Multi-destination Travel Pattern Models

TOURISM THEORY BOOK RESUME MULTI-DESTINATION TRAVEL PATTERN MODELS (CHAPTER 4.6 MULTI-DESTINATION TRAVEL PATTERN MODELS) Tourists use a combination of routes to reach one or more destinations they plan to visit on a tourist trip. This entry will discuss two multi-destination travel pattern models. The first is proposed by Lue, et al. (1993) and the second is refined by Oppermann (1995). Lue, et al. (1993) proposed a model consisting of five spatial patterns of tourist movement (see figure 52), namely: a) Single destination; b) ‘En route’; c) 'Base camp’; d) Regional tour; and e) Trip chaining. The authors assume that given five similar destinations (A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) equidistant from the origin, the last four destinations will be preferred because they offer additional destinations (B, C, D, E and F) at a relatively small cost increase. a) Single Destination The simplest spatial pattern reflects single destination travel. However, Lue et al. (1993) argue that this is rarely the case as one important destination will be connected to other destinations. They present the case of the Grand Canyon in the US, where nearby indigenous communities welcome visitors who come to see the carved cliffs of the Colorado River. b) ‘En Route’ In the ‘en route’ pattern, secondary destinations (B2, C2, D2, E2 and F2) line up along the route to the primary destination A2. In this travel pattern, tourists can use secondary destinations on both the outbound and return journeys as the attractions lie between the tourist’s origin and the primary destination. In some cases, these ‘interceptor’ attractions may be created as part of tourism planning policies, as in the UK in the 1970s, where parks were created between major population centres. This reduced the number of visitors to the destination, reducing crowding. The authors also note that it is easier for smaller destinations to attract visitors in an ‘en route’ pattern than to reroute or extend the trip. c) ‘Base Camp’ (Radial Pattern) In terms of the third type of travel pattern, known as the ‘base camp’ or radial pattern, tourists stay overnight at the main destination (A3), using it as a ‘base camp’ for visiting destinations in the region. In many cases, trips to these ‘satellite’ destinations are made during the day because these peripheral destinations are unlikely to offer the same level of tourism infrastructure (especially accommodation, food and entertainment) as the main destination. The authors cite the example of Orlando, Florida, where most people consider the main tourist attraction to be Disney World but there are also a number of lesser attractions in the surrounding area. From Disney’s perspective, these attractions could be considered ‘parasites’ because they do not generate park business. d) Regional Tour In the fourth pattern, the ‘regional tour’ is developed from A4, with secondary destinations that may attract some overnight visitors. These destinations can work together to increase the number of destinations, which are usually centered around a particular topic. Experience shows that when different tourist attractions are located within a reasonable geographical distance, which is characteristic of 'base camps' and regional tour patterns, they can be conceptualized as 'organic' tourist attraction areas. e) Trip Chaining Finally, trip chaining involves a grand tour where travelers move from one destination to another, with these destinations possibly competing for visitors’ attention and overnight stays. This pattern is typical for some tour packages, such as several European countries visited in a short period of time. Next, Oppermann (1995) developed a travel model by refining the previous model. Oppermann’s model is divided into two types of travel patterns, namely single destination and multiple destination. 1. Single Destination The first pattern includes the single destination (S1) and the ‘base camp’ (S2). 2. Multiple Destination Multiple destination patterns, namely stopover pattern (M1), full loop (M2), destination area loop (M3), 'open jaw' loop (M4) and multiple destination areas loop (M5). Opperman still takes the pattern (S1, S2), and the pattern (M1, M2, M3) which is still in accordance with the previous pattern that has been identified by Mings and McHugh (1992) and Lue, et al. (1993). Meanwhile, what is meant by the 'open jaw' loop (M4) is a type of long-distance travel that is very common in countries such as New Zealand, where international travelers use different arrival and departure points, generally entering through Auckland and departing through Christchurch (see Lohmann and Zahra, 2010). Then, what is meant by the multiple destination areas loop (M5) is a combination of the destination area loop (M3) and the 'open jaw' loop (M4). According to Oppermann in the multiple destination areas loop (M5), tourists travel to completely different areas and travel to a number of places in each area. The most typical example of this pattern is a trip around the world. New Zealand is one type of destination that is widely visited by tourists with this characteristic. One of the biggest challenges for tourism destinations characterized by multiple destination trips is managing one-way travel patterns. New Zealand is an example of this problem, with many international tourists entering the country via Auckland, the main international port of entry into the North Island, and then travelling south by car, often leaving the South Island by plane and returning via Auckland or departing for another destination overseas. Lohman and Zahra (2010) analyse the difficulties faced by car rental companies trying to reposition their fleets at northern distribution points, particularly Auckland and Picton, presenting the various logistics strategies and incentives offered.