Defining Marijuana Tourism

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of the niche market of marijuana tourists that has emerged since states began legalizing recreational marijuana in 2014. Existing literature using qualitative methodology concluded that there are a variety of motivations for drug tourists. This study took an explorative approach to better understand the various dimensions of marijuana tourism motivations. Surveys were administered to tourists on-site at recreational marijuana stores in southwest Colorado. The results of the analysis indicate that marijuana tourist motivations are multidimensional. Future research should continue to refine the instrument and analyze data from other destinations that are experiencing marijuana tourism and could benefit from a deeper understanding of the motivations of their visitors.

Keywords

marijuana tourism marijuana tourists tourist motivations

Legal sales of recreational marijuana began in Colorado on January 1, 2014, and a niche market of marijuana tourists in the United States emerged. Washington state soon followed and began opening shops in July of 2014, and since then, Alaska, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington DC have also voted to legalize recreational marijuana. Marijuana stores and the tourist destinations where they are located are in a position to capitalize on this new market. The intention of this study is to develop an understanding of who the marijuana tourists are and why they are motivated to purchase and consume marijuana when they travel. A definition of marijuana tourism is presented as a result of the study’s key findings. As more states continue to legalize recreational marijuana, this research has the potential to be applied in various geographical regions within emerging markets in the United States.

Literature Review

Marijuana Tourism

The academic research on marijuana tourism is limited and often associated with drug tourists in international locations with varying degrees of legality toward the purchase and consumption of marijuana (MacCoun, 2011; Skliamis & Korf, 2018; Uriely & Belhassen, 2005; Wen, Meng, Ying, Qi, & Lockyer, 2018). MacCoun (2011) found that 10% of the visitors to Amsterdam reported that purchasing marijuana at a “coffeeshop” was the reason for their visit. Uriely and Belhassen (2005) concluded that drug-related tourist experiences are heterogeneous and might involve the pursuit of mere pleasure or a more profound experience. Belhassen, Santos, and Uriely (2007) used a qualitative approach to review these various motivations of marijuana tourists. The analysis of their interviews resulted in the identification of four categories of motivations: experimentation, pleasure orientation, quest for authenticity, and purchasing (Belhassen et al., 2007). Skliamis and Korf (2018) determined that protest/activism was a common motivation for attendees to cannabis festivals in Europe. Wen et al. (2018) developed a multidimensional scale to measure drug tourism motivation of Chinese tourists visiting Amsterdam.

As residents of the first state in the United States to sell legal recreational marijuana, researchers in Colorado are working to build the body of knowledge for marijuana tourism. Kang, O’Leary, and Miller (2016) identified a variety of areas of inquiry for research in marijuana tourism: economic and social impact, visitor demand, marijuana tourism suppliers, resident perceptions, and government policies and regulations. Other research has considered the frequency of emergency room visits (Kim et al., 2016), managing the marijuana tourist market (Taylor, 2016), the perception of legalization (Gaede & Vaske, 2017), the application of leisure scales (Gould, Donnelly, & Innacchione, 2018), and residents’ perspectives (Kang & Lee, 2018). This particular study responds to the call by Kang et al. (2016) to understand the demand-side of marijuana tourism by developing a profile of marijuana tourists and examining their motivations. This study also complements literature that has investigated the experience of cannabis tour operators (Keul & Eisenhauer, 2018) by examining the experience of the tourists themselves.

Tourist Motivations

Tourist motivations have been studied extensively (Park & Yoon, 2009). Crompton and McKay (1997) define tourism motivation as a dynamic process of factors that generates a state of disequilibrium. The tourist will then take action to resolve the disequilibrium (Crompton, 1979). Motivations have been studied within a variety of tourism segments, such as ecotourism (Wight, 1996), festival tourism (Crompton & McKay, 1997), event tourism (Nicholson & Pearce, 2001), volunteer tourism (Broad, 2003), heritage tourism (Josiam, Mattson, & Sullivan, 2004), sports tourism (Kurtzman & Zauhar, 2005), senior tourism (Jang & Wu, 2006), and rural tourism (Park & Yoon, 2009).

