Article

Journal of Vacation Marketing

1–14
Tourists’ spatial behaviour ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:

in urban destinations: The sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1356766717706102
journals.sagepub.com/home/jvm
effect of prior destination
experience

Ana Maria Caldeira and Elisabeth Kastenholz

Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal

Abstract
Tourism implies movement. This study tests the effect of past experience on tourists’ spatiotemporal
behaviour in the context of urban multi-attraction visitation. Differences between first-time and repeat
visitors are examined using global positioning systems technology and a post-visit survey of tourists
staying at 10 different hotels in Lisbon. The impact of prior destination experience is assessed regarding
intra-destination movements as well as multi-attraction visitation patterns, within a systematic frame-
work in order to assess tourists’ intra-destination spatiotemporal behaviour. Hypothesis testing con-
firmed destination familiarity as an influential factor of urban tourists’ behaviour in space and time.

Keywords
Multi-attraction travel experience, multi-attraction visitation, prior destination experience,
spatiotemporal intra-destination behaviour, tourist movements, urban tourism

Introduction interests (Buhalis, 2000; Edwards et al., 2008).

In this variety of motives and activities (Chen
Although tourism has often been studied as
and Huang, 2016; Zaidan, 2016), as well as in
a static phenomenon (De Cantis et al., 2016;
the density and compactness of their locations
Zillinger, 2007), the recent development of new
(Ashworth and Page, 2011), lie the drivers of
digital information technologies has allowed for urban tourism. The multi-motivated visitor does
a growing body of empirical research on tourists’
indeed tend to include several attractions in his/
spatial behaviour by means of the new and
her city itinerary when faced with abundant and
advanced tracking methods (Grinberger et al.,
concentrated recreation opportunities.
2014; Shoval and Isaacson, 2006). As travel
Simultaneously, the massive increase in urban
studies in the fields of geography and tourism
tourism results in a need for sustainable strate-
have clearly demonstrated, visitors often include
gies and actions to cope with large numbers of
multiple destinations in their travel itinerary. In
visitors (Bauder and Freytag, 2015). In order to
the intra-destination urban context, ‘multi- deliver positive experiences, urban destinations
attraction travel’ – a concept coined by Hunt and
must understand, facilitate and, to a certain extent,
Crompton (2008) – is arguably even more wide-
manage tourists’ time–space activity (Edwards
spread. In fact, urban tourists usually move from
and Griffin, 2013). Since tourist experiences can
one attraction to another, taking advantage of the
multiplicity of attractions.
It is precisely this multi-functionality and
Corresponding author:
attractive diversity that make urban destinations
Ana Maria Caldeira, Universidade de Aveiro, Departamento
the privileged stage of multi-attraction travel de Economia, Gestão e Engenharia Industrial, GOVCOPP,
experiences and, as such, seduce an increasing Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
number of tourists with multiple motivations and Email: anacaldeira@ua.pt
2 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)

be regarded as a chronological process evolving Literature review

through space and time, whereby tourists move
from one point to another during a particular time Tourists’ spatiotemporal behaviour
interval (Tussyadiah and Fesenmaier, 2007; Xia In the context of tourism, spatial behaviour refers
and Arrowsmith, 2005), considering this ines- to the ‘sequence of attractions visited by tourists
capable spatiotemporal dimension (Aho, 2001; within a geographic space’ and the sequence of
Li, 2000) is of utmost importance to urban desti- movements in that geographic space ‘between one
nations. The understanding of this dimension attraction and another’ (Xia, 2007: 26, 23). There-
requires the identification of the exact location fore, in the analysis of tourists’ intra-destination
and time in which the experiences take place spatiotemporal behaviour, two essential dimen-
(Birenboim, 2015), that is, time–space research sions emerge: ‘movement’ and ‘multi-attraction’.
applied to urban tourism. Analysing the way According to Grinberger et al. (2014: 2), ‘space,
tourists move from one attraction to another in as reflected in movement, and time, as reflected
terms of direction, means of locomotion and in participation in activities, are substitute
rhythm (Xia et al., 2011) provides vital informa- resources’, allocated by the individual accord-
tion for city planning and management ing to personal characteristics, motivations,
(McKercher, 2008). Thus, tourists’ spatiotem- interests and past experiences as well as travel
poral behaviour has important implications at party dynamics.
both the destination and enterprise level. In the Tourists’ spatiotemporal behaviour can be
intra-destination context, this comprehension is analysed at different geographical levels. At a
valuable regarding ‘infrastructure needs, trans- macro level, rather than a continuous process,
portation development, product development,
researchers and planners consider tourists’ spa-
destination planning, and the design of new
tiotemporal behaviour as a discrete sequence of
attractions’ (Beeco et al., 2012: 552) as well as
movements among stops – tourist locations
for tourism impact management (Lew and
which can be some distance apart (Xia et al.,
McKercher, 2006).
2011) – because it better characterizes general
However relevant, the complexity of the study
movement patterns (Bujosa et al., 2015).
of urban tourists’ spatiotemporal behaviour must
Human movement is objective behaviour that
be acknowledged (Edwards and Griffin, 2013;
results from subjective decision making (Lloyd,
Leung et al., 2012; Xia et al., 2011). Tourists’
1997; Tussyadiah and Zach, 2012). Conse-
movements are indeed difficult to trace both in
quently, two basic perspectives of study can be
their explicit manifestations and patterns (Edwards
et al., 2010; Shoval and Isaacson, 2007) and in their identified: a behavioural approach, which
underlying subjective decision-making process focuses on physical movements, and a cognitive
(Chang, 2012; Hall, 2012). The way tourists move approach that studies the underlying decision
through time and space is influenced by numerous process. Both perspectives provide vital informa-
factors related to both the destination and the tour- tion for planners, designers, marketers and
ists (Lew and McKercher, 2006; Tideswell and operators of tourist destinations to make deci-
Faulkner, 1999; Zillinger, 2007). A range of deter- sions enhancing the tourist experience (Xia
minants has been empirically confirmed as pro- et al., 2011). Nonetheless, the tracking of tourist
moting the variations observed in tourists’ movements has long been recognized as a critical
spatiotemporal behaviour (Koo et al., 2012; Lau but underexplored research area (Shoval and
and McKercher, 2006; Tideswell, 2004; Xia Isaacson, 2010). Shoval et al. (2015) suggest that
et al., 2010; Xiao-Ting and Bi-Hu, 2012). This most studies nowadays are still of a descriptive
article explores how prior destination experience and/or pilot-project nature, with small sample
influences Lisbon tourists’ time–space behaviour. sizes and excessively limited context.
A summary of the literature review regarding The general topic of tourist mobility has been
the tourists’ spatiotemporal behaviour and its approached from a variety of perspectives: Tour-
impact factors is presented in the next section, ism, Geography, Economics, Mathematics, Com-
followed by the empirical study, which is puter Sciences and Psychology (Xia et al., 2011).
described concerning both its geographical con- A review of recent published empirical work
text and the data collection and analysis process. reveals a diversity of approaches and methods
In the final sections, results are discussed and used in various destination contexts (Birenboim,
general conclusions and implications for urban 2015). The settings where spatiotemporal beha-
destination marketing are presented. viour has been investigated include natural
Caldeira and Kastenholz 3

