MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2743889376 · doi:10.20429/amtp.2017.54

Segmentation of the Aruban Tourism Market: Classification of Visitors’ On-Island Activities

2017· article· en· W2743889376 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deborah J.C. Brosdahl, Roasalind C. Paige

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCruise Tourism Development and Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTourismMarket segmentationDestinationsGeographyGovernment (linguistics)Metropolitan areaMarketingSample (material)SalientEconomyEconomic geographyBusinessRegional scienceEconomicsArchaeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Travel and tourism offices in destinations throughout the world are keenly aware of the importance of attracting visitors to their locale. This is especially true in places where tourism is an important component of the local economy. Nowhere is tourism more important than for the island nations of the Caribbean, an area that has been called one of the most tourism dependent regions in the world. With approximately 1.22 million people visiting each year, the Caribbean island of Aruba “The World Tourism Council (WTTC) reports Aruba’s GDP is more reliant on travel and tourism than any other nation, relative to size, in the world”. In fact, Aruban tourism is the island’s main economic pillar contributing 88% of the nation’s GDP. Tourism supports not only direct commerce such as retail stores, hotels and restaurants, travel agents, transportation, etc., but also indirect commerce to support these industries including artisans, farming, manufacturing, etc.. Although the Aruba Tourism Authority’s website declares that “Aruba’s popularity has remained constant, due not only to sun, sand and sea, but also to other factors including the hospitality and friendliness of its people, safety, political stability, and various niches such as activities, nightlife, shopping, restaurants” there has been no academic research investigating what tourists do while visiting Aruba. Segmenting tourists according to the activities, nightlife, and shopping they have been involved in during their stay can be a valuable tool used by local governments and business owners in anticipating consumer demand and attracting potential tourists. Therefore, the main objective of this research was to determine if tourists can be segmented based on the activities they enjoy. A total of 503 tourists were sampled using an intercept data collection method at the Oranjestadt International Airport. Approximately 87% of the sample were from the U.S. with the remaining tourists coming from the Netherlands, the U.K., Spain, Italy, Canada and Brazil. Respondents included 187 females (37.2%) and 311 males (61.8%). Factor analysis was performed to determine if tourists could be segmented according to groups of activities in which they participated. Three distinct salient segments of tourists emerged and were labeled as: 1) Active Newlyweds, 2) Cultural Explorers, and 3) Social Entertainment Seekers. Active Tourists were those tourists who were more likely to have been married while on Aruba or honeymooning on the island and were interested in participating in more active sports such as wind-surfing, golf, land-sailing, horseback riding, etc. The Cultural Explorer group was composed of respondents who were more interested in vising Aruban historic or cultural sites or visiting festivals, art galleries, museums, etc. Lastly, the respondents in the Social Entertainment Seekers latent group wanted activities that had a social aspect to them such as dining out, going to casinos, meeting new people, and going out to enjoy the nightlife of the island. Using the information from this project can be used to more effectively target groups of tourists interested in visiting Aruba. This type of marketing tool can be especially useful for the smaller, yet tourism-dependent countries of the Caribbean with limited resources.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,736
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,414

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,310
Écart entre enseignants0,283 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetCruise Tourism Development and ManagementTravaux en français237 207