Motivations in these studies have been associated with a variety of frameworks from the field of leisure research. Crompton (1979) and Dann (1981) supported a push-pull framework for motivations, while Iso-Ahola (1982) suggested motivations were structured in a seeking-escaping dichotomy. Ryan and Deci (2000) differentiated between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.

Method

Phase 1

Data collection occurred in two phases over two years. The survey instrument in Phase 1 included questions about customer demographics, marijuana use, spending, travel behavior, and motivations. The instrument development process involved generating a pool of items for each of the four dimensions of marijuana tourists (Belhassen et al., 2007). The result from a series of pretesting was a 16-question scale with four items measuring each of the four dimensions. On a 7-point scale, tourists were asked to, “Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements. I chose to purchase recreational marijuana during this trip because . . .”

Surveys were administered to 325 customers (including residents and nonresidents) at recreational marijuana stores in southwest Colorado during the spring of 2015. The total sample was analyzed to create a general profile of recreational marijuana customers. Only the 164 participants who were tourists from outside of Colorado comprised the sample used for the analysis related specifically to marijuana tourism.

The results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were inconsistent with the four dimensions from Belhassen et al.’s (2007) study. The researcher was expecting the 16 items to divide into four factors with four items loading per factor though there were considerable issues with cross-loadings and low loadings. After a series of respecifications, the results of the EFA were improved by reducing the number of items to eight, with four items loading on each of two dimensions.

Phase 2

The second phase used the modified survey instrument with eight items for two dimensions of marijuana tourist motivations. The dissection of the items suggested a division of the factors reflected in the literature on tourist motivations. The two dimensions have similarities with push and pull motivations (Crompton, 1979; Dann, 1981), seeking-escaping (Iso-Ahola, 1982), and intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

The revised survey was administered to 240 tourists who were customers at recreational marijuana stores in southwest Colorado during the spring of 2016. Participants were not invited to participate in Phase 2 if they identified as a local resident. EFA was used to evaluate the eight remaining items, and they were found to have appropriate loadings with four items on each of the two factors. Reliability was tested and found to exceed the .7 threshold for Factor 1 (α = .754) and Factor 2 (α = .764). The findings support two dimensions of marijuana tourist motivations.

Results

Phase 1

Analysis resulted in the development of a general customer profile and also the identification of significant distinctions in spending and behavior for local residents compared with tourists. The demographic questions revealed that the sample was predominantly young (with 26.5% under the age of 26) and male (70.2%). Most members of the sample were daily users of marijuana products (62.5%) and had previously purchased legal marijuana (52.3%). There was a significant difference (F = 5.297, p = .022) in the average amount spent per transaction, with tourists spending $103.87 and local residents spending $64.24. The sample was significantly different in terms of occupation (χ² = 22.859, p = .007), and tourists were more likely to be employed as physical laborers or educators while residents were more likely to be employed as managers/professionals or in the service industry. Tourists also differed from local residents in that they were more likely to use the Internet as an information source while residents were more likely to use word of mouth (χ² = 44.292, p < .001). The average length of stay for tourists was 3.65 days. Tourists were asked the 16 questions related to the four dimensions of motivations. Descriptive statistics (Table 1) revealed that the highest motivator for marijuana tourists was “this is an outcome of my free choice.”