environments (Walden-Schreiner and Leung, has always been, and is arguably now, more than
2013), confined attractions (Russo et al., 2010), ever before, a central issue in tourism research but
events (Pettersson and Zillinger, 2011), small very little attention has been given to how tourists
islands (Bujosa et al., 2015) and urban environ- live these experiences in cities (Ashworth and
ments (Caldeira and Kastenholz, 2015). Where Page, 2011). In the urban environment, multi-
data collection methods are concerned, they range attraction travel is the typical pattern. The inclu-
from observation (Keul and Kühberger, 1997), sion of several attractions in the city visitation
paper surveys (Bujosa et al., 2015), trip diaries itinerary probably yields the same objectives that
(Zillinger, 2007) to technological global position- are at the origin of multi-destination trips:
ing system (GPS) studies (Grinberger et al., multiple-benefit seeking, heterogeneity of pre-
2014). The use of advanced technologies attempts ferences, risk and uncertainty reduction, eco-
to improve the tracking of tourists’ time–space nomic rationalism, travel arrangements, travel
activity (Beeco et al., 2012) and allows a zooming mobility, time constraints, destination familiar-
process of scale level of analysis: from former ity (Tideswell and Faulkner, 1999) and variety
inter-destination to recent intra-destination and seeking (Lue et al., 1993).
intra-attraction research. The application of GPS
technology for tracking tourists is easier for loca-
Factors influencing tourists’ spatiotemporal
tions with a clearly defined entry and exit point,
regarding the selection of potential participants, behaviour
the recovery of devices and the modelling of their As a result of individual decision making, mobi-
movements (De Cantis et al., 2016). Technologi- lity is determined by motivation, money, atti-
cal tracking studies in large and multifunctional tudes (Bauder and Freytag, 2015), as well as
urban destinations are found in a limited number: physical aptitude, aspirations, accessibility of
in Rome (Calabrese and Ratti, 2006), Hong Kong transportation and communication, space–time
(McKercher et al., 2015; Shoval et al., 2011), constraints and knowledge, among many other
Palermo and Dubrovnik (Ferrante et al., 2016), factors (Urry, 2007).
Freiburg and Berlin (Bauder, 2015) and Lisbon In tourism, movements do not take place
(Caldeira and Kastenholz, 2015). The recent inte- purely randomly: tourists’ mobility in space and
gration between GPS tracking data and data time is influenced by both internal factors and
derived from traditional questionnaire-based sur- external factors (Zillinger, 2007). If individual
veys allows for a better understanding of the intra- drivers, related to the tourist and the travel con-
destination tourist experience (De Cantis et al., text, lead to certain behaviour patterns, this beha-
2016; McKercher et al., 2012; Xia et al., 2010; viour is also negotiated with the geographic
Zakrisson and Zillinger, 2012). Identifying and features of the destination, since environmental
understanding visitors’ time–space activity pat- perception is a two-way process between the
terns are key to an efficient and successful desti- observer and the observed (Lynch, 2009). In
nation management (Bauder and Freytag, 2015). other words, tourists’ time–space activity is con-
In effect, mobility constitutes a fundamental ele- ditioned by both tourists’ characteristics – for
ment of both the tourism system and the tourist example, time budgets, motivations, interests,
experience, eventually becoming its central point destination knowledge and destination features
(Haldrup, 2004; Zakrisson and Zillinger, 2012). – for example, accommodation locations, attrac-
The understanding of tourists’ spatial behaviour tion locations and transportation accessibility
is clearly relevant for the management of visitor (Lew and McKercher, 2006).
experiences and corresponding satisfaction Among these individual drivers that have an
(Andereck, 1997; Edwards and Griffin, 2013). impact on tourists’ spatiotemporal behaviour,
Considered a controversial concept, the notion prior experience of the destination is pointed out
of ‘experience economy’ (Pine and Gilmore, as a significant factor determining tourist beha-
1999), which suggests a fourth stage of economic viour and its spatial manifestation (Koo et al.,
development, in which people consume experi- 2012). The relationship between familiarity and
ences rather than tangible commodities or services, tourism has long been recognized, although it
grasps an important trend that characterizes late- appears to have received less attention in recent
modern or post-modern society: people look for years (Kastenholz et al., 2013). Previous destina-
and share their experiences more frequently tion knowledge and familiarity, operationalized
today than at the end of the previous millennium mainly based on previous visits and/or number of
(Birenboim, 2015). In fact, the ‘tourist experience’ sources used in information search (Tideswell
4 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)

