Segmenting the market of first-time visitors to an island destination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to segment the market of first-time visitors based on the activities travelers engage in while at a destination using demographics, socio-economic variables, and trip-related characteristics. Design/methodology/approach The research analyzes 1,104 exit surveys completed by first-time visitors to the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island. Clustering analysis identifies three segments that are refined and tested by multivariate and bivariate analyses. Findings The results indicate that there are three distinct segments of first-time visitors based on travel activities: culture-oriented (26 percent of the market), active (37 percent), and casual (37 percent). The key differences among the three segments are demographic, socio-economic, trip-related characteristics, and spending patterns. These results confirm the sustainability and profitability of the market segments. Practical implications Segmenting markets for products or services, in any industry, is vital to gain a better understanding of the customer, and to better allocate scarce tourism resources to product development, marketing, service, and delivery. Therefore, all tourism industry stakeholders must be aware of the market segments that are currently visiting the destination. Originality/value Tourist segments based on activities are not absolutes, but a continuum. The majority of first-time visitors to a destination engage in a variety of travel activities across the segments, running from more to less involved. Successful tourism destinations are those that meet the various activity needs of their segments in both their marketing and on the ground.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".