Table 1

Marijuana Tourist Motivations From Phase 1

Item	Mean	SD
Experimentation
It is legal here so it is safer than at home	5.22	2.00
I feel like this is the right place to try it	5.07	1.84
When I am traveling I am more open to new experiences	4.87	1.89
I feel like I can give into temptation when I travel	3.35	2.00
Pleasure orientation
I chose this destination because it is legal here	5.09	1.95
I am seeking pleasure experiences on vacation	4.36	2.07
I see it as a part of the fun-seeking on vacation	4.15	2.10
I wanted to escape the boredom of my real life	3.70	2.00
Purchasing
It is easier to access than at home	5.03	2.04
I don’t want to deal with drug dealers in my hometown	4.65	2.21
I don’t want to take the risk of being caught at home	3.59	2.18
I don’t want to be associated with marijuana in my hometown	3.48	2.18
Quest for authenticity
This is an outcome of my free choice	5.74	1.74
This place is a “must” for marijuana users	5.44	1.78
I want to be in company of other marijuana users	4.19	2.12
I wanted to try it here at least once in my life	3.94	2.17

Note: Factors and items generated from Belhassen et al. (2007). Responses on a 7-point scale. Each item had a minimum score of 1 and a maximum score of 7. N ranged from 158 to 160 as some participants did not complete each item.

Tourists were specifically asked if they agreed that the ability to purchase and consume marijuana was the primary reason for their visit to Colorado. While nearly half of the tourists (49.5%) strongly agreed that marijuana was the primary reason for their visit, the average score was 4.7 on a scale of 1 to 7, resting between neither agree nor disagree and slightly agree. There was 9.2% of the sample who strongly disagreed that marijuana was the primary purpose of their visit, indicating the heterogeneity for whether marijuana was a primary driver for choosing Colorado as their destination.

Phase 2

Phase 2 participants tended to be young (27.9% under the age of 26) and male (55.0%). Members of the sample were likely to be frequent marijuana users (41.3% used daily and 27.1% used a few times per week). The majority (60.0%) had previously purchased legal marijuana. Tourist spending ($92.51 per transaction) and average length of stay (3.28 days) decreased slightly from Phase 1. Descriptive statistics (Table 2) revealed that the highest motivator for marijuana tourists was still “this is an outcome of my free choice.”

Table 2

Marijuana Tourist Motivations From Phase 2

Item	Mean	SD
Factor 1
I am seeking pleasure experiences on vacation	5.07	2.07
I see it as a part of the fun-seeking on vacation	4.73	1.99
I wanted to try it here at least once in my life	4.02	2.31
I wanted to escape the boredom of my real life	2.72	1.98
Factor 2
This is an outcome of my free choice	5.93	1.71
I chose this destination because it is legal here	5.24	2.01
It is easier to access than at home	4.91	2.15
It is legal here so it is safer than at home	4.68	2.22

Note: Items generated from Belhassen et al. (2007). Responses on a 7-point scale. Each item had a minimum score of 1 and a maximum score of 7. N ranged from 234 to 238 as some participants did not complete each item.

When asked whether they agreed that the ability to purchase and consume legal marijuana was the primary motivator for their visit to Colorado, the average score was 4.24 on a scale of 1 to 7, resting again between neither agree nor disagree and slightly agree. The distribution was more balanced in Phase 2 with 22.6% of participants strongly agreeing that marijuana was a primary motivator for their trip while 18.4% strongly disagreed.

Discussion

The primary contribution of this study is to build the body of knowledge for marijuana tourism. The findings specifically contribute to the understanding of marijuana tourism motivations and motives are considered the starting point in the tourist decision-making process (Crompton & McKay, 1997). The results indicate that marijuana tourists experience different motivations for making a purchase during a trip. These differences may exist between and within individuals as motivations can be expected to vary for tourists for each trip that they experience.

The richer understanding of marijuana tourists as a market segment helps outline a definition of marijuana tourism. Previous scholarly research (Cartier, 2017) suggests that marijuana tourism is the act of traveling or vacationing to a place because of the ability to use marijuana legally. Industry definitions echo this definition as recreational travel undertaken solely or primarily to indulge in the use of marijuana in jurisdictions where it is legal (Travel Industry Dictionary, 2017). These definitions assert that the ability to purchase legal marijuana is the primary purpose of the trip, but the findings of this study suggest that marijuana tourists exist on a spectrum from visitors who chose the destination based on their ability to purchase and consume marijuana, to visitors who did not consider the ability to purchase and consume marijuana in their destination selection but happened to make a purchase during their visit. Visitors in the mid-range of the spectrum may have considered the ability to purchase and consume marijuana among many reasons why they chose that particular destination. For example, marijuana has been called the “icing on the cake” in the context of tourism in Colorado where there are many other factors that may pull a tourist to the destination (Taylor, 2016).

