Demographic data. The following demographic data were collected. Most participants were between 20 and 40 years old (Figure 4.1). The mean age was 28.6 years old.
26
Most participants were female, and the ratio was 52 female versus 16 males (Figure 4.2).
27
Both students and working people participated in the study, with a frequency of 31 students and 37 working persons (Figure 4.3).
28
Most of the participants described themselves as independent travelers (67.6%), in contrast to travelling with a group tour (17.6%). 14.7% of the participants identified themselves as both independent and group tour travelers (Figure 4.4).
Competing destinations. In the online survey, participants were first asked to name, supposing they were considering travel to Sweden, two countries that they considered to be its closest competing destinations. Results (Table 4.1) showed that a major part of the participants considered the three other Scandinavian countries (Norway, Finland and Denmark) to be Sweden’s closest competing destinations, followed by Switzerland, a couple of West European countries (England, France, Germany and Holland) as well as the United States and Iceland.
29
Table 4.1 Frequency of competitors (demand side)
COUNTRY FREQUENCY
Norway 34
Finland 33
Denmark 20
Switzerland 6
England 4
The participants were then asked to rank the above mentioned two competing destinations and Sweden, according to where they would like to travel the most. To get
30
a clearer view of the attractiveness of each of these destinations to the Japanese participants, a certain score were given every time a country was being ranked in a certain position.
- 1st place ranking = 3 points - 2nd place ranking = 2 points - 3rd place ranking = 1 point
The summation of these scores was then divided with the number of times they had been ranked, to get a mean score of attractiveness for each destination.
Table 4.2 Attractiveness of competitors
COUNTRY N Sum Mean
1. Finland 32 68 2.13
2. Sweden 66 136 2.06
3. Denmark 20 36 1.80
4. Norway 32 56 1.75
Results (Table 4.2) indicate that Finland seem to have been ranked fairly high among the different competing destinations. Even though Norway was one of the most frequently mentioned countries, it seemed that participants ranked it lower when they had to choose between where they wanted to go the most.
The possible reasons for Finland’s tendency to get relatively favorable rankings, and what implications it might have for Sweden, will be discussed in the discussion chapter.
AHP factor weights. The participants were then asked to rank the four main factors, Natural Resources, Cultural Resources, Tourism Infrastructure and Range of Activities, according to their importance if they were considering the above mentioned three countries as potential travel destinations. The ranking was conducted to facilitate for the participants to get a more consistent rating of the factors in the following question. In the next question participants were asked to rate all the main factors and sub factors
31
according to their importance if they were considering the above three countries as their potential travel destinations.
The results (Table 4.3) showed that of the four main factors Natural Resources were regarded as the most important, with Cultural Resources on the second place, Tourism Infrastructure on the third place, and Range of Activities regarded as the least important of the main factors.
Within each main factor, the sub factors that displayed the highest local importance weights were Natural Scenery, Climate, History, Accommodation and Adventure Activities. Wildlife seemed to be the least important of the sub factors.
Table 4.3
AHP factor weights demand side
Local Global Accommodation Transportation Service
Range of Activities Adventure Activities Cultural Activities Recreational Activities
0.2714
However, we must also look at the CI and CR numbers that indicate the grade of consistency in participants’ answers. Results (Table 4.4) showed that the mean CI and CR values for all main factors and sub factors were larger than 0.1, which means that the inconsistency in the answers from participants were too high. A CR of 0.1 or below is considered acceptable, and any higher values indicate that judgments need reexamination (Crouch 2010).
Table 4.4
Factor CI and CR numbers
Attributes
Mean CI
Mean CR
Main Factors 0.2348 0.263
Natural Resources 0.187 0.3633 Cultural Resources 0.117 0.228 Tourism Infrastructure 0.12 0.233 Range of Activities 0.156 0.303
Since not all of the participants answered in an inconsistent way, the next step was to remove all the inconsistent participants, e.g. participants with a CR higher than 0.1, from the data and run the factor weight analysis again to see if there was a different outcome of the factor weights. The participants were reduced to 30 persons.
33
Table 4.5
AHP factor weights demand side Accommodation Transportation Service
Range of Activities Adventure Activities Cultural Activities Recreational Activities
0.2208
Table 4.6
Factor CI and CR numbers
Mean CI
Mean CR Attributes
Main Factors 0.0265 0.029
Natural Resources 0.007 0.0132 Cultural Resources 0.008 0.015 Tourism Infrastructure 0.005 0.01 Range of Activities 0.0067 0.013
Results (Table 4.5) showed that most of the factor weights had similar importance weights as before. However, there were some differences. Among the main factors, Natural Resources stood out as the most important one again, with Range of Activities as the least important. Among the sub factors, Climate, Accommodation and Adventure Activities were once again among the most important factors. However, this time Cuisine stood out as more important than both History and Cultural Arts. The Service factor was among the weakest factors.