and Faulkner, 1999), are among the most empiri- et al., 2004; Koo et al., 2012; Oppermann,
cally studied determinants of spatiotemporal 1997). However, none of these studies, to our
behaviour, even in the intra-destination context. knowledge, has presented a sufficiently systema-
More information presumably fosters longer tic analysis regarding the diverse dimensions of
stay, broader mobility and more numerous attrac- the tourists’ time–space activity, allowing for
tions visited (Hernández, 2003). Differences research replication and comparison of results.
between first-time and repeat visitors’ destina- Table 1 presents a review of studies and respec-
tion consumption are expected: first-time tourists tive indicators used to contrast first-time and
are destination-unaware, discovering a place for repeat visitors’ spatiotemporal behaviour in
the first time; repeat visitors, on the other hand, intra-destination urban context, categorized
are somewhat destination-familiar tourists, with according to our proposed framework (Figure 1).
the degree of familiarity depending on the num- In contrast, in other studies, indicators are usually
ber of prior visits (McKercher et al., 2012). referred to in a fragmentary, unstructured way,
Changes of repeat tourists’ behaviour can result appearing to result more from data collected than
from pre-trip decision making and the selection from being previously selected based on their per-
of onsite destination activities (Lehto et al., tinence to fully characterize the way tourists
2004). Relaxation and familiarity were identified behave in time and space.
as the most distinctive motivational factors for The question of how prior experience has an
repeat tourists, while novelty and new cultural impact on the tourists’ intra-destination spatio-
experiences were regarded as the most crucial temporal behaviour is addressed in the empirical
motivations for first-timers (Li et al., 2008). In part of this article, based on the preceding dis-
urban destinations specifically, several studies cussion and according to the proposed model of
uncovered differences between first-time and analysis. Tourists’ spatiotemporal behaviour is
repeat visitors. Shoval and Raveh (2004) analysed in its ‘movement’ and ‘multi-attraction’
observed foreign visitors’ behaviour in Jerusa- dimensions. Thus, the influence of prior destina-
lem and Tel Aviv, finding that repeat or long- tion experience on tourists’ behaviour is studied
stay tourists visit more distant and peripheral with regard to the following propositions:
attractions. In contrast, McKercher et al.
(2012), who studied the effect of familiarity with P1: First-time and repeat visitors differ in
the destination by comparing first-time and their intra-destination movement patterns.
repeat international visitors’ behaviour to Hong P2: First-time and repeat visitors differ in
Kong via questionnaire survey and GPS tracking, their intra-destination multi-attraction visita-
found that first-timers move more widely, while tion patterns.
repeaters tend to concentrate their movements.
Moreover, newcomers are more likely to visit
iconic attractions and walk through the main The study
tourism streetscapes while repeaters tend to be
more spatially selective, visiting fewer places, Geographical context
but spending longer periods of time there, as well Lisbon, the capital and the largest city in Portu-
as making more use of public transportation. gal, is the best-known Portuguese urban tourism
These findings confirm the research done by destination and one of the Europe’s leading con-
Freytag (2010) in Paris. However, they are not ference and city break venues (WTTC, 2007).
entirely in line with Keul and Kühberger’s Located near the west coast of Portugal, the city
(1997) study, which tracked walking visitors in lies 30 km to the east of the Atlantic shore and
the historic centre of Salzburg. They observed right on the bank of the Tagus estuary (Alcofor-
that first-time visitors walked significantly faster ado et al., 2009).
but stopped for a considerably longer period of Lisbon presents ample variety and choice for
time. In turn, neither McKercher and Lau (2008) tourists in a relatively small geographical area
nor De Cantis et al. (2016) found an association (WTTC, 2007): ‘monuments, the architecture
between prior destination experience and the with a large diversity of styles that conflux
itinerary patterns. harmoniously, the geographic position, the
In fact, prior destination experience has been pleasant year-round climate, the authenticity of
confirmed as a relevant determinant of tourists’ traditions, the diversity of landscapes, the rich
spatiotemporal behaviour in several contexts gastronomy’, along with ‘an excellent range
(Gitelson and Crompton, 1984; Kemperman of quality hotels, and a well-developed urban
Caldeira and Kastenholz 5

Table 1. Indicators of intra-destination spatiotemporal behaviour used to contrast first-time and repeat visitors.

Shoval and McKercher Freytag McKercher De Cantis Present

Raveh (2004) and Lau (2008) (2010) et al. (2012) et al. (2016) study

Intra-destination movement patterns

Distance travelled X X
Dispersal from accommodation X X X
Visited areas/spatial patterns X X X X
Extra-destination day trip X
Itinerary geometry X
Means of transport X X
Time in motion (%) X
Speed X
Wayfinding technological X
devices
Disorientation (getting lost) X
Multi-attraction visitation patterns
Number of attractions visited X X
Number of activities performed X
Number of stops X
Day visit duration X X X
Time spent at attractions X
Activity intensity (time spent in
each area)
Attractions visited X X X X X
Activities performed X X
Order of attractions visited X
Variety of attractions visited X
Temporal organization of the X X
visit
Participation in a commercial X
day tour
Time of the day for attractions/ X
activities
Visitation day peaks X

infrastructure with a comprehensive transport net- Data collection and analysis

work which serves visitors on their voyage of
The study involved a two-stage data collection
discovery around the city and the region’ (Sarra
process. The spatiotemporal behaviour patterns
et al., 2015: 3). In recent years, the Portuguese
of first-time and repeat urban visitors to Lisbon
capital has been awarded numerous international
were compared and contrasted via GPS tracking
prizes as a tourist destination. Starting in the mid-
and a post-visit survey. Data were gathered from
1990s, several international events have led to tourists staying in 10 different hotels located in
urban renovation and have enhanced the image the three top district areas of the city between
of the city, with subsequent growth of foreign July and September 2012. The main author of
tourist arrivals (European Capital of Culture in this article approached potential participants in
1994, Lisbon World Exhibition 1998, UEFA Eur- the hotel lobby after breakfast or when leaving
opean Football Championship in 2004). A city the hotel to visit the destination and invited them
illuminated by a Mediterranean sunshine, combin- to participate in the study. Those who accepted
ing history and modernity, the Portuguese capital were given an activated GPS sports watch, fol-
has also benefited from the recent advent of low- lowing procedures suggested by Edwards et al.
cost airlines and the increasing number of cruise (2010), and asked to return it, at the hotel, at the
ship voyages. After surpassing the 10-million end of the day’s journey. The GPS tracking was
hotel-overnight-stay mark in 2013, the Lisbon complemented by an interviewer-completed
region reached 12.295 million in 2015, which rep- questionnaire survey to ensure complete infor-
resents total revenues of EUR 772 million (Tur- mation, contextualize tracking data and profile
ismo de Lisboa, 2016). the participants. The target population was
6 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)

