in both general service management and morespecifically in tourism and hospitality management has focused on customersatisfaction since the late 1970s Over the years satisfaction has been analysedfrom different perspectives and for different purposes Several studies havedemonstrated that customer satisfaction is capable of stimulating repeat visitspositive recommendations and consequently new customers reputation en-hancement higher acceptance of price increases and higher profitability (Andersonet al 1994 Baker and Crompton 2000 Kozak and Rimmington 2000Homburg et al 2005 Munier and Camelis 2013) Satisfaction has been ana-lysed in terms of satisfaction with the single servicesproducts at the destina-tion with the destination and with the holidaytrip as a whole Although mostsatisfaction studies concentrate on single aspects of the tourism experience ithas been argued that satisfaction in tourism should be studied as a systemprocess in which the several stages of the trip (pre-trip services services at thedestination and transit route services) are analysed collectively (Neal and Gursoy2008) In the tourism and hospitality industry satisfaction has been furtherinvestigated for controllable items such as standard of the services offeredcleanliness availability of information and prices and for uncontrollable itemssuch as culture scenery and weather Nevertheless some researchers argue thatany satisfaction study on uncontrollable items is limiting because of the dif-ficulty in taking any corrective actions when dissatisfaction with such itemsoccurs Additionally most of these items are the underlying reasons for choosinga destination rather than causes of dissatisfaction provided that there has beenan adequate pre-holiday information search (Kozak and Rimmington 2000)

Satisfaction has also been studied to improve the productservice and effec-

8 TOURISM ECONOMICS

tively design management and marketing strategies (Kozak and Rimmington2000 Munier and Camelis 2013) Customer satisfaction has finally been seenas an indicator of destination competitiveness and performance (Enright andNewton 2004 Alegre and Garau 2010 Munier and Camelis 2013)

As reported by Neal and Gursoy (2008) most satisfaction studies are basedon expectation and perception models (Oliver 1980) cognitive evaluation(Klaus 1985 Chadee and Mattsson 1996) congruity models (Sirgy 1984)equity models (Oliver and Swan 1989) and perceived overall performance(Fuchs and Weiermair 2004 Thompson and Schofield 2007) So far the issueof customer satisfaction consumer expenditure and consequently firmsrsquo eco-nomic benefits remains only partially examined and Anderson (1996) Andersonet al (1994 1997) and Anderson and Mittal (2000) can be considered thepioneers in studies related to the link between customer satisfaction andprofitability According to these authors firms that invest in customer satis-faction will enjoy economic returns The main conceptual rationale behind theirstudies is that lsquohigh customer satisfaction should indicate loyalty for currentcustomers reduced price elasticities insulation of current customers formcompetitive efforts lower costs of future transactions reduced failure costslower costs of attracting new customers and an enhanced reputation for the firmrsquo(Anderson et al 1994 p 55) Although further research (Anderson et al 1997)has examined the differences in this nexus between goods and services loyaltyremains one of the pillars on which the theory of the satisfactionndashprofitabilitychain is based However in that respect it is important to note that loyaltymight not be as important to destinations as it is for other businesses or services(Kozak and Rimmington 2000) Although past studies (Oliver and Burke1999 Hui et al 2007) have demonstrated that touristsrsquo overall level of satis-faction with the destination influences the intention to revisit the dissatisfac-tion with various components of the holiday experience (pre-trip servicesservices at the destination transit route services) leads to overall dissatisfaction(Neal and Gursoy 2008) influencing future intentions (Kozak and Rimmington2000) Furthermore although loyal customers mean more customers in generallower impact of price fluctuations and less cost for the firm in attracting newcustomers due to positive word of mouth in an industry like tourism affectedby fixed capacity are loyal (repeat) customers more likely to spend more at thedestination Past research has reported contradictory results (Oppermann 1996Alegre and Juaneda 2006 cited in Zhang et al 2010 Chang et al 2013)

Along the continuum of the satisfactionndashprofitability chain but with adifferent approach from Anderson et al (1994) Homburg et al (2005) inves-tigated the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to payBased on equity theory they hypothesized that lsquowhen customer experienceelevated states of satisfaction they perceive a high outcome of an exchange andtherefore are willing to pay more hellip because this still results in an equitableration of outcome to inputrsquo (Homburg et al 2005 p 85) The findings of theirstudy revealed a positive relationship between consumer satisfaction and will-ingness to pay

In the tourism literature few studies have examined the relationship betweenconsumer satisfaction and expenditure (Zhang et al 2010) and there is the needto better understand the role of visitorsrsquo satisfaction in influencing an individu-alrsquos expenditure patterns (Kim et al 2010) In existing studies satisfaction has

9Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

been seen as a significant predictor of expenditure in the case of festival andevents (Kim et al 2010) at exhibitions (Zhang et al (2010) in the case ofpurchases at travel agencies (Chen and Chang 2012) at theme parks (Bigneacuteet al 2005) and in the hotel industry (Kim and Cha 2002) So far therelationship between satisfaction with destination attributes and expenditure isunder-researched and in light of neoclassical theory a new approach to this issuemust be taken

Visitorsrsquo expenditure theories and models

There is a substantial body of literature relating to tourismrsquos economic impactat the macro level but less is known about visitorsrsquo expenditure at a micro scaleAs stated by Alegre and Pou (2004) studies at the micro level have severaladvantages first they are closer to theoretical economic consumer modelssecond they preserve the choice by individuals not to spend any money fortourism services third they preserve the heterogeneity and diversity of indi-vidual consumer behaviour More recently Belenkiy and Riker (2013) under-lined that the main advantages in using micro data lie in the fact that thesedata report the expenditure of individual travellers together with demographicsocial or other characteristics that can be used to control (or profile) the unitsof analysis Nonetheless the main limitation is that it is not possible to modeldynamic adjustments because the datasets are not time-series

In a review of the literature Lim (2006) found only nine studies among the124 analysed in which ad hoc designed surveys were employed to take into examindividual economic units More recently Wang and Davidson (2010) identifiedand analysed 27 studies that used expenditure as the measure of individualsrsquodemand for tourism These studies clearly support the idea that the micro levelneeds to be studied further to fill a gap in the literature

Most of the microdata studies investigating tourism expenditure have usedordinary least squares (OLS) estimation in linear regression models (Wang andDavidson 2010 Brida and Scuderi 2013 Wu et al 2013) However thepresence of a high proportion of expenditure values equal to zero presentstourism spending as a non-negative (that is left-censored) distribution Thusthe OLS method may lead to inconsistent and bias parameter estimates (Maddala1983 Amemiya 1984) since the normal assumption of the dependent variableis often unrealistic To address the problem of zero expenditure and providea suitable estimation for censored dependent variables the Tobit regressionmodel (Tobin 1958) has been applied in the tourism field Leones et al (1998)Lee (2001) Zheng and Zhang (2011) Barquet et al (2011) Kim et al (2011)among others estimate tourism expenditure applying the Tobit model

A further evolution of the Tobit model is the lsquodoublendashhurdlersquo (Cragg 1971)model The main advantage of this model is that it enables the decision-makingprocess to be split into two natural stages or decisions following consumerchoice theory (Pudney 1989) (a) the decision to spend (selection stage) and(b) the choice of how much to spend (outcome stage) These stages are modelledthrough two separate models whereas in the Tobit model the two stages aretreated as if they were generated from the same consumer decision processassuming that the sets of independent variables influencing the selection stageare the same that influence with the same direction and intensity the outcome

10 TOURISM ECONOMICS

stage The Cragg model assumes that the two decisions are independent Thisimplies that the model applied at the second stage estimates the averagetourism spending using the data collected from a population in which indi-viduals who do not spend are excluded by self-selection The Heckman (1976)model allows the sample selection problem to be treated as a problem ofomitted variables and it corrects for bias in the estimation of the second stageequation by introducing a new variable ndash the inverse Millrsquos ratio ndash calculatedon the basis of the estimations obtained through the first stage equation Inthis way the Heckman model allows for the error term of both equations tobe correlated and the two decisions to be dependent More recently Heien andWessells (1990) proposed an alternative formula of the Millrsquos ratio that allowsall observations to be used in each stage whereas in the Heckman model thezero observations are omitted from the second stage Studies in which thedouble-hurdle model has been applied include Weagley and Huh (2004) whoanalysed leisure expenditure of retired and near-retired Americansrsquo householdsand Hong et al (1999) who investigated the travel expenditure patterns ofelderly households in the USA Recent applications of the Heckman modelinclude Alegre et alrsquos (2013) application to tourism participation and expendi-ture by Spanish households and Jang and Hamrsquos (2009) application to leisuretravellersrsquo expenditure distinguishing between baby boomer senior householdsand older senior households in the USA Finally the double-hurdle modelestimated by means of the Heien and Wessells two-step estimator has beenadopted by Marzetti and Disegna (2012) Brida et al (2012 2013a) and Bridaet al (2013b)

In addition to consumer choice theory according to which each decision-making process to purchase can be described as a two-step process anotherimportant economic theory must be taken into consideration when modellingexpenditure the neoclassical economic theory of consumer behaviour (Deatonand Muellbauer 1980) According to this theory consumers are rational andwish to maximize their utility function by choosing among a set of availablealternatives Thus the utility function can be described as the maximumsatisfaction that consumers obtain from the consumption of various goods andservices that they purchase at a certain level of income (budget) In fact whenundertaking an expenditure tourists first decide whether to incur such a costby comparing their purchase with other opportunities in other industries thenthey decide on the goods and services to buy based on the goods and servicesoffered on the market and the budget available Tourism expenditure is there-fore a consumer choice first between goods and services in various industriesand then between various expenditure in the tourism industry (Tribe 2005Zheng and Zhang 2011)

Consumers are assumed to be able to rank goods and services in such a waythat they can select the particular combinations for which their utility functiontakes the largest value at a certain level of income (budget) Furthermore theconsumerrsquos utility function is lsquoseparablersquo The separability and in particular theassumption of weak separability assumes independence only among groups ofcommodities instead of among individual commodities Focusing on tourismthis implies (Syriopoulos and Sinclair 1993) that first tourists allocate theirbudget between tourism activities and other goods and services second touristsallocate their tourism budget to a specific or multiple destinations including

11Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

the home country third tourists choose how to allocate their tourism budgetamong various goods and services offered by the selected destination(s) There-fore considering one single trip it is realistic to assume that the differenttourist expenditure categories are dependent on each other Until now littleattention has been paid to analysis of the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories the studies of Bilgic et al (2008) and Divisekera (2010)represent two important exceptions in the tourism demand literature

Data and structure of the questionnaire

The survey

The Bank of Italy (Banca drsquoItalia) annually conducts a survey entitled lsquoInter-national Tourism in Italyrsquo to determine the tourism balance of payments Themain aim of this survey is to monitor the travel expenditure and length of stayof inbound and outbound visitors fromto Italy Travel expenditure includes thetotal consumption of goods and services in the country visited divided into fiveexpenditure categories The inboundndashoutbound frontier survey is the techniqueadopted for the collection of the data

Figure 1 Study site

Belluno

VENETO

Trento

BolzanoTRENTINO-

SOUTH TYROL

12 TOURISM ECONOMICS

The stratified sampling method is applied (using different types of stratifiedvariables per each type of frontier) and facendashtondashface interviews are carried outat national borders (including highways railway airports and harbours) Sam-pling is done independently at each type of frontier Tourists are interviewedat the end of the trip when they are returning to their place of habitualresidence Interviews are conducted at different times of the day during bothworking days and holidays and month by month with a fixed number ofinterviews per each period of survey The questionnaires are anonymous and areoffered in 14 languages

The questionnaire can be divided into four main sections 1 sociondashdemo-graphic characteristics of the interviewee (gender age occupation and resi-dence) 2 information on the trip (number of nights spent type of accommo-dation cities visited means of transportation motives organization) 3 infor-mation on expenditure (total expenditure divided into different categories ofexpenditure means of payment) 4 level of satisfaction with different aspectsof the trip and overall satisfaction with the destination

In this study we focus on the 1030 foreign visitors who visited the provincesof Bolzano Trento and Belluno in 2011 (Banca drsquoItalia 2011) The first twoprovinces compose the Trentino South Tyrol region while Belluno is a provinceof the Veneto region These three provinces are located in Northern Italy (seeFigure 1) and are famous for the Dolomite range which stretches across all thethree Finally we take into consideration only international visitors whose mainpurpose of trip is lsquotourism holiday and leisurersquo

Descriptive analyses

The survey offers detailed information on the amount of money spent in thefive main categories of a typical travel budget (a) lsquoAccommodationrsquo (hotelapartment for rent campsite etc) which also includes expenditure on food andbeverage on the accommodation premises (b) lsquoFood and beveragesrsquo consumedoutside the accommodation premises (c) lsquoInternal transportationrsquo in the visiteddestination including purchase of fuel (d) lsquoShoppingrsquo including souvenirsgifts clothes food and beverages etc purchased only for personal use (e) lsquoOtherservicesrsquo like museums shows entertainment guided excursions languagecourses and so on

The sample consists of 8913 tourists (that is people who spent at leastone night in South Tyrol) and 1087 day-visitors During the trip the greatmajority of the sample said they had incurred costs for food and beverages(8592) internal transportation (7816) shopping (7767) and as ex-pected on the trip as a whole (978) In contrast only 3971 of the samplesaid they had incurred costs for other services When describing the expenditurebehaviour of the whole sample (see Table 1 for the average and median amountspent per night per person) we can observe that visitors typically spent a largepart of their travel budget on accommodation (about 43) spending on averageeuro42 per night per person This is followed by expenditure on food and bev-erages which accounts for 19 of the total travel budget with an averageexpenditure per night per person of euro19 and shopping (18 of the total travelbudget and euro18 spent on average per night per person) The least importantexpenditure categories are internal transportation and other services which

13Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Table 1 Mean (median) expenditure by different tourism categories per night per person

Item Whole sample Sub-sample of spenders

Accommodation 4224 (3000) 4739 (3500)Food and beverages 1232 (415) 2183 (1429)Transportation 1862 (833) 1576 (667)Shopping 1806 (625) 2325 (1000)Other services 714 (000) 1799 (918)Total travel expenditure 9851 (7517) 10076 (7700)

account for 13 and 7 respectively with an average expenditure per nightper person of euro12 and euro7

Another important group of variables collected through the survey concernsthe overall level of satisfaction with the destination and with the followingaspects of the trip hospitality and friendliness of the local inhabitants (lsquoFriend-linessrsquo) cities and works of art (lsquoArtrsquo) landscape and natural environment(lsquoLandscapersquo) hotels and other accommodation (lsquoAccommodationrsquo) lsquoFood andbeveragesrsquo price and cost of living (lsquoPricersquo) quality and variety of productsoffered in stores (lsquoProducts soldrsquo) information and tourist services (lsquoInforma-tionrsquo) safety of tourists (lsquoSafetyrsquo) A 10-point Likert scale was used with (1)indicating lsquoVery unsatisfiedrsquo and (10) lsquoVery satisfiedrsquo Figure 2 displays thepercentage distribution of the level of satisfaction per each observed item Thepercentage of visitors who attributed a value lower than 6 to the differentaspects of the trip is very low with the exception of lsquoPricersquo which shows thelowest mean and median value (both approximately equal to 7)

On average (see Table A1 in the Appendix) tourists spent 9 nights in the

Percentage

20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Very unsatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very satisfied

Hospitality

Art

Landscape

Accommodation

Food and beverages

Price

Products sold

Information

Safety

Overall

Figure 2 Level of overall satisfaction and satisfaction with different aspects ofthe trip

14 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Dolomite area mainly visiting only one city during the trip (79) and trav-elling with other people (79) For approximately 22 of the sample this wastheir first visit to Italy while 42 had already been to Italy more than fivetimes Visitors came mainly from Germany (38) Austria (14) and otherEuropean countries (39) while only 9 came from a country outside EuropeFinally about half of the sample was under 45 years of age

The econometric model

In order to investigate (a) the influence of the satisfaction both on overallexpenditure and on different expenditure categories and (b) the dependenceamong different tourist expenditure categories the Tobit model (Tobin 1958)or one of its generalizations can be adopted In fact this category of modelis the most suitable when the dependent variable is non-negative and thusessentially continuous over strictly positive values and it also takes zero valueswith positive probability (that is a non-trivial fraction of the population takeszero value) For this type of dependent variable the use of the multipleregression model estimated by using the well-known OLS method wouldproduce biased and inconsistent estimates of parameters (Maddala 1983Amemiya 1984)

Another important characteristic of the expenditure is that the monetaryvalue declared by the individual is the result of two possible processes assuggested by consumer choice theory (Pudney 1989) the individual decideswhether or not to purchase something (selection stage) and then he or shedecides how much money to spend on that purchase (outcome stage) Thereforeto observe a positive level of expenditure two distinct hurdles must be clearedIn this context it is preferable to adopt a two-stage generalization of the Tobitmodel the double-hurdle model (Cragg 1971) This model is performedthrough the estimation of two separate regression models the selection stageis estimated by the Probit model in order to estimate the probability ofspending or not spending on something the outcome stage is estimated by theOLS regression model to estimate the average amount of money spent in aparticular expenditure category In this way throughout the estimation of thedouble-hurdle model we can obtain two different sets of relevant independentvariables (one for each stage) whereas the estimation of the standard Tobitmodel identifies a single set of variables to measure the effect of both theselection and the outcome stage

To avoid the problem of sample selection ndash defined as an omitted variableproblem (Heckman 1976) ndash in this study the estimator proposed by Heien andWessells in the early 1990s is adopted (Heien and Wessells 1990 see forapplications Byrne et al 1996 Manrique and Jensen 1997) This estimatoris called inverse Millrsquos ratio (MR) and it is calculated for each observationthrough the estimates obtained in the first stage ndash that is through theestimation of the Probit model Contrary to the traditional Heckman two-stepestimator the MR variable allows correcting the problem of sample selectionusing all the observations in each stage Furthermore the MR variable isincorporated into the set of explanatory variables used in the regression esti-mated at the second stage playing a fundamental role in linking the two stages

15Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Figure 3 Schematic representation of research aims

It is important to note that if the estimated coefficient of the MR variable isnot significantly different from zero the decision to spend and the decision onhow much money to spend are independent and the sample selection problemis unimportant that is the sample selection rule ensures that all potentialobservations are sampled so that the Tobit model can be used instead of thedouble-hurdle model

The set of dependent and independent variables

Six suitable censored models one for the total tourist spending and one pereach expenditure item (lsquoAccommodationrsquo lsquoTransportationrsquo lsquoFood and bever-agesrsquo lsquoShoppingrsquo and lsquoOther servicesrsquo) were separately estimated Figure 3schematically represents the aims of this study to determine the influence ofsatisfaction on the tourist expenditure taking into consideration also the in-fluence of other independent variables listed and synthetically described inTable A1 of the Appendix and to study the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories This last aim has been analysed including among theset of independent variables the total travel expenditure allocated for a particu-lar tourist expenditure category excluding the one modelled Notice that allvariables regarding tourist expenditure (both dependent and independent) areper person per night and logarithmically transformed to handle more effectivelypossible non-linear relationships between the independent and dependent vari-ables

Model results

Since only 22 of the sample stated a zero value for the total visitor expendi-ture the Tobit model was used to identify the determinants of the totalexpenditure The five different expenditure categories were modelled using thedouble-hurdle model since it is interesting to estimate the selection and out-come stage separately thanks to the higher number of zero values

All the models were estimated using Whitersquos robust standard variancendashcovariance matrix (White 1980) to correct for possible heteroscedasticity of theerror term The backward results for the Tobit model are reported in Table 2

Independentvariables

Satisfaction

Dependent variables

Exp

endi

ture

cate

gorie

s

= Accommodation Transportation

Other services

Total expenditure

Characteristicsof the trip

Characteristicsof the visitor

16 TOURISM ECONOMICS

while Tables 3 and 4 present respectively the backward results for the first(selection) and second (outcome) stage of the five double-hurdle models esti-mated The results of the first stage model (Table 3) are reported as marginaleffects calculated at the median value of each explanatory variable (see TableA1 in the Appendix for the median values) Table 4 shows that MR issignificant for each model and this implies that the decisions (a) to spend ornot to spend and (b) how much to spend are dependent and can be explainedby different sets of explanatory variables for each of the tourism expenditurecategories considered Furthermore the significance of MR suggests that thedouble-hurdle model is appropriate

Influence of satisfaction on expenditure behaviour

Satisfaction with specific characteristics of the destination is found to besignificant in affecting visitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour in the willingness tospend in the amount of money spent within the different expenditure categoriesand finally in the total budget spent

As shown in Table 2 there is a strict correlation between satisfaction withlandscape and prices and the total expenditure per person per day Specificallyfor a one-unit increase in satisfaction with the landscape we expect to see abouta 76 increase in total visitor spending (e0073 asymp 1076) Similarly a one-unitincrease in satisfaction with prices produces about a 7 increase in totalexpenditure

Satisfaction with different characteristics of the destination exerts a positiveeffect also on the willingness to incur an expenditure within the differentspending categories As shown in Table 3 satisfaction with safety positivelyaffects the propensity to spend on accommodation food and beverages andshopping Satisfaction with landscape positively affects expenditure on acco-mmodation and transportation satisfaction with food and beverage positively

Table 2 Determinants of total tourist spending (ln transformed)

Independent variables Tobit model

Are you satisfied with the following aspects related to the tripLandscape 0073 (003)a

Price 0068 (002)Characteristics of tripNumber of nights ndash0033 (001)First time in Italy ndash0350 (012)Italy visited up to 5 times ndash0156 (008)Cities in the Dolomite area ndash0450 (009)Characteristics of touristAustria ndash0931 (017)Outside EU 0307 (016)Germany ndash0294 (008)Constant 3903 (036)

Notes aEstimated coefficients and robust standard errors in brackets Number ofobservations = 959 Wald chi2(9) = 26111 prob gt χ2 = 0 log pseudo-likelihood = ndash14549951 McKelvey and Zavoinarsquos R2 = 0240

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 3: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

7Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Specifically the study investigates visitorsrsquo expenditure divided into spendingfor transportation accommodation food and beverage shopping and otherservices such as museums shows entertainment guided tours language coursesand so on The data used for this study were retrieved from the 2011 AnnualSurvey conducted by the Bank of Italy (Banca drsquoItalia) entitled lsquoInternationalTourism in Italyrsquo Although the main aim of this survey is to monitor travelexpenditure and length of stay of international tourists visiting Italy the levelof satisfaction with different aspects of the trip and the overall satisfaction werealso investigated

