This paper presents the results of a stated choice modelling study of the factors underlying holiday destination choices. The study comprises the analysis of short-break holiday choices by tourists from Sydney, Australia in the context of six destination regions. The response data reflect the way the attributes of competing destinations influence Sydney residents' destination choices. The modelling of these choices enables estimation of the trade-offs between varying levels of destination attributes. This includes estimation of the implicit prices of attribute changes, which are reported in this paper. The simulated market share effects of selected changes in destination attributes and respondent characteristics are also presented.
Ben-AkivaM.LermanS. (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Applications to Travel Demand, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
2.
Boersch-SupanA. (1990), ‘On the compatibility of nested logit models with utility maximisation’, Journal of Econometrics, Vol 43, No 3, pp 373–388.
3.
ChackoH. (1997), ‘Positioning a tourism destination to gain a competitive edge’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol 1, No 2, pp 69–75.
4.
HaiderW.EwingG. (1990), ‘A model of tourist choices of hypothetical caribbean destinations’, Leisure Sciences, Vol 12, No 1, pp 33–47.
5.
HausmanJ.McFaddenD. (1984), ‘Specification tests for the multinomial logit model’, Econometrica, Vol 52, No 5, pp 1219–1240.
6.
HensherD.JohnsonL. (1981), Applied Discrete Choice Modelling, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
7.
HensherD.GreeneW. (2002), ‘Specification and estimation of the nested logit model: Alternative normalisations’, Transportation Research Part B, Vol 36, No 1, pp 1–17.
8.
HuybersT.BennettJ. (2000), ‘Impact of the environment on holiday destination choices of prospective UK tourists: Implications for Tropical North Queensland’, Tourism Economics, Vol 6, No1, pp 21–46.
9.
KoppelmanF.WenC. (1998), ‘Alternative nested logit models: Structure, properties and estimation’, Transportation Research Part B, Vol 32, No 5, pp 289–298.
10.
LancasterK. (1966), ‘A new approach to consumer theory’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol 74, No 2, pp 132–157.
11.
LancasterK. (1971), Consumer Demand – A New Approach, Columbia University Press, New York.
12.
LouviereJ. (1988), Analyzing Decision Making – Metric Conjoint Analysis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
13.
LouviereJ. (1994), ‘Relating stated preference measures and models to choices in real markets: Calibration of CV Responses’, paper prepared for the DOE/EPA Workshop on Using Contingent Valuation To Measure Non-Market Values, Herndon, VA, 19–20 May.
14.
LouviereJ.TimmermansH. (1990), ‘Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research: A review’, Leisure Sciences, Vol 12, No 1, pp 9–32.
15.
LouviereJ.HensherD.SwaitJ. (2000), Stated Choice Methods – Analysis and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16.
MorleyC. (1994), ‘Experimental destination choice analysis’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 21, No 4, pp 780–791.
17.
MorleyC. (1995), ‘Tourism demand: Characteristics, segmentation and aggregation’, Tourism Economics, Vol 1, No 4, pp 315–328.
18.
National Visitor Survey (1999), CD-MOTA, Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.
19.
PapatheodorouA. (2001), ‘Why people travel to different places’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 28, No 1, pp 164–179.
20.
RichardsonJ. (1996), Marketing Australian Travel and Tourism: Principles and Practice, Hospitality Press, Elsternwick.
21.
RuggD. (1973), ‘The choice of journey destination: A theoretical and empirical analysis’, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol 55, No 1, pp 64–72.
22.
SwaitJ.LouviereJ.WilliamsM. (1994), ‘A sequential approach to exploiting the combined strengths of SP and RP data: Application to freight shipper choice’, Transportation, Vol 21, pp 135–152.
23.
TrainK. (1986), Qualitative Choice Analysis, Theory, Econometrics and an Application to Automobile Demand, MIT Press, London.
