Inducing Heuristic Principles of Tourist Choice of Travel Mode: A Rule-Based Approach

Abstract

This article argues that tourists do not necessarily maximize their utility in selecting a travel mode; rather, their choice behavior is context dependent. Given particular conditions related to their family, the environment, and other aspects of the tourist experience, they are assumed to use different heuristics. The present study elicits these choice heuristics from observed data using a tree induction algorithm based on the chi-squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID) algorithm. The induced decision rules are presented in decision tables because this formalism allows one to verify the exhaustiveness, exclusiveness, and consistency of a set of decision rules. It is shown that the choice of transport mode is a highly complex decision. The results of the analyses indicate that this methodology can be applied successfully to better understand tourist choice behavior. Moreover, the statistical properties of the decision table generated are satisfactory, especially when probabilistic rules are used.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arentze, T. A., G. L. Lucardie, H. Oppewal, and H. P. J. Timmermans (1996). “A Functional Decision Table Based Approach to Multi-Attribute Decision Making.” Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Retailing and Consumer Services Sciences, June, Telfs/Buchen, Austria.

Au, N., and R. Law (2000). “The Application of Rough Sets to Sightseeing Expenditures.” Journal of Travel Research, 39 (1): 70-77.

Biggs, D., B. De Ville, and E. Suen (1991). “A Method of Choosing Multiway Partitions for Classification and Decision Trees.” Journal of Applied Statistics, 18: 49-62.

Bronner, A., and R. De Hoog (1985). “A Recipe for Mixing Decision Ingredients.” European Research, July, 109-115.

Dellaert, B. G. C. (1995). “Conjoint Choice Models for Urban Tourism Planning and Marketing.” Ph.D. diss., Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

Dellaert, B. C. G., D. F. Ettema, and C. Lindh (1998). “Multi-Faceted Tourist Travel Decisions: A Constraint-Based Conceptual Framework to Describe Tourists' Sequential Choices of Travel Components.” Tourism Management, 19 (4): 313-320.

Jeng, J. M., and D. R. Fesenmaier (1997). “Facets of the Complex Trip Decision Making Process.” In The 28th Annual Conference of the Travel and Tourism Research Association. Norfolk, VA: TTRA, pp. 31-41.

Kass, G. V. (1980). “An Exploratory Technique for Investigating Large Quantities of Categorical Data.” Applied Statistics, 29 (2): 119-127.

King, R. L., and A. G. Woodside (2001). “Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Travel and Tourism Purchase-Consumption Systems.” In Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, vol. 2, edited by J. A. Mazanec, G. I. Crouch, J. R. Brent Ritchie, and A. G. Wood- side. Wallingford, UK: CABI, pp. 87-106.

10.

Law, R., and N. Au (2000). “Relationship Modelling in Tourism Shopping: A Decision Rules Induction Approach.” Tourism Management, 21: 241-249.

11.

Lindh, C., B. Dellaert, and D. Ettema (1995). “Longer Term Activity Scheduling of Overnight Long Distance Trips: A Longitudinal Telephone Survey.” In Workshop on Activity Based Approaches: Activity Scheduling and the Analysis of Activity Patterns. Eindhoven, the Netherlands: EIRASS.

12.

Palvia, S. C., and S. R. Gordon (1992). “Tables, Trees and Formulas in Decision Analysis.” Communications of the ACM, 35 (10): 104-113.

13.

SPSS (1998). AnswerTree 2.0 User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS.

14.

Strambi, O., and K.-A. Van de Bilt (1998). “Trip Generation Modeling Using CHAID, a Criterion-Based Segmentation Modeling Tool.” Transportation Research Record, 1645 (98-0740): 24-31.

15.

Van der Most, K. (1996). “Continu Vakantie Onderzoek (CVO).” In Handboek Recreatie en Toerisme. Breda, the Netherlands: NRIT, pp. 1730-3-1730-12.

16.

Van Middelkoop, M. (2001). “MERLIN: A Decision Support System for Outdoor Leisure Planning: Development and Test of a Rule-Based Microsimulation Model for the Evaluation of Alternative Scenarios and Planning Options.” Ph.D. diss., Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

17.

Vanthienen, J. (1994). “Technical Correspondence: A More General Comparison of Decision Tables and Trees.” Communications of the ACM, 37 (10): 109-113.

18.

Verhelst, N. P. M. (1980). De Praktijk van Beslissingstabellen. Deventer: Kluwer.

19.

Wasser, B. (1998). “Nederlanders Reizen niet Milieubewust.” Recreatie & Toerisme, May, 34-36.

20.

Wets, G., K. Vanhoof, T. A. Arentze, and H. J. P. Timmermans (2000). “Identifying Decision Structures Underlying Activity Patterns: An Exploration of Data Mining Algorithms.” Transportation Research Record, 1718: 1-9.

21.

Witlox, F. (1995). “Qualitative Housing Choice Modelling: Decision Plan Nets versus Decision Tables.” Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 10 (3): 209-237.

22.

Witlox, F. J. A. (1998). “Modelling Site Selection.” Ph.D. diss., Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

23.

Woodside, A. G., and R. MacDonald (1994). “General System Framework of Customer Choice Processes of Tourism Services.” In Spoilt for Choice: Decision Making Processes and Preference Changes of Tourists: Proceedings of the Institute of Tourism and Service Economics International Conference, November, University of Innsbruck, edited by R. V. Gasser and K. Weiermair. Innsbruck, Austria: Kultur Verlag, pp. 31-59.