The results of this study are essential for destination managers who wish tohave a clear understanding of the relationship between satisfaction and expendi-ture and the dependence among the tourism expenditure categories Thisinformation provides destination managers and private tourism businesses withpractical knowledge useful for the management of customer service and thestrategic planning and packaging of accommodation attractions and othertourism and non-tourism services The results of this study can also guidetourism planners in expanding their market share by seeking visitors who willspend money on as many services as possible at the destination

Literature review

Customer satisfaction and expenditure

A considerable body of literature in both general service management and morespecifically in tourism and hospitality management has focused on customersatisfaction since the late 1970s Over the years satisfaction has been analysedfrom different perspectives and for different purposes Several studies havedemonstrated that customer satisfaction is capable of stimulating repeat visitspositive recommendations and consequently new customers reputation en-hancement higher acceptance of price increases and higher profitability (Andersonet al 1994 Baker and Crompton 2000 Kozak and Rimmington 2000Homburg et al 2005 Munier and Camelis 2013) Satisfaction has been ana-lysed in terms of satisfaction with the single servicesproducts at the destina-tion with the destination and with the holidaytrip as a whole Although mostsatisfaction studies concentrate on single aspects of the tourism experience ithas been argued that satisfaction in tourism should be studied as a systemprocess in which the several stages of the trip (pre-trip services services at thedestination and transit route services) are analysed collectively (Neal and Gursoy2008) In the tourism and hospitality industry satisfaction has been furtherinvestigated for controllable items such as standard of the services offeredcleanliness availability of information and prices and for uncontrollable itemssuch as culture scenery and weather Nevertheless some researchers argue thatany satisfaction study on uncontrollable items is limiting because of the dif-ficulty in taking any corrective actions when dissatisfaction with such itemsoccurs Additionally most of these items are the underlying reasons for choosinga destination rather than causes of dissatisfaction provided that there has beenan adequate pre-holiday information search (Kozak and Rimmington 2000)

Satisfaction has also been studied to improve the productservice and effec-

8 TOURISM ECONOMICS

tively design management and marketing strategies (Kozak and Rimmington2000 Munier and Camelis 2013) Customer satisfaction has finally been seenas an indicator of destination competitiveness and performance (Enright andNewton 2004 Alegre and Garau 2010 Munier and Camelis 2013)

As reported by Neal and Gursoy (2008) most satisfaction studies are basedon expectation and perception models (Oliver 1980) cognitive evaluation(Klaus 1985 Chadee and Mattsson 1996) congruity models (Sirgy 1984)equity models (Oliver and Swan 1989) and perceived overall performance(Fuchs and Weiermair 2004 Thompson and Schofield 2007) So far the issueof customer satisfaction consumer expenditure and consequently firmsrsquo eco-nomic benefits remains only partially examined and Anderson (1996) Andersonet al (1994 1997) and Anderson and Mittal (2000) can be considered thepioneers in studies related to the link between customer satisfaction andprofitability According to these authors firms that invest in customer satis-faction will enjoy economic returns The main conceptual rationale behind theirstudies is that lsquohigh customer satisfaction should indicate loyalty for currentcustomers reduced price elasticities insulation of current customers formcompetitive efforts lower costs of future transactions reduced failure costslower costs of attracting new customers and an enhanced reputation for the firmrsquo(Anderson et al 1994 p 55) Although further research (Anderson et al 1997)has examined the differences in this nexus between goods and services loyaltyremains one of the pillars on which the theory of the satisfactionndashprofitabilitychain is based However in that respect it is important to note that loyaltymight not be as important to destinations as it is for other businesses or services(Kozak and Rimmington 2000) Although past studies (Oliver and Burke1999 Hui et al 2007) have demonstrated that touristsrsquo overall level of satis-faction with the destination influences the intention to revisit the dissatisfac-tion with various components of the holiday experience (pre-trip servicesservices at the destination transit route services) leads to overall dissatisfaction(Neal and Gursoy 2008) influencing future intentions (Kozak and Rimmington2000) Furthermore although loyal customers mean more customers in generallower impact of price fluctuations and less cost for the firm in attracting newcustomers due to positive word of mouth in an industry like tourism affectedby fixed capacity are loyal (repeat) customers more likely to spend more at thedestination Past research has reported contradictory results (Oppermann 1996Alegre and Juaneda 2006 cited in Zhang et al 2010 Chang et al 2013)

Along the continuum of the satisfactionndashprofitability chain but with adifferent approach from Anderson et al (1994) Homburg et al (2005) inves-tigated the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to payBased on equity theory they hypothesized that lsquowhen customer experienceelevated states of satisfaction they perceive a high outcome of an exchange andtherefore are willing to pay more hellip because this still results in an equitableration of outcome to inputrsquo (Homburg et al 2005 p 85) The findings of theirstudy revealed a positive relationship between consumer satisfaction and will-ingness to pay

In the tourism literature few studies have examined the relationship betweenconsumer satisfaction and expenditure (Zhang et al 2010) and there is the needto better understand the role of visitorsrsquo satisfaction in influencing an individu-alrsquos expenditure patterns (Kim et al 2010) In existing studies satisfaction has

9Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

been seen as a significant predictor of expenditure in the case of festival andevents (Kim et al 2010) at exhibitions (Zhang et al (2010) in the case ofpurchases at travel agencies (Chen and Chang 2012) at theme parks (Bigneacuteet al 2005) and in the hotel industry (Kim and Cha 2002) So far therelationship between satisfaction with destination attributes and expenditure isunder-researched and in light of neoclassical theory a new approach to this issuemust be taken

Visitorsrsquo expenditure theories and models

There is a substantial body of literature relating to tourismrsquos economic impactat the macro level but less is known about visitorsrsquo expenditure at a micro scaleAs stated by Alegre and Pou (2004) studies at the micro level have severaladvantages first they are closer to theoretical economic consumer modelssecond they preserve the choice by individuals not to spend any money fortourism services third they preserve the heterogeneity and diversity of indi-vidual consumer behaviour More recently Belenkiy and Riker (2013) under-lined that the main advantages in using micro data lie in the fact that thesedata report the expenditure of individual travellers together with demographicsocial or other characteristics that can be used to control (or profile) the unitsof analysis Nonetheless the main limitation is that it is not possible to modeldynamic adjustments because the datasets are not time-series

In a review of the literature Lim (2006) found only nine studies among the124 analysed in which ad hoc designed surveys were employed to take into examindividual economic units More recently Wang and Davidson (2010) identifiedand analysed 27 studies that used expenditure as the measure of individualsrsquodemand for tourism These studies clearly support the idea that the micro levelneeds to be studied further to fill a gap in the literature

Most of the microdata studies investigating tourism expenditure have usedordinary least squares (OLS) estimation in linear regression models (Wang andDavidson 2010 Brida and Scuderi 2013 Wu et al 2013) However thepresence of a high proportion of expenditure values equal to zero presentstourism spending as a non-negative (that is left-censored) distribution Thusthe OLS method may lead to inconsistent and bias parameter estimates (Maddala1983 Amemiya 1984) since the normal assumption of the dependent variableis often unrealistic To address the problem of zero expenditure and providea suitable estimation for censored dependent variables the Tobit regressionmodel (Tobin 1958) has been applied in the tourism field Leones et al (1998)Lee (2001) Zheng and Zhang (2011) Barquet et al (2011) Kim et al (2011)among others estimate tourism expenditure applying the Tobit model

A further evolution of the Tobit model is the lsquodoublendashhurdlersquo (Cragg 1971)model The main advantage of this model is that it enables the decision-makingprocess to be split into two natural stages or decisions following consumerchoice theory (Pudney 1989) (a) the decision to spend (selection stage) and(b) the choice of how much to spend (outcome stage) These stages are modelledthrough two separate models whereas in the Tobit model the two stages aretreated as if they were generated from the same consumer decision processassuming that the sets of independent variables influencing the selection stageare the same that influence with the same direction and intensity the outcome

10 TOURISM ECONOMICS

stage The Cragg model assumes that the two decisions are independent Thisimplies that the model applied at the second stage estimates the averagetourism spending using the data collected from a population in which indi-viduals who do not spend are excluded by self-selection The Heckman (1976)model allows the sample selection problem to be treated as a problem ofomitted variables and it corrects for bias in the estimation of the second stageequation by introducing a new variable ndash the inverse Millrsquos ratio ndash calculatedon the basis of the estimations obtained through the first stage equation Inthis way the Heckman model allows for the error term of both equations tobe correlated and the two decisions to be dependent More recently Heien andWessells (1990) proposed an alternative formula of the Millrsquos ratio that allowsall observations to be used in each stage whereas in the Heckman model thezero observations are omitted from the second stage Studies in which thedouble-hurdle model has been applied include Weagley and Huh (2004) whoanalysed leisure expenditure of retired and near-retired Americansrsquo householdsand Hong et al (1999) who investigated the travel expenditure patterns ofelderly households in the USA Recent applications of the Heckman modelinclude Alegre et alrsquos (2013) application to tourism participation and expendi-ture by Spanish households and Jang and Hamrsquos (2009) application to leisuretravellersrsquo expenditure distinguishing between baby boomer senior householdsand older senior households in the USA Finally the double-hurdle modelestimated by means of the Heien and Wessells two-step estimator has beenadopted by Marzetti and Disegna (2012) Brida et al (2012 2013a) and Bridaet al (2013b)

In addition to consumer choice theory according to which each decision-making process to purchase can be described as a two-step process anotherimportant economic theory must be taken into consideration when modellingexpenditure the neoclassical economic theory of consumer behaviour (Deatonand Muellbauer 1980) According to this theory consumers are rational andwish to maximize their utility function by choosing among a set of availablealternatives Thus the utility function can be described as the maximumsatisfaction that consumers obtain from the consumption of various goods andservices that they purchase at a certain level of income (budget) In fact whenundertaking an expenditure tourists first decide whether to incur such a costby comparing their purchase with other opportunities in other industries thenthey decide on the goods and services to buy based on the goods and servicesoffered on the market and the budget available Tourism expenditure is there-fore a consumer choice first between goods and services in various industriesand then between various expenditure in the tourism industry (Tribe 2005Zheng and Zhang 2011)

Consumers are assumed to be able to rank goods and services in such a waythat they can select the particular combinations for which their utility functiontakes the largest value at a certain level of income (budget) Furthermore theconsumerrsquos utility function is lsquoseparablersquo The separability and in particular theassumption of weak separability assumes independence only among groups ofcommodities instead of among individual commodities Focusing on tourismthis implies (Syriopoulos and Sinclair 1993) that first tourists allocate theirbudget between tourism activities and other goods and services second touristsallocate their tourism budget to a specific or multiple destinations including

11Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

the home country third tourists choose how to allocate their tourism budgetamong various goods and services offered by the selected destination(s) There-fore considering one single trip it is realistic to assume that the differenttourist expenditure categories are dependent on each other Until now littleattention has been paid to analysis of the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories the studies of Bilgic et al (2008) and Divisekera (2010)represent two important exceptions in the tourism demand literature

Data and structure of the questionnaire

The survey

The Bank of Italy (Banca drsquoItalia) annually conducts a survey entitled lsquoInter-national Tourism in Italyrsquo to determine the tourism balance of payments Themain aim of this survey is to monitor the travel expenditure and length of stayof inbound and outbound visitors fromto Italy Travel expenditure includes thetotal consumption of goods and services in the country visited divided into fiveexpenditure categories The inboundndashoutbound frontier survey is the techniqueadopted for the collection of the data

Figure 1 Study site

Belluno

VENETO

Trento

BolzanoTRENTINO-

SOUTH TYROL

12 TOURISM ECONOMICS

The stratified sampling method is applied (using different types of stratifiedvariables per each type of frontier) and facendashtondashface interviews are carried outat national borders (including highways railway airports and harbours) Sam-pling is done independently at each type of frontier Tourists are interviewedat the end of the trip when they are returning to their place of habitualresidence Interviews are conducted at different times of the day during bothworking days and holidays and month by month with a fixed number ofinterviews per each period of survey The questionnaires are anonymous and areoffered in 14 languages

The questionnaire can be divided into four main sections 1 sociondashdemo-graphic characteristics of the interviewee (gender age occupation and resi-dence) 2 information on the trip (number of nights spent type of accommo-dation cities visited means of transportation motives organization) 3 infor-mation on expenditure (total expenditure divided into different categories ofexpenditure means of payment) 4 level of satisfaction with different aspectsof the trip and overall satisfaction with the destination

In this study we focus on the 1030 foreign visitors who visited the provincesof Bolzano Trento and Belluno in 2011 (Banca drsquoItalia 2011) The first twoprovinces compose the Trentino South Tyrol region while Belluno is a provinceof the Veneto region These three provinces are located in Northern Italy (seeFigure 1) and are famous for the Dolomite range which stretches across all thethree Finally we take into consideration only international visitors whose mainpurpose of trip is lsquotourism holiday and leisurersquo

Descriptive analyses

The survey offers detailed information on the amount of money spent in thefive main categories of a typical travel budget (a) lsquoAccommodationrsquo (hotelapartment for rent campsite etc) which also includes expenditure on food andbeverage on the accommodation premises (b) lsquoFood and beveragesrsquo consumedoutside the accommodation premises (c) lsquoInternal transportationrsquo in the visiteddestination including purchase of fuel (d) lsquoShoppingrsquo including souvenirsgifts clothes food and beverages etc purchased only for personal use (e) lsquoOtherservicesrsquo like museums shows entertainment guided excursions languagecourses and so on

The sample consists of 8913 tourists (that is people who spent at leastone night in South Tyrol) and 1087 day-visitors During the trip the greatmajority of the sample said they had incurred costs for food and beverages(8592) internal transportation (7816) shopping (7767) and as ex-pected on the trip as a whole (978) In contrast only 3971 of the samplesaid they had incurred costs for other services When describing the expenditurebehaviour of the whole sample (see Table 1 for the average and median amountspent per night per person) we can observe that visitors typically spent a largepart of their travel budget on accommodation (about 43) spending on averageeuro42 per night per person This is followed by expenditure on food and bev-erages which accounts for 19 of the total travel budget with an averageexpenditure per night per person of euro19 and shopping (18 of the total travelbudget and euro18 spent on average per night per person) The least importantexpenditure categories are internal transportation and other services which

13Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Table 1 Mean (median) expenditure by different tourism categories per night per person

Item Whole sample Sub-sample of spenders

Accommodation 4224 (3000) 4739 (3500)Food and beverages 1232 (415) 2183 (1429)Transportation 1862 (833) 1576 (667)Shopping 1806 (625) 2325 (1000)Other services 714 (000) 1799 (918)Total travel expenditure 9851 (7517) 10076 (7700)

account for 13 and 7 respectively with an average expenditure per nightper person of euro12 and euro7

Another important group of variables collected through the survey concernsthe overall level of satisfaction with the destination and with the followingaspects of the trip hospitality and friendliness of the local inhabitants (lsquoFriend-linessrsquo) cities and works of art (lsquoArtrsquo) landscape and natural environment(lsquoLandscapersquo) hotels and other accommodation (lsquoAccommodationrsquo) lsquoFood andbeveragesrsquo price and cost of living (lsquoPricersquo) quality and variety of productsoffered in stores (lsquoProducts soldrsquo) information and tourist services (lsquoInforma-tionrsquo) safety of tourists (lsquoSafetyrsquo) A 10-point Likert scale was used with (1)indicating lsquoVery unsatisfiedrsquo and (10) lsquoVery satisfiedrsquo Figure 2 displays thepercentage distribution of the level of satisfaction per each observed item Thepercentage of visitors who attributed a value lower than 6 to the differentaspects of the trip is very low with the exception of lsquoPricersquo which shows thelowest mean and median value (both approximately equal to 7)

On average (see Table A1 in the Appendix) tourists spent 9 nights in the

Percentage

20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Very unsatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very satisfied

Hospitality

Art

Landscape

Accommodation

Food and beverages

Price

Products sold

Information

Safety

Overall

Figure 2 Level of overall satisfaction and satisfaction with different aspects ofthe trip

14 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Dolomite area mainly visiting only one city during the trip (79) and trav-elling with other people (79) For approximately 22 of the sample this wastheir first visit to Italy while 42 had already been to Italy more than fivetimes Visitors came mainly from Germany (38) Austria (14) and otherEuropean countries (39) while only 9 came from a country outside EuropeFinally about half of the sample was under 45 years of age

The econometric model

In order to investigate (a) the influence of the satisfaction both on overallexpenditure and on different expenditure categories and (b) the dependenceamong different tourist expenditure categories the Tobit model (Tobin 1958)or one of its generalizations can be adopted In fact this category of modelis the most suitable when the dependent variable is non-negative and thusessentially continuous over strictly positive values and it also takes zero valueswith positive probability (that is a non-trivial fraction of the population takeszero value) For this type of dependent variable the use of the multipleregression model estimated by using the well-known OLS method wouldproduce biased and inconsistent estimates of parameters (Maddala 1983Amemiya 1984)

Another important characteristic of the expenditure is that the monetaryvalue declared by the individual is the result of two possible processes assuggested by consumer choice theory (Pudney 1989) the individual decideswhether or not to purchase something (selection stage) and then he or shedecides how much money to spend on that purchase (outcome stage) Thereforeto observe a positive level of expenditure two distinct hurdles must be clearedIn this context it is preferable to adopt a two-stage generalization of the Tobitmodel the double-hurdle model (Cragg 1971) This model is performedthrough the estimation of two separate regression models the selection stageis estimated by the Probit model in order to estimate the probability ofspending or not spending on something the outcome stage is estimated by theOLS regression model to estimate the average amount of money spent in aparticular expenditure category In this way throughout the estimation of thedouble-hurdle model we can obtain two different sets of relevant independentvariables (one for each stage) whereas the estimation of the standard Tobitmodel identifies a single set of variables to measure the effect of both theselection and the outcome stage

To avoid the problem of sample selection ndash defined as an omitted variableproblem (Heckman 1976) ndash in this study the estimator proposed by Heien andWessells in the early 1990s is adopted (Heien and Wessells 1990 see forapplications Byrne et al 1996 Manrique and Jensen 1997) This estimatoris called inverse Millrsquos ratio (MR) and it is calculated for each observationthrough the estimates obtained in the first stage ndash that is through theestimation of the Probit model Contrary to the traditional Heckman two-stepestimator the MR variable allows correcting the problem of sample selectionusing all the observations in each stage Furthermore the MR variable isincorporated into the set of explanatory variables used in the regression esti-mated at the second stage playing a fundamental role in linking the two stages

15Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Figure 3 Schematic representation of research aims

It is important to note that if the estimated coefficient of the MR variable isnot significantly different from zero the decision to spend and the decision onhow much money to spend are independent and the sample selection problemis unimportant that is the sample selection rule ensures that all potentialobservations are sampled so that the Tobit model can be used instead of thedouble-hurdle model

The set of dependent and independent variables

Six suitable censored models one for the total tourist spending and one pereach expenditure item (lsquoAccommodationrsquo lsquoTransportationrsquo lsquoFood and bever-agesrsquo lsquoShoppingrsquo and lsquoOther servicesrsquo) were separately estimated Figure 3schematically represents the aims of this study to determine the influence ofsatisfaction on the tourist expenditure taking into consideration also the in-fluence of other independent variables listed and synthetically described inTable A1 of the Appendix and to study the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories This last aim has been analysed including among theset of independent variables the total travel expenditure allocated for a particu-lar tourist expenditure category excluding the one modelled Notice that allvariables regarding tourist expenditure (both dependent and independent) areper person per night and logarithmically transformed to handle more effectivelypossible non-linear relationships between the independent and dependent vari-ables

Model results

Since only 22 of the sample stated a zero value for the total visitor expendi-ture the Tobit model was used to identify the determinants of the totalexpenditure The five different expenditure categories were modelled using thedouble-hurdle model since it is interesting to estimate the selection and out-come stage separately thanks to the higher number of zero values

All the models were estimated using Whitersquos robust standard variancendashcovariance matrix (White 1980) to correct for possible heteroscedasticity of theerror term The backward results for the Tobit model are reported in Table 2

Independentvariables

Satisfaction

Dependent variables

Exp

endi

ture

cate

gorie

s

= Accommodation Transportation

Other services

Total expenditure

Characteristicsof the trip

Characteristicsof the visitor

16 TOURISM ECONOMICS

while Tables 3 and 4 present respectively the backward results for the first(selection) and second (outcome) stage of the five double-hurdle models esti-mated The results of the first stage model (Table 3) are reported as marginaleffects calculated at the median value of each explanatory variable (see TableA1 in the Appendix for the median values) Table 4 shows that MR issignificant for each model and this implies that the decisions (a) to spend ornot to spend and (b) how much to spend are dependent and can be explainedby different sets of explanatory variables for each of the tourism expenditurecategories considered Furthermore the significance of MR suggests that thedouble-hurdle model is appropriate

Influence of satisfaction on expenditure behaviour

Satisfaction with specific characteristics of the destination is found to besignificant in affecting visitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour in the willingness tospend in the amount of money spent within the different expenditure categoriesand finally in the total budget spent

As shown in Table 2 there is a strict correlation between satisfaction withlandscape and prices and the total expenditure per person per day Specificallyfor a one-unit increase in satisfaction with the landscape we expect to see abouta 76 increase in total visitor spending (e0073 asymp 1076) Similarly a one-unitincrease in satisfaction with prices produces about a 7 increase in totalexpenditure

Satisfaction with different characteristics of the destination exerts a positiveeffect also on the willingness to incur an expenditure within the differentspending categories As shown in Table 3 satisfaction with safety positivelyaffects the propensity to spend on accommodation food and beverages andshopping Satisfaction with landscape positively affects expenditure on acco-mmodation and transportation satisfaction with food and beverage positively

Table 2 Determinants of total tourist spending (ln transformed)

Independent variables Tobit model

Are you satisfied with the following aspects related to the tripLandscape 0073 (003)a

Price 0068 (002)Characteristics of tripNumber of nights ndash0033 (001)First time in Italy ndash0350 (012)Italy visited up to 5 times ndash0156 (008)Cities in the Dolomite area ndash0450 (009)Characteristics of touristAustria ndash0931 (017)Outside EU 0307 (016)Germany ndash0294 (008)Constant 3903 (036)

