Tourist motivations: Differences between Anglophone and Francophone tourists
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Culture has been demonstrated in the literature to have an effect on tourism behavior, including the way that tourists perceive their travel experience; different cultures often hold different values (LeBlanc, 2004 & Sussman and Rashcovsky, 1997). Thus, understanding visitors’ values in comparison to those of the host destination may alter how tourism businesses should relate to tourists, how a tourist may perceive their experience, as well as a tourist’s motivation to travel to a destination (Devesa, Laguna & Palacios, 2010). The combination of heritage and tourism, specifically the UNESCO world heritage site designation, has had a significant impact on tourist motivation as well through the prestige that the designation presents (Parks Canada, 2009). \nCurrent research lacks a focus on the individual in relation to the UNESCO world heritage site designation (Marcotte & Bourdeau, 2006). There is also a lack of research with a Canadian focus as well as comparisons amongst cultures (Kay, 2009). Although there has been some focus on Canada, the demographics have been skewed toward English speaking individuals; a lack of demographic information and data concerning native tongue has been collected (Gibson, McKelvie & DE MAN, 2008). The current study will take a Canadian focus by situating the research within Canada, specifically the UNESCO world heritage site of Quebec City, and compare the Anglophone and Francophone cultures. Anglophone and Francophone tourists are defined in this study as “people whose mother tongue is French (Francophone) or English (Anglophones)” (Gibson et al., 2008, p. 137). \n This study uses a questionnaire; which combines the questionnaires found in Lee, Lee and Wicks (2004) and Kozak (2001), in order to collect data on tourist travel motivations and satisfaction. The survey was conducted during October 2011, and involved the researcher travelling to different tourist sites, such as the Citadel and Le Musee de la Civilisation. The final data set consisted of 375 cases, and an effective response rate of 443. \n\tThe objectives of this study were: 1.To examine the motivational differences between Canadian Anglophone and Francophone visitors. 2.To examine whether there are cultural differences in the travel needs of Francophone and Anglophone travelers.3.To examine whether tourism sites and businesses in Quebec City are meeting the needs and desires of tourists. \nTo accomplish these objectives, the following research questions were asked: \n1. Why do people visit heritage sites? Specifically, what motivates people to visit heritage sites? \n2. Do Canadian Anglophone and Francophone cultures have different motivations for travelling? Sub-questions could include: in general, do different cultures have different motivations for travelling? For example, tourists may aim to connecting with their ancestral roots and culture. \n3. Are Anglophone and Francophone tourists satisfied by their travel experience to Quebec City? In particular, are there differences in satisfaction levels between Anglophone and Francophone tourists? \n\tThe computer program SPSS (version 19) was used to conduct statistical tests on, and interpret, the data that was collected. Independent samples t-tests, one-way ANOVAs,Two-way ANOVAs and frequencies, modes and medians were performed in order to reach the research objectives and answer the research questions. \n\tThis study provides insight into the travel motivations and satisfaction levels of Anglophone, Francophone, and bilingual visitors to Quebec City. The main implications of this study concern marketing, interpretation of sites, and service provision. The findings of this study present conflicting results surrounding the influence of family and culture on travel motivations of tourists. However, the findings of this study suggest that gender has a strong influence on tourist motivation, and marketing efforts should be targeting females as they were more significantly affected by the motivations examined in this study. There are also implications related to interpretation as there were significant differences found between Anglophone and Francophone participants on the motivation factor ‘cultural exploration experiences offered’. Finally there are implications surrounding service provision as the findings suggest that activities may be more geared towards the Anglophone travelers. This study will expand on these implications further.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».