A Study of Tourists’ Holiday Rush-Hour Avoidance Travel Behavior Considering Psychographic Segmentation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Model Framework
2.2. Structural Equation Model
2.3. Latent Class Model
3. Data
3.1. Sample
3.2. Data Analysis
4. Result Analysis
4.1. Analysis of SEM Estimation Results
4.2. Analysis of LCM Segmentation Results
5. Conclusions and Discussion
- (1)
- For the first segment (‘neutral’ type), although they are generally neutral about avoiding rush-hour travel during holidays, some tourists (about 40%) are still sensitive to preferential travel costs and travel experiences during holidays. Due to the small groups, the travel is free and flexible, and changing travel routes is convenient. They can potentially be used to stimulate groups to choose HRAT. We can encourage them to travel at different off-peak times by increasing travel discounts and recommending high-quality travel routes.
- (2)
- For the second segment (‘experiential’ type), they attach great importance to tourism travel experience and quality. The degree of caring about the travel experience exceeds the sensitivity to travel cost. Crowded scenic spots and congested roads will directly affect their travel choices. Therefore, this segment can be regarded as a group that is faithful to HRAT. Accurate information on avoiding rush hour can be used to help this group. Meanwhile, excellent service facilities at scenic spots and roads can help improve the HRAT experience of this group.
- (3)
- For the third segment (‘active’ type), they are the potential group for HRAT. They show strong sensitivity to external influences such as news media, preferential fees, and so on. The psychological manifestation of the intention to choose HRAT is more positive. However, the attitude evaluation of HRAT is weaker than that of the second segment and the sensitivity to cost is stronger. Most of the people in this group are middle income. It is more effective to use preferential fees (such as scenic spot tickets, travel costs) to attract them to travel at different times.
- (4)
- For the fourth segment (‘random’ type), because the number of tourists in these groups is usually large, they are very restrictive toward each other. It is relatively difficult to implement holiday rush-hour avoidance travel. However, because they are sensitive to fees and most have low incomes, we can increase the discounts to avoid rush hour for group tours, such as discount tickets for group attractions and preferential road tolls for multiple people.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lin, X.; Susilo, Y.; Shao, C.; Liu, C. The Implication of Road Toll Discount for Mode Choice: Intercity Travel during the Chinese Spring Festival Holiday. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, Y.; Xiao, F.; Gao, Z.; Gao, Z. Investigation of the traffic congestion during public holiday and the impact of the toll-exemption policy. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2017, 104, 58–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, Q.; Hu, H.; Kavan, P. Factors Influencing Perceived Crowding of Tourists and Sustainable Tourism Destination Management. Sustainability 2016, 8, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AMAP. Travel Report on National Day of 2017; Travel Report AMAP: Beijing, China, 2017; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- AMAP. Travel Report on National Day of 2018; Travel Report AMAP: Beijing, China, 2018; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Hsieh, H.; Kanda, Y.; Fujii, S. Incorporation of coping planning into the behavior change model that accounts for implementation intention. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 60, 228–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salomon, I.; Mokhtarian, P.L. Coping with Congestion: Understanding the Gap between Policy Assumptions and Behavior. Transp. Res. Part D Trans. Environ. 1997, 2, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hess, S.; Daly, A.; Rohr, C.; Hyman, G. On the development of time period and mode choice models for use in large scale modelling forecasting systems. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2007, 41, 802–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choo, S.; Mokhtarian, P.L. Individual responses to congestion policies: Modeling the consideration of factor-based travel-related strategy bundles. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2012, 16, 822–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alfa, A.S.; Black, J.A.; Blunden, W.R. On the Temporal Distribution of Peak Traffic Demands: A Model and Its Calibration. Aust. Road Res. Board 1985, 2, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Steed, J.L.; Bhat, C.R. Modeling Departure Time Choice for Home-Based Non-Work Trips; Research Report SWUTC; Southwest Region University Transportation Center, Univeristy of Texas at Austin: Austin, TX, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ben-Elia, E.; Ettema, D. Carrots versus sticks: Rewarding commuters for avoiding the rush-hour—A study of willingness to participate. Transp. Policy 2009, 16, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Elia, E.; Ettema, D. Changing commuters’ behavior using rewards: A study of rush-hour avoidance. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2011, 14, 354–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Elia, E.; Ettema, D. Rewarding rush-hour avoidance: A study of commuters’ travel behavior. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2011, 45, 567–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Fujii, H.; Managi, S. How does commuting behavior change due to incentives? An empirical study of the Beijing Subway System. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2014, 24, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thorhauge, M.; Cherchi, E.; Rich, J. How flexible is flexible? Accounting for the effect of rescheduling possibilities in choice of departure time for work trips. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 86, 177–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shailes, A.; Senior, M.L.; Andrew, B.P. Tourists’ travel behaviour in response to congestion: The case of car trips to Cornwall, United Kingdom. J. Transp. Geog. 2001, 9, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, C.; Yeh, Y. Modeling air travelers’choice of flight departure and return dates on long holiday weekends. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2017, 65, 220–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thorhauge, M.; Cherchi, E.; Walker, J.L.; Rich, J. The role of intention as mediator between latent effects and behavior: Application of a hybrid choice model to study departure time choices. Transportation 2017, 2017, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, Y.; Guan, H.; Duan, J. Tour Route Multiobjective Optimization Design Based on the Tourist Satisfaction. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2014, 2014, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arellana, J.; Daly, A.; Hess, S.; de Dios Ortúzar, J.; Rizzi, L.I. Development of Surveys for Study of Departure Time Choice: Two-Stage Approach to Efficient Design. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Res. Board 2012, 2303, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thorhauge, M.; Haustein, S.; Cherchi, E. Accounting for the Theory of Planned Behaviour in departure time choice. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2016, 38, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haustein, S.; Thorhauge, M.; Cherchi, E. Commuters’ attitudes and norms related to travel time and punctuality: A psychographic segmentation to reduce congestion. Travel Behav. Soc. 2018, 12, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okazaki, S.; Campo, S.; Andreu, L.; Romero, J. A Latent Class Analysis of Spanish Travelers’ Mobile Internet Usage in Travel Planning and Execution. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2015, 56, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molin, E.; Mokhtarian, P.; Kroesen, M. Multimodal travel groups and attitudes: A latent class cluster analysis of Dutch travelers. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 83, 14–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Teichert, T.; Shehu, E.; von Wartburg, I. Customer segmentation revisited: The case of the airline industry. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2008, 42, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wen, C.; Lai, S. Latent class models of international air carrier choice. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2010, 46, 211–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, W.H.; Hensher, D.A. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: Contrasts with mixed logit. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2003, 37, 681–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shelat, S.; Huisman, R.; van Oort, N. Analysing the trip and user characteristics of the combined bicycle and transit mode. Res. Transp. Econ. 2018, 69, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yanagihara, M.; Uno, N.; Nakamura, T. Latent Class Analysis for Driving Behavior on Merging Section. Transp. Res. Procedia 2015, 6, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alegre, J.; Mateo, S.; Pou, L. A latent class approach to tourists’ length of stay. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 555–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pronello, C.; Camusso, C. Travellers’profiles definition using statistical multivariate analysis of attitudinal variables. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1294–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haustein, S.; Hunecke, M. Identifying target groups for environmentally sustainable transport: Assessment of different segmentation approaches Sonja Haustein1 and Marcel Hunecke2. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anable, J. ‘Complacent Car Addicts’ or ‘Aspiring Environmentalists’? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory. Transp. Policy 2005, 12, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shiftan, Y.; Outwater, M.L.; Zhou, Y. Transit market research using structural equation modeling and attitudinal market segmentation. Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.; Shen, Q.; Li, Z. Comparing travel mode and trip chain choices between holidays and weekdays. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 91, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Liu, X.; Tang, J.; Cheng, S.; Wang, Y. Urban spatial structure and travel patterns: Analysis of workday and holiday travel using inhomogeneous Poisson point process models. Comput. Environ. Urban 2019, 73, 68–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, B.; Shao, C.; Li, J.; Weng, J.; Ji, X. Holiday travel behavior analysis and empirical study under integrated multimodal travel information service. Transp. Policy 2015, 39, 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunecke, M.; Haustein, S.; Böhler, S.; Grischkat, S. Attitude-Based Target Groups to Reduce the Ecological Impact of Daily Mobility Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2010, 42, 3–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hess, S.; Polak, J.W.; Daly, A.; Hyman, G. Flexible substitution patterns in models of mode and time of day choice: New evidence from the UK and the Netherlands. Transportation 2007, 34, 213–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oppewal, H.; Huybers, T.; Crouch, G.I. Tourist destination and experience choice: A choice experimental analysis of decision sequence effects. Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 467–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicolau, J.L.; Más, F.J. Sequential choice behavior: Going on vacation and type of destination. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 1023–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Acker, V.; Witlox, F.; Van Wee, B. The Effects of the Land Use System on Travel Behavior: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2007, 30, 331–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, Y.; Li, W.; Wei, S.; Zhang, T. Research on Passenger’s Travel Mode Choice Behavior Waiting at Bus Station Based on SEM-Logit Integration Model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López-Bonilla, L.M.; López-Bonilla, J.M. Postmodernism and Heterogeneity of Leisure Tourist Behavior Patterns. Leisure Sci. 2009, 31, 68–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, H.Z. Latent Class Modeling: Principles and Techniques; Educational Science Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Ziegel, E.R. Log-Linear Models for Event Historiesby. J. Vermunt Technometrics 1998, 40, 85. [Google Scholar]
- Clogg, C.C. Some Latent Structure Models for the Analysis of Likert-Type Data. Soc. Sci. Res. 1979, 8, 287–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clogg, C.C. Latent Structure Models of Mobility. Am. J. Soc. 1981, 86, 836–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masiero, L.; Qiu, R.T. Modeling reference experience in destination choice. Ann. Tour. Res. 2018, 72, 58–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Description | Percentage (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Gender 1 | Male | 52.82 |
Gender 2 | Female | 47.18 | |
Age (years) | Age 1 | 18–23 | 18.18 |
Age 2 | 24–34 | 49.38 | |
Age 3 | 35–44 | 19.01 | |
Age 4 | 45–54 | 8.68 | |
Age 5 | 55–65 | 4.75 | |
Occupation | Occupation 1 | Staff | 30.87 |
Occupation 2 | Worker | 23.56 | |
Occupation 3 | Teachers | 11.78 | |
Occupation 4 | Student | 21.18 | |
Occupation 5 | Retired/Unemployed | 5.58 | |
Occupation 6 | Freelance | 5.58 | |
Occupation 7 | Other | 1.45 | |
Education level | Education 1 | High school or below | 5.37 |
Education 2 | Junior college/Bachelor’s degree | 63.43 | |
Education 3 | Master’s degree | 22.73 | |
Education 4 | Doctorate degree | 8.47 | |
Monthly income (RMB) | Income 1 | 3000 | 35.95 |
Income 2 | 3000–5000 | 22.52 | |
Income 3 | 5001–8000 | 27.27 | |
Income 4 | 8000 | 14.26 | |
Disposable tourism time | Time 1 | Single day off and statutory holidays | 18.18 |
Time 2 | Two days off and statutory holidays | 25.83 | |
Time 3 | Two days off, statutory holidays, and paid annual leave | 16.12 | |