The GPS equipment recorded time, speed,

distance, position and direction of movements
made during the day. The spatiotemporal data
was extracted using the online software Garmin
Connect, which provided the information regard-
ing distance travelled, time in motion and itiner-
ary geometry. Also, for later statistical analysis,
each route tracked was also analysed in the Goo-
gle Earth programme, calculating the maximum
dispersal from hotel. The questionnaire of the
complementary survey comprised questions
about the sociodemographic profile of leisure
tourists (country of residence, age, gender and
educational level) and travel behaviour (travel
purpose, number of previous visits to the destina-
tion, length of stay, day of arrival and departure,
travel group size, distance travelled from country
Figure 1. Proposed model of the impact of prior of residence, attractions visited and activities
destination experience on tourists’ intra-destination undertaken, participation in city tours, forms of
spatiotemporal behaviour. transportation and use of technological devi-
ces).The wording and format of the questions are
leisure tourists in Lisbon. The selection of sub- shown in Appendix 1. The entire questionnaire was
jects was made using a cluster sampling mainly composed of closed-ended questions and
approach, defined in space and time (Kastenholz, took approximately 7 min to complete. As it was
2004). A total of 413 tourists agreed to partici- applied, in all cases, in the presence of the main
pate in the study. The sample considered for author of this article, all doubts could be clarified.
analysis included 301 first-time and 106 repeat
visitors.
Intra-destination movement patterns are Discussion of results
assessed regarding four primary factors Participants were asked to take part in the study
extracted from the literature review: territori- on any of the days of their stay in Lisbon, permit-
ality – indicators: total intra-destination dis- ting variations within this variable. However, the
tance travelled during a day’s journey (Espelt distribution of the day of participation of the two
and Benito, 2006) and maximum distance from groups (first-time and repeat visitors) is very
accommodation (McKercher and Lau, 2008); similar since most were tracked on an intermedi-
linearity – indicator: itinerary geometry (Lew ate day of their stay (88% for first-timers; 85%
and McKercher, 2006); locomotion – indica- for repeaters).
tors: means of transport (Fennell, 1996; Zak- The personal and travel characterization of
risson and Zillinger, 2012) and time in motion participants is presented in Table 2. Repeat vis-
(Keul and Kühberger, 1997); and finally, itors tended to be older and registered a longer
orientation – indicators: use of wayfinding average length of stay (6.0 nights versus first-
technological devices (Tussyadiah and Zach, time average of 4.5). The first-timers came
2012) and disorientation or perception of get- mostly from European countries other than Por-
ting lost (Xia, 2007). tugal and Spain, in which Germany (12% of the
As for multi-attraction visitation patterns, total of newcomers) and the United Kingdom
intensity and specificity (McKercher and Lau, (8% of the total of first-timers) were the main
2008) were identified as the basic factors of anal- markets; repeat visitors were more frequently
ysis. As indicators for intensity, number of attrac- from Spain, Central and South America (Brazil
tions/activities (Hunt and Crompton, 2008) and accounted for 15% of the total of repeaters) and
duration of visit (McKercher et al., 2012) are Portugal. Moreover, repeaters tended to travel in
considered. For specificity, the indicators attrac- a larger travel group, but a minority in both
tions visited (McKercher et al., 2012; Shoval and groups participated in an organized tour on the
Raveh, 2004), activities performed (McKercher survey day.
et al., 2012) and variety of attractions (Lehto A series of 2 tests were carried out to assess
et al., 2004) are included. the nature of dissimilarities between first-time
Caldeira and Kastenholz 7

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics and travel intra-destination movement patterns. In terms of

behaviour of the tourists. territoriality, repeat tourists registered a longer
First-timers Repeaters
distance travelled during day visits as well as a
(n ¼ 301) (n ¼ 106) higher dispersal from their hotel (at a 0.1 signif-
icance level). These findings contradict the
Gender results reported by McKercher et al. (2012), yet
Women 56% 58% are in line with the study conducted by Shoval
Men 44% 42%
and Raveh (2004).
Age (mean) 40 years 46 years
Education According to the latter authors’ research,
Superior 80% 77% repeat and long-stay tourists tend to visit more
Elementary or secondary 20% 23% distant and peripheral attractions, which may be
Length of stay indicative of superior familiarity with the terri-
1 to 3 nights 35% 50% tory and less cautious exploration as well as of a
4 to 5 nights 40% 29% more selective, but not necessarily narrower,
6 or þ nights 25% 21%
spatial behaviour. Additionally, repeat visitors’
Distance travelled from country of origina
Short-haulers 79% 74% ‘specific activity focus’ seems indeed to be a
Long-haulers 21% 26% major source of dispersal (Koo et al., 2012:
Travel group size (mean) 1.78 2.30 1213). In fact, in repeat vacations, one’s interests
companions companions may become more focused on specific types of
Organized tour 15% 16% activities and places, which can be described ‘as
a
Operationalized whether the capitals of countries of a progression from being a generalist to a spe-
residence are distant from Lisbon less or more than 6 h of cialist, from being an accidental tourist to being a
flight time (Bowen, 2001). loyal patron’ (Lehto et al., 2004: 813).
Regarding linearity of tourists’ movements,
first-time visitors exhibited a circular itinerary
and repeat visitors. Significant differences were more frequently, not supporting the results of
found regarding age (t ¼ 3.48, p ¼ 0.001), McKercher and Lau (2008), whose research did
country/region of residence (2 ¼ 42.42; not reveal influence of destination familiarity on
p < 0.001), length of stay (2 ¼ 7.10; p ¼ the several itinerary styles identified. This may
0.029) and travel group size (t ¼ 2.59, p ¼ be related to the fact that, in the present study,
0.011). As expected, first-timers are younger only three simplified itinerary patterns (after
than repeat tourists and travel in a smaller travel Lew and McKercher, 2006) were considered in
group. Eventually this smaller group size may be the analysis. Presumably, first-timers prefer a
related to age, with older respondents reporting more generalist first visit to the city, eventually
more than the younger ones travelling with the following suggested itineraries. In turn, the main
family, while young adults tend to travel more in aim of repeat visits may be ‘to enjoy the atmo-
couples. First-time visitors also revealed a sphere and environment of the city’, ‘moving
shorter stay (in line with Wang, 2004). The beyond mass tourism circuits’ (Freytag, 2010:
differences in terms of country or region of resi- 55, 54). As a participant in this study stated:
dence can be explained in terms of geographical ‘as I’ve been here before, I prefer to walk around
proximity – residents or visitors who live in in the streets, more than visiting this or that
neighbouring Spain tend to repeat more the visit attraction’. Repeat visitors have more facility in
to Lisbon – and, in the case of Brazil, tourists are designing their own itineraries (point-to-point) or
more likely to come back probably due to the ramble in the streets (complex pattern), explor-
historical and personal links to Portugal and to ing the city more in depth. With reference to this
roots tourism. issue, Lehto et al. (2004) point out, ‘when people
To understand whether there were differences make their first trip to a place, they tend to dis-
between first-time and repeat visitors’ spatiotem- play more general interests, perhaps trying to
poral behaviour, independent sample t tests and experience and sample the whole country’. In
2 tests were carried out (Table 3). The two terms of locomotion and wayfinding behaviour,
groups are contrasted below with reference to no statistically significant differences were
statistically significant dissimilarities, being found, though repeaters reveal higher frequency
expressly mentioned in the text whenever this of using their own or a rented car as a means of
is not the case. Only three statistically significant transport during their day visit, again a probable
relationships were identified regarding tourists’ sign of superior familiarity with the territory and
8 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)

Table 3. Comparison of spatiotemporal behaviour between first-time and repeat visitors.