The author proposes a new definition of “marijuana tourism” that builds on the foundation of the definition of tourism (Hunt & Layne, 1991) as the temporary movement of people to destinations outside their normal places of work and residence, the activities undertaken during their stay in those destinations, and the facilities created to cater to their needs. The findings of this study support the definition of marijuana tourism as purchasing with the intent to consume marijuana products while temporarily traveling away from one’s normal place of work or residence. The new definition neither requires marijuana to be the primary reason for travel nor does it require the sale of marijuana to be legal, thereby extending the definition to destinations that may have grey areas in terms of legalization or decriminalization. Also by this definition, marijuana tourism would not encompass purchasing with the intent to distribute marijuana or permanently relocating to the area (Maa & Figi, 2014).

The practical application of these results is for marijuana stores and tourist destinations to have a better understanding of why marijuana tourists are purchasing and consuming marijuana when they travel to promote existing offerings, or to develop new products and services to better meet their needs. The market segment is not homogenous and practitioners with the most potential for success will show an appreciation for this diversity and avoid stereotyping marijuana tourists. These findings confirm the proposition that cannabis tourists are a very diverse group and the market is much broader than the “stoner” cliché (Keul & Eisenhauer, 2018). The relationship between tourism motivation and satisfaction has been documented (Dann, 1981), and the success of the emerging industry will depend on managers of recreational marijuana stores leveraging their insight to exceed the expectations of their customers.

The results confirmed that there are various dimensions of marijuana tourist motivations, a finding consistent with research for motivations for other niche markets, such as visitors to craft breweries, where it has been recommended to use motivations to separate visitors into distinct target markets (Kraftchick, Byrd, Canziani, & Gladwell, 2014). While some visitors may be product-focused (e.g., craft beer or marijuana) and not invested beyond the retail transaction, other visitors are experienced-focused and marijuana stores have the opportunity to emphasize the enjoyment, socialization, and learning of the experience that adds to their overall satisfaction with the destination (Kraftchick et al., 2014). Future research should consider the variability within marijuana tourists (e.g., demographics, psychographics, tripographics, etc.) and develop market segments to support businesses and their decisions related to marketing strategies and promotions. Another key finding of this study was the relatively young age of marijuana tourists. The industry can borrow additional best practices from the craft beverages industry (Kline & Bulla, 2017) to maintain flexibility and proactively shape, invert, and expand their types of experience development and marketing to meet the changing needs of the Millennial market. Future research must also consider the shifts in consumer behavior from within this market segment.

Limitations

A limitation of this study is that data collection from both phases took place in southwest Colorado and may not be reflective of customers in other geographical locations. Additional research should be done in different geographical regions of the United States to validate the results.

Conclusion

This study makes an early contribution to the understanding of marijuana tourism. The analysis of surveys collected over two phases at recreational marijuana stores in southwest Colorado resulted in the development of a profile of marijuana tourists based on demographics, trip behaviors, and motivations. The heterogeneity of the niche market helped support a new definition of marijuana tourism. Researchers should continue to examine the needs and nuances of this emerging target market as a deeper understanding will add to the body of knowledge on marijuana tourism as well as aid practitioners in their efforts to exceed the expectations of marijuana tourists.

Footnotes

Lorraine L. Taylor (e-mail: lltaylor@fortlewis.edu) is an assistant professor of management, School of Business Administration, Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado.

References

Belhassen

Santos

C. A.

Uriely

(2007). Cannabis usage in tourism: A sociological perspective. Leisure Studies, 26, 303-319.

Broad

(2003). Living the Thai life: A case study of volunteer tourism at the Gibbon Rehabilitation Project, Thailand. Tourism Recreation Research, 28(3), 63-72.