Time 4 | Two days off, statutory holidays, and summer/winter vacation | 23.34 | |
Time 5 | Lots of free time | 16.53 |
Latent Variables | Observed Variables | Mean | Cronbach’s α | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude (ATT) | Y1 | Improve the tourism experience | 4.14 | 0.882 |
Y2 | Avoid travel congestion | 3.80 | ||
Y3 | Reduce the loss of time | 3.64 | ||
Subjective Norm (SN) | Y4 | Behavior of people around you | 3.31 | 0.841 |
Y5 | Advice and support from family members | 4.01 | ||
Y6 | Suggestions from friends/classmates/colleagues | 3.98 | ||
Y7 | News and social media promotion | 3.92 | ||
Perceived Behavior Control (PBC) | Y8 | Free travel time constraints | 3.89 | 0.906 |
Y9 | Accurate and perfect information guidance | 3.66 | ||
Y10 | Concessionary attraction of tickets to scenic spots | 3.58 | ||
Y11 | Preferential travel cost attraction | 3.76 | ||
Y12 | Convenient transportation facilities | 3.31 | ||
Y13 | Experience of holiday rush-hour avoidance travel | 3.25 | ||
Behavior Intention (BI) | Z1 | Willing to try | 4.00 | 0.814 |
Z2 | Willing to give priority | 3.33 | ||
Z3 | Recommend it to friends and relatives | 3.83 |
Fix Index | SEM Models | Criteria of Acceptable Fit |
---|---|---|
CMIN/DF (Likelihood-ratio Chi-square/degrees of freedom) | 1.723 | <3 |
RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) | 0.039 | <0.08 |
RMR (root mean square residual) | 0.042 | <0.05 |
GFI (goodness-of-fit index) | 0.951 | >0.9 |
AGFI (adjusted goodness-of-fit index) | 0.934 | >0.9 |
NFI (normed fit index) | 0.955 | >0.9 |
TLI (Tacker-Lewis index) | 0.977 | >0.9 |
IFI (incremental fit index) | 0.981 | >0.9 |
CFI (comparative fit index) | 0.981 | >0.9 |
Number of Classes | χ2 | G2 | AIC | BIC | Entropy |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 3852.799 | 1512.216 | 7433.902 | 7630.460 | 0.892 |
3 | 3559.240 | 1367.385 | 7313.432 | 7610.360 | 0.841 |
4 | 3415.039 | 1316.357 | 7262.843 | 7660.141 | 0.872 |
5 | 3050.608 | 1216.701 | 7266.489 | 7714.157 | 0.859 |
Variables | Observed Variables | Level | Description | Conditional Probability of Latent Class | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CL1 | CL2 | CL3 | CL4 | ||||
Personal attributes | Age (years) | 1 | 18–23 | 0.254 | 0.12 | 0.114 | 0.346 |
2 | 24–34 | 0.498 | 0.154 | 0.358 | 0.419 | ||
3 | 35–44 | 0.158 | 0.377 | 0.297 | 0.04 | ||
4 | 45–54 | 0.074 | 0.294 | 0.154 | 0.12 | ||
5 | 55–65 | 0.016 | 0.055 | 0.077 | 0.075 | ||
Monthly income (RMB) | 1 | 3000 | 0.426 | 0 | 0.313 | 0.789 | |
2 | 3000–5000 | 0.314 | 0.2 | 0.303 | 0.149 | ||
3 | 5001–8000 | 0.234 | 0.419 | 0.305 | 0.03 | ||
4 | 8000 | 0.026 | 0.381 | 0.079 | 0.032 | ||
Tourism characteristics | Tourist group (N) | 1 | 1 | 0.46 | 0.115 | 0.47 | 0.112 |
2 | 2–3 | 0.25 | 0.516 | 0.327 | 0.064 | ||
3 | 4–6 | 0.168 | 0.309 | 0.063 | 0.235 | ||
4 | ≥7 | 0.122 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 0.589 | ||
Psychological factors | Y1 | 1 | Strongly disagree | 0.016 | 0 | 0.047 | 0.256 |
2 | Disagree | 0.098 | 0.042 | 0.111 | 0.456 | ||
3 | Generally agree | 0.485 | 0.125 | 0.163 | 0.043 | ||
4 | Agree | 0.224 | 0.376 | 0.296 | 0.101 | ||
5 | Strongly agree | 0.177 | 0.457 | 0.383 | 0.144 | ||
Y7 | 1 | Strongly disagree | 0.012 | 0.018 | 0.043 | 0.131 | |
2 | Disagree | 0.05 | 0.075 | 0 | 0.323 | ||
3 | Generally agree | 0.893 | 0.146 | 0.039 | 0.144 | ||
4 | Agree | 0.045 | 0.502 | 0.26 | 0.372 | ||
5 | Strongly agree | 0 | 0.259 | 0.658 | 0.03 | ||
Y11 | 1 | Strongly disagree | 0.016 | 0.253 | 0.127 | 0.011 | |
2 | Disagree | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.224 | ||
3 | Generally agree | 0.509 | 0.152 | 0.102 | 0.153 | ||
4 | Agree | 0.27 | 0.297 | 0.445 | 0.438 | ||
5 | Strongly agree | 0.125 | 0.188 | 0.296 | 0.174 | ||
Probability of latent class | 0.295 | 0.339 | 0.162 | 0.204 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhu, H.; Guan, H.; Han, Y.; Li, W. A Study of Tourists’ Holiday Rush-Hour Avoidance Travel Behavior Considering Psychographic Segmentation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133755
Zhu H, Guan H, Han Y, Li W. A Study of Tourists’ Holiday Rush-Hour Avoidance Travel Behavior Considering Psychographic Segmentation. Sustainability. 2019; 11(13):3755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133755
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhu, Haiyan, Hongzhi Guan, Yan Han, and Wanying Li. 2019. "A Study of Tourists’ Holiday Rush-Hour Avoidance Travel Behavior Considering Psychographic Segmentation" Sustainability 11, no. 13: 3755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133755
APA StyleZhu, H., Guan, H., Han, Y., & Li, W. (2019). A Study of Tourists’ Holiday Rush-Hour Avoidance Travel Behavior Considering Psychographic Segmentation. Sustainability, 11(13), 3755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133755