First-timers Repeaters
Type of
N %a N %a test Test value p-Value

Intra-destination movement patterns

Distance travelled during day visit 291 35.7 km 105 46.1 km t test t ¼ 1.95 0.053*
Maximum dispersal from hotel 293 9.9 km 105 12.9 km t test t ¼ 1.86 0.064*
Itinerary geometry
Point-to-point pattern 60 20.5% 29 27.6% w2 test w2 ¼ 7.811 0.020**
Circular pattern 62 21.2% 10 9.5%
Complex pattern 171 58.4% 66 62.9%
Transport
Walking 292 97.3% 99 95.2% w2 test w2 ¼ 1.137 0.286
Own or rented car 28 9.3% 15 14.4% w2 test w2 ¼ 2.104 0.147
Public transport 228 76.0% 74 71.2% w2 test w2 ¼ 0.961 0.327
Commercial/touristic 42 14.0% 12 11.5% w2 test w2 ¼ 0.404 0.525
Time in motion 291 39.5% 104 37.9% t test t ¼ 0.951 0.342
Use of technological devices 37 12.3% 12 11.3% w2 test w2 ¼ 0.070 0.792
Getting lost 45 15.2% 12 11.5% w2 test w2 ¼ 0.825 0.364
Multi-attraction visitation patterns
Number of attractions/activities 301 7.00 106 6.78 t test t ¼ 0.853 0.395
Day visit duration 292 7:51 h 105 8:27 h t test t ¼ 2.10 0.037**
Variety of attractions 106 2.22 301 2.00 t test t ¼ 2.04 0.042**
Attractions visitedb
Monument/historic building 191 63.5% 55 51.9% w2 test w2 ¼ 4.39 0.036**c
Shopping centre 33 11.0% 20 18.9% w2 test w2 ¼ 4.32 0.038**c
Activities performedb
Shopping 125 41.5% 59 55.7% w2 test w2 ¼ 6.32 0.012**c

|aExcept in the cases of independent sample t test (mean).

b
Only attractions and activities with significant differences between the two groups are considered in the table.
c
Fisher’s exact test.
*Significant at p ¼ 0.1; **significant at p ¼ 0.05.

an inclination towards a more adventurous in shopping more often, revealing certain selec-
exploration. In turn, first-time visitors got lost tivity of attractions as before with selectivity of
more often, as should be expected. areas visited. McKercher et al. (2012) also
As far as multi-attraction spatiotemporal reported that repeat visitors shop more fre-
behaviour is concerned, regarding the intensity quently. First-timers chose more varied attrac-
of visitation, although first-timers engage in tions, in line with Kemperman et al. (2004)
more attractions/activities, the difference is not and Wang (2004). They also visited monu-
statistically significant, not fully supporting ments more often than repeaters, supporting
McKercher et al. (2012) and Wang (2004). the results of McKercher et al. (2012), indicat-
On the other hand, as also shown in Table 3, ing a preference for iconic attractions. These
repeaters exhibit a statistically significant longer differences in attractions and activity prefer-
duration of their day visit when compared to ences appear to confirm that first-timers’ beha-
first-time visitors, which contradicts previous viours are more tourism/travel oriented, while
research (McKercher et al., 2012). This result repeaters’ behaviours demonstrate a more
may eventually be due to repeat visitors’ specific recreation/activity orientation (Li et al.,
activity focus that may lead to dispersal and the 2008). There were no significant differences
search for secondary and peripheral attractions among the remaining indicators.
(Shoval and Raveh, 2004), in consonance with Behavioural destination loyalty in terms of
the previously referred highly disperse territori- repeat visitation is a desirable and, at the same
ality pattern of the repeat visitors. Concerning time, challenging objective since novelty seeking
multi-attraction specificity, repeaters went far has been confirmed as a major tourist motivation
more frequently to shopping centres and engaged (Kastenholz et al., 2013). Knowing that repeaters
Caldeira and Kastenholz 9