Cartier

(2017). Marijuana tourism. In Lowry

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of travel and tourism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crompton

J. L.

(1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6, 408-424.

Crompton

J. L.

McKay

S. L.

(1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events. Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 425-439.

Dann

G. M.

(1981). Tourism motivations: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8, 189-219.

Gaede

D. B.

Vaske

J. J.

(2017). Attitudes toward the legalization of marijuana on Colorado tourism. Tourism Analysis, 22, 267-272.

Gould

Donnelly

Innacchione

(2018). Turning over a new leaf in Colorado: An exploration of legalized recreational marijuana preferences, leisure interests, and leisure motivations in a sample of young adults. World Leisure Journal. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/16078055.2018.1521866

Hunt

J. D.

Layne

(1991). Evolution of travel and tourism terminology and definitions. Journal of Travel Research, 29(4), 7-11.

10.

Iso-Ahola

S. E.

(1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9, 256-262.

11.

Jang

(2006). Seniors’ travel motivation and the influential factors: An examination of Taiwanese seniors. Tourism Management, 27, 306-316.

12.

Josiam

Mattson

Sullivan

(2004). The historaunt: Heritage tourism at Mickey’s dining car. Tourism Management, 25 453-461.

13.

Kang

S. K.

Lee

(2018). Support of marijuana tourism in Colorado: A residents’ perspective using social exchange theory. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 9, 310-319.

14.

Kang

S. K.

O’Leary

Miller

(2016). From forbidden fruit to the goose that lays the golden eggs: Marijuana tourism in Colorado. SAGE Open, 6(4), 2158244016679213.

15.

Keul

Eisenhauer

(2018). Making the high country: Cannabis tourism in Colorado USA. Annals of Leisure Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/11745398.2018.1435291

16.

Kim

H. S.

Hall

K. E.

Genko

E. K.

VanDyke

Barker

Monet

A. A.

(2016). Marijuana tourism and emergency department visits in Colorado. New England Journal of Medicine, 374, 797-798.

17.

Kline

Bulla

(2017). Introduction. In Kline

Slocum

S. L.

Cavaliere

C. T.

(Eds.), Craft beverages and tourism (Vol. 1, pp. 1-10). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

18.

Kraftchick

J. F.

Byrd

E. T.

Canziani

Gladwell

N. J.

(2014). Understanding beer tourist motivation. Tourism Management Perspectives, 12, 41-47.

19.

Kurtzman

Zauhar

(2005). Sports tourism consumer motivation. Journal of Sport Tourism, 10(1), 21-31.

20.

Maa

Figi

(2014). The case for medical marijuana in epilepsy. Epilepsia, 55, 783-786.

21.

MacCoun

R. J.

(2011). What can we learn from the Dutch cannabis coffeeshop system? Addiction: Policy Case Studies, 106, 1899-1910.

22.

Nicholson

Pearce

(2001). Why do people attend events: A comparative analysis of visitor motivations at four south island events. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 449-460.

23.

Park

D. B.

Yoon

Y. S.

(2009). Segmentation by motivation in rural tourism: A Korean case study. Tourism Management, 20(10), 99-108.

24.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

25.

Skliamis

Korf

D. J.

(2018). An exploratory study of cannabis festivals and their attendees in two European cities: Amsterdam and Berlin. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 50(2), 105-113.

26.

Taylor

L. L.

(2016). Managing recreational marijuana in southwest Colorado. Tourism Review International, 20, 211-217.

27.

Travel Industry Dictionary. (2017). Marijuana tourism. Retrieved from http://www.travel-industry-dictionary.com/marijuana-tourism.html

28.

Uriely

Belhassen

(2005). Drugs and tourists’ experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 238-246.

29.

Wen

Meng

Ying

Lockyer

(2018). Drug tourism motivation of Chinese outbound tourists: Scale development and validation. Tourism Management, 64, 233-244.

30.

Wight

P. A.

(1996). North American ecotourism markets: Motivations, references, and destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 35(1), 3-10.