Pairwise mean comparison of factor importance rankings. Since some of the AHP analyses had trouble with the consistency ratings, pairwise mean comparisons of the ranking of factors were also conducted for all the main factors and sub factors using SPSS. The lower the mean, the higher was the importance ranking.
Table 4.8
Paired main factors
t df Sig.
Pair 1: Natural Resources – Cultural Resources 0.48 67 0.678 Pair 2: Natural Resources – Tourism Infra -0.06 67 0.951 Pair 3: Natural Resources – Activities -3.26 67 0.002 Pair 4: Cultural Resources – Tourism Infra
Pair 5: Cultural Resources - Activities
-0.51 -3,72
67 67
0.610 0.000 Pair 6: Tourism Infra – Activities -3.74 67 0.000
35
Table 4.9
Paired main factors
Mean N SD SE Mean
Pair 3: Natural Resources Activities Pair 5: Cultural Resources
Activities Pair 6: Tourism Infrastructure
Activities
Results (Table 4.9) showed that Natural Resources was perceived as more important (M=2.34) than Range of Activities (M=3.06; t(67)=-3.267, p = 0.002). Cultural Resources was perceived as more important (M=2.25) than Range of Activities (M=3.06; t(67)=-3.727, p = 0.000). Tourism Infrastructure was perceived as more important (M=2.35) than Range of Activities (M=3.06; t(67)=-3.742. Only these three pairs were significantly different (Table 4.8).
Table 4.10
Paired Sub Factors: Natural Resources
t df Sig.
Pair 1: Natural Scenery - Climate -7.600 61 0.000 Pair 2: Natural Resources – Wildlife -16.113 61 0.000
Pair 3: Climate - Wildlife -4.547 61 0.000
36
Table 4.11
Paired Sub Factors: Natural Resources
Mean N SD SE
Mean
Pair 1: Natural Scenery Climate Pair 2: Natural Scenery
Wildlife Pair 3: Climate
Wildlife
Results (Table 4.11) showed that Natural Scenery was perceived as more important (M=1.194) than Climate (M=2.097; t(61)=-7.600, p = 0.000). Natural Scenery was also perceived as more important (M=1.194) than Wildlife (M=2.710; t(61)=-7.600, p = 0.000). Climate was perceived as more important (M=2.097) than Wildlife (M=2.710;
t(61)=-4.547, p = 0.000). All of the paired means were significantly different from each other (Table 4.10).
Table 4.12
Paired Sub Factors: Cultural Resources
t df Sig.
Pair 1: History – Cultural Arts 2.368 64 0.021
Pair 2: History – Cuisine 2.234 64 0.029
Pair 3: Cultural Arts - Cuisine 0.266 64 0.791
37
Table 4.13
Paired Sub Factors: Cultural Resources
Mean N SD SE
Mean
Pair 1: History Cultural Arts
2.262 1.892
65 65
0.7960 0.7315
0.0987 0.0907 Pair 2: History
Cuisine
2.262 1.846
65 65
0.7960 0.8702
0.0987 0.1079
Results (Table 4.13) showed that Cultural Arts was perceived as more important (M=1.892) than History (M=2.262; t(64)=2.368, p = 0,021). Cuisine was perceived as more important (M=1.846) than History (M=2.262; t(64)=2.234, p = 0,029). Cultural Arts were perceived as no different (M=1.892) from Cuisine (M=1.846; t(64)=0.266, p
= 0,791) (Table 4.12).
Table 4.14
Paired Sub Factors: Tourism Infrastructure
t df Sig.
Pair 1: Accommodation – Transportation -0.285 66 0.787 Pair 2: Accommodation – Service -0.487 66 0.449 Pair 3: Transportation - Service -0.534 66 0.318
Results showed that for the Tourism Infrastructure sub factors, none of the pair wise mean comparisons were significantly different from each other (Table 4.14).
38
Table 4.15
Paired Sub Factors: Range of Activities
t df Sig.
Pair 1: Adventure – Cultural 1.590 65 0.117 Pair 2: Adventure – Recreational -2.398 65 0.019 Pair 3: Cultural - Recreational -3.817 65 0.000
Table 4.16
Paired Sub Factors: Range of Activities
Mean N SD SE
Mean
Pair 2: Adventure Recreational
1.955 2.348
66 66
0.7531 0.7941
0.0927 0.0977 Pair 3: Cultural
Recreational
1.697 2.348
66 66
0.7839 0.7941
0.0965 0.0977
Results (Table 4.16) showed that Adventure Activities was perceived as more important (M=1.955) than Recreational Activities (M=2.348; t(65)=-2.398, p = 0,019). Cultural Activities was perceived as more important (M=1.697) than Recreational Activities (M=2.348; t(65)=-3.817, p = 0,000). Adventure Activities were perceived as no different (M=1.955) from Cultural Activities (M=1.697; t(65)=1.590, p = 0,117) (Table 4.16).