differentiate by preferring historical attractions returns increases the probability of a next return
and shopping among several activities and tend to the destination (Barros and Assaf, 2012).
to be open to larger territorial movements is use- Therefore, it is particularly useful to understand
ful in designing city packages and experiences the different needs and wishes of repeat and new-
adapted to their desires and expectations. comers in order to respond to them appropriately.
Providing satisfactory shopping experiences spe-
cifically directed to repeaters is recommended,
Conclusions eventually developing shoptainment (Kozinets,
This study examined first-time and repeat tour- 2002) tour products, enhancing the economic
ists’ spatiotemporal behaviour. The results pro- impact of tourism at the destination and further
vide strong support for the propositions of the prolonging the destination experience after the
study that first-time and repeat visitors differed trip through memorabilia (Aho, 2001), particu-
in their time–space behaviour patterns. Linearity larly if products offered are distinctive of the
(geometric form) of itineraries, temporal inten- destination. On the other hand, newcomers’ pre-
sity and specificity of attractions visited and ference for a more generalist visit and diverse
activities undertaken were found especially use- attractions confirms their importance to provide
ful to differentiate several tourists’ spatiotem- for must-see attractions clientele and inducement
poral behaviour patterns. to particular tour offerings.
First-timers exhibit more generalist itinerary This insight into first-timers and repeaters’
patterns, akin to a first visit, and greater prefer- needs and preferences in terms of attractions and
ence for historical attractions. The fact that first- activities may help destinations and tourist
timers show more propensity to include iconic agents to design and deliver more appealing
attractions in their city itineraries and signifi- experiences that meet the expectations and
cantly reveal variety-seeking behaviour makes desires of these two market segments, with
them an attractive market for primary attraction better-targeted product offerings, marketing
and activity providers. On the other hand, these activities and provision of experiences
attractions may need to be more dynamic in con- (McKercher et al., 2012).
tinuing to attract repeat visitors, eventually Thus, the results provide strong support for
through events or temporary exhibitions, show- the propositions of the study that first-time and
ing their continuous interest to a demanding repeat visitors differed in their time–space beha-
audience. Kastenholz et al. (2013) found that viour patterns. Nevertheless, some of the results
those more likely to repeat their visit to a cultural contradict previous empirical intra-urban tourist
destination are those valuing entertainment and movement research, which itself had not pro-
having an overall better image of all cultural duced consistent results, suggesting the need for
dimensions, also the immaterial. The authors a more systematic analysis and replication of
correspondingly suggest making the best use of research in different urban settings.
an appealing and well-preserved heritage envi- This study adopted an innovative approach to
ronment for developing dynamic and diversified analysing tourists’ spatiotemporal behaviour in
cultural programs, which also seems an interest- its two dimensions (movements and attractions/
ing option in the present case. activities). No previous research had thoroughly
Repeat visitors reveal more unrestricted examined the impact of prior destination experi-
movements and accordingly longer duration of ence on tourists’ spatiotemporal behaviour, con-
the daily destination visit as well as higher attrac- sidering its global scope, in a systematic analysis
tion and activity specificity. Prior experience regarding the diverse dimensions of the tourists’
tends to turn generalist first-timers into specialist time–space activity, in the urban intra-
repeaters supporting recreation specialization destination context. The most important study
theory in leisure behaviour (Lehto et al., 2004). comparing short and repeat urban tourists’ beha-
Customer loyalty has long been acknowledged as viour was presented by McKercher et al. (2012),
an antecedent of improved business perfor- but it neglected several factors and indicators
mance. In the tourism context, repeat visitors are presented here.
‘better known and also know better the destina- New GPS technology and other forthcoming
tion and its community, which potentially tracking devices allow for more accurate data
enhances mutual adaptation, tourist satisfaction collection and analysis and more easy replication
and social interaction’ (Kastenholz et al., 2013: of empirical research, which may help clarify
346). Additionally, the number of previous results and uncover, for instance, the impact of
10 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)

urban design and legibility as well as the trans- Ashworth G and Page SJ (2011) Urban tourism
port system and other city factors that may sig- research: recent progress and current paradoxes.
nificantly influence tourists’ spatiotemporal Tourism Management 32(1): 1–15.
behaviour. The survey that was conducted helped Barros CP and Assaf AG (2012) Analyzing tourism
to validate and improve data accuracy and pro- return intention to an urban destination. Journal of
vided the basis for further variables to be looked Hospitality & Tourism Research 36(2): 216–231.
at (age, gender, distance travelled from country Bauder M (2015) Using GPS supported speed
of origin, length of stay, group dynamics). analysis to determine spatial visitor behaviour.
Some limitations must be acknowledged. The International Journal of Tourism Research
study monitored the movements of individuals 17(4): 337–346.
during one day of their visit to Lisbon and not Bauder M and Freytag T (2015) Visitor mobility in the
over their entire stay, due to pragmatic reasons city and the effects of travel preparation. Tourism
relating to the battery life of the GPS device and Geographies 17(5): 682–700.
also to ensure its recovery, but aggregation of Beeco JA, Huang W-J, Hallo JC, et al. (2012) GPS
individual day trips to understand collective tour- tracking of travel routes of wanderers and planners.
ist movements is appropriate (McKercher and Tourism Geographies 15(3): 551–573.
Lau, 2008; McKercher et al., 2012). On the other Birenboim A (2015) New approaches to the study of
hand, the literature suggests that other variables tourist experiences in time and space. Tourism
may be relevant – for example, other tourist or Geographies 18(1): 9–17.
destination characteristics – that were not tested Bowen D (2001) Antecedents of consumer satisfaction
in this study. and dis-satisfaction (CS/D) on long-haul inclusive
Even though results presented are partial, tours — a reality check on theoretical considera-
they contribute to strengthening and deepening tions. Tourism Management 22(1): 49–61.
discussion on this particular research topic, Buhalis D (2000) Marketing the competitive destina-
especially taking into account the referred con- tion of the future. Tourism Management 21(1):
tradictions among previous studies. Further- 97–116.
more, the findings underline the pertinence for Bujosa A, Riera A and Pons PJ (2015) Sun-and-beach
destinations of identifying past destination tourism and the importance of intra-destination
experience groupings and suggest the need for movements in mature destinations. Tourism
further discussion on the several aspects of the Geographies 17(5): 780–794.
urban experience. Calabrese F and Ratti C (2006) Real time Rome.
Networks and Communication Studies 20(3–4):
247–258.
Declaration of conflicting interests
Caldeira AM and Kastenholz E (2015) Spatiotemporal
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of behaviour of the urban multi-attraction tourist:
interest with respect to the research, authorship, does distance travelled from country of origin
and/or publication of this article. make a difference? Tourism & Management Studies
11(1): 91–97.
Funding Chang HH (2012) Wayfinding strategies and tourist
anxiety in unfamiliar destinations. Tourism Geo-
The author(s) received no financial support for
graphies 15(3): 529–550.
the research, authorship, and/or publication of
Chen Q and Huang R (2016) Understanding the impor-
this article.
tance of food tourism to Chongqing, China. Jour-
nal of Vacation Marketing 22(1): 42–54.
References De Cantis S, Ferrante M, Kahani A, et al. (2016)
Aho SK (2001) Towards a general theory of touristic Cruise passengers’ behavior at the destination:
experiences: modelling experience process in tour- investigation using GPS technology. Tourism Man-
ism. Tourism Review 56(3/4): 33–37. agement 52: 133–150.
Alcoforado M-J, Andrade H, Lopes A, et al. (2009) Edwards D and Griffin T (2013) Understanding tour-
Application of climatic guidelines to urban plan- ists’ spatial behaviour: GPS tracking as an aid to
ning. Landscape and Urban Planning 90(1–2): sustainable destination management. Journal of
56–65. Sustainable Tourism 21(4): 580–595.
Andereck K (1997) Territorial functioning in a tour- Edwards D, Dickson T, Griffin T, et al. (2010) Track-
ism setting. Annals of Tourism Research 24(3): ing the urban visitor: methods for examining tour-
706–720. ists’ spatial behavior and visual representations.
Caldeira and Kastenholz 11