Notes aEstimated coefficients and robust standard errors in brackets Number ofobservations = 959 Wald chi2(9) = 26111 prob gt χ2 = 0 log pseudo-likelihood = ndash14549951 McKelvey and Zavoinarsquos R2 = 0240

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 4: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

8 TOURISM ECONOMICS

tively design management and marketing strategies (Kozak and Rimmington2000 Munier and Camelis 2013) Customer satisfaction has finally been seenas an indicator of destination competitiveness and performance (Enright andNewton 2004 Alegre and Garau 2010 Munier and Camelis 2013)

As reported by Neal and Gursoy (2008) most satisfaction studies are basedon expectation and perception models (Oliver 1980) cognitive evaluation(Klaus 1985 Chadee and Mattsson 1996) congruity models (Sirgy 1984)equity models (Oliver and Swan 1989) and perceived overall performance(Fuchs and Weiermair 2004 Thompson and Schofield 2007) So far the issueof customer satisfaction consumer expenditure and consequently firmsrsquo eco-nomic benefits remains only partially examined and Anderson (1996) Andersonet al (1994 1997) and Anderson and Mittal (2000) can be considered thepioneers in studies related to the link between customer satisfaction andprofitability According to these authors firms that invest in customer satis-faction will enjoy economic returns The main conceptual rationale behind theirstudies is that lsquohigh customer satisfaction should indicate loyalty for currentcustomers reduced price elasticities insulation of current customers formcompetitive efforts lower costs of future transactions reduced failure costslower costs of attracting new customers and an enhanced reputation for the firmrsquo(Anderson et al 1994 p 55) Although further research (Anderson et al 1997)has examined the differences in this nexus between goods and services loyaltyremains one of the pillars on which the theory of the satisfactionndashprofitabilitychain is based However in that respect it is important to note that loyaltymight not be as important to destinations as it is for other businesses or services(Kozak and Rimmington 2000) Although past studies (Oliver and Burke1999 Hui et al 2007) have demonstrated that touristsrsquo overall level of satis-faction with the destination influences the intention to revisit the dissatisfac-tion with various components of the holiday experience (pre-trip servicesservices at the destination transit route services) leads to overall dissatisfaction(Neal and Gursoy 2008) influencing future intentions (Kozak and Rimmington2000) Furthermore although loyal customers mean more customers in generallower impact of price fluctuations and less cost for the firm in attracting newcustomers due to positive word of mouth in an industry like tourism affectedby fixed capacity are loyal (repeat) customers more likely to spend more at thedestination Past research has reported contradictory results (Oppermann 1996Alegre and Juaneda 2006 cited in Zhang et al 2010 Chang et al 2013)

Along the continuum of the satisfactionndashprofitability chain but with adifferent approach from Anderson et al (1994) Homburg et al (2005) inves-tigated the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to payBased on equity theory they hypothesized that lsquowhen customer experienceelevated states of satisfaction they perceive a high outcome of an exchange andtherefore are willing to pay more hellip because this still results in an equitableration of outcome to inputrsquo (Homburg et al 2005 p 85) The findings of theirstudy revealed a positive relationship between consumer satisfaction and will-ingness to pay

In the tourism literature few studies have examined the relationship betweenconsumer satisfaction and expenditure (Zhang et al 2010) and there is the needto better understand the role of visitorsrsquo satisfaction in influencing an individu-alrsquos expenditure patterns (Kim et al 2010) In existing studies satisfaction has

9Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

been seen as a significant predictor of expenditure in the case of festival andevents (Kim et al 2010) at exhibitions (Zhang et al (2010) in the case ofpurchases at travel agencies (Chen and Chang 2012) at theme parks (Bigneacuteet al 2005) and in the hotel industry (Kim and Cha 2002) So far therelationship between satisfaction with destination attributes and expenditure isunder-researched and in light of neoclassical theory a new approach to this issuemust be taken

Visitorsrsquo expenditure theories and models

There is a substantial body of literature relating to tourismrsquos economic impactat the macro level but less is known about visitorsrsquo expenditure at a micro scaleAs stated by Alegre and Pou (2004) studies at the micro level have severaladvantages first they are closer to theoretical economic consumer modelssecond they preserve the choice by individuals not to spend any money fortourism services third they preserve the heterogeneity and diversity of indi-vidual consumer behaviour More recently Belenkiy and Riker (2013) under-lined that the main advantages in using micro data lie in the fact that thesedata report the expenditure of individual travellers together with demographicsocial or other characteristics that can be used to control (or profile) the unitsof analysis Nonetheless the main limitation is that it is not possible to modeldynamic adjustments because the datasets are not time-series

In a review of the literature Lim (2006) found only nine studies among the124 analysed in which ad hoc designed surveys were employed to take into examindividual economic units More recently Wang and Davidson (2010) identifiedand analysed 27 studies that used expenditure as the measure of individualsrsquodemand for tourism These studies clearly support the idea that the micro levelneeds to be studied further to fill a gap in the literature

Most of the microdata studies investigating tourism expenditure have usedordinary least squares (OLS) estimation in linear regression models (Wang andDavidson 2010 Brida and Scuderi 2013 Wu et al 2013) However thepresence of a high proportion of expenditure values equal to zero presentstourism spending as a non-negative (that is left-censored) distribution Thusthe OLS method may lead to inconsistent and bias parameter estimates (Maddala1983 Amemiya 1984) since the normal assumption of the dependent variableis often unrealistic To address the problem of zero expenditure and providea suitable estimation for censored dependent variables the Tobit regressionmodel (Tobin 1958) has been applied in the tourism field Leones et al (1998)Lee (2001) Zheng and Zhang (2011) Barquet et al (2011) Kim et al (2011)among others estimate tourism expenditure applying the Tobit model

A further evolution of the Tobit model is the lsquodoublendashhurdlersquo (Cragg 1971)model The main advantage of this model is that it enables the decision-makingprocess to be split into two natural stages or decisions following consumerchoice theory (Pudney 1989) (a) the decision to spend (selection stage) and(b) the choice of how much to spend (outcome stage) These stages are modelledthrough two separate models whereas in the Tobit model the two stages aretreated as if they were generated from the same consumer decision processassuming that the sets of independent variables influencing the selection stageare the same that influence with the same direction and intensity the outcome

10 TOURISM ECONOMICS

stage The Cragg model assumes that the two decisions are independent Thisimplies that the model applied at the second stage estimates the averagetourism spending using the data collected from a population in which indi-viduals who do not spend are excluded by self-selection The Heckman (1976)model allows the sample selection problem to be treated as a problem ofomitted variables and it corrects for bias in the estimation of the second stageequation by introducing a new variable ndash the inverse Millrsquos ratio ndash calculatedon the basis of the estimations obtained through the first stage equation Inthis way the Heckman model allows for the error term of both equations tobe correlated and the two decisions to be dependent More recently Heien andWessells (1990) proposed an alternative formula of the Millrsquos ratio that allowsall observations to be used in each stage whereas in the Heckman model thezero observations are omitted from the second stage Studies in which thedouble-hurdle model has been applied include Weagley and Huh (2004) whoanalysed leisure expenditure of retired and near-retired Americansrsquo householdsand Hong et al (1999) who investigated the travel expenditure patterns ofelderly households in the USA Recent applications of the Heckman modelinclude Alegre et alrsquos (2013) application to tourism participation and expendi-ture by Spanish households and Jang and Hamrsquos (2009) application to leisuretravellersrsquo expenditure distinguishing between baby boomer senior householdsand older senior households in the USA Finally the double-hurdle modelestimated by means of the Heien and Wessells two-step estimator has beenadopted by Marzetti and Disegna (2012) Brida et al (2012 2013a) and Bridaet al (2013b)

In addition to consumer choice theory according to which each decision-making process to purchase can be described as a two-step process anotherimportant economic theory must be taken into consideration when modellingexpenditure the neoclassical economic theory of consumer behaviour (Deatonand Muellbauer 1980) According to this theory consumers are rational andwish to maximize their utility function by choosing among a set of availablealternatives Thus the utility function can be described as the maximumsatisfaction that consumers obtain from the consumption of various goods andservices that they purchase at a certain level of income (budget) In fact whenundertaking an expenditure tourists first decide whether to incur such a costby comparing their purchase with other opportunities in other industries thenthey decide on the goods and services to buy based on the goods and servicesoffered on the market and the budget available Tourism expenditure is there-fore a consumer choice first between goods and services in various industriesand then between various expenditure in the tourism industry (Tribe 2005Zheng and Zhang 2011)

Consumers are assumed to be able to rank goods and services in such a waythat they can select the particular combinations for which their utility functiontakes the largest value at a certain level of income (budget) Furthermore theconsumerrsquos utility function is lsquoseparablersquo The separability and in particular theassumption of weak separability assumes independence only among groups ofcommodities instead of among individual commodities Focusing on tourismthis implies (Syriopoulos and Sinclair 1993) that first tourists allocate theirbudget between tourism activities and other goods and services second touristsallocate their tourism budget to a specific or multiple destinations including

11Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

the home country third tourists choose how to allocate their tourism budgetamong various goods and services offered by the selected destination(s) There-fore considering one single trip it is realistic to assume that the differenttourist expenditure categories are dependent on each other Until now littleattention has been paid to analysis of the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories the studies of Bilgic et al (2008) and Divisekera (2010)represent two important exceptions in the tourism demand literature

Data and structure of the questionnaire

The survey

The Bank of Italy (Banca drsquoItalia) annually conducts a survey entitled lsquoInter-national Tourism in Italyrsquo to determine the tourism balance of payments Themain aim of this survey is to monitor the travel expenditure and length of stayof inbound and outbound visitors fromto Italy Travel expenditure includes thetotal consumption of goods and services in the country visited divided into fiveexpenditure categories The inboundndashoutbound frontier survey is the techniqueadopted for the collection of the data

Figure 1 Study site

Belluno

VENETO

Trento

BolzanoTRENTINO-

SOUTH TYROL

12 TOURISM ECONOMICS

The stratified sampling method is applied (using different types of stratifiedvariables per each type of frontier) and facendashtondashface interviews are carried outat national borders (including highways railway airports and harbours) Sam-pling is done independently at each type of frontier Tourists are interviewedat the end of the trip when they are returning to their place of habitualresidence Interviews are conducted at different times of the day during bothworking days and holidays and month by month with a fixed number ofinterviews per each period of survey The questionnaires are anonymous and areoffered in 14 languages

The questionnaire can be divided into four main sections 1 sociondashdemo-graphic characteristics of the interviewee (gender age occupation and resi-dence) 2 information on the trip (number of nights spent type of accommo-dation cities visited means of transportation motives organization) 3 infor-mation on expenditure (total expenditure divided into different categories ofexpenditure means of payment) 4 level of satisfaction with different aspectsof the trip and overall satisfaction with the destination

In this study we focus on the 1030 foreign visitors who visited the provincesof Bolzano Trento and Belluno in 2011 (Banca drsquoItalia 2011) The first twoprovinces compose the Trentino South Tyrol region while Belluno is a provinceof the Veneto region These three provinces are located in Northern Italy (seeFigure 1) and are famous for the Dolomite range which stretches across all thethree Finally we take into consideration only international visitors whose mainpurpose of trip is lsquotourism holiday and leisurersquo

Descriptive analyses

The survey offers detailed information on the amount of money spent in thefive main categories of a typical travel budget (a) lsquoAccommodationrsquo (hotelapartment for rent campsite etc) which also includes expenditure on food andbeverage on the accommodation premises (b) lsquoFood and beveragesrsquo consumedoutside the accommodation premises (c) lsquoInternal transportationrsquo in the visiteddestination including purchase of fuel (d) lsquoShoppingrsquo including souvenirsgifts clothes food and beverages etc purchased only for personal use (e) lsquoOtherservicesrsquo like museums shows entertainment guided excursions languagecourses and so on

The sample consists of 8913 tourists (that is people who spent at leastone night in South Tyrol) and 1087 day-visitors During the trip the greatmajority of the sample said they had incurred costs for food and beverages(8592) internal transportation (7816) shopping (7767) and as ex-pected on the trip as a whole (978) In contrast only 3971 of the samplesaid they had incurred costs for other services When describing the expenditurebehaviour of the whole sample (see Table 1 for the average and median amountspent per night per person) we can observe that visitors typically spent a largepart of their travel budget on accommodation (about 43) spending on averageeuro42 per night per person This is followed by expenditure on food and bev-erages which accounts for 19 of the total travel budget with an averageexpenditure per night per person of euro19 and shopping (18 of the total travelbudget and euro18 spent on average per night per person) The least importantexpenditure categories are internal transportation and other services which

13Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Table 1 Mean (median) expenditure by different tourism categories per night per person

Item Whole sample Sub-sample of spenders

Accommodation 4224 (3000) 4739 (3500)Food and beverages 1232 (415) 2183 (1429)Transportation 1862 (833) 1576 (667)Shopping 1806 (625) 2325 (1000)Other services 714 (000) 1799 (918)Total travel expenditure 9851 (7517) 10076 (7700)

account for 13 and 7 respectively with an average expenditure per nightper person of euro12 and euro7

Another important group of variables collected through the survey concernsthe overall level of satisfaction with the destination and with the followingaspects of the trip hospitality and friendliness of the local inhabitants (lsquoFriend-linessrsquo) cities and works of art (lsquoArtrsquo) landscape and natural environment(lsquoLandscapersquo) hotels and other accommodation (lsquoAccommodationrsquo) lsquoFood andbeveragesrsquo price and cost of living (lsquoPricersquo) quality and variety of productsoffered in stores (lsquoProducts soldrsquo) information and tourist services (lsquoInforma-tionrsquo) safety of tourists (lsquoSafetyrsquo) A 10-point Likert scale was used with (1)indicating lsquoVery unsatisfiedrsquo and (10) lsquoVery satisfiedrsquo Figure 2 displays thepercentage distribution of the level of satisfaction per each observed item Thepercentage of visitors who attributed a value lower than 6 to the differentaspects of the trip is very low with the exception of lsquoPricersquo which shows thelowest mean and median value (both approximately equal to 7)

On average (see Table A1 in the Appendix) tourists spent 9 nights in the

Percentage

20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Very unsatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very satisfied

Hospitality

Art

Landscape

Accommodation

Food and beverages

Price

Products sold

Information

Safety

Overall

Figure 2 Level of overall satisfaction and satisfaction with different aspects ofthe trip

14 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Dolomite area mainly visiting only one city during the trip (79) and trav-elling with other people (79) For approximately 22 of the sample this wastheir first visit to Italy while 42 had already been to Italy more than fivetimes Visitors came mainly from Germany (38) Austria (14) and otherEuropean countries (39) while only 9 came from a country outside EuropeFinally about half of the sample was under 45 years of age

The econometric model

In order to investigate (a) the influence of the satisfaction both on overallexpenditure and on different expenditure categories and (b) the dependenceamong different tourist expenditure categories the Tobit model (Tobin 1958)or one of its generalizations can be adopted In fact this category of modelis the most suitable when the dependent variable is non-negative and thusessentially continuous over strictly positive values and it also takes zero valueswith positive probability (that is a non-trivial fraction of the population takeszero value) For this type of dependent variable the use of the multipleregression model estimated by using the well-known OLS method wouldproduce biased and inconsistent estimates of parameters (Maddala 1983Amemiya 1984)

Another important characteristic of the expenditure is that the monetaryvalue declared by the individual is the result of two possible processes assuggested by consumer choice theory (Pudney 1989) the individual decideswhether or not to purchase something (selection stage) and then he or shedecides how much money to spend on that purchase (outcome stage) Thereforeto observe a positive level of expenditure two distinct hurdles must be clearedIn this context it is preferable to adopt a two-stage generalization of the Tobitmodel the double-hurdle model (Cragg 1971) This model is performedthrough the estimation of two separate regression models the selection stageis estimated by the Probit model in order to estimate the probability ofspending or not spending on something the outcome stage is estimated by theOLS regression model to estimate the average amount of money spent in aparticular expenditure category In this way throughout the estimation of thedouble-hurdle model we can obtain two different sets of relevant independentvariables (one for each stage) whereas the estimation of the standard Tobitmodel identifies a single set of variables to measure the effect of both theselection and the outcome stage

To avoid the problem of sample selection ndash defined as an omitted variableproblem (Heckman 1976) ndash in this study the estimator proposed by Heien andWessells in the early 1990s is adopted (Heien and Wessells 1990 see forapplications Byrne et al 1996 Manrique and Jensen 1997) This estimatoris called inverse Millrsquos ratio (MR) and it is calculated for each observationthrough the estimates obtained in the first stage ndash that is through theestimation of the Probit model Contrary to the traditional Heckman two-stepestimator the MR variable allows correcting the problem of sample selectionusing all the observations in each stage Furthermore the MR variable isincorporated into the set of explanatory variables used in the regression esti-mated at the second stage playing a fundamental role in linking the two stages

15Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Figure 3 Schematic representation of research aims

It is important to note that if the estimated coefficient of the MR variable isnot significantly different from zero the decision to spend and the decision onhow much money to spend are independent and the sample selection problemis unimportant that is the sample selection rule ensures that all potentialobservations are sampled so that the Tobit model can be used instead of thedouble-hurdle model

The set of dependent and independent variables

Six suitable censored models one for the total tourist spending and one pereach expenditure item (lsquoAccommodationrsquo lsquoTransportationrsquo lsquoFood and bever-agesrsquo lsquoShoppingrsquo and lsquoOther servicesrsquo) were separately estimated Figure 3schematically represents the aims of this study to determine the influence ofsatisfaction on the tourist expenditure taking into consideration also the in-fluence of other independent variables listed and synthetically described inTable A1 of the Appendix and to study the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories This last aim has been analysed including among theset of independent variables the total travel expenditure allocated for a particu-lar tourist expenditure category excluding the one modelled Notice that allvariables regarding tourist expenditure (both dependent and independent) areper person per night and logarithmically transformed to handle more effectivelypossible non-linear relationships between the independent and dependent vari-ables

Model results

Since only 22 of the sample stated a zero value for the total visitor expendi-ture the Tobit model was used to identify the determinants of the totalexpenditure The five different expenditure categories were modelled using thedouble-hurdle model since it is interesting to estimate the selection and out-come stage separately thanks to the higher number of zero values

All the models were estimated using Whitersquos robust standard variancendashcovariance matrix (White 1980) to correct for possible heteroscedasticity of theerror term The backward results for the Tobit model are reported in Table 2

Independentvariables

Satisfaction

Dependent variables

Exp

endi

ture

cate

gorie

s

= Accommodation Transportation

Other services

Total expenditure

Characteristicsof the trip

Characteristicsof the visitor

16 TOURISM ECONOMICS

while Tables 3 and 4 present respectively the backward results for the first(selection) and second (outcome) stage of the five double-hurdle models esti-mated The results of the first stage model (Table 3) are reported as marginaleffects calculated at the median value of each explanatory variable (see TableA1 in the Appendix for the median values) Table 4 shows that MR issignificant for each model and this implies that the decisions (a) to spend ornot to spend and (b) how much to spend are dependent and can be explainedby different sets of explanatory variables for each of the tourism expenditurecategories considered Furthermore the significance of MR suggests that thedouble-hurdle model is appropriate

Influence of satisfaction on expenditure behaviour

Satisfaction with specific characteristics of the destination is found to besignificant in affecting visitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour in the willingness tospend in the amount of money spent within the different expenditure categoriesand finally in the total budget spent

As shown in Table 2 there is a strict correlation between satisfaction withlandscape and prices and the total expenditure per person per day Specificallyfor a one-unit increase in satisfaction with the landscape we expect to see abouta 76 increase in total visitor spending (e0073 asymp 1076) Similarly a one-unitincrease in satisfaction with prices produces about a 7 increase in totalexpenditure

Satisfaction with different characteristics of the destination exerts a positiveeffect also on the willingness to incur an expenditure within the differentspending categories As shown in Table 3 satisfaction with safety positivelyaffects the propensity to spend on accommodation food and beverages andshopping Satisfaction with landscape positively affects expenditure on acco-mmodation and transportation satisfaction with food and beverage positively

Table 2 Determinants of total tourist spending (ln transformed)

Independent variables Tobit model

Are you satisfied with the following aspects related to the tripLandscape 0073 (003)a

Price 0068 (002)Characteristics of tripNumber of nights ndash0033 (001)First time in Italy ndash0350 (012)Italy visited up to 5 times ndash0156 (008)Cities in the Dolomite area ndash0450 (009)Characteristics of touristAustria ndash0931 (017)Outside EU 0307 (016)Germany ndash0294 (008)Constant 3903 (036)

Notes aEstimated coefficients and robust standard errors in brackets Number ofobservations = 959 Wald chi2(9) = 26111 prob gt χ2 = 0 log pseudo-likelihood = ndash14549951 McKelvey and Zavoinarsquos R2 = 0240

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 5: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

9Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

been seen as a significant predictor of expenditure in the case of festival andevents (Kim et al 2010) at exhibitions (Zhang et al (2010) in the case ofpurchases at travel agencies (Chen and Chang 2012) at theme parks (Bigneacuteet al 2005) and in the hotel industry (Kim and Cha 2002) So far therelationship between satisfaction with destination attributes and expenditure isunder-researched and in light of neoclassical theory a new approach to this issuemust be taken

Visitorsrsquo expenditure theories and models

There is a substantial body of literature relating to tourismrsquos economic impactat the macro level but less is known about visitorsrsquo expenditure at a micro scaleAs stated by Alegre and Pou (2004) studies at the micro level have severaladvantages first they are closer to theoretical economic consumer modelssecond they preserve the choice by individuals not to spend any money fortourism services third they preserve the heterogeneity and diversity of indi-vidual consumer behaviour More recently Belenkiy and Riker (2013) under-lined that the main advantages in using micro data lie in the fact that thesedata report the expenditure of individual travellers together with demographicsocial or other characteristics that can be used to control (or profile) the unitsof analysis Nonetheless the main limitation is that it is not possible to modeldynamic adjustments because the datasets are not time-series

In a review of the literature Lim (2006) found only nine studies among the124 analysed in which ad hoc designed surveys were employed to take into examindividual economic units More recently Wang and Davidson (2010) identifiedand analysed 27 studies that used expenditure as the measure of individualsrsquodemand for tourism These studies clearly support the idea that the micro levelneeds to be studied further to fill a gap in the literature

Most of the microdata studies investigating tourism expenditure have usedordinary least squares (OLS) estimation in linear regression models (Wang andDavidson 2010 Brida and Scuderi 2013 Wu et al 2013) However thepresence of a high proportion of expenditure values equal to zero presentstourism spending as a non-negative (that is left-censored) distribution Thusthe OLS method may lead to inconsistent and bias parameter estimates (Maddala1983 Amemiya 1984) since the normal assumption of the dependent variableis often unrealistic To address the problem of zero expenditure and providea suitable estimation for censored dependent variables the Tobit regressionmodel (Tobin 1958) has been applied in the tourism field Leones et al (1998)Lee (2001) Zheng and Zhang (2011) Barquet et al (2011) Kim et al (2011)among others estimate tourism expenditure applying the Tobit model

A further evolution of the Tobit model is the lsquodoublendashhurdlersquo (Cragg 1971)model The main advantage of this model is that it enables the decision-makingprocess to be split into two natural stages or decisions following consumerchoice theory (Pudney 1989) (a) the decision to spend (selection stage) and(b) the choice of how much to spend (outcome stage) These stages are modelledthrough two separate models whereas in the Tobit model the two stages aretreated as if they were generated from the same consumer decision processassuming that the sets of independent variables influencing the selection stageare the same that influence with the same direction and intensity the outcome

10 TOURISM ECONOMICS

stage The Cragg model assumes that the two decisions are independent Thisimplies that the model applied at the second stage estimates the averagetourism spending using the data collected from a population in which indi-viduals who do not spend are excluded by self-selection The Heckman (1976)model allows the sample selection problem to be treated as a problem ofomitted variables and it corrects for bias in the estimation of the second stageequation by introducing a new variable ndash the inverse Millrsquos ratio ndash calculatedon the basis of the estimations obtained through the first stage equation Inthis way the Heckman model allows for the error term of both equations tobe correlated and the two decisions to be dependent More recently Heien andWessells (1990) proposed an alternative formula of the Millrsquos ratio that allowsall observations to be used in each stage whereas in the Heckman model thezero observations are omitted from the second stage Studies in which thedouble-hurdle model has been applied include Weagley and Huh (2004) whoanalysed leisure expenditure of retired and near-retired Americansrsquo householdsand Hong et al (1999) who investigated the travel expenditure patterns ofelderly households in the USA Recent applications of the Heckman modelinclude Alegre et alrsquos (2013) application to tourism participation and expendi-ture by Spanish households and Jang and Hamrsquos (2009) application to leisuretravellersrsquo expenditure distinguishing between baby boomer senior householdsand older senior households in the USA Finally the double-hurdle modelestimated by means of the Heien and Wessells two-step estimator has beenadopted by Marzetti and Disegna (2012) Brida et al (2012 2013a) and Bridaet al (2013b)

In addition to consumer choice theory according to which each decision-making process to purchase can be described as a two-step process anotherimportant economic theory must be taken into consideration when modellingexpenditure the neoclassical economic theory of consumer behaviour (Deatonand Muellbauer 1980) According to this theory consumers are rational andwish to maximize their utility function by choosing among a set of availablealternatives Thus the utility function can be described as the maximumsatisfaction that consumers obtain from the consumption of various goods andservices that they purchase at a certain level of income (budget) In fact whenundertaking an expenditure tourists first decide whether to incur such a costby comparing their purchase with other opportunities in other industries thenthey decide on the goods and services to buy based on the goods and servicesoffered on the market and the budget available Tourism expenditure is there-fore a consumer choice first between goods and services in various industriesand then between various expenditure in the tourism industry (Tribe 2005Zheng and Zhang 2011)

Consumers are assumed to be able to rank goods and services in such a waythat they can select the particular combinations for which their utility functiontakes the largest value at a certain level of income (budget) Furthermore theconsumerrsquos utility function is lsquoseparablersquo The separability and in particular theassumption of weak separability assumes independence only among groups ofcommodities instead of among individual commodities Focusing on tourismthis implies (Syriopoulos and Sinclair 1993) that first tourists allocate theirbudget between tourism activities and other goods and services second touristsallocate their tourism budget to a specific or multiple destinations including

11Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

the home country third tourists choose how to allocate their tourism budgetamong various goods and services offered by the selected destination(s) There-fore considering one single trip it is realistic to assume that the differenttourist expenditure categories are dependent on each other Until now littleattention has been paid to analysis of the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories the studies of Bilgic et al (2008) and Divisekera (2010)represent two important exceptions in the tourism demand literature

Data and structure of the questionnaire

The survey

The Bank of Italy (Banca drsquoItalia) annually conducts a survey entitled lsquoInter-national Tourism in Italyrsquo to determine the tourism balance of payments Themain aim of this survey is to monitor the travel expenditure and length of stayof inbound and outbound visitors fromto Italy Travel expenditure includes thetotal consumption of goods and services in the country visited divided into fiveexpenditure categories The inboundndashoutbound frontier survey is the techniqueadopted for the collection of the data

Figure 1 Study site

Belluno

VENETO

Trento

BolzanoTRENTINO-

SOUTH TYROL

12 TOURISM ECONOMICS

The stratified sampling method is applied (using different types of stratifiedvariables per each type of frontier) and facendashtondashface interviews are carried outat national borders (including highways railway airports and harbours) Sam-pling is done independently at each type of frontier Tourists are interviewedat the end of the trip when they are returning to their place of habitualresidence Interviews are conducted at different times of the day during bothworking days and holidays and month by month with a fixed number ofinterviews per each period of survey The questionnaires are anonymous and areoffered in 14 languages

The questionnaire can be divided into four main sections 1 sociondashdemo-graphic characteristics of the interviewee (gender age occupation and resi-dence) 2 information on the trip (number of nights spent type of accommo-dation cities visited means of transportation motives organization) 3 infor-mation on expenditure (total expenditure divided into different categories ofexpenditure means of payment) 4 level of satisfaction with different aspectsof the trip and overall satisfaction with the destination

In this study we focus on the 1030 foreign visitors who visited the provincesof Bolzano Trento and Belluno in 2011 (Banca drsquoItalia 2011) The first twoprovinces compose the Trentino South Tyrol region while Belluno is a provinceof the Veneto region These three provinces are located in Northern Italy (seeFigure 1) and are famous for the Dolomite range which stretches across all thethree Finally we take into consideration only international visitors whose mainpurpose of trip is lsquotourism holiday and leisurersquo

Descriptive analyses

The survey offers detailed information on the amount of money spent in thefive main categories of a typical travel budget (a) lsquoAccommodationrsquo (hotelapartment for rent campsite etc) which also includes expenditure on food andbeverage on the accommodation premises (b) lsquoFood and beveragesrsquo consumedoutside the accommodation premises (c) lsquoInternal transportationrsquo in the visiteddestination including purchase of fuel (d) lsquoShoppingrsquo including souvenirsgifts clothes food and beverages etc purchased only for personal use (e) lsquoOtherservicesrsquo like museums shows entertainment guided excursions languagecourses and so on

The sample consists of 8913 tourists (that is people who spent at leastone night in South Tyrol) and 1087 day-visitors During the trip the greatmajority of the sample said they had incurred costs for food and beverages(8592) internal transportation (7816) shopping (7767) and as ex-pected on the trip as a whole (978) In contrast only 3971 of the samplesaid they had incurred costs for other services When describing the expenditurebehaviour of the whole sample (see Table 1 for the average and median amountspent per night per person) we can observe that visitors typically spent a largepart of their travel budget on accommodation (about 43) spending on averageeuro42 per night per person This is followed by expenditure on food and bev-erages which accounts for 19 of the total travel budget with an averageexpenditure per night per person of euro19 and shopping (18 of the total travelbudget and euro18 spent on average per night per person) The least importantexpenditure categories are internal transportation and other services which

13Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Table 1 Mean (median) expenditure by different tourism categories per night per person

Item Whole sample Sub-sample of spenders

Accommodation 4224 (3000) 4739 (3500)Food and beverages 1232 (415) 2183 (1429)Transportation 1862 (833) 1576 (667)Shopping 1806 (625) 2325 (1000)Other services 714 (000) 1799 (918)Total travel expenditure 9851 (7517) 10076 (7700)

account for 13 and 7 respectively with an average expenditure per nightper person of euro12 and euro7

Another important group of variables collected through the survey concernsthe overall level of satisfaction with the destination and with the followingaspects of the trip hospitality and friendliness of the local inhabitants (lsquoFriend-linessrsquo) cities and works of art (lsquoArtrsquo) landscape and natural environment(lsquoLandscapersquo) hotels and other accommodation (lsquoAccommodationrsquo) lsquoFood andbeveragesrsquo price and cost of living (lsquoPricersquo) quality and variety of productsoffered in stores (lsquoProducts soldrsquo) information and tourist services (lsquoInforma-tionrsquo) safety of tourists (lsquoSafetyrsquo) A 10-point Likert scale was used with (1)indicating lsquoVery unsatisfiedrsquo and (10) lsquoVery satisfiedrsquo Figure 2 displays thepercentage distribution of the level of satisfaction per each observed item Thepercentage of visitors who attributed a value lower than 6 to the differentaspects of the trip is very low with the exception of lsquoPricersquo which shows thelowest mean and median value (both approximately equal to 7)

On average (see Table A1 in the Appendix) tourists spent 9 nights in the

Percentage

20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Very unsatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very satisfied

Hospitality

Art

Landscape

Accommodation

Food and beverages

Price

Products sold

Information

Safety

Overall

Figure 2 Level of overall satisfaction and satisfaction with different aspects ofthe trip

14 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Dolomite area mainly visiting only one city during the trip (79) and trav-elling with other people (79) For approximately 22 of the sample this wastheir first visit to Italy while 42 had already been to Italy more than fivetimes Visitors came mainly from Germany (38) Austria (14) and otherEuropean countries (39) while only 9 came from a country outside EuropeFinally about half of the sample was under 45 years of age

The econometric model

In order to investigate (a) the influence of the satisfaction both on overallexpenditure and on different expenditure categories and (b) the dependenceamong different tourist expenditure categories the Tobit model (Tobin 1958)or one of its generalizations can be adopted In fact this category of modelis the most suitable when the dependent variable is non-negative and thusessentially continuous over strictly positive values and it also takes zero valueswith positive probability (that is a non-trivial fraction of the population takeszero value) For this type of dependent variable the use of the multipleregression model estimated by using the well-known OLS method wouldproduce biased and inconsistent estimates of parameters (Maddala 1983Amemiya 1984)

Another important characteristic of the expenditure is that the monetaryvalue declared by the individual is the result of two possible processes assuggested by consumer choice theory (Pudney 1989) the individual decideswhether or not to purchase something (selection stage) and then he or shedecides how much money to spend on that purchase (outcome stage) Thereforeto observe a positive level of expenditure two distinct hurdles must be clearedIn this context it is preferable to adopt a two-stage generalization of the Tobitmodel the double-hurdle model (Cragg 1971) This model is performedthrough the estimation of two separate regression models the selection stageis estimated by the Probit model in order to estimate the probability ofspending or not spending on something the outcome stage is estimated by theOLS regression model to estimate the average amount of money spent in aparticular expenditure category In this way throughout the estimation of thedouble-hurdle model we can obtain two different sets of relevant independentvariables (one for each stage) whereas the estimation of the standard Tobitmodel identifies a single set of variables to measure the effect of both theselection and the outcome stage

To avoid the problem of sample selection ndash defined as an omitted variableproblem (Heckman 1976) ndash in this study the estimator proposed by Heien andWessells in the early 1990s is adopted (Heien and Wessells 1990 see forapplications Byrne et al 1996 Manrique and Jensen 1997) This estimatoris called inverse Millrsquos ratio (MR) and it is calculated for each observationthrough the estimates obtained in the first stage ndash that is through theestimation of the Probit model Contrary to the traditional Heckman two-stepestimator the MR variable allows correcting the problem of sample selectionusing all the observations in each stage Furthermore the MR variable isincorporated into the set of explanatory variables used in the regression esti-mated at the second stage playing a fundamental role in linking the two stages

15Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Figure 3 Schematic representation of research aims

It is important to note that if the estimated coefficient of the MR variable isnot significantly different from zero the decision to spend and the decision onhow much money to spend are independent and the sample selection problemis unimportant that is the sample selection rule ensures that all potentialobservations are sampled so that the Tobit model can be used instead of thedouble-hurdle model

The set of dependent and independent variables

Six suitable censored models one for the total tourist spending and one pereach expenditure item (lsquoAccommodationrsquo lsquoTransportationrsquo lsquoFood and bever-agesrsquo lsquoShoppingrsquo and lsquoOther servicesrsquo) were separately estimated Figure 3schematically represents the aims of this study to determine the influence ofsatisfaction on the tourist expenditure taking into consideration also the in-fluence of other independent variables listed and synthetically described inTable A1 of the Appendix and to study the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories This last aim has been analysed including among theset of independent variables the total travel expenditure allocated for a particu-lar tourist expenditure category excluding the one modelled Notice that allvariables regarding tourist expenditure (both dependent and independent) areper person per night and logarithmically transformed to handle more effectivelypossible non-linear relationships between the independent and dependent vari-ables

Model results

Since only 22 of the sample stated a zero value for the total visitor expendi-ture the Tobit model was used to identify the determinants of the totalexpenditure The five different expenditure categories were modelled using thedouble-hurdle model since it is interesting to estimate the selection and out-come stage separately thanks to the higher number of zero values

All the models were estimated using Whitersquos robust standard variancendashcovariance matrix (White 1980) to correct for possible heteroscedasticity of theerror term The backward results for the Tobit model are reported in Table 2

Independentvariables

Satisfaction

Dependent variables

Exp

endi

ture

cate

gorie

s

= Accommodation Transportation

Other services

Total expenditure

Characteristicsof the trip

Characteristicsof the visitor

16 TOURISM ECONOMICS

while Tables 3 and 4 present respectively the backward results for the first(selection) and second (outcome) stage of the five double-hurdle models esti-mated The results of the first stage model (Table 3) are reported as marginaleffects calculated at the median value of each explanatory variable (see TableA1 in the Appendix for the median values) Table 4 shows that MR issignificant for each model and this implies that the decisions (a) to spend ornot to spend and (b) how much to spend are dependent and can be explainedby different sets of explanatory variables for each of the tourism expenditurecategories considered Furthermore the significance of MR suggests that thedouble-hurdle model is appropriate

Influence of satisfaction on expenditure behaviour

Satisfaction with specific characteristics of the destination is found to besignificant in affecting visitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour in the willingness tospend in the amount of money spent within the different expenditure categoriesand finally in the total budget spent

As shown in Table 2 there is a strict correlation between satisfaction withlandscape and prices and the total expenditure per person per day Specificallyfor a one-unit increase in satisfaction with the landscape we expect to see abouta 76 increase in total visitor spending (e0073 asymp 1076) Similarly a one-unitincrease in satisfaction with prices produces about a 7 increase in totalexpenditure

Satisfaction with different characteristics of the destination exerts a positiveeffect also on the willingness to incur an expenditure within the differentspending categories As shown in Table 3 satisfaction with safety positivelyaffects the propensity to spend on accommodation food and beverages andshopping Satisfaction with landscape positively affects expenditure on acco-mmodation and transportation satisfaction with food and beverage positively

Table 2 Determinants of total tourist spending (ln transformed)

Independent variables Tobit model

Are you satisfied with the following aspects related to the tripLandscape 0073 (003)a

Price 0068 (002)Characteristics of tripNumber of nights ndash0033 (001)First time in Italy ndash0350 (012)Italy visited up to 5 times ndash0156 (008)Cities in the Dolomite area ndash0450 (009)Characteristics of touristAustria ndash0931 (017)Outside EU 0307 (016)Germany ndash0294 (008)Constant 3903 (036)

Notes aEstimated coefficients and robust standard errors in brackets Number ofobservations = 959 Wald chi2(9) = 26111 prob gt χ2 = 0 log pseudo-likelihood = ndash14549951 McKelvey and Zavoinarsquos R2 = 0240

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 6: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

10 TOURISM ECONOMICS

stage The Cragg model assumes that the two decisions are independent Thisimplies that the model applied at the second stage estimates the averagetourism spending using the data collected from a population in which indi-viduals who do not spend are excluded by self-selection The Heckman (1976)model allows the sample selection problem to be treated as a problem ofomitted variables and it corrects for bias in the estimation of the second stageequation by introducing a new variable ndash the inverse Millrsquos ratio ndash calculatedon the basis of the estimations obtained through the first stage equation Inthis way the Heckman model allows for the error term of both equations tobe correlated and the two decisions to be dependent More recently Heien andWessells (1990) proposed an alternative formula of the Millrsquos ratio that allowsall observations to be used in each stage whereas in the Heckman model thezero observations are omitted from the second stage Studies in which thedouble-hurdle model has been applied include Weagley and Huh (2004) whoanalysed leisure expenditure of retired and near-retired Americansrsquo householdsand Hong et al (1999) who investigated the travel expenditure patterns ofelderly households in the USA Recent applications of the Heckman modelinclude Alegre et alrsquos (2013) application to tourism participation and expendi-ture by Spanish households and Jang and Hamrsquos (2009) application to leisuretravellersrsquo expenditure distinguishing between baby boomer senior householdsand older senior households in the USA Finally the double-hurdle modelestimated by means of the Heien and Wessells two-step estimator has beenadopted by Marzetti and Disegna (2012) Brida et al (2012 2013a) and Bridaet al (2013b)

In addition to consumer choice theory according to which each decision-making process to purchase can be described as a two-step process anotherimportant economic theory must be taken into consideration when modellingexpenditure the neoclassical economic theory of consumer behaviour (Deatonand Muellbauer 1980) According to this theory consumers are rational andwish to maximize their utility function by choosing among a set of availablealternatives Thus the utility function can be described as the maximumsatisfaction that consumers obtain from the consumption of various goods andservices that they purchase at a certain level of income (budget) In fact whenundertaking an expenditure tourists first decide whether to incur such a costby comparing their purchase with other opportunities in other industries thenthey decide on the goods and services to buy based on the goods and servicesoffered on the market and the budget available Tourism expenditure is there-fore a consumer choice first between goods and services in various industriesand then between various expenditure in the tourism industry (Tribe 2005Zheng and Zhang 2011)

Consumers are assumed to be able to rank goods and services in such a waythat they can select the particular combinations for which their utility functiontakes the largest value at a certain level of income (budget) Furthermore theconsumerrsquos utility function is lsquoseparablersquo The separability and in particular theassumption of weak separability assumes independence only among groups ofcommodities instead of among individual commodities Focusing on tourismthis implies (Syriopoulos and Sinclair 1993) that first tourists allocate theirbudget between tourism activities and other goods and services second touristsallocate their tourism budget to a specific or multiple destinations including

11Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

the home country third tourists choose how to allocate their tourism budgetamong various goods and services offered by the selected destination(s) There-fore considering one single trip it is realistic to assume that the differenttourist expenditure categories are dependent on each other Until now littleattention has been paid to analysis of the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories the studies of Bilgic et al (2008) and Divisekera (2010)represent two important exceptions in the tourism demand literature

Data and structure of the questionnaire

The survey

The Bank of Italy (Banca drsquoItalia) annually conducts a survey entitled lsquoInter-national Tourism in Italyrsquo to determine the tourism balance of payments Themain aim of this survey is to monitor the travel expenditure and length of stayof inbound and outbound visitors fromto Italy Travel expenditure includes thetotal consumption of goods and services in the country visited divided into fiveexpenditure categories The inboundndashoutbound frontier survey is the techniqueadopted for the collection of the data

Figure 1 Study site

Belluno

VENETO

Trento

BolzanoTRENTINO-

SOUTH TYROL

12 TOURISM ECONOMICS

The stratified sampling method is applied (using different types of stratifiedvariables per each type of frontier) and facendashtondashface interviews are carried outat national borders (including highways railway airports and harbours) Sam-pling is done independently at each type of frontier Tourists are interviewedat the end of the trip when they are returning to their place of habitualresidence Interviews are conducted at different times of the day during bothworking days and holidays and month by month with a fixed number ofinterviews per each period of survey The questionnaires are anonymous and areoffered in 14 languages

The questionnaire can be divided into four main sections 1 sociondashdemo-graphic characteristics of the interviewee (gender age occupation and resi-dence) 2 information on the trip (number of nights spent type of accommo-dation cities visited means of transportation motives organization) 3 infor-mation on expenditure (total expenditure divided into different categories ofexpenditure means of payment) 4 level of satisfaction with different aspectsof the trip and overall satisfaction with the destination

In this study we focus on the 1030 foreign visitors who visited the provincesof Bolzano Trento and Belluno in 2011 (Banca drsquoItalia 2011) The first twoprovinces compose the Trentino South Tyrol region while Belluno is a provinceof the Veneto region These three provinces are located in Northern Italy (seeFigure 1) and are famous for the Dolomite range which stretches across all thethree Finally we take into consideration only international visitors whose mainpurpose of trip is lsquotourism holiday and leisurersquo

Descriptive analyses

The survey offers detailed information on the amount of money spent in thefive main categories of a typical travel budget (a) lsquoAccommodationrsquo (hotelapartment for rent campsite etc) which also includes expenditure on food andbeverage on the accommodation premises (b) lsquoFood and beveragesrsquo consumedoutside the accommodation premises (c) lsquoInternal transportationrsquo in the visiteddestination including purchase of fuel (d) lsquoShoppingrsquo including souvenirsgifts clothes food and beverages etc purchased only for personal use (e) lsquoOtherservicesrsquo like museums shows entertainment guided excursions languagecourses and so on

The sample consists of 8913 tourists (that is people who spent at leastone night in South Tyrol) and 1087 day-visitors During the trip the greatmajority of the sample said they had incurred costs for food and beverages(8592) internal transportation (7816) shopping (7767) and as ex-pected on the trip as a whole (978) In contrast only 3971 of the samplesaid they had incurred costs for other services When describing the expenditurebehaviour of the whole sample (see Table 1 for the average and median amountspent per night per person) we can observe that visitors typically spent a largepart of their travel budget on accommodation (about 43) spending on averageeuro42 per night per person This is followed by expenditure on food and bev-erages which accounts for 19 of the total travel budget with an averageexpenditure per night per person of euro19 and shopping (18 of the total travelbudget and euro18 spent on average per night per person) The least importantexpenditure categories are internal transportation and other services which

13Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Table 1 Mean (median) expenditure by different tourism categories per night per person

Item Whole sample Sub-sample of spenders

Accommodation 4224 (3000) 4739 (3500)Food and beverages 1232 (415) 2183 (1429)Transportation 1862 (833) 1576 (667)Shopping 1806 (625) 2325 (1000)Other services 714 (000) 1799 (918)Total travel expenditure 9851 (7517) 10076 (7700)

account for 13 and 7 respectively with an average expenditure per nightper person of euro12 and euro7

Another important group of variables collected through the survey concernsthe overall level of satisfaction with the destination and with the followingaspects of the trip hospitality and friendliness of the local inhabitants (lsquoFriend-linessrsquo) cities and works of art (lsquoArtrsquo) landscape and natural environment(lsquoLandscapersquo) hotels and other accommodation (lsquoAccommodationrsquo) lsquoFood andbeveragesrsquo price and cost of living (lsquoPricersquo) quality and variety of productsoffered in stores (lsquoProducts soldrsquo) information and tourist services (lsquoInforma-tionrsquo) safety of tourists (lsquoSafetyrsquo) A 10-point Likert scale was used with (1)indicating lsquoVery unsatisfiedrsquo and (10) lsquoVery satisfiedrsquo Figure 2 displays thepercentage distribution of the level of satisfaction per each observed item Thepercentage of visitors who attributed a value lower than 6 to the differentaspects of the trip is very low with the exception of lsquoPricersquo which shows thelowest mean and median value (both approximately equal to 7)

On average (see Table A1 in the Appendix) tourists spent 9 nights in the

Percentage

20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Very unsatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very satisfied

Hospitality

Art

Landscape

Accommodation

Food and beverages

Price

Products sold

Information

Safety

Overall

Figure 2 Level of overall satisfaction and satisfaction with different aspects ofthe trip

14 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Dolomite area mainly visiting only one city during the trip (79) and trav-elling with other people (79) For approximately 22 of the sample this wastheir first visit to Italy while 42 had already been to Italy more than fivetimes Visitors came mainly from Germany (38) Austria (14) and otherEuropean countries (39) while only 9 came from a country outside EuropeFinally about half of the sample was under 45 years of age

The econometric model

In order to investigate (a) the influence of the satisfaction both on overallexpenditure and on different expenditure categories and (b) the dependenceamong different tourist expenditure categories the Tobit model (Tobin 1958)or one of its generalizations can be adopted In fact this category of modelis the most suitable when the dependent variable is non-negative and thusessentially continuous over strictly positive values and it also takes zero valueswith positive probability (that is a non-trivial fraction of the population takeszero value) For this type of dependent variable the use of the multipleregression model estimated by using the well-known OLS method wouldproduce biased and inconsistent estimates of parameters (Maddala 1983Amemiya 1984)

Another important characteristic of the expenditure is that the monetaryvalue declared by the individual is the result of two possible processes assuggested by consumer choice theory (Pudney 1989) the individual decideswhether or not to purchase something (selection stage) and then he or shedecides how much money to spend on that purchase (outcome stage) Thereforeto observe a positive level of expenditure two distinct hurdles must be clearedIn this context it is preferable to adopt a two-stage generalization of the Tobitmodel the double-hurdle model (Cragg 1971) This model is performedthrough the estimation of two separate regression models the selection stageis estimated by the Probit model in order to estimate the probability ofspending or not spending on something the outcome stage is estimated by theOLS regression model to estimate the average amount of money spent in aparticular expenditure category In this way throughout the estimation of thedouble-hurdle model we can obtain two different sets of relevant independentvariables (one for each stage) whereas the estimation of the standard Tobitmodel identifies a single set of variables to measure the effect of both theselection and the outcome stage

To avoid the problem of sample selection ndash defined as an omitted variableproblem (Heckman 1976) ndash in this study the estimator proposed by Heien andWessells in the early 1990s is adopted (Heien and Wessells 1990 see forapplications Byrne et al 1996 Manrique and Jensen 1997) This estimatoris called inverse Millrsquos ratio (MR) and it is calculated for each observationthrough the estimates obtained in the first stage ndash that is through theestimation of the Probit model Contrary to the traditional Heckman two-stepestimator the MR variable allows correcting the problem of sample selectionusing all the observations in each stage Furthermore the MR variable isincorporated into the set of explanatory variables used in the regression esti-mated at the second stage playing a fundamental role in linking the two stages

15Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Figure 3 Schematic representation of research aims

It is important to note that if the estimated coefficient of the MR variable isnot significantly different from zero the decision to spend and the decision onhow much money to spend are independent and the sample selection problemis unimportant that is the sample selection rule ensures that all potentialobservations are sampled so that the Tobit model can be used instead of thedouble-hurdle model

The set of dependent and independent variables

Six suitable censored models one for the total tourist spending and one pereach expenditure item (lsquoAccommodationrsquo lsquoTransportationrsquo lsquoFood and bever-agesrsquo lsquoShoppingrsquo and lsquoOther servicesrsquo) were separately estimated Figure 3schematically represents the aims of this study to determine the influence ofsatisfaction on the tourist expenditure taking into consideration also the in-fluence of other independent variables listed and synthetically described inTable A1 of the Appendix and to study the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories This last aim has been analysed including among theset of independent variables the total travel expenditure allocated for a particu-lar tourist expenditure category excluding the one modelled Notice that allvariables regarding tourist expenditure (both dependent and independent) areper person per night and logarithmically transformed to handle more effectivelypossible non-linear relationships between the independent and dependent vari-ables

Model results

Since only 22 of the sample stated a zero value for the total visitor expendi-ture the Tobit model was used to identify the determinants of the totalexpenditure The five different expenditure categories were modelled using thedouble-hurdle model since it is interesting to estimate the selection and out-come stage separately thanks to the higher number of zero values

All the models were estimated using Whitersquos robust standard variancendashcovariance matrix (White 1980) to correct for possible heteroscedasticity of theerror term The backward results for the Tobit model are reported in Table 2

Independentvariables

Satisfaction

Dependent variables

Exp

endi

ture

cate

gorie

s

= Accommodation Transportation

Other services

Total expenditure

Characteristicsof the trip

Characteristicsof the visitor

16 TOURISM ECONOMICS

while Tables 3 and 4 present respectively the backward results for the first(selection) and second (outcome) stage of the five double-hurdle models esti-mated The results of the first stage model (Table 3) are reported as marginaleffects calculated at the median value of each explanatory variable (see TableA1 in the Appendix for the median values) Table 4 shows that MR issignificant for each model and this implies that the decisions (a) to spend ornot to spend and (b) how much to spend are dependent and can be explainedby different sets of explanatory variables for each of the tourism expenditurecategories considered Furthermore the significance of MR suggests that thedouble-hurdle model is appropriate

Influence of satisfaction on expenditure behaviour

Satisfaction with specific characteristics of the destination is found to besignificant in affecting visitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour in the willingness tospend in the amount of money spent within the different expenditure categoriesand finally in the total budget spent

As shown in Table 2 there is a strict correlation between satisfaction withlandscape and prices and the total expenditure per person per day Specificallyfor a one-unit increase in satisfaction with the landscape we expect to see abouta 76 increase in total visitor spending (e0073 asymp 1076) Similarly a one-unitincrease in satisfaction with prices produces about a 7 increase in totalexpenditure

Satisfaction with different characteristics of the destination exerts a positiveeffect also on the willingness to incur an expenditure within the differentspending categories As shown in Table 3 satisfaction with safety positivelyaffects the propensity to spend on accommodation food and beverages andshopping Satisfaction with landscape positively affects expenditure on acco-mmodation and transportation satisfaction with food and beverage positively

Table 2 Determinants of total tourist spending (ln transformed)

Independent variables Tobit model

Are you satisfied with the following aspects related to the tripLandscape 0073 (003)a

Price 0068 (002)Characteristics of tripNumber of nights ndash0033 (001)First time in Italy ndash0350 (012)Italy visited up to 5 times ndash0156 (008)Cities in the Dolomite area ndash0450 (009)Characteristics of touristAustria ndash0931 (017)Outside EU 0307 (016)Germany ndash0294 (008)Constant 3903 (036)

Notes aEstimated coefficients and robust standard errors in brackets Number ofobservations = 959 Wald chi2(9) = 26111 prob gt χ2 = 0 log pseudo-likelihood = ndash14549951 McKelvey and Zavoinarsquos R2 = 0240

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 7: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

11Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

the home country third tourists choose how to allocate their tourism budgetamong various goods and services offered by the selected destination(s) There-fore considering one single trip it is realistic to assume that the differenttourist expenditure categories are dependent on each other Until now littleattention has been paid to analysis of the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories the studies of Bilgic et al (2008) and Divisekera (2010)represent two important exceptions in the tourism demand literature

Data and structure of the questionnaire

The survey

The Bank of Italy (Banca drsquoItalia) annually conducts a survey entitled lsquoInter-national Tourism in Italyrsquo to determine the tourism balance of payments Themain aim of this survey is to monitor the travel expenditure and length of stayof inbound and outbound visitors fromto Italy Travel expenditure includes thetotal consumption of goods and services in the country visited divided into fiveexpenditure categories The inboundndashoutbound frontier survey is the techniqueadopted for the collection of the data

Figure 1 Study site

Belluno

VENETO

Trento

BolzanoTRENTINO-

SOUTH TYROL

12 TOURISM ECONOMICS

The stratified sampling method is applied (using different types of stratifiedvariables per each type of frontier) and facendashtondashface interviews are carried outat national borders (including highways railway airports and harbours) Sam-pling is done independently at each type of frontier Tourists are interviewedat the end of the trip when they are returning to their place of habitualresidence Interviews are conducted at different times of the day during bothworking days and holidays and month by month with a fixed number ofinterviews per each period of survey The questionnaires are anonymous and areoffered in 14 languages

The questionnaire can be divided into four main sections 1 sociondashdemo-graphic characteristics of the interviewee (gender age occupation and resi-dence) 2 information on the trip (number of nights spent type of accommo-dation cities visited means of transportation motives organization) 3 infor-mation on expenditure (total expenditure divided into different categories ofexpenditure means of payment) 4 level of satisfaction with different aspectsof the trip and overall satisfaction with the destination

In this study we focus on the 1030 foreign visitors who visited the provincesof Bolzano Trento and Belluno in 2011 (Banca drsquoItalia 2011) The first twoprovinces compose the Trentino South Tyrol region while Belluno is a provinceof the Veneto region These three provinces are located in Northern Italy (seeFigure 1) and are famous for the Dolomite range which stretches across all thethree Finally we take into consideration only international visitors whose mainpurpose of trip is lsquotourism holiday and leisurersquo

Descriptive analyses

The survey offers detailed information on the amount of money spent in thefive main categories of a typical travel budget (a) lsquoAccommodationrsquo (hotelapartment for rent campsite etc) which also includes expenditure on food andbeverage on the accommodation premises (b) lsquoFood and beveragesrsquo consumedoutside the accommodation premises (c) lsquoInternal transportationrsquo in the visiteddestination including purchase of fuel (d) lsquoShoppingrsquo including souvenirsgifts clothes food and beverages etc purchased only for personal use (e) lsquoOtherservicesrsquo like museums shows entertainment guided excursions languagecourses and so on

The sample consists of 8913 tourists (that is people who spent at leastone night in South Tyrol) and 1087 day-visitors During the trip the greatmajority of the sample said they had incurred costs for food and beverages(8592) internal transportation (7816) shopping (7767) and as ex-pected on the trip as a whole (978) In contrast only 3971 of the samplesaid they had incurred costs for other services When describing the expenditurebehaviour of the whole sample (see Table 1 for the average and median amountspent per night per person) we can observe that visitors typically spent a largepart of their travel budget on accommodation (about 43) spending on averageeuro42 per night per person This is followed by expenditure on food and bev-erages which accounts for 19 of the total travel budget with an averageexpenditure per night per person of euro19 and shopping (18 of the total travelbudget and euro18 spent on average per night per person) The least importantexpenditure categories are internal transportation and other services which

13Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Table 1 Mean (median) expenditure by different tourism categories per night per person

Item Whole sample Sub-sample of spenders

Accommodation 4224 (3000) 4739 (3500)Food and beverages 1232 (415) 2183 (1429)Transportation 1862 (833) 1576 (667)Shopping 1806 (625) 2325 (1000)Other services 714 (000) 1799 (918)Total travel expenditure 9851 (7517) 10076 (7700)

account for 13 and 7 respectively with an average expenditure per nightper person of euro12 and euro7

Another important group of variables collected through the survey concernsthe overall level of satisfaction with the destination and with the followingaspects of the trip hospitality and friendliness of the local inhabitants (lsquoFriend-linessrsquo) cities and works of art (lsquoArtrsquo) landscape and natural environment(lsquoLandscapersquo) hotels and other accommodation (lsquoAccommodationrsquo) lsquoFood andbeveragesrsquo price and cost of living (lsquoPricersquo) quality and variety of productsoffered in stores (lsquoProducts soldrsquo) information and tourist services (lsquoInforma-tionrsquo) safety of tourists (lsquoSafetyrsquo) A 10-point Likert scale was used with (1)indicating lsquoVery unsatisfiedrsquo and (10) lsquoVery satisfiedrsquo Figure 2 displays thepercentage distribution of the level of satisfaction per each observed item Thepercentage of visitors who attributed a value lower than 6 to the differentaspects of the trip is very low with the exception of lsquoPricersquo which shows thelowest mean and median value (both approximately equal to 7)

On average (see Table A1 in the Appendix) tourists spent 9 nights in the

Percentage

20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Very unsatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very satisfied

Hospitality

Art

Landscape

Accommodation

Food and beverages

Price

Products sold

Information

Safety

Overall

Figure 2 Level of overall satisfaction and satisfaction with different aspects ofthe trip

14 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Dolomite area mainly visiting only one city during the trip (79) and trav-elling with other people (79) For approximately 22 of the sample this wastheir first visit to Italy while 42 had already been to Italy more than fivetimes Visitors came mainly from Germany (38) Austria (14) and otherEuropean countries (39) while only 9 came from a country outside EuropeFinally about half of the sample was under 45 years of age

The econometric model

In order to investigate (a) the influence of the satisfaction both on overallexpenditure and on different expenditure categories and (b) the dependenceamong different tourist expenditure categories the Tobit model (Tobin 1958)or one of its generalizations can be adopted In fact this category of modelis the most suitable when the dependent variable is non-negative and thusessentially continuous over strictly positive values and it also takes zero valueswith positive probability (that is a non-trivial fraction of the population takeszero value) For this type of dependent variable the use of the multipleregression model estimated by using the well-known OLS method wouldproduce biased and inconsistent estimates of parameters (Maddala 1983Amemiya 1984)

Another important characteristic of the expenditure is that the monetaryvalue declared by the individual is the result of two possible processes assuggested by consumer choice theory (Pudney 1989) the individual decideswhether or not to purchase something (selection stage) and then he or shedecides how much money to spend on that purchase (outcome stage) Thereforeto observe a positive level of expenditure two distinct hurdles must be clearedIn this context it is preferable to adopt a two-stage generalization of the Tobitmodel the double-hurdle model (Cragg 1971) This model is performedthrough the estimation of two separate regression models the selection stageis estimated by the Probit model in order to estimate the probability ofspending or not spending on something the outcome stage is estimated by theOLS regression model to estimate the average amount of money spent in aparticular expenditure category In this way throughout the estimation of thedouble-hurdle model we can obtain two different sets of relevant independentvariables (one for each stage) whereas the estimation of the standard Tobitmodel identifies a single set of variables to measure the effect of both theselection and the outcome stage

To avoid the problem of sample selection ndash defined as an omitted variableproblem (Heckman 1976) ndash in this study the estimator proposed by Heien andWessells in the early 1990s is adopted (Heien and Wessells 1990 see forapplications Byrne et al 1996 Manrique and Jensen 1997) This estimatoris called inverse Millrsquos ratio (MR) and it is calculated for each observationthrough the estimates obtained in the first stage ndash that is through theestimation of the Probit model Contrary to the traditional Heckman two-stepestimator the MR variable allows correcting the problem of sample selectionusing all the observations in each stage Furthermore the MR variable isincorporated into the set of explanatory variables used in the regression esti-mated at the second stage playing a fundamental role in linking the two stages

15Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Figure 3 Schematic representation of research aims

It is important to note that if the estimated coefficient of the MR variable isnot significantly different from zero the decision to spend and the decision onhow much money to spend are independent and the sample selection problemis unimportant that is the sample selection rule ensures that all potentialobservations are sampled so that the Tobit model can be used instead of thedouble-hurdle model

The set of dependent and independent variables

Six suitable censored models one for the total tourist spending and one pereach expenditure item (lsquoAccommodationrsquo lsquoTransportationrsquo lsquoFood and bever-agesrsquo lsquoShoppingrsquo and lsquoOther servicesrsquo) were separately estimated Figure 3schematically represents the aims of this study to determine the influence ofsatisfaction on the tourist expenditure taking into consideration also the in-fluence of other independent variables listed and synthetically described inTable A1 of the Appendix and to study the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories This last aim has been analysed including among theset of independent variables the total travel expenditure allocated for a particu-lar tourist expenditure category excluding the one modelled Notice that allvariables regarding tourist expenditure (both dependent and independent) areper person per night and logarithmically transformed to handle more effectivelypossible non-linear relationships between the independent and dependent vari-ables

Model results

Since only 22 of the sample stated a zero value for the total visitor expendi-ture the Tobit model was used to identify the determinants of the totalexpenditure The five different expenditure categories were modelled using thedouble-hurdle model since it is interesting to estimate the selection and out-come stage separately thanks to the higher number of zero values

All the models were estimated using Whitersquos robust standard variancendashcovariance matrix (White 1980) to correct for possible heteroscedasticity of theerror term The backward results for the Tobit model are reported in Table 2

Independentvariables

Satisfaction

Dependent variables

Exp

endi

ture

cate

gorie

s

= Accommodation Transportation

Other services

Total expenditure

Characteristicsof the trip

Characteristicsof the visitor

16 TOURISM ECONOMICS

while Tables 3 and 4 present respectively the backward results for the first(selection) and second (outcome) stage of the five double-hurdle models esti-mated The results of the first stage model (Table 3) are reported as marginaleffects calculated at the median value of each explanatory variable (see TableA1 in the Appendix for the median values) Table 4 shows that MR issignificant for each model and this implies that the decisions (a) to spend ornot to spend and (b) how much to spend are dependent and can be explainedby different sets of explanatory variables for each of the tourism expenditurecategories considered Furthermore the significance of MR suggests that thedouble-hurdle model is appropriate

Influence of satisfaction on expenditure behaviour

Satisfaction with specific characteristics of the destination is found to besignificant in affecting visitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour in the willingness tospend in the amount of money spent within the different expenditure categoriesand finally in the total budget spent

As shown in Table 2 there is a strict correlation between satisfaction withlandscape and prices and the total expenditure per person per day Specificallyfor a one-unit increase in satisfaction with the landscape we expect to see abouta 76 increase in total visitor spending (e0073 asymp 1076) Similarly a one-unitincrease in satisfaction with prices produces about a 7 increase in totalexpenditure

Satisfaction with different characteristics of the destination exerts a positiveeffect also on the willingness to incur an expenditure within the differentspending categories As shown in Table 3 satisfaction with safety positivelyaffects the propensity to spend on accommodation food and beverages andshopping Satisfaction with landscape positively affects expenditure on acco-mmodation and transportation satisfaction with food and beverage positively

Table 2 Determinants of total tourist spending (ln transformed)

Independent variables Tobit model

Are you satisfied with the following aspects related to the tripLandscape 0073 (003)a

Price 0068 (002)Characteristics of tripNumber of nights ndash0033 (001)First time in Italy ndash0350 (012)Italy visited up to 5 times ndash0156 (008)Cities in the Dolomite area ndash0450 (009)Characteristics of touristAustria ndash0931 (017)Outside EU 0307 (016)Germany ndash0294 (008)Constant 3903 (036)

Notes aEstimated coefficients and robust standard errors in brackets Number ofobservations = 959 Wald chi2(9) = 26111 prob gt χ2 = 0 log pseudo-likelihood = ndash14549951 McKelvey and Zavoinarsquos R2 = 0240

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 8: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

12 TOURISM ECONOMICS

The stratified sampling method is applied (using different types of stratifiedvariables per each type of frontier) and facendashtondashface interviews are carried outat national borders (including highways railway airports and harbours) Sam-pling is done independently at each type of frontier Tourists are interviewedat the end of the trip when they are returning to their place of habitualresidence Interviews are conducted at different times of the day during bothworking days and holidays and month by month with a fixed number ofinterviews per each period of survey The questionnaires are anonymous and areoffered in 14 languages

The questionnaire can be divided into four main sections 1 sociondashdemo-graphic characteristics of the interviewee (gender age occupation and resi-dence) 2 information on the trip (number of nights spent type of accommo-dation cities visited means of transportation motives organization) 3 infor-mation on expenditure (total expenditure divided into different categories ofexpenditure means of payment) 4 level of satisfaction with different aspectsof the trip and overall satisfaction with the destination

In this study we focus on the 1030 foreign visitors who visited the provincesof Bolzano Trento and Belluno in 2011 (Banca drsquoItalia 2011) The first twoprovinces compose the Trentino South Tyrol region while Belluno is a provinceof the Veneto region These three provinces are located in Northern Italy (seeFigure 1) and are famous for the Dolomite range which stretches across all thethree Finally we take into consideration only international visitors whose mainpurpose of trip is lsquotourism holiday and leisurersquo

Descriptive analyses

The survey offers detailed information on the amount of money spent in thefive main categories of a typical travel budget (a) lsquoAccommodationrsquo (hotelapartment for rent campsite etc) which also includes expenditure on food andbeverage on the accommodation premises (b) lsquoFood and beveragesrsquo consumedoutside the accommodation premises (c) lsquoInternal transportationrsquo in the visiteddestination including purchase of fuel (d) lsquoShoppingrsquo including souvenirsgifts clothes food and beverages etc purchased only for personal use (e) lsquoOtherservicesrsquo like museums shows entertainment guided excursions languagecourses and so on

The sample consists of 8913 tourists (that is people who spent at leastone night in South Tyrol) and 1087 day-visitors During the trip the greatmajority of the sample said they had incurred costs for food and beverages(8592) internal transportation (7816) shopping (7767) and as ex-pected on the trip as a whole (978) In contrast only 3971 of the samplesaid they had incurred costs for other services When describing the expenditurebehaviour of the whole sample (see Table 1 for the average and median amountspent per night per person) we can observe that visitors typically spent a largepart of their travel budget on accommodation (about 43) spending on averageeuro42 per night per person This is followed by expenditure on food and bev-erages which accounts for 19 of the total travel budget with an averageexpenditure per night per person of euro19 and shopping (18 of the total travelbudget and euro18 spent on average per night per person) The least importantexpenditure categories are internal transportation and other services which

13Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Table 1 Mean (median) expenditure by different tourism categories per night per person

Item Whole sample Sub-sample of spenders

Accommodation 4224 (3000) 4739 (3500)Food and beverages 1232 (415) 2183 (1429)Transportation 1862 (833) 1576 (667)Shopping 1806 (625) 2325 (1000)Other services 714 (000) 1799 (918)Total travel expenditure 9851 (7517) 10076 (7700)

account for 13 and 7 respectively with an average expenditure per nightper person of euro12 and euro7

Another important group of variables collected through the survey concernsthe overall level of satisfaction with the destination and with the followingaspects of the trip hospitality and friendliness of the local inhabitants (lsquoFriend-linessrsquo) cities and works of art (lsquoArtrsquo) landscape and natural environment(lsquoLandscapersquo) hotels and other accommodation (lsquoAccommodationrsquo) lsquoFood andbeveragesrsquo price and cost of living (lsquoPricersquo) quality and variety of productsoffered in stores (lsquoProducts soldrsquo) information and tourist services (lsquoInforma-tionrsquo) safety of tourists (lsquoSafetyrsquo) A 10-point Likert scale was used with (1)indicating lsquoVery unsatisfiedrsquo and (10) lsquoVery satisfiedrsquo Figure 2 displays thepercentage distribution of the level of satisfaction per each observed item Thepercentage of visitors who attributed a value lower than 6 to the differentaspects of the trip is very low with the exception of lsquoPricersquo which shows thelowest mean and median value (both approximately equal to 7)

On average (see Table A1 in the Appendix) tourists spent 9 nights in the

Percentage

20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Very unsatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very satisfied

Hospitality

Art

Landscape

Accommodation

Food and beverages

Price

Products sold

Information

Safety

Overall

Figure 2 Level of overall satisfaction and satisfaction with different aspects ofthe trip

14 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Dolomite area mainly visiting only one city during the trip (79) and trav-elling with other people (79) For approximately 22 of the sample this wastheir first visit to Italy while 42 had already been to Italy more than fivetimes Visitors came mainly from Germany (38) Austria (14) and otherEuropean countries (39) while only 9 came from a country outside EuropeFinally about half of the sample was under 45 years of age

The econometric model

In order to investigate (a) the influence of the satisfaction both on overallexpenditure and on different expenditure categories and (b) the dependenceamong different tourist expenditure categories the Tobit model (Tobin 1958)or one of its generalizations can be adopted In fact this category of modelis the most suitable when the dependent variable is non-negative and thusessentially continuous over strictly positive values and it also takes zero valueswith positive probability (that is a non-trivial fraction of the population takeszero value) For this type of dependent variable the use of the multipleregression model estimated by using the well-known OLS method wouldproduce biased and inconsistent estimates of parameters (Maddala 1983Amemiya 1984)

Another important characteristic of the expenditure is that the monetaryvalue declared by the individual is the result of two possible processes assuggested by consumer choice theory (Pudney 1989) the individual decideswhether or not to purchase something (selection stage) and then he or shedecides how much money to spend on that purchase (outcome stage) Thereforeto observe a positive level of expenditure two distinct hurdles must be clearedIn this context it is preferable to adopt a two-stage generalization of the Tobitmodel the double-hurdle model (Cragg 1971) This model is performedthrough the estimation of two separate regression models the selection stageis estimated by the Probit model in order to estimate the probability ofspending or not spending on something the outcome stage is estimated by theOLS regression model to estimate the average amount of money spent in aparticular expenditure category In this way throughout the estimation of thedouble-hurdle model we can obtain two different sets of relevant independentvariables (one for each stage) whereas the estimation of the standard Tobitmodel identifies a single set of variables to measure the effect of both theselection and the outcome stage

To avoid the problem of sample selection ndash defined as an omitted variableproblem (Heckman 1976) ndash in this study the estimator proposed by Heien andWessells in the early 1990s is adopted (Heien and Wessells 1990 see forapplications Byrne et al 1996 Manrique and Jensen 1997) This estimatoris called inverse Millrsquos ratio (MR) and it is calculated for each observationthrough the estimates obtained in the first stage ndash that is through theestimation of the Probit model Contrary to the traditional Heckman two-stepestimator the MR variable allows correcting the problem of sample selectionusing all the observations in each stage Furthermore the MR variable isincorporated into the set of explanatory variables used in the regression esti-mated at the second stage playing a fundamental role in linking the two stages

15Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Figure 3 Schematic representation of research aims

It is important to note that if the estimated coefficient of the MR variable isnot significantly different from zero the decision to spend and the decision onhow much money to spend are independent and the sample selection problemis unimportant that is the sample selection rule ensures that all potentialobservations are sampled so that the Tobit model can be used instead of thedouble-hurdle model

The set of dependent and independent variables

Six suitable censored models one for the total tourist spending and one pereach expenditure item (lsquoAccommodationrsquo lsquoTransportationrsquo lsquoFood and bever-agesrsquo lsquoShoppingrsquo and lsquoOther servicesrsquo) were separately estimated Figure 3schematically represents the aims of this study to determine the influence ofsatisfaction on the tourist expenditure taking into consideration also the in-fluence of other independent variables listed and synthetically described inTable A1 of the Appendix and to study the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories This last aim has been analysed including among theset of independent variables the total travel expenditure allocated for a particu-lar tourist expenditure category excluding the one modelled Notice that allvariables regarding tourist expenditure (both dependent and independent) areper person per night and logarithmically transformed to handle more effectivelypossible non-linear relationships between the independent and dependent vari-ables

Model results

Since only 22 of the sample stated a zero value for the total visitor expendi-ture the Tobit model was used to identify the determinants of the totalexpenditure The five different expenditure categories were modelled using thedouble-hurdle model since it is interesting to estimate the selection and out-come stage separately thanks to the higher number of zero values

All the models were estimated using Whitersquos robust standard variancendashcovariance matrix (White 1980) to correct for possible heteroscedasticity of theerror term The backward results for the Tobit model are reported in Table 2

Independentvariables

Satisfaction

Dependent variables

Exp

endi

ture

cate

gorie

s

= Accommodation Transportation

Other services

Total expenditure

Characteristicsof the trip

Characteristicsof the visitor

16 TOURISM ECONOMICS

while Tables 3 and 4 present respectively the backward results for the first(selection) and second (outcome) stage of the five double-hurdle models esti-mated The results of the first stage model (Table 3) are reported as marginaleffects calculated at the median value of each explanatory variable (see TableA1 in the Appendix for the median values) Table 4 shows that MR issignificant for each model and this implies that the decisions (a) to spend ornot to spend and (b) how much to spend are dependent and can be explainedby different sets of explanatory variables for each of the tourism expenditurecategories considered Furthermore the significance of MR suggests that thedouble-hurdle model is appropriate

Influence of satisfaction on expenditure behaviour

Satisfaction with specific characteristics of the destination is found to besignificant in affecting visitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour in the willingness tospend in the amount of money spent within the different expenditure categoriesand finally in the total budget spent

As shown in Table 2 there is a strict correlation between satisfaction withlandscape and prices and the total expenditure per person per day Specificallyfor a one-unit increase in satisfaction with the landscape we expect to see abouta 76 increase in total visitor spending (e0073 asymp 1076) Similarly a one-unitincrease in satisfaction with prices produces about a 7 increase in totalexpenditure

Satisfaction with different characteristics of the destination exerts a positiveeffect also on the willingness to incur an expenditure within the differentspending categories As shown in Table 3 satisfaction with safety positivelyaffects the propensity to spend on accommodation food and beverages andshopping Satisfaction with landscape positively affects expenditure on acco-mmodation and transportation satisfaction with food and beverage positively

Table 2 Determinants of total tourist spending (ln transformed)

Independent variables Tobit model

Are you satisfied with the following aspects related to the tripLandscape 0073 (003)a

Price 0068 (002)Characteristics of tripNumber of nights ndash0033 (001)First time in Italy ndash0350 (012)Italy visited up to 5 times ndash0156 (008)Cities in the Dolomite area ndash0450 (009)Characteristics of touristAustria ndash0931 (017)Outside EU 0307 (016)Germany ndash0294 (008)Constant 3903 (036)

Notes aEstimated coefficients and robust standard errors in brackets Number ofobservations = 959 Wald chi2(9) = 26111 prob gt χ2 = 0 log pseudo-likelihood = ndash14549951 McKelvey and Zavoinarsquos R2 = 0240

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 9: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

13Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Table 1 Mean (median) expenditure by different tourism categories per night per person

Item Whole sample Sub-sample of spenders

Accommodation 4224 (3000) 4739 (3500)Food and beverages 1232 (415) 2183 (1429)Transportation 1862 (833) 1576 (667)Shopping 1806 (625) 2325 (1000)Other services 714 (000) 1799 (918)Total travel expenditure 9851 (7517) 10076 (7700)

account for 13 and 7 respectively with an average expenditure per nightper person of euro12 and euro7

Another important group of variables collected through the survey concernsthe overall level of satisfaction with the destination and with the followingaspects of the trip hospitality and friendliness of the local inhabitants (lsquoFriend-linessrsquo) cities and works of art (lsquoArtrsquo) landscape and natural environment(lsquoLandscapersquo) hotels and other accommodation (lsquoAccommodationrsquo) lsquoFood andbeveragesrsquo price and cost of living (lsquoPricersquo) quality and variety of productsoffered in stores (lsquoProducts soldrsquo) information and tourist services (lsquoInforma-tionrsquo) safety of tourists (lsquoSafetyrsquo) A 10-point Likert scale was used with (1)indicating lsquoVery unsatisfiedrsquo and (10) lsquoVery satisfiedrsquo Figure 2 displays thepercentage distribution of the level of satisfaction per each observed item Thepercentage of visitors who attributed a value lower than 6 to the differentaspects of the trip is very low with the exception of lsquoPricersquo which shows thelowest mean and median value (both approximately equal to 7)

On average (see Table A1 in the Appendix) tourists spent 9 nights in the

Percentage

20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Very unsatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very satisfied

Hospitality

Art

Landscape

Accommodation

Food and beverages

Price

Products sold

Information

Safety

Overall

Figure 2 Level of overall satisfaction and satisfaction with different aspects ofthe trip

14 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Dolomite area mainly visiting only one city during the trip (79) and trav-elling with other people (79) For approximately 22 of the sample this wastheir first visit to Italy while 42 had already been to Italy more than fivetimes Visitors came mainly from Germany (38) Austria (14) and otherEuropean countries (39) while only 9 came from a country outside EuropeFinally about half of the sample was under 45 years of age

The econometric model

In order to investigate (a) the influence of the satisfaction both on overallexpenditure and on different expenditure categories and (b) the dependenceamong different tourist expenditure categories the Tobit model (Tobin 1958)or one of its generalizations can be adopted In fact this category of modelis the most suitable when the dependent variable is non-negative and thusessentially continuous over strictly positive values and it also takes zero valueswith positive probability (that is a non-trivial fraction of the population takeszero value) For this type of dependent variable the use of the multipleregression model estimated by using the well-known OLS method wouldproduce biased and inconsistent estimates of parameters (Maddala 1983Amemiya 1984)

Another important characteristic of the expenditure is that the monetaryvalue declared by the individual is the result of two possible processes assuggested by consumer choice theory (Pudney 1989) the individual decideswhether or not to purchase something (selection stage) and then he or shedecides how much money to spend on that purchase (outcome stage) Thereforeto observe a positive level of expenditure two distinct hurdles must be clearedIn this context it is preferable to adopt a two-stage generalization of the Tobitmodel the double-hurdle model (Cragg 1971) This model is performedthrough the estimation of two separate regression models the selection stageis estimated by the Probit model in order to estimate the probability ofspending or not spending on something the outcome stage is estimated by theOLS regression model to estimate the average amount of money spent in aparticular expenditure category In this way throughout the estimation of thedouble-hurdle model we can obtain two different sets of relevant independentvariables (one for each stage) whereas the estimation of the standard Tobitmodel identifies a single set of variables to measure the effect of both theselection and the outcome stage

To avoid the problem of sample selection ndash defined as an omitted variableproblem (Heckman 1976) ndash in this study the estimator proposed by Heien andWessells in the early 1990s is adopted (Heien and Wessells 1990 see forapplications Byrne et al 1996 Manrique and Jensen 1997) This estimatoris called inverse Millrsquos ratio (MR) and it is calculated for each observationthrough the estimates obtained in the first stage ndash that is through theestimation of the Probit model Contrary to the traditional Heckman two-stepestimator the MR variable allows correcting the problem of sample selectionusing all the observations in each stage Furthermore the MR variable isincorporated into the set of explanatory variables used in the regression esti-mated at the second stage playing a fundamental role in linking the two stages

15Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Figure 3 Schematic representation of research aims

It is important to note that if the estimated coefficient of the MR variable isnot significantly different from zero the decision to spend and the decision onhow much money to spend are independent and the sample selection problemis unimportant that is the sample selection rule ensures that all potentialobservations are sampled so that the Tobit model can be used instead of thedouble-hurdle model

The set of dependent and independent variables

Six suitable censored models one for the total tourist spending and one pereach expenditure item (lsquoAccommodationrsquo lsquoTransportationrsquo lsquoFood and bever-agesrsquo lsquoShoppingrsquo and lsquoOther servicesrsquo) were separately estimated Figure 3schematically represents the aims of this study to determine the influence ofsatisfaction on the tourist expenditure taking into consideration also the in-fluence of other independent variables listed and synthetically described inTable A1 of the Appendix and to study the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories This last aim has been analysed including among theset of independent variables the total travel expenditure allocated for a particu-lar tourist expenditure category excluding the one modelled Notice that allvariables regarding tourist expenditure (both dependent and independent) areper person per night and logarithmically transformed to handle more effectivelypossible non-linear relationships between the independent and dependent vari-ables

Model results

Since only 22 of the sample stated a zero value for the total visitor expendi-ture the Tobit model was used to identify the determinants of the totalexpenditure The five different expenditure categories were modelled using thedouble-hurdle model since it is interesting to estimate the selection and out-come stage separately thanks to the higher number of zero values

All the models were estimated using Whitersquos robust standard variancendashcovariance matrix (White 1980) to correct for possible heteroscedasticity of theerror term The backward results for the Tobit model are reported in Table 2

Independentvariables

Satisfaction

Dependent variables

Exp

endi

ture

cate

gorie

s

= Accommodation Transportation

Other services

Total expenditure

Characteristicsof the trip

Characteristicsof the visitor

16 TOURISM ECONOMICS

while Tables 3 and 4 present respectively the backward results for the first(selection) and second (outcome) stage of the five double-hurdle models esti-mated The results of the first stage model (Table 3) are reported as marginaleffects calculated at the median value of each explanatory variable (see TableA1 in the Appendix for the median values) Table 4 shows that MR issignificant for each model and this implies that the decisions (a) to spend ornot to spend and (b) how much to spend are dependent and can be explainedby different sets of explanatory variables for each of the tourism expenditurecategories considered Furthermore the significance of MR suggests that thedouble-hurdle model is appropriate

Influence of satisfaction on expenditure behaviour

Satisfaction with specific characteristics of the destination is found to besignificant in affecting visitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour in the willingness tospend in the amount of money spent within the different expenditure categoriesand finally in the total budget spent

As shown in Table 2 there is a strict correlation between satisfaction withlandscape and prices and the total expenditure per person per day Specificallyfor a one-unit increase in satisfaction with the landscape we expect to see abouta 76 increase in total visitor spending (e0073 asymp 1076) Similarly a one-unitincrease in satisfaction with prices produces about a 7 increase in totalexpenditure

Satisfaction with different characteristics of the destination exerts a positiveeffect also on the willingness to incur an expenditure within the differentspending categories As shown in Table 3 satisfaction with safety positivelyaffects the propensity to spend on accommodation food and beverages andshopping Satisfaction with landscape positively affects expenditure on acco-mmodation and transportation satisfaction with food and beverage positively

Table 2 Determinants of total tourist spending (ln transformed)

Independent variables Tobit model

Are you satisfied with the following aspects related to the tripLandscape 0073 (003)a

Price 0068 (002)Characteristics of tripNumber of nights ndash0033 (001)First time in Italy ndash0350 (012)Italy visited up to 5 times ndash0156 (008)Cities in the Dolomite area ndash0450 (009)Characteristics of touristAustria ndash0931 (017)Outside EU 0307 (016)Germany ndash0294 (008)Constant 3903 (036)

Notes aEstimated coefficients and robust standard errors in brackets Number ofobservations = 959 Wald chi2(9) = 26111 prob gt χ2 = 0 log pseudo-likelihood = ndash14549951 McKelvey and Zavoinarsquos R2 = 0240

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 10: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

14 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Dolomite area mainly visiting only one city during the trip (79) and trav-elling with other people (79) For approximately 22 of the sample this wastheir first visit to Italy while 42 had already been to Italy more than fivetimes Visitors came mainly from Germany (38) Austria (14) and otherEuropean countries (39) while only 9 came from a country outside EuropeFinally about half of the sample was under 45 years of age

The econometric model

In order to investigate (a) the influence of the satisfaction both on overallexpenditure and on different expenditure categories and (b) the dependenceamong different tourist expenditure categories the Tobit model (Tobin 1958)or one of its generalizations can be adopted In fact this category of modelis the most suitable when the dependent variable is non-negative and thusessentially continuous over strictly positive values and it also takes zero valueswith positive probability (that is a non-trivial fraction of the population takeszero value) For this type of dependent variable the use of the multipleregression model estimated by using the well-known OLS method wouldproduce biased and inconsistent estimates of parameters (Maddala 1983Amemiya 1984)

Another important characteristic of the expenditure is that the monetaryvalue declared by the individual is the result of two possible processes assuggested by consumer choice theory (Pudney 1989) the individual decideswhether or not to purchase something (selection stage) and then he or shedecides how much money to spend on that purchase (outcome stage) Thereforeto observe a positive level of expenditure two distinct hurdles must be clearedIn this context it is preferable to adopt a two-stage generalization of the Tobitmodel the double-hurdle model (Cragg 1971) This model is performedthrough the estimation of two separate regression models the selection stageis estimated by the Probit model in order to estimate the probability ofspending or not spending on something the outcome stage is estimated by theOLS regression model to estimate the average amount of money spent in aparticular expenditure category In this way throughout the estimation of thedouble-hurdle model we can obtain two different sets of relevant independentvariables (one for each stage) whereas the estimation of the standard Tobitmodel identifies a single set of variables to measure the effect of both theselection and the outcome stage

To avoid the problem of sample selection ndash defined as an omitted variableproblem (Heckman 1976) ndash in this study the estimator proposed by Heien andWessells in the early 1990s is adopted (Heien and Wessells 1990 see forapplications Byrne et al 1996 Manrique and Jensen 1997) This estimatoris called inverse Millrsquos ratio (MR) and it is calculated for each observationthrough the estimates obtained in the first stage ndash that is through theestimation of the Probit model Contrary to the traditional Heckman two-stepestimator the MR variable allows correcting the problem of sample selectionusing all the observations in each stage Furthermore the MR variable isincorporated into the set of explanatory variables used in the regression esti-mated at the second stage playing a fundamental role in linking the two stages

15Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Figure 3 Schematic representation of research aims

It is important to note that if the estimated coefficient of the MR variable isnot significantly different from zero the decision to spend and the decision onhow much money to spend are independent and the sample selection problemis unimportant that is the sample selection rule ensures that all potentialobservations are sampled so that the Tobit model can be used instead of thedouble-hurdle model

The set of dependent and independent variables

Six suitable censored models one for the total tourist spending and one pereach expenditure item (lsquoAccommodationrsquo lsquoTransportationrsquo lsquoFood and bever-agesrsquo lsquoShoppingrsquo and lsquoOther servicesrsquo) were separately estimated Figure 3schematically represents the aims of this study to determine the influence ofsatisfaction on the tourist expenditure taking into consideration also the in-fluence of other independent variables listed and synthetically described inTable A1 of the Appendix and to study the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories This last aim has been analysed including among theset of independent variables the total travel expenditure allocated for a particu-lar tourist expenditure category excluding the one modelled Notice that allvariables regarding tourist expenditure (both dependent and independent) areper person per night and logarithmically transformed to handle more effectivelypossible non-linear relationships between the independent and dependent vari-ables

Model results

Since only 22 of the sample stated a zero value for the total visitor expendi-ture the Tobit model was used to identify the determinants of the totalexpenditure The five different expenditure categories were modelled using thedouble-hurdle model since it is interesting to estimate the selection and out-come stage separately thanks to the higher number of zero values

All the models were estimated using Whitersquos robust standard variancendashcovariance matrix (White 1980) to correct for possible heteroscedasticity of theerror term The backward results for the Tobit model are reported in Table 2

Independentvariables

Satisfaction

Dependent variables

Exp

endi

ture

cate

gorie

s

= Accommodation Transportation

Other services

Total expenditure

Characteristicsof the trip

Characteristicsof the visitor

16 TOURISM ECONOMICS

while Tables 3 and 4 present respectively the backward results for the first(selection) and second (outcome) stage of the five double-hurdle models esti-mated The results of the first stage model (Table 3) are reported as marginaleffects calculated at the median value of each explanatory variable (see TableA1 in the Appendix for the median values) Table 4 shows that MR issignificant for each model and this implies that the decisions (a) to spend ornot to spend and (b) how much to spend are dependent and can be explainedby different sets of explanatory variables for each of the tourism expenditurecategories considered Furthermore the significance of MR suggests that thedouble-hurdle model is appropriate

Influence of satisfaction on expenditure behaviour

Satisfaction with specific characteristics of the destination is found to besignificant in affecting visitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour in the willingness tospend in the amount of money spent within the different expenditure categoriesand finally in the total budget spent

As shown in Table 2 there is a strict correlation between satisfaction withlandscape and prices and the total expenditure per person per day Specificallyfor a one-unit increase in satisfaction with the landscape we expect to see abouta 76 increase in total visitor spending (e0073 asymp 1076) Similarly a one-unitincrease in satisfaction with prices produces about a 7 increase in totalexpenditure

Satisfaction with different characteristics of the destination exerts a positiveeffect also on the willingness to incur an expenditure within the differentspending categories As shown in Table 3 satisfaction with safety positivelyaffects the propensity to spend on accommodation food and beverages andshopping Satisfaction with landscape positively affects expenditure on acco-mmodation and transportation satisfaction with food and beverage positively

Table 2 Determinants of total tourist spending (ln transformed)

Independent variables Tobit model

Are you satisfied with the following aspects related to the tripLandscape 0073 (003)a

Price 0068 (002)Characteristics of tripNumber of nights ndash0033 (001)First time in Italy ndash0350 (012)Italy visited up to 5 times ndash0156 (008)Cities in the Dolomite area ndash0450 (009)Characteristics of touristAustria ndash0931 (017)Outside EU 0307 (016)Germany ndash0294 (008)Constant 3903 (036)

Notes aEstimated coefficients and robust standard errors in brackets Number ofobservations = 959 Wald chi2(9) = 26111 prob gt χ2 = 0 log pseudo-likelihood = ndash14549951 McKelvey and Zavoinarsquos R2 = 0240

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 11: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

15Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Figure 3 Schematic representation of research aims

It is important to note that if the estimated coefficient of the MR variable isnot significantly different from zero the decision to spend and the decision onhow much money to spend are independent and the sample selection problemis unimportant that is the sample selection rule ensures that all potentialobservations are sampled so that the Tobit model can be used instead of thedouble-hurdle model

The set of dependent and independent variables

Six suitable censored models one for the total tourist spending and one pereach expenditure item (lsquoAccommodationrsquo lsquoTransportationrsquo lsquoFood and bever-agesrsquo lsquoShoppingrsquo and lsquoOther servicesrsquo) were separately estimated Figure 3schematically represents the aims of this study to determine the influence ofsatisfaction on the tourist expenditure taking into consideration also the in-fluence of other independent variables listed and synthetically described inTable A1 of the Appendix and to study the dependence among different touristexpenditure categories This last aim has been analysed including among theset of independent variables the total travel expenditure allocated for a particu-lar tourist expenditure category excluding the one modelled Notice that allvariables regarding tourist expenditure (both dependent and independent) areper person per night and logarithmically transformed to handle more effectivelypossible non-linear relationships between the independent and dependent vari-ables

Model results

Since only 22 of the sample stated a zero value for the total visitor expendi-ture the Tobit model was used to identify the determinants of the totalexpenditure The five different expenditure categories were modelled using thedouble-hurdle model since it is interesting to estimate the selection and out-come stage separately thanks to the higher number of zero values

All the models were estimated using Whitersquos robust standard variancendashcovariance matrix (White 1980) to correct for possible heteroscedasticity of theerror term The backward results for the Tobit model are reported in Table 2

Independentvariables

Satisfaction

Dependent variables

Exp

endi

ture

cate

gorie

s

= Accommodation Transportation

Other services

Total expenditure

Characteristicsof the trip

Characteristicsof the visitor

16 TOURISM ECONOMICS

while Tables 3 and 4 present respectively the backward results for the first(selection) and second (outcome) stage of the five double-hurdle models esti-mated The results of the first stage model (Table 3) are reported as marginaleffects calculated at the median value of each explanatory variable (see TableA1 in the Appendix for the median values) Table 4 shows that MR issignificant for each model and this implies that the decisions (a) to spend ornot to spend and (b) how much to spend are dependent and can be explainedby different sets of explanatory variables for each of the tourism expenditurecategories considered Furthermore the significance of MR suggests that thedouble-hurdle model is appropriate

Influence of satisfaction on expenditure behaviour

Satisfaction with specific characteristics of the destination is found to besignificant in affecting visitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour in the willingness tospend in the amount of money spent within the different expenditure categoriesand finally in the total budget spent

As shown in Table 2 there is a strict correlation between satisfaction withlandscape and prices and the total expenditure per person per day Specificallyfor a one-unit increase in satisfaction with the landscape we expect to see abouta 76 increase in total visitor spending (e0073 asymp 1076) Similarly a one-unitincrease in satisfaction with prices produces about a 7 increase in totalexpenditure

Satisfaction with different characteristics of the destination exerts a positiveeffect also on the willingness to incur an expenditure within the differentspending categories As shown in Table 3 satisfaction with safety positivelyaffects the propensity to spend on accommodation food and beverages andshopping Satisfaction with landscape positively affects expenditure on acco-mmodation and transportation satisfaction with food and beverage positively

Table 2 Determinants of total tourist spending (ln transformed)

Independent variables Tobit model

Are you satisfied with the following aspects related to the tripLandscape 0073 (003)a

Price 0068 (002)Characteristics of tripNumber of nights ndash0033 (001)First time in Italy ndash0350 (012)Italy visited up to 5 times ndash0156 (008)Cities in the Dolomite area ndash0450 (009)Characteristics of touristAustria ndash0931 (017)Outside EU 0307 (016)Germany ndash0294 (008)Constant 3903 (036)

Notes aEstimated coefficients and robust standard errors in brackets Number ofobservations = 959 Wald chi2(9) = 26111 prob gt χ2 = 0 log pseudo-likelihood = ndash14549951 McKelvey and Zavoinarsquos R2 = 0240

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 12: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

16 TOURISM ECONOMICS

while Tables 3 and 4 present respectively the backward results for the first(selection) and second (outcome) stage of the five double-hurdle models esti-mated The results of the first stage model (Table 3) are reported as marginaleffects calculated at the median value of each explanatory variable (see TableA1 in the Appendix for the median values) Table 4 shows that MR issignificant for each model and this implies that the decisions (a) to spend ornot to spend and (b) how much to spend are dependent and can be explainedby different sets of explanatory variables for each of the tourism expenditurecategories considered Furthermore the significance of MR suggests that thedouble-hurdle model is appropriate

Influence of satisfaction on expenditure behaviour

Satisfaction with specific characteristics of the destination is found to besignificant in affecting visitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour in the willingness tospend in the amount of money spent within the different expenditure categoriesand finally in the total budget spent

As shown in Table 2 there is a strict correlation between satisfaction withlandscape and prices and the total expenditure per person per day Specificallyfor a one-unit increase in satisfaction with the landscape we expect to see abouta 76 increase in total visitor spending (e0073 asymp 1076) Similarly a one-unitincrease in satisfaction with prices produces about a 7 increase in totalexpenditure

Satisfaction with different characteristics of the destination exerts a positiveeffect also on the willingness to incur an expenditure within the differentspending categories As shown in Table 3 satisfaction with safety positivelyaffects the propensity to spend on accommodation food and beverages andshopping Satisfaction with landscape positively affects expenditure on acco-mmodation and transportation satisfaction with food and beverage positively

Table 2 Determinants of total tourist spending (ln transformed)

Independent variables Tobit model

Are you satisfied with the following aspects related to the tripLandscape 0073 (003)a

Price 0068 (002)Characteristics of tripNumber of nights ndash0033 (001)First time in Italy ndash0350 (012)Italy visited up to 5 times ndash0156 (008)Cities in the Dolomite area ndash0450 (009)Characteristics of touristAustria ndash0931 (017)Outside EU 0307 (016)Germany ndash0294 (008)Constant 3903 (036)

Notes aEstimated coefficients and robust standard errors in brackets Number ofobservations = 959 Wald chi2(9) = 26111 prob gt χ2 = 0 log pseudo-likelihood = ndash14549951 McKelvey and Zavoinarsquos R2 = 0240

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 13: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

17Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourT

able

3

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f w

illi

ngn

ess

to s

pen

d f

or e

ach

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Fir

st s

tage

Wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

or n

ot o

n hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

000

1 (0

01)

a0

039

(00

1)0

036

(00

1)La

ndsc

ape

000

1 (0

01)

003

9 (0

01)

Food

and

bev

erag

es0

020

(00

1)ndash0

044

(00

2)Fr

iend

line

ssndash0

001

(00

1)ndash0

026

(00

1)P

rice

001

1 (0

01)

ndash00

23 (0

01)

Art

002

8 (0

01)

Trav

el ex

pend

itur

eln

spe

nt o

n ac

com

mod

atio

n -

ndash0

018

(00

1)0

031

(00

1)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

age

000

1 (0

01)

ndashln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngndash0

038

(00

1)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

035

(00

2) ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s0

001

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

02

(00

1)ndash0

149

(00

5)ndash0

154

(00

6)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

076

(00

3)ndash0

074

(00

3)0

144

(00

4)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

102

(00

3)ndash0

055

(00

2)A

lone

ndash01

24 (0

04)

ndash01

6 (0

06)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash00

16 (0

01)

ndash03

61 (0

06)

ndash02

77 (0

05)

ndash01

41 (0

04)

ndash03

59 (0

05)

Out

side

EU

007

0 (0

02)

022

5 (0

06)

Ger

man

yndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

064

(00

3)ndash0

066

(00

2)ndash0

233

(00

4)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

006

7 (0

03)

008

2 (0

03)

010

1 (0

04)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

005

5 (0

03)

009

7 (0

03)

45ndash6

4 ye

ars

old

005

8 (0

03)

Not

es a E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l ef

fect

and

rob

ust

stan

dard

err

ors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

W

ald

chi2 (

9) =

139

42

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash10

779

945

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

06

05 I

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (15

) =19

928

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od =

ndash35

552

78 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

328

III

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 W

ald

chi2 (

11) =

101

86

pro

b gt

χ2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

=-3

132

8655

McK

elve

y an

d Z

avoi

narsquos

R2 =

02

54 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 7

341

pro

b gt

χ2

= 0

log

pse

udo-

like

liho

od d

= ndash

446

9987

3 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

155

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

Wal

d ch

i2 (7)

= 1

722

9 p

rob

gt χ

2 =

0 l

og p

seud

o-li

keli

hood

= ndash

549

6605

7 M

cKel

vey

and

Zav

oina

rsquos R

2 = 0

299

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 14: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

18 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

4

Det

erm

inan

ts o

f sp

end

ing

for

each

tou

rism

cat

egor

y (l

n t

ran

sfor

med

)

Seco

nd

sta

ge H

ow m

uch

wou

ld y

ou li

ke t

o sp

end

on hellip

In

dep

end

ent

vari

able

sA

ccom

mod

atio

n I

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

II

Foo

d a

nd

bev

erag

es I

IISh

opp

ing

IVO

ther

ser

vice

s V

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

pSa

fety

ndash01

09 (0

03)

Food

and

Bev

erag

es0

059

(00

3)Fr

iend

line

ss0

058

(00

3)a

Pri

ce0

048

(00

2)P

rodu

cts

sold

011

4 (0

03)

Ove

rall

sat

isfa

ctio

nndash0

114

(00

3)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

ndash0

276

(00

3)0

376

(00

3)0

153

(00

4)0

124

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

019

5 (0

03)

ndash0

187

(00

3)0

146

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

028

1 (0

03)

022

4 (0

03)

ndash0

177

(00

3)0

123

(00

3)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ng0

091

(00

3)0

096

(00

2)0

141

(00

2)ndash

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

es0

106

(00

2)0

045

(00

2)ndash

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

sndash0

008

(00

1)ndash0

005

(00

1)ndash0

004

(00

1)ndash0

010

(00

1)ndash0

003

(00

1)Fi

rst

tim

e in

Ita

lyndash0

555

(01

0)0

613

(01

0)0

440

(01

0)It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

esndash0

189

(00

7)0

366

(00

9)C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

eandash0

427

(00

8)A

lone

020

3 (0

09)

ndash02

86 (0

10)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

visi

tor

Aus

tria

ndash03

56 (0

14)

ndash04

33 (0

14)

025

8 (0

13)

066

1 (0

14)

ndash05

09 (0

11)

Out

side

EU

ndash02

48 (0

11)

Ger

man

yndash0

749

(00

9)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

ndash01

63 (0

07)

ndash01

75 (0

07)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

ndash02

51 (0

06)

017

7 (0

08)

MR

ndash10

98 (0

13)

ndash11

69 (0

06)

ndash16

53 (0

06)

ndash18

56 (0

07)

035

5 (0

15)

Con

stan

t1

603

(02

7)1

787

(03

)1

560

(02

8)0

611

(02

7)0

275

(01

6)N

otes

a E

stim

ated

coe

ffic

ient

s an

d ro

bust

sta

ndar

d er

rors

in b

rack

ets

A d

ash

indi

cate

s th

at t

he v

aria

ble

is n

ot u

sed

in t

he m

odel

I N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(1

294

6) =

87

13 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

530

II

Num

ber

of o

bser

vati

ons

= 9

59 F

(9 9

49) =

112

73

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

04

74 I

II N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s=

959

F(1

3 9

45) =

143

13

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

06

23 I

V N

umbe

r of

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(9

949

) = 1

233

8 p

rob

gt F

= 0

adj

uste

d R

2 = 0

467

V N

umbe

rof

obs

erva

tion

s =

959

F(8

950

) = 3

875

pro

b gt

F =

0 a

djus

ted

R2 =

02

37

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 15: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

19Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

affects expenditure on transportation finally satisfaction with prices and artspositively affects the willingness to incur expenditure on transportation andfood and beverages However satisfaction with certain characteristics of the tripcan also exert a negative effect on the propensity to spend In particularsatisfaction with the friendliness of the local inhabitants negatively affects thepropensity to spend on accommodation and transportation satisfaction withprices negatively affects the propensity to spend on food and beverage

As regards the amount of money spent in the different product categories(see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 5 for the estimatedpercentage variation) the more visitors are satisfied with the food and beveragesoffered at the destination the more they will spend on food and beverages themore they are satisfied with the friendliness of the local inhabitants and withprices the more they will spend on accommodation and the more they aresatisfied with the products available in the local stores and shops the more theywill spend on shopping Nevertheless as was the case for the propensity to incuran expenditure satisfaction also exerts a negative effect on the amount of moneyspent in certain expenditure categories In particular the higher the satisfactionwith safety the lower the amount of money spent on food and beverages andthe higher the overall satisfaction the lower the amount of money spent ontransportation

Table 5 reports the influence not only of satisfaction but also of dissatisfac-tion In fact whenever the model has determined a relationship betweensatisfaction and expenditure it is possible to calculate the effect on spendingdue to both a unit increase and a unit decrease in the level of satisfactionSpecifically a decrease in satisfaction with friendliness and price would deter-mine a decrease in money spent on accommodation a decrease in satisfactionwith food and beverages determines a decrease in money spent on food andbeverages and finally a decrease in satisfaction with the products sold deter-mines a decrease in money spent on shopping As an illustration if visitors aremore satisfied with the products sold and move their evaluation from the meanvalue equal to 8 up to 9 we observe a 12 increase in the average expenditureon shopping Conversely if the visitors are less satisfied with the products soldreducing their satisfaction level to 7 we observe an 11 decrease in the averageexpenditure on shopping

Dependence among different tourist expenditure categories

As can be seen in Table 3 the willingness to spend on different expenditurecategories is dependent on the expenditure in other product categories Inparticular visitors are more willing to incur an expenditure on accommodationif they have also incurred expenditure on food and beverages and internaltransportation Similarly an expenditure on accommodation will determine thewillingness to spend on internal transportation Finally visitors are more likelyto spend on food and beverages if they have also spent on other services andaccommodation but they are less likely to spend on food and beverages if theyhave spent on shopping

Also in terms of the amount of money spent in each expenditure categorywe can observe (see Table 4 for the estimated coefficients and Table 6 for theestimated percentage variation) that the pairwise relations among almost all

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 16: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

20 TOURISM ECONOMICST

able

5

Per

cen

tage

ch

ange

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a u

nit

ary

incr

ease

(dec

reas

e) o

n s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h e

ach

asp

ect

Sati

sfac

tion

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

age

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Safe

ty8

6359

ndash10

33 (1

152

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

846

806

08 (ndash

573

)Fr

iend

line

ss8

4553

597

(ndash5

64)

Pri

ce6

9214

492

(ndash4

69)

Pro

duct

s so

ld8

0466

120

8 (ndash

107

7)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

837

96ndash1

077

(12

08)

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed

Tab

le 6

P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge in

eac

h e

xpen

dit

ure

cat

egor

y (f

rom

th

e m

ean

val

ue)

du

e to

a 1

0 in

crea

se (d

ecre

ase)

in e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion

422

4 ndash

267

(ndash2

87)

365

(ndash3

88)

147

(ndash1

60)

119

(ndash1

30)

Tran

spor

tati

on12

32

188

(ndash2

03)

ndash1

80 (ndash

195

)1

40 (ndash

153

)Fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

187

52

71 (ndash

292

)2

16 (ndash

233

) ndash

170

(ndash1

85)

118

(ndash1

29)

Shop

ping

180

60

87 (ndash

095

)0

92 (ndash

101

)1

35 (ndash

147

) ndash

Oth

er s

ervi

ces

714

102

(ndash1

11)

043

(ndash0

47)

ndash

Not

eO

nly

sign

ific

ant

rela

tion

ship

s ar

e re

port

ed A

das

h in

dica

tes

that

the

var

iabl

e is

not

use

d in

the

mod

el

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 17: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

21Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

expenditure categories are positive and significant implying that the size of onecategory is affected by the size of other categories Tables 4 and 6 can be readfor both an increase and a decrease in the amount of money spent As aconsequence the results of the model would indicate not only the influence ofan increase but also the influence on the different expenditure categories by adecrease in each expenditure category As shown in Table 6 generally the moretourists spend on one category the more they will spend on other categoriesand likewise the less they spend in one category the less they will spend onthe other categories

Specifically the amount of money spent on accommodation and food andbeverages is positively influenced by any percentage increase in all otherexpenditure categories Similarly accommodation and food and beverages arethe two product categories that affect the size of the expenditure in all otherproduct categories The amount of money spent on food and beverages is firstinfluenced by the amount spent on accommodation and the amount spent onaccommodation is first influenced by the amount spent on food and beveragesThe expenditure on accommodation is further influenced by internal transpor-tation other services and shopping Moreover expenditure on food and bev-erages is further influenced by internal transportation shopping and finally bythe amount spent on other services The amount spent on internal transpor-tation is first influenced by the amount spent on accommodation then by theamount spent on food and beverages and finally by the amount spent onshopping Similarly the expenditure on shopping is influenced by the amountspent on food and beverages accommodation and transportation Finally theamount spent on other services is equally influenced by the expenditure onaccommodation and food and beverages

Influence of characteristics of both trip and visitors

The number of nights spent at the destination the number of cities visitedduring the trip and the number of repeated visits in Italy significantly affectthe willingness to spend and the amount of money spent both in the differentexpenditure categories and in the total budget spent In particular as reportedin Table 2 the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the lowerthe amount spent for the whole trip (for a one-day increase we expect to seea 32 decrease in the total visitor spending) As reported in Tables 3 and 4the higher the number of nights spent at the destination the higher thewillingness to pay for accommodation while in a negative way the higher thenumber of nights spent at the destination the lower the average amount spentper night both for the whole trip and in each expenditure category withshopping being the most affected followed by accommodation internal trans-portation food and beverages and other services (see Table A2 in the Appendixfor the estimated percentage variation) As Table 2 reports the higher thenumber of repeat visits the lower the total expenditure first-time visitors andvisitors who have already visited Italy up to 5 times respectively spend 296and 144 less then visitors who have already visited Italy more than 5 timesin the past As regards the effect of the repeat visits on each expenditurecategory (see Tables 3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) those who are visitingItaly for the first time are much less willing to spend on other services and

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 18: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

internal transportation and only slightly less willing to spend on accommo-dation When they take the decision to spend on internal transportation orshopping they spend more than repeat visitors Conversely when they take thedecision to spend on accommodation they spend less than repeat visitors Incontrast those who have already visited Italy up to five times in the past aremore willing to spend on other services but less willing to spend on internaltransportation and shopping they spend more on other services but less onaccommodation than other categories of visitors Visitors who visit only one cityduring the trip spend less for the whole trip (363 less) are less willing tospend on food and beverages and shopping and spend less on internal trans-portation

As regards the composition of the travel group we can observe (see Tables3 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) that visitors who are travelling alone areless willing to spend on shopping and on other services and spend less on otherservices than visitors travelling with a group but more on food and beverages

As regards the demographic profile the most relevant characteristic seemsto be origin As Table 2 shows the lower the distance between the place ofresidence and the place visited the lower the amount of money spent for thewhole trip Austrian (Austria is a neighbouring state to the Dolomite area) andGerman visitors spend less than visitors from other European countries (respec-tively 606 and 255 less) while visitors from countries outside Europe arethe ones who spend more for the whole trip (359 more) Austrian andGerman visitors are less willing to spend for almost all expenditure categorieswhile visitors from countries outside Europe are more willing to spend onshopping and other services Regarding the amount of money spent during thetrip (see Table 4 and Table A2 in the Appendix) Austrian visitors spend moreon shopping and food and beverages than other visitors but less on all the othercategories while German visitors and visitors from outside Europe spend lessrespectively on other services and food and beverages than visitors from otherEuropean countries The second and last relevant characteristic to affect boththe willingness to pay and the amount of money spent in each expenditurecategory is age In particular younger visitors are more willing to spend oninternal transportation food and beverages and other services Observing theinfluence of age on the second stage (the amount of money spent) we note thatvisitors younger than 35 spend less than older visitors on accommodation thehigher the age the lower the amount spent on food and beverages middle-aged visitors (between 34 and 44) spend more on shopping than younger orolder visitors

Discussion and conclusion

The aim of this study was twofold (a) to determine the influence of satisfactionwith different attributes of the destination on touristsrsquo spending behaviour (b)to determine the dependence among different expenditure categories

Although overall satisfaction with the destination exerts only a negativeeffect on the amount of money spent on transportation (very likely the moretourists are satisfied with the destination the less they will travel around insearch of new or different places) satisfaction with the different aspects of the

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 19: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

23Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

destination exerts an influence on both the willingness to pay and the amountof money spent in the different expenditure categories Particularly relevant isthe relationship between the aspect with which tourists are satisfied (or dis-satisfied) and the product category Dissatisfaction with food and beverages forexample directly influences expenditure on food and beverages similarly dissatisfaction with products sold determines the amount of money spent onshopping and dissatisfaction with the friendliness of the local people influencesexpenditure on accommodation These results show that expenditure at thedestination (and therefore the profit of the single services located at the des-tination) is intimately linked to the standard of the service offered In adestination like the Dolomites where the supply side is mainly composed ofsmall enterprises in the hands of local people destination mangers and plannersshould first of all promote among local hosts and hoteliers friendliness andcross-cultural understanding Similarly it should be communicated to thedifferent service operators in the destination (for example restaurateurs) thatsatisfaction (and therefore the standard of the service linked to price andcustomersrsquo expectation) determines the amount of money spent on the businessTherefore at the destination level targeting high spenders is meaningless unlessthe service offered by the individual operators reaches the standards sought bythe market segment As an example the area under analysis comprises adestination that was marketed as a luxury destination in the late 1950s andearly 1960s because of the 1956 Winter Olympics and up to the early 1990sbecause of films that were set there leveraging in parallel the names of famousactors who visited the place for their holidays It is still perceived as a luxurydestination but hotels and service providers have failed over the years torenovate and keep up with international luxury standards The result is thecurrent stagnation of the destination

Furthermore particularly noteworthy is the role of landscape In previousstudies satisfaction with elements like natural landscape flora and fauna wereseen to play a significant role in touristsrsquo overall satisfaction (Pritchard andHavitz 2006 Maunier and Camelis 2013) In the present study satisfactionwith the landscape positively affects the choice of tourists to spend on accom-modation and transportation and the total amount of money spent for thewhole trip This result should work as a warning to those tourist destinationswhere the maintenance of landscape and natural environment is partially ne-glected and left to the good will of private landowners As most landownersare not part of the tourism sector it is important that destination managersfully comprehend the effect of a beautiful and unspoilt natural environment ontouristsrsquo expenditure and start to cooperate with other sectors (such as farming)to ensure maintenance and enhancement of the natural environment

The results of this study are in line with those of Kim et al (2010) Zhanget al (2010) Chen and Chang (2012) Bigneacute et al (2005) and Kim and Cha(2002) and confirm the theory that satisfaction is a predictor of expenditureThe study offers a further contribution to the literature by determining therelationship between satisfaction with the different aspects of the destinationand the expenditure category incurred by the tourists

In the literature review we discussed the utility function by which touristsare able to rank goods and services and select the combination that offers themthe best value at a certain level of budget This theory assumes independence

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 20: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

only among groups of commodities (that is tourism versus other industries andservices) as opposed to individual commodities (accommodation versus food andbeverages transportation shopping and so forth) The results of this study showthat the two most interlinked spending categories are accommodation and foodand beverages in premises outside the accommodation the variation of oneproduces a strong variation in the other These results are noteworthy if weconsider the negative variations At a time of economic crises the studydemonstrates that when tourists decide to spend less on accommodation theywill inevitably also economize on food and beverages and vice versa Further-more accommodation and food and beverages also exert the strongest influenceon all other spending categories So if tourists decide to save on accommodationand food and beverages spending on all other tourism-related services will benegatively affected

References

Agarnal VB and Yochum GR (2000) lsquoDeterminants of tourist spendingrsquo in Woodside AGCrouch GI Mazanec JA Oppermann M and Sakai MY eds Consumer Psychology of TourismHospitality and Leisure Vol 1 CAB International Wallingford pp 311ndash330

Alegre J and Garau J (2010) lsquoTourist satisfaction and dissatisfactionrsquo Annals of Tourism ResearchVol 37 No 1 pp 52ndash73

Alegre J and Juaneda C (2006) lsquoDestination loyalty consumersrsquo economic behaviorrsquo Annals ofTourism Research Vol 33 No 3 pp 684ndash706

Alegre J and Pou L (2004) lsquoMicrondasheconomic determinants of the probability of tourism con-sumptionrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 10 No 2 pp 125ndash144

Alegre J Mateo S and Pou L (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure by Spanishhouseholds the effects of the economic crisis and unemploymentrsquo Tourism Management Vol 39pp 37ndash49

Amemiya T (1984) lsquoTobit models a surveyrsquo Journal of Econometrics Vol 24 No 1 pp 3ndash26Anderson EW (1996) lsquoCustomer satisfaction and price tolerancersquo Marketing Letters Vol 7 No 3

pp 265ndash274Anderson EW and Mittal V (2000) lsquoStrengthening the satisfaction-profit chainrsquo Journal of Service

Research Vol 3 No 2 pp 107ndash120Anderson EW Formell C and Lehmann DR (1994) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 No 3 pp 53ndash66Anderson EW Fornell C and Lehmann DR (1997) lsquoCustomer satisfaction market share and

profitability findings from Swedenrsquo Journal of Marketing Vol 58 pp 53ndash66Baker D and Crompton J (2000) lsquoQuality satisfaction and behavioral intentionsrsquo Annals of

Tourism Research Vol 27 No 3 pp 785ndash804Banca drsquoItalia (2011) lsquoTurismo internazionale dellrsquoItaliarsquo Banca drsquoItalia (httpswwwbancaditaliait

statistichetematicherapporti-esteroturismo-internazionale)Barquet A Brida JG Osti L and Schubert S (2011) lsquoAn analysis of touristsrsquo expenditure on

winter sports events through the Tobit censorate modelrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 6 pp1197ndash1217

Belenkiy M and Riker D (2013) lsquoModeling the international tourism expenditures of individualtravelersrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 52 No 2 pp 202ndash211

Bigneacute JE Andreu L and Gnoth J (2005) lsquoThe theme park experience an analysis of pleasurearousal and satisfactionrsquo Tourism Management Vol 26 pp 833ndash844

Bilgic A Florkowski W Yoder J and Schreiner D (2008) lsquoEstimating fishing and huntingleisure spending shares in the United Statesrsquo Tourism Management Vol 29 pp 771ndash782

Brida JG and Scuderi R (2013) lsquoDeterminants of tourist expenditure a review of microeconometricmodelsrsquo Tourism Management Perspectives Vol 6 pp 28ndash40

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2012) lsquoThe effect of authenticity on visitorsrsquo expenditureat cultural eventsrsquo Current Issues in Tourism Vol 16 No 3 pp 266-ndash285

Brida JG Disegna M and Osti L (2013a) lsquoVisitorsrsquo expenditure behaviour at cultural eventsthe case of Christmas marketsrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1173ndash1196

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 21: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

25Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Brida JG Disegna M and Scuderi R (2013b) lsquoVisitors to two types of museums do expenditurepatterns differrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 19 No 5 pp 1027ndash1047

Byrne PJ Capps OJr and Saha A (1996) lsquoAnalysis of food-away-from-home expenditurepatterns for US Households 1982ndash89rsquo American Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol 78 pp614ndash627

Chadee D and Mattsson G (1996) lsquoAn empirical assessment of customer satisfaction in tourismrsquoThe Service Industries Journal Vol 16 No 3 pp 305ndash320

Chang KL Chen CM and Meyer T (2013) lsquoA comparison study of travel expenditure andconsumption choices between first-time and repeat visitorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 35 pp 275ndash277

Chen C-M and Chang K-L (2012) lsquoThe influence of travel agents on travel expendituresrsquo Annalsof Tourism Research Vol 32 No 2 pp 1258ndash1263

Cragg J (1971) lsquoSome statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to thedemand for durable goodsrsquo Econometrica Vol 39 pp 829ndash844

Craggs R and Schofield P (2009) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation and visitor profiling at TheQuays in Salford UKrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 15 No 1 pp 243ndash260

Davies B and Morgan J (1996) lsquoFamily expenditure on hotels and holidaysrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 19 No 4 pp 691ndash699

Deaton A and Muellbauer J (1980) Economics and Consumer Behavior Cambridge University PressCambridge

Divisekera S (2010) lsquoEconomics of touristrsquos consumption behavior some evidence from AustraliarsquoTourism Management Vol 31 pp 629ndash636

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2000) lsquoThe demand for day-visits an analysis of visitor spendingrsquoTourism Economics Vol 6 No 3 pp 251ndash261

Downward P and Lumsdon L (2003) lsquoBeyond the demand for day-visits an analysis of visitorspendingrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 9 No 1 pp 67ndash76

Enright MJ and Newton J (2004) lsquoTourism destination competitiveness a quantitative ap-proachrsquo Tourism Management Vol 25 No 6 pp 777ndash788

Fuchs M and Weiermair K (2004) lsquoDestination benchmarking an indicator-systemrsquos potentialfor exploring guest satisfactionrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 42 No 3 pp 212ndash225

Godbey G and Graefe A (1991) lsquoRepeat tourism play and monetary spendingrsquo Annals of TourismResearch Vol 18 No 2 pp 213ndash225(

Gyte D and Phelps A (1989) lsquoPatterns of destination repeat business British tourists in MallorcaSpainrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 28 No 1 pp 24ndash28

Heckman JJ (1976) lsquoSample selection bias as a specification errorrsquo Econometrica Vol 47 No 1pp 153ndash161

Heien D and Wessells C (1990) lsquoDemand system estimation with micro data a censoredregression approachrsquo Journal of Business amp Economic Statistics Vol 8 No 3 pp 356ndash371

Homburg C Koschate N and Hoyer WD (2005) lsquoDo satisfied customers really pay more Astudy of the relationship between customers satisfaction and willingness to payrsquo Journal ofMarketing Vol 69 pp 84ndash96

Hong GS Kim SY and Lee J (1999) lsquoTravel expenditure patterns of elderly households in theUSrsquo Tourism Recreation Journal Vol 24 No 1 pp 43ndash52

Hui T Wan D and Ho A (2007) lsquoTouristsrsquo satisfaction recommendation and revisiting Sin-gaporersquo Tourism Management Vol 28 No 4 pp 965ndash975

Hung W-T Shang J-K and Wang F-C (2012) lsquoAnother look at the determinants of tourismexpenditurersquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 39 No 1 pp 495ndash498

Jang S and Ham S (2009) lsquoA doublendashhurdle analysis of travel expenditure baby boomer seniorsversus older seniorsrsquo Tourism Management Vol 30 No 3 pp 372ndash380

Jang SCS Bai B Hong GS and OrsquoLeary JT (2004) lsquoUnderstanding travel expenditurepatterns a study of Japanese pleasure travelers to the Unitied States by income levelrsquo TourismManagement Vol 25 No 3 pp 331ndash341

Kim SS Prindeaux B and Chon K (2010) lsquoA comparison of results of three statistical methodsto understand the determinants of festival participantsrsquo expendituresrsquo International Journal ofHospitality Management Vol 29 pp 297ndash307

Kim WG and Cha Y (2002) lsquoAntecedents and consequence of relationship quality in hotelindustryrsquo International Journal of Hospitality Management Vol 21 No 4 pp 321ndash338

Kim WG Kim TT Gazzoli G Park Y Kim SH and Park SS (2011) lsquoFactors affecting thetravel expenditure of visitors to Macau Chinarsquo Tourism Economics Vol 17 No 4 pp 857ndash 883

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 22: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Klaus P (1985) lsquoQuality epiphenomenon the conceptual understanding of quality in face-to-faceservice encountersrsquo in Czepiel JA Solomon MR and Surprenant CF eds The ServiceEncounter Managing EmployeeCustomer Interaction in Service Business Lexington Books LexingtonMA pp 17ndash33

Kozak M and Rimmington M (2000) lsquoTourist satisfaction with Mallorca Spain as an off-seasonholiday destinationrsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 38 No 3 pp 260ndash269

Laesser C and Crouch GI (2006) lsquoSegmenting markets by travel expenditure patterns the caseof international visitors to Australiarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 44 pp 397ndash406

Lee C (2001) lsquoDeterminants of recreational boater expenditures on tripsrsquo Tourism Management Vol22 No 6 pp 659ndash667

Legoherel P (1998) lsquoToward a market segmentation of the tourism trade expenditure levels andconsumer behavior instabilityrsquo Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing Vol 7 No 3 pp 19ndash39

Lehto XY OrsquoLeary JT and Morrison AM (2004) lsquoThe effect of prior experience on vacationbehaviorrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol 31 No 4 pp 801ndash818

Leones J Codby B and Crandall K (1998) lsquoTracking expenditures of the elusive nature touristsof Southeastern Arisonarsquo Journal of Travel Research Vol 36 No 3 pp 56ndash64

Lim C (2006) lsquoA survey of tourism demand modelling practice Issues and implicationsrsquo in DwyerL and Forsyth P eds International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism Edward Elgar Publish-ing Cheltenham pp 45ndash72

Maddala GS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics Cambridge Univer-sity Press Cambridge

Manrique J and Jensen HH (1997) lsquoSpanish household demand for convenience meat productsrsquoAgribusiness Vol 13 No 6 pp 579ndash586

Marzetti DallrsquoAste Brandolini S and Disegna M (2012) lsquoDemand for the quality conservation ofVenice Italy according to different nationalitiesrsquo Tourism Economics Vol 18 No 5 pp 1019ndash1050DOI 105367te20120157

Maunier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoTowards an identification of elements contributing to satis-faction with the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Mok C and Iverson TJ (2000) lsquoExpenditure-based segmentation Taiwanese tourists to GuamrsquoTourism Management Vol 21 pp 299ndash305

Munier C and Camelis C (2013) lsquoToward an identification of elements contributing to satisfactionwith the tourism experiencersquo Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol 19 No 1 pp 19ndash39

Neal JD and Gursoy D (2008) lsquoA multifaceted analysis of tourism satisfactionrsquo Journal of TravelResearch Vol 47 pp 53ndash62

Oliver RL (1980) lsquoA cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisionsrsquoJournal of Marketing Research Vol 17 No 4 pp 460ndash469

Oliver R and Burke R (1999) lsquoExpectation processes in satisfaction formation a field studyrsquoJournal of Service Research Vol 1 No 3 pp 196ndash214

Oliver R and Swan J (1989) lsquoEquity and disconfirmation perceptions as influences on merchantand product satisfactionrsquo Journal of Consumer Research Vol 16 No 3 pp 372ndash383

Oppermann M (1996) lsquoVisitation of tourism attractions and tourist expenditure patterns ndash repeatversus first-time visitorsrsquo Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research Vol 1 No 1 pp 61ndash68

Oppermann M (1997) lsquoFirstndashtime and repeat visitors to New Zealandrsquo Tourism Management Vol18 pp 177ndash181

Pritchard MP and Havitz ME (2006) lsquoDestination appraisal An analysis of critical incidentsrsquoAnnals of Tourism Research Vol 33 No 1 pp 25ndash46

Pudney S (1989) Modelling Individual Choice the Econometrics of corners Kinks and Holes BasilBlackwell London

Ryan C (2003) Recreational Tourism Demand and Impacts Channel View Publications ClevedonSirgy J (1984) lsquoA social cognition model of consumer satisfactiondissatisfactionrsquo Psychology amp

Marketing Vol 1 No 2 pp 27ndash44Syriopoulos T and Sinclair M (1993) lsquoAn econometric study of tourism demand the aids model

of us and European tourism in Mediterranean countriesrsquo Applied Economics Vol 25 pp 1541ndash1552

Thompson K and Schofield P (2007) lsquoAn investigation of the relationship between publictransport performance and destination satisfactionrsquo Journal of Transport Geography Vol 15 No 2pp 136ndash144

Tobin J (1958) lsquoEstimation of relationships for limited dependent variablesrsquo Econometrica Vol 26No 1 pp 24ndash36

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 23: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

27Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviour

Tribe J (2005) The Economics of recreation Leisure amp Tourism 3rd edn Elsevier AmsterdamWang Y and Davidson MCG (2010) lsquoA review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditurersquo Current

Issues in Tourism Vol 13 No 6 pp 507ndash524Weagley RO and Huh E (2004) lsquoLeisure expenditures of retired and near-retired householdsrsquo

Journal of Leisure Research Vol 36 No 1 pp 101ndash127White H (1980) lsquoA heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for

heteroscedasticityrsquo Econometrica Vol 48 No 4 pp 817ndash838Wu L Zhang J and Fujiwara A (2013) lsquoTourism participation and expenditure behaviour

analysis using a Scobit Based DiscretendashContinuous choice modelrsquo Annals of Tourism Research Vol40 pp 1ndash17

Zhang L Qu H and Ma J(E) (2010) lsquoExamining the relationship of exhibition attendeesrsquosatisfaction and expenditure the case of two major exhibitions in Chinarsquo Journal of Conventionamp Event Tourism Vol 11 No 2 pp 100ndash118

Zheng B and Zhang Y (2011) lsquoHousehold expenditures for leisure tourism in the USA 1996and 2006rsquo International Journal of Tourism Research Vol 15 No 2 pp 197ndash208

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 24: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

28 TOURISM ECONOMICSA

ppen

dix

Tab

le A

1L

ist

and

bri

ef d

escr

ipti

on o

f th

e in

dep

end

ent

vari

able

s

Exp

lan

ator

y va

riab

les

Des

crip

tion

Mea

n (m

edia

n)

Are

you

sati

sfie

d w

ith

the f

ollo

win

g as

pect

s rel

ated

to th

e tri

p (1

0-po

int

Like

rt s

cale

)

Safe

tyLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

safe

ty8

6359

(9)

Land

scap

eLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

land

scap

e an

d na

tura

l env

iron

men

t8

9417

(9)

Food

and

bev

erag

esLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

food

and

bev

erag

es8

4680

(8)

Frie

ndli

ness

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

spit

alit

y an

d fr

iend

line

ss o

f the

peo

ple

845

53 (8

)In

form

atio

nLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

info

rmat

ion

and

tour

ist

serv

ices

829

90 (8

)A

rtLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

citi

es a

nd w

orks

of a

rt8

4777

(8)

Acc

omm

odat

ion

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h ho

tels

and

oth

er a

ccom

mod

atio

n8

3223

(8)

Pri

ceLe

vel o

f sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

pric

es a

nd c

ost

of li

ving

692

14 (7

)P

rodu

cts

sold

Leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

wit

h qu

alit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pro

duct

s of

fere

d in

sto

res

804

66 (8

)O

vera

ll s

atis

fact

ion

Ove

rall

leve

l of s

atis

fact

ion

837

96 (8

)Tr

avel

expe

ndit

ure p

er n

ight

per

per

son

ln s

pent

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

acco

mm

odat

ion

300

1 (3

401

)ln

spe

nt o

n tr

ansp

orta

tion

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

inte

rnal

tra

nspo

rtat

ion

150

3 (1

424

)ln

spe

nt o

n fo

od a

nd b

ever

ages

Loga

rith

m o

f exp

endi

ture

on

food

and

bev

erag

es o

utsi

de h

otel

s an

d ot

her

acco

mm

odat

ion

214

5 (2

438

)ln

spe

nt o

n sh

oppi

ngLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n sh

oppi

ng1

771

(18

33)

ln s

pent

on

othe

r se

rvic

esLo

gari

thm

of e

xpen

ditu

re o

n ot

her

serv

ices

085

1 (0

)

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 25: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

29Touristsrsquo expenditure behaviourC

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f tri

pN

ight

sN

umbe

r of

pai

d ni

ghts

(0 =

day

-vis

itor

)9

1700

(6)

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

1 =

nev

er b

een

to I

taly

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2190

(0)

Ital

y vi

site

d up

to

5 ti

mes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly fr

om 1

to

5 ti

mes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3650

(0)

Ital

y al

read

y vi

site

d m

ore

than

5 t

imes

1 =

bee

n in

Ita

ly m

ore

than

5 t

imes

bef

ore

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

4161

(0)

Cit

ies

in t

he D

olom

ite

area

1 =

onl

y 1

city

vis

ited

dur

ing

the

trip

0 =

mor

e th

an 1

cit

y vi

site

d du

ring

the

tri

p0

7932

(1)

Alo

ne1

= t

rave

llin

g al

one

0 =

tra

vell

ing

in a

gro

up0

2126

(0)

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

he v

isit

orA

ustr

ia1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Aus

tria

0 o

ther

wis

e0

1398

(0)

Out

side

EU

1 =

res

pond

ent

com

es fr

om a

cou

ntry

out

side

EU

0 o

ther

wis

e0

0854

(0)

Ger

man

y1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

Ger

man

y 0

oth

erw

ise

038

16 (0

)O

ther

EU

cou

ntri

es1

= r

espo

nden

t co

mes

from

an

EU

cou

ntry

oth

er t

han

Ger

man

y an

d A

ustr

ia 0

oth

erw

ise

039

32 (0

)(r

efer

ence

cat

egor

y)Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

old

1 =

less

tha

n 35

0 o

ther

wis

e0

2252

(0)

35ndash4

4 ye

ars

old

1 =

from

35

(inc

lude

d) t

o 44

(inc

lude

d) 0

oth

erw

ise

028

25 (0

)45

ndash64

year

s ol

d1

= fr

om 4

5 (i

nclu

ded)

to

64 (i

nclu

ded)

0 o

ther

wis

e0

3893

(0)

Ove

r 64

yea

rs o

ld1

= o

ver

64 y

ears

old

0 o

ther

wis

e (r

efer

ence

cate

gory

)0

1029

(0)

MR

Inve

rse

Mil

lrsquos R

atio

Not

eT

he m

ean

and

med

ian

valu

es a

re c

alcu

late

d in

clud

ing

zero

val

ues

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31

Page 26: Tourists' expenditure behaviour: the influence of …eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23263/1/2016Tourism Economics...Tourists’ expenditure behaviour 9 been seen as a significant predictor

30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

Tab

le A

2P

erce

nta

ge c

han

ge i

n e

ach

exp

end

itu

re c

ateg

ory

(fro

m t

he

mea

n v

alu

e) d

ue

to a

un

itar

y in

crea

se o

f ea

ch c

har

acte

rist

ic o

f th

e tr

ip a

nd

visi

tor

anal

ysed

Ind

epen

den

t va

riab

les

Mea

n v

alu

eA

ccom

mod

atio

nT

ran

spor

tati

onF

ood

an

d b

ever

ages

Shop

pin

gO

ther

ser

vice

s

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of t

rip

Num

ber

of n

ight

s9

17ndash0

85

ndash05

2ndash0

43

ndash09

5ndash0

32

Firs

t ti

me

in I

taly

022

ndash42

5684

59

553

4It

aly

visi

ted

up t

o 5

tim

es0

37ndash1

723

442

6C

itie

s in

the

Dol

omit

e ar

ea0

79ndash3

474

Alo

ne0

2122

49

ndash24

89C

hara

cter

isti

cs o

f vi

sito

rA

ustr

ia0

14ndash2

996

ndash35

1329

44

936

6ndash3

991

Out

side

EU

009

ndash21

98G

erm

any

038

ndash52

73Le

ss t

han

35 y

ears

rsquo old

023

ndash15

03ndash1

605

34ndash4

4 ye

arsrsquo

old

028

ndash22

1819

31