In: Richards G (ed) Cultural Tourism Research Keul A and Kühberger A (1997) Tracking the Salz-
Methods. Wallingford: CABI, pp.104–114. burg tourist. Annals of Tourism Research 24(4):
Edwards D, Griffin T and Hayllar B (2008) Urban 1008–1012.
tourism research: developing an agenda. Annals Koo TT, Wu C-L and Dwyer L (2012) Dispersal of
of Tourism Research 35(4): 1032–1052. visitors within destinations: descriptive measures
Espelt NG and Benito JA (2006) Visitors’ behavior in and underlying drivers. Tourism Management
heritage cities: the case of Girona. Journal of 33(5): 1209–1219.
Travel Research 44(4): 442–448. Kozinets RV (2002) Can consumers escape the mar-
Fennell DA (1996) A tourist space-time budget in the ket? Emancipatory illuminations from burning
Shetland Islands. Annals of Tourism Research man. Journal of Consumer Research 29(1): 20–38.
23(4): 811–829. Lau G and McKercher B (2006) Understanding tourist
Ferrante M, De Cantis S and Shoval N (2016) A gen- movement patterns in a destination: a GIS approach.
eral framework for collecting and analysing the Tourism and Hospitality Research 7(1): 39–49.
tracking data of cruise passengers at the destina- Lehto XY, O’Leary JT and Morrison AM (2004) The
tion. Current Issues in Tourism. Epub ahead of effect of prior experience on vacation behavior.
print 9 June 2016. DOI:10.1080/13683500.2016. Annals of Tourism Research 31(4): 801–818.
1194813. Leung XY, Wang F, Wu B, et al. (2012) A social
Freytag T (2010) Déjà-vu: tourist practices of repeat network analysis of overseas tourist movement pat-
visitors in the city of Paris. Social Geography 5(1): terns in Beijing: the impact of the Olympic games.
49–58. International Journal of Tourism Research 14(5):
Gitelson RJ and Crompton J (1984) Insights into the 469–484.
repeat vacation phenomenon. Annals of Tourism Lew A and McKercher B (2006) Modeling tourist
Research 11(2): 199–217. movements: a local destination analysis. Annals
Grinberger AY, Shoval N and McKercher B (2014) of Tourism Research 33(2): 403–423.
Typologies of tourists’ time–space consumption: Li X, Cheng C-K, Kim H, et al. (2008) A systematic
a new approach using GPS data and GIS tools. comparison of first-time and repeat visitors via a
Tourism Geographies 16: 1–19. two-phase online survey. Tourism Management
Haldrup M (2004) Laid-back mobilities: second-home 29(2): 278–293.
holidays in time and space. Tourism Geographies Li Y (2000) Geographical consciousness and tourism
6(4): 434–454. experience. Annals of Tourism Research 27(4):
Hall CM (2012) Spatial analysis: a critical tool for 863–883.
tourism geographies. In: Wilson J (ed) The Routledge Lloyd R (1997) Spatial Cognition: Geographic Envir-
Handbook of Tourism Geographies. London: onments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Routledge, pp.163–173. Lue C-C, Crompton JL and Fesenmaier DR (1993)
Hernández MG (2003) Turismo Y Conjuntos Monu- Conceptualization of multi-destination pleasure
mentales: Capacidad De Acogida Turı´stica Y Ges- trips. Annals of Tourism Research 20(2): 289–301.
tión De Flujos De Visitantes. Valencia: Tirant lo Lynch K (2009) Some references to orientation, 3rd
Blanch. ed. In: Downs RM and Stea D (eds) Image & Envi-
Hunt MA and Crompton JL (2008) Investigating ronment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Beha-
attraction compatibility in an East Texas city. vior. New Brunswick: Aldine, pp.300–315.
International Journal of Tourism Research McKercher B (2008) The implicit effect of distance on
10(February): 237–246. tourist behavior: a comparison of short and long
Kastenholz E (2004) Assessment and role of destina- haul pleasure tourists to Hong Kong. Journal of
tion-self-congruity. Annals of Tourism Research Travel & Tourism Marketing 25(3): 367–381.
31(3): 719–723. McKercher B and Lau G (2008) Movement patterns of
Kastenholz E, Eusébio C and Carneiro MJ (2013) tourists within a destination. Tourism Geographies
Studying factors influencing repeat visitation of 10(3): 355–374.
cultural tourists. Journal of Vacation Marketing McKercher B, Shoval N, Ng E, et al. (2012) First and
19(4): 343–358. repeat visitor behaviour: GPS tracking and GIS
Kemperman A, Joh CH and Timmermans HJ (2004) analysis in Hong Kong. Tourism Geographies
Comparing first-time and repeat visitors’ activity 14(1): 147–161.
patterns in a tourism environment. In: Crouch GI, McKercher B, Shoval N, Park E, et al. (2015) The
Perdue RR, Timmermans HJ and Uysal M (eds) [Limited] impact of weather on tourist behavior
Consumer Psychology of Tourism Hospitality And in an urban destination. Journal of Travel Research
Leisure. Wallingford: CABI, pp.103–120. 54(4): 442–455.
12 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)

Oppermann M (1997) First-time and repeat visitors to Tussyadiah IP and Fesenmaier DR (2007) Interpreting
New Zealand. Tourism Management 18(3): 177–181. tourist experiences from firstperson stories: a foun-
Pettersson R and Zillinger M (2011) Time and space in dation for mobile guides. In: Proceedings of the
event behaviour: tracking visitors by GPS. Tourism 15th European Conference on Information Sys-
Geographies 13(1): 1–20. tems, ECIS 2007, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 7–9 June
Pine BJ and Gilmore JH (1999) The Experience Econ- 2007, pp. 2259–2270. St. Gallen: University of St.
omy: Work Is Theatre & Every Business a Stage. Gallen.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Tussyadiah IP and Zach FJ (2012) The role of geo-
Russo AP, Clave S and Shoval N (2010) Advanced based technology in place experiences. Annals of
visitor tracking analysis in practice: explorations Tourism Research 39(2): 780–800.
in the port aventura theme park and insights for a Urry J (2007) Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity.
future research agenda. In: Gretzel U, Law R and Walden-Schreiner C and Leung YF (2013) Spatially
Fuchs M (eds) Information and Communication characterizing visitor use and its association with
Technologies in Tourism 2010. Vienna: Springer- informal trails in Yosemite valley meadows. Envi-
Verlag, pp.159–170. ronmental Management 52(1): 163–178.
Sarra A, Di Zio S and Cappucci M (2015) A quanti- Wang D (2004) Tourist behaviour and repeat visitation
tative valuation of tourist experience in Lisbon. to Hong Kong. Tourism Geographies 6(1): 99–118.
Annals of Tourism Research 53: 1–16. WTTC (2007) Lisbon. The impact of travel & tourism
Shoval N and Isaacson M (2006) Application of track- on jobs and the economy. Available at: http://www.
ing technologies to the study of pedestrian spatial visitlisboa.com/getdoc/9b5c151b-fb28-4619-bee2-
behavior. The Professional Geographer 58(2): 3051598145e1/Lisbon—The-Impact-of-Travel—
172–183. Tourism-on-Jobs-an.aspx (accessed 22 May 2016).
Shoval N and Isaacson M (2007) Tracking tourists in Xia J (2007) Modelling the spatial-temporal move-
the digital age. Annals of Tourism Research 34(1): ment of tourists. PhD Thesis, RMIT University,
141–159. Australia.
Shoval N and Isaacson M (2010) Tourist Mobility and Xia J and Arrowsmith C (2005) Managing scale issues
Advanced Tracking Technologies. London and in spatio-temporal movement of tourists model-
New York: Routledge. ling. In: International Congress on Modelling and
Shoval N and Raveh A (2004) Categorization of tour- Simulation: Advances and Applications for Man-
ist attractions and the modeling of tourist cities: agement and Decision Making MODSIM05
based on the co-plot method of multivariate anal- (eds Zerger A and Argent R), MODSIM, Mel-
ysis. Tourism Management 25(6): 741–750. bourne, Australia: Spatial Science Institute, 12–
Shoval N, McKercher B, Birenboim A, et al. (2015) 15 December 2005, pp. 162–169.
The application of a sequence alignment method to Xia J, Evans FH, Spilsbury K, et al. (2010) Market
the creation of typologies of tourist activity in time segments based on the dominant movement pat-
and space. Environment and Planning B: Planning terns of tourists. Tourism Management 31(4):
and Design 42(1): 76–94. 464–469.
Shoval N, McKercher B, Ng E, et al. (2011) Hotel Xia J, Zeephongsekul P and Packer D (2011) Spatial
location and tourist activity in cities. Annals of and temporal modelling of tourist movements
Tourism Research 38(4): 1594–1612. using Semi-Markov processes. Tourism Manage-
Tideswell C (2004) The Road More Traveled: Multi- ment 32(4): 844–851.
destination Travel Itineraries Of International Vis- Xiao-Ting H and Bi-Hu W (2012) Intra-attraction
itors. Bureau of Tourism Research, Australian tourist spatial-temporal behaviour patterns. Tour-
government, BTR Occasional Paper, no. 35, ism Geographies 14(4): 625–645.
Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra. ISBN: Zaidan EA (2016) Tourism shopping and new urban
0642285519. entertainment: a case study of Dubai. Journal of
Tideswell C and Faulkner B (1999) Multidestination Vacation Marketing 22(1): 29–41.
travel patterns of international visitors to Queens- Zakrisson I and Zillinger M (2012) Emotions in
land. Journal of Travel Research 37: 364–374. motion: tourist experiences in time and space.
Turismo de Lisboa (2016) Observatório do Turismo de Current Issues in Tourism 15(6): 505–523.
Lisboa. Available at: http://www.visitlisboa.com/ Zillinger M (2007) Tourist routes: a time-geographical
getdoc/01990f6b-1bb1-4d7a-accd-8ee0fdab853a/ approach on German car-tourists in Sweden. Tourism
RTL146-OBS.aspx (accessed 1 June 2016). Geographies 9(1): 64–83.
Caldeira and Kastenholz 13

Appendix 1
Questionnaire – List of the questions used
Tourist profile.

Gender: Male c Female c

Age: _______
Country of residence: ______________________
Education: c Less than secondary c Secondary/high school c College/university degree

Trip characteristics.

What was your main reason for visiting Lisbon?

c Holiday, leisure and recreation

c Business and professional
c Visiting friends and relatives
c Health and medical care
c Other:

Day of arrival in Lisbon? _______/_______ Day of departure from Lisbon? _______/_______

Have you been in Lisbon before?
c No, never c Yes, approximately ____ times

How many people joined you in your visit to Lisbon TODAY? _______
Were there children (less than15 years) in your travel party TODAY?
c No c Yes. How many? ________

Your visit to Lisbon today.

What attractions (monuments, museums, places of interest, theme parks, exhibitions) have you visited
TODAY?
(Write down by order: first, second, etc.)

c Casino de Lisboa
c Casino do Estoril
c Castelo de São Jorge
c Centro Cultural de Belém
c Gulbenkian
c Mosteiro dos Jerónimos
c Museu de Arte Antiga
c Museu do Azulejo
c Museu do Chiado
c Museu dos Coches
c Oceanário
c Padrão dos Descobrimentos
c Palácio da Ajuda
c Pavilhão do Conhecimento
c Sé de Lisboa
c Torre de Belém
c Other:
14 Journal of Vacation Marketing XX(X)

Did you participate in an organized tour (by tour operator/travel agent) TODAY?
c No c Yes If you answered YES, please indicate if it was with a tourist guide? c No c Yes
What activities did you engage in TODAY?

c Eating local food at a restaurant/cafe

c Visiting attractions (monuments, museums,
exhibitions, theme parks)
c Walking around
c City tour (by tour operator/travel agent)
c Excursion out of Lisbon (by tour operator / travel
agent)
c Shopping
c Going to the beach
c Attending performance (music, theatre, etc.)
c Watching sporting events
c Sports (golf, etc.)
c Going to a spa
c Wilderness hiking or biking
c Other:

What means of transport did you use TODAY?

c Walking
c Your own or rented car
c Public transport
c Commercial/tourist transport

Did you get lost during your visit TODAY?

c No c Yes. How many times? ________

Which of the following landmarks have you used to navigate around TODAY?

c City landscape landmarks (buildings, roundabouts,

river)
c Signposting
c Traditional maps
c Requests for information to residents
c Car navigation system
c Applications on smartphone or computer
c Portable GPS devices
c Other: