5.5 pg Tourism and Aging Article..including Title pg...of Southeast Louisiana

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) Published online 24 June 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.739

Between Relaxation and Excitement:

Activities and Benefits Gained in

Retirees’ Tourism

Galit Nimrod1,* and Arie Rotem2

1Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, Guilford Glazer School of Business and Management, and The Center for Multidisciplinary Research in Aging, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel 2Arison School of Business Administration, Herzlia Interdisciplinary Center, Israel

ABSTRACT

While most studies that focused on older adults’ tourism behaviour have used quantitative methods, most studies that focused on benefits that older adults gain from tourism have used qualitative methods. Thus, the associations between seniors’ tourism behaviour and its results, namely, the benefits gained, were never explored. This study aimed to examine these associations. The study was based on a national mail survey of 298 Israeli retirees, who travelled abroad at least once in the year prior to the survey. Results indicated that there are nine factors of destination activities and five factors of benefits gained, which are intricately interrelated. In addition, four differentiated sub-segments were identified based on their destination activities, but the differences between them in terms of benefits gained were rather minor. These findings suggest a balance mechanism in older adults’ tourism that leads to maximization of benefits in different activities and/or circumstances. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 30 September 2008; Revised 12 May 2009; Accepted 21 May 2009

*Corresponding to: Galit Nimrod, Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, Guilford Glazer School of Business and Management, and The Center for Multi- disciplinary Research in Aging, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, PO Box 653, Beer-Sheva 84015, Israel.

Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Keywords: senior market; travel; leisure; benefits gained.

INTRODUCTION

The ageing of populations in most western countries and in many non-western countries, as well as changes in older adults’ socio-demographics and travel pat- terns, have made the older segment an appeal- ing target population for the global tourism and travel industry (for review, see Patterson, 2006, ch. 4; Schröder and Widmann, 2007). The older adults’ segment is attractive not only because of its current size and purchasing power, but also as a result of demographic and social forecasts (e.g. Sakai et al., 2000; Lohmann and Danielsson, 2001, Hossain et al., 2003; Schröder and Widmann, 2007), which contend that it is going to continue to grow rapidly in the next decade or two.

In general, today’s seniors are healthier, richer, more educated, more independent and free from obligations than older people in the past (Martin and Preston, 1994; Zimmer et al., 1995). They are also distinct from former cohorts of seniors because many of them have travel experience, both in groups and alone, in connection with their work lives as well as a result of travelling for pleasure (Hayslip et al., 2007). After retiring from work, some retirees seek part-time or even full-time jobs, but most of them devote their additional free time to leisure interests (Robinson and Godbey, 1997; Harvard Center for Health Communication, 2004), and place tourism high in their priorities (Statts and Pierfelice, 2003). Being able to travel can seem almost the ‘essence of retirement’

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

66

G. Nimrod, and A. Rotem

(Weiss, 2005, p. 135), as there are fewer limita- tions on the timing of travel and the duration of stay.

Older adults’ tourism behaviour and prefer- ences have been the focus of many studies. Some of these studies have compared older travellers with younger travellers. Along with some similarities between these groups, certain differences were found as well. For example, Javalgi et al. (1992) found significant differ- ences between seniors and non-seniors in the types of pleasure trips taken, in the use of package trips and travel agents and in some other travel-related characteristics. You and O’Leary (2000) found that travellers’ behav- iour changed over time in terms of travel pro- pensity, destination activity participation and travel philosophy, and that both the age and generation cohort had an affect. Gibson and Yiannakis (2002) found an association between age and tourist role preference and Hossain et al. (2003) found differences in travel patterns (e.g. day trips, overnight trips, visitor nights and expenditure) between young and older travellers.

Other studies on older adults’ tourism behaviour and preferences (e.g. Shoemaker, 1989, 2000; Lieux et al.,1994; Pennigton-Gray and Lane, 2001) examined older travellers exclusively and tried to identify differentiated sub-segments within the senior market. Three central approaches have been dominant in older tourists’ segmentation. Most simply, socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, health, retirement and family status, have been used to differentiate between sub- groups (e.g., Blazey, 1992; Lago and Poffley, 1993; Hossain et al., 2003; Callan and Bowman, 2006). Another approach was behavioural seg- mentation, which was based on tourists’ desti- nation activities (e.g. You and O’Leary, 2000; Littrell et al., 2004). Other studies used psycho- graphics measures for the purpose of segmen- tation, such as values and attitudes (e.g. Mathur et al., 1998; Mok and DeFranco, 1999), travel preferences (e.g. Lehto et al., 2001; Hsu and Lee, 2002) and travel motivations (e.g. Cleaver Sellick, 2004; Jang and Wu, 2006). The latter was also described as ‘benefits segmentation’ (Ahmad, 2003). This segmentation method focused on desirable consequences sought from tourism. It did not relate to the benefits

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

resulting from the experience. Regardless of the segmentation methods, all studies came to the conclusion that the older adults’ segment is highly heterogeneous and that there is significant variability among subgroups within the older age cohorts.

Travel benefits literature emerged during the 1970s, when researchers began to apply the concept of benefits sought to understand travel behaviour. They relied on the classic needs- based theories of Murray (1938) and Maslow (1943), which suggested that a need drives behaviour and that in order to understand behaviour, we have to identify the unsatisfied needs that are motivating the behaviour. Yet, Dann (1981) argued that it is almost impossible to measure travel motivations because tourists may not wish or may be unable to reflect on real travel motives to themselves or to the interviewers. To overcome this, it was sug- gested that the best way to truly understand tourists’ motivations and benefits sought is to study past travel behaviour (Pearce and Calta- biano, 1983; Woodside and Jacobs, 1985). This approach was supported by Shoemaker (1994) who examined the relationship between the destination attributes or benefits individuals seek (i.e. report that would influence their choice of vacation destination) and the attri- butes or benefits that actually characterised their last vacation (i.e. benefits realised). He found that many interesting differences existed between these two types of benefits and argued for relatively little association between what respondents say is a concern and what they actually do.

In their overview of the benefits segmenta- tion literature in tourism, Sarigöllü and Huang (2005) categorised prior studies using two dimensions, depending on whether benefits were obtained via direct questioning as opposed to some form of indirect/inferential analysis and on being destination-specific or general. Typically, both the indirect approach, which was based on what tourists did or plan to do during their vacations, and the direct questioning were used to obtain the benefits sought from travel. Papadimitriou and Gibson (2008) pointed out that in many of the benefits- sought research conducted during the 1990s, there are consistencies in the types of benefits identified. Therefore, they argued that the

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Retirees’ Tourism

67

benefits-sought research that uses benefits as an indicator of motives seemed to reflect the primary travel needs. However, they also suggested that examining benefits sought and benefits realised in the same study may yield a deeper understanding of tourist behaviour and choices.

The benefits that older adults gain from their tourism experiences were relatively less exam- ined than their behaviour and preferences. Nevertheless, the existing studies provide some in-depth understandings. Weiss (2005), for example, found that travelling provided challenges, often shared with spouses, which involved planning, solving unexpected prob- lems, facing new situations, new people, food and so forth. Successful coping with such chal- lenges led to a sense of accomplishment, which was demonstrated by returning with stories and photographs to display. Roberson (2001) found that the travel experience provided older tourists with new perspectives, led to changes in self-perceptions and attitudes and enhanced a sense of independence and freedom. In a study that examined the learning experiences of older adults during travel (Roberson, 2003) he identified four learning processes: (i) learn- ing about self; (ii) learning about trust; (iii) learning about the world; and (iv) learning about home. Older adults seem to focus on what Houle (1984) described as deliberately educative travel. These excursions of self- directed purpose have the potential to teach the traveller whatever they wish and to con- tinue education for the length of a lifetime.

Several studies focused on tourism’s role in the transition to retirement. Gibson (2002) found that retirees engaged in many travels and for various purposes, such as educational travels or travelling to visit friends and family. For most of them, leisure-travel was a mean- ingful component of life and it became so sig- nificant only upon retirement, when they felt that they had more freedom to enjoy it. White and White (2004) found that some retirees cel- ebrated their entrance to retirement by taking long-term travels. These travels served as a neutral, transitional zone between voluntary or imposed endings and new beginnings, where summaries of the past and plans for the future are made. When examining themes in recent retirees’ narratives of tourism, Nimrod

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(2008) found that retirees’ tourism corre- sponded with their present realities, as well as with pursuits adopted prior to retirement. This led to suggesting that tourism serves as a mechanism that helps retirees preserve pre- retirement roles, whether familial, leisure, intellectual or work-related.

Although later life may include several life- course phases, most studies have not classified different later life phases when relating to older adults. Researchers tended to not distin- guish between an early retirement phase and a physical disability phase, or between seniors who have retired and those who continue to work. They simply related to a population that has passed a certain age. This approach may be criticised in light of the fact that age alone is not always effective in differentiating between older and younger people’s travelling patterns (Farana and Schmidt, 1999) and in light of the significant association found between retirement status and travel activity (Blazey, 1992).

While most studies that focused on older adults’ tourism behaviour and preferences used quantitative methods, most studies that focused on benefits that older adults gain from tourism have used qualitative methods. As a result, relatively few studies combined the study of behaviours and the study of benefits. There were few attempts to examine the asso- ciation between tourism behaviour and benefits sought, which represent the tourists’ motiva- tion. For example, Gitelson and Kerstetter (1990) examined the relationship between socio-demographic variables, benefits sought and subsequent vacation behaviour. In their study of older Japanese, You and O’Leary (2000) identified three segments of older tour- ists based on the activities in which they were engaged in their most recent trip: ‘hyper-active travelers’, ‘conventional mass travelers’ and ‘inert travelers’. In addition to the differences in destination activities, each subgroup signifi- cantly differed from the others in travel pat- terns and travel philosophy (i.e. motivations and preferences). Lehto et al. (2001) identified three segments of older tourists from France based on their travel preferences: ‘indepen- dent eco-tourists’, ‘enthusiastic female ex- periencers’ and ‘budget-conscious relaxation seekers’. In addition to the differences in travel

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

68

G. Nimrod, and A. Rotem

philosophy, each subgroup significantly dif- fered from the others in destination activities. The association between tourism behaviour and its results, namely, the benefits gained, was never explored. While Milman’s (1998) find- ings rejected the hypothesis that travel may change the level of happiness, there are other benefits that may result from tourism and contribute to older adults’ quality of life, as suggested by Dann (2001). These benefits are implied by the aforementioned qualitative studies, and should be further explored using

quantitative methods. The current study aimed to examine the

association between retirees’ tourism behav- iour and benefits gained. More specifically, the study was designed to explore:

1. (1)  The structure of destination activities among travelling retirees.

2. (2)  The structure of the benefits they gain from the tourism experience.

3. (3)  The associations between destination activ- ities and benefits gained on two levels:

· On the activity level — are certain activ-

ities associated with certain benefits?

· On the participant level — do certain groups of people that differ in terms of activity patterns (in various destination activities), also differ in terms of benefits

gained? METHOD

Data collection and sample

The study was based on a national mail survey of 298 independent male and female Israeli retirees, aged 50 years and older, who trav- elled abroad at least once in the year prior to the survey. Data collection was conducted between October 2007 and February 2008. Closed-ended questions were asked regarding: (i) the respondent’s most recent travel abroad; (ii) destination activities; (iii) benefits gained from the overall tourism experience; and (iv) background characteristics (e.g. socio-demo- graphics and work status). The questionnaire was tested in a pilot study with a convenience sample of 30 retirees who met the sampling criteria. The pilot study examined understand- ability and validity of the scales. In addition, it

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

examined the questionnaire’s reliability using a test–retest procedure at 14 days interval. Analysis indicated high level of reliability (correlations between the first and the second responses were above 0.7) for all tested variables. Following the pilot study, several modifications were made as described in the following measurement section.

The sampling criteria for the study were age (50years), retirement status (formally retired) and at least one experience of travelling abroad in the past year. Consistent with the aforemen- tioned criticism on referring to age alone when identifying older adults (based on Blazey, 1992; Farana and Schmidt, 1999), both age and retire- ment status were used in this study. Respon- dents who had officially retired but were still working occasionally or part-time were included in the sample and the issue of work status served as a background characteristic.

Recruitment was conducted using a com- mercial database of Israeli retirees. This data- base was built on 30 simple random samplings of the Israeli population (using a computerised national phone list file) conducted for other purposes. Identifying age and retirement status and utilising random sampling led to a repre- sentative sample of this population. Three thousand retirees were contacted by telephone. Only one of three contacts matched the sam- pling criteria for the study (age 50years, formally retired and travelled abroad in the past year). About 70% of those agreed to par- ticipate and were sent a questionnaire by mail along with a stamped envelope for returning the completed questionnaire. Those who did not return the completed questionnaire after three weeks were reminded to do so by tele- phone. Of the 660 questionnaires sent, 298 were returned (a 45% return rate). Because background data on the sample was available, a bias check was conducted indicating no bias in the final sample.

Sample characteristics

The sample included retirees ranging in age from 50 to 88 years. Most of them (45%) were 60–69 years old and the mean age was 66 years. Sixty-two per cent were female, 79% were married, 98% had children (mean 2.8) and 81% had grandchildren (mean 5.6). Sixty-six

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Retirees’ Tourism

69

per cent had at least some post-secondary edu- cation, 56% had a relatively high income (over 8 000 Shekels a month per household) and 71% perceived their health as good or very good.

Sixty-seven per cent classified themselves as secular, 53% were born in Israel, 66% had American/European origins and 22% had Asian/African origins. Fifty-seven per cent retired prior to the official retirement age and 31% did so of their own choice. Eighteen per cent retired after the official retirement age, 69% still worked part-time or occasionally and 38% had a spouse who was still working. Retirement duration ranged from less than a year to 23 years (mean 7.3), with most participants (41%) retired for 3–9 years.

Measurement

Last travel descriptors. The questionnaire began with several informative questions regarding the respondents’ last travel abroad, including: country/countries visited, duration (number of days), travel format (independent, organ- ised tour, package deal or other), travel com- panions (number and who they were) and the travel purpose (tourism, vacation, visit of family or friends or other). In addition, at the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to mention how many times they trav- elled abroad and how many times they went for vacation in Israel in the past year.

Destination activities. Respondents were asked to report how engaged they were in various destination activities during their last trip abroad, using a quasi-interval scale of 5 from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The list of activi- ties was adopted from a study by You and O’Leary (2000). Following the pilot study, several modifications were made. Activities that no one in the pilot study was involved in (e.g. ‘horse riding’ and ‘hunting’) were taken out of the list. Other activities that were not included in the original list but were men- tioned by the pilot interviewees (e.g. ‘sitting in coffee shops’ and ‘taking cruises’) were added. The final list included 26 destination activities.

Benefits gained from the overall tourism experience. Respondents were asked to indicate their

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

agreement or disagreement to a list of 20 state- ments regarding the benefits they gained from the trip, on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The tool used was based on Kelly’s (1978) scale of leisure benefits, which was translated into Hebrew and validated by Nimrod (2007). This scale was modified as well following the pilot study. Three statements that no one agreed with were omitted and three new statements based on the literature review were added (‘I enjoyed planning it’, ‘I enjoyed anticipating it’, and ‘I enjoyed sharing my stories with others upon return’).

Background information. The last part of the questionnaire included demographic and socio-demographic questions. The variables examined were: age, gender, education, marital status, number of children, number of grand- children, household income, spouse’s occupa- tion, religious orientation and origin (i.e. place of birth of the respondent and his/her father).

Health perception was examined using a scale of 5 from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good). Other questions examined the respondent and spouse’s present work status, retirement dura- tion, and retirement pattern (i.e. at official retirement age, early retirement by respon- dent’s own choice, early retirement forced by employer, early retirement as a result of poor health or late retirement).

Data analysis

The data analysis had a number of steps, the first being a factor analysis of the destination activities data and another factor analysis of the benefit gained data. Both procedures utilised principal components extraction and Varimax rotation with Kaiser normalisation. This rotation solution rotated the loadings so that the variance of the squared loading in each column was maximised, and provided a clear interpretation of the factors. To control the number of factors extracted from the data a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 was used with attributes loading at greater than 0.4. This was followed by a Pearson correlation procedure, which was used to find correlations between the destination factors and the benefit gained factors.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

70

G. Nimrod, and A. Rotem

In the next stage, the destination activities factors were subjected to a k-means cluster analysis, which specified the groups with similar destination activity patterns. Each group was further identified by its travel patterns and background characteristics, using cross-tabulation and chi square tests, as well as one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the least significant difference tests (LSD). The latter procedures were also used to identify significant differences between the groups in benefits gained from their overall tourism experience.

RESULTS

The structure of destination activities

Factor analysis of destination activities data identified nine factors. The percentage of vari- ance explained by the factors was 63.1%. With the minimum factor loading level of 0.4, all activities were included in at least one of the factors.

Factor labels came from the authors’ inter- pretation of the common characteristics of the correlated data. In one case (spiritualism), the label came from the only activity that had a factor loading higher than 0.4.

As presented in Table 1, the first factor that was labelled ‘back country’ had an eigenvalue of 6.7 that explained about 17% of the variance. It includes destination activities such as visit- ing national parks, visiting small towns, hiking or biking in nature and staying next to any waterfront. The second factor, ‘educational’, consists of activities that are associated with some learning, such as visiting places of his- torical or archaeological interests and sightsee- ing in big cities. The third factor, ‘city-based’, represents urban pleasures, such as sitting in coffee shops and dining in restaurants. The ‘physical’ factor includes exercise and well- ness-related activities, and the ‘cultural’ factor includes activities that aim at exploring the local culture, such as attending performing arts or local festivals, and getting to know the local people. The ‘non-physical’ factor includes reading books and watching TV; the ‘themed’ was based on visiting amusement parks and attending spectator sports; and the ‘simple pleasure’ was labelled as such due to its high

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

loading with taking cruises and gambling. The factor ‘spiritual’ had one dominant variable: spiritual or religious activity.

The structure of benefits gained

The second factor analysis was conducted on the benefits gained variables. This analysis revealed five factors that explained 60% of the variance. The results are presented in Table 2.

The first identified factor, ‘excitement’, had an eigenvalue of 6.7 that explained about 33% of the total variance. This factor includes posi- tive emotional benefits indicating a high level of excitement before, during and after the tourism experience, reflected in statements such as ‘it was exciting’, ‘I enjoyed planning it’ and ‘I enjoyed sharing the stories with others.’ The second factor, ‘social bonding’, includes such variables as being of help to others, sense of belonging and strengthened relationships. The ‘meeting role expectation’ factor consists of ‘I was expected to by my family/friends’ and ‘it was my duty.’ The fourth factor, ‘relax- ation’, includes ‘it was restful’, ‘it was health- ful’ and ‘I felt relaxed’. The last factor, ‘general enjoyment’, was based on ‘I enjoyed the company’ and ‘I liked it’.

The associations between destination activities and benefits gained

Table 3 presents the correlations found be- tween the destination activities factors and the benefits gained factors. As shown, the benefit factor ‘excitement’ significantly correlated with the destination activities of ‘back country’ and ‘educational.’ The benefit of ‘relaxation’ is highly correlated with the ‘physical’ destina- tion activity factor and considerably less, although still statistically significant, with ‘city-based’. This factor is also negatively correlated with ‘educational’ activities. Other salient correlations found are between ‘meeting role expectations’ and ‘themed’, ‘spiritual’ and ‘back country’ activities (negative correlation), and between ‘general enjoyment’ and ‘back country’. ‘Social bonding’ is only correlated with ‘cultural’ activities.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Retirees’ Tourism 71

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Table 1. Factor structure of destination activities

Destination activities

Back country Educational City-based Physical

Cultural Non-physical Themed — — —

Simple pleasure Spiritual

Visiting national parks/forests or protected lands

0.782 — — —

— —

Visiting small towns and villages Walking or biking in nature Spending time next to a sea, a

0.707 — — — 0.536 — — — 0.507 — — —

— — — — — — — — —

— — — — — —

lake or a pool Taking pictures or filming Places of historical or

0.462 — — — — 0.779 — —

— — — — — —

— — — —

archaeological interests Sightseeing in big cities Visiting galleries/museums Sitting in coffee shops Dining in restaurants Visiting shops and markets Visiting night clubs Physical activities (e.g. exercising,

— 0.761 — — — 0.700 — — — — 0.864 — — — 0.805 — — — 0.585 — — — 0.438 0.403 — — — 0.841

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

— — — — — — — —

gym or ball games) Visiting health spas Performing arts (e.g. theatre or

— — — 0.729 — — — —

— — — 0.793 — —

— — — —

concert) Attending local festivals Getting to know local people Reading books, magazines, etc. Watching television Playing table games (e.g. cards,

— — — — 0.403 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

0.618 — — 0.577 — — — 0.721 — — 0.686 — — 0.393 —

— — — — — — — — — —

chess, bridge) Visiting amusement park or

— — — — — — — —

— — 0.763

— —

theme park Attending spectator sporting

— — 0.663

— —

event Visiting friends or relatives Taking cruises Casino/other gambling Spiritual or religious activity Eigenvalue Variance Cronbach’s alpha

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.300 2.460 1.900 1.580 0.165 0.094 0.073 0.061 0.695 0.756 0.708 0.639

— — 0.519 — — — — — — — — —

— — 0.713 — 0.695 —

Notes: The eigenvalues are presented under each factor label. Only loadings of at least 0.4 are tabulated. Sixty-three per cent of the variance was explained by these nine factors.

Factor

1.450 1.340 1.290 0.059 0.052 0.050 0.640 0.386 0.317

0.907 1.050 1.020 0.040 0.039

0.523 — — — — —

0.448 —

72 Table 2. Factor structure of benefits gained

G. Nimrod, and A. Rotem

Benefits’ statements

It was active I enjoyed planning it I enjoyed sharing my stories with others

upon return It was exciting I grew as a person I enjoyed anticipating it I liked developing a skill I liked the contest I had opportunity for self-expression I liked being of help to others I felt belong It strengthened relationships I was expected to by my family It was my duty I was expected to by my friends It was restful It was healthful I felt relaxed I enjoyed the companions I liked it Eigenvalue Variance Cronbach’s alpha

Excitement

0.703 0.653 0.613

0.600 0.585 0.582 0.566 0.549 0.440 —

— — — — — — 0.543 0.411 — 0.519

6.70 0.335 0.897

Factor

Social Meeting role bonding expectations Relaxation

General enjoyment

— — — — — — — — — — — —

0.416 — — — — — — — — — — —

0.479 — — — — 0.468 — — 0.429 — — — 0.800 — — — 0.611 — — — 0.572 — — — — 0.714 — — — 0.708 — — — 0.690 — — — — 0.827 — — — 0.616 — — — 0.517 —

— — — 0.594

— — — 0.567 1.92 1.21 1.18 1.01 0.096 0.061 0.059 0.050 0.861 0.697 0.712 0.249

Notes: The eigenvalues are presented under each factor label. Only loadings of at least 0.4 are tabulated. Sixty per cent of the variance was explained by these five factors.

Table 3. Correlations between destination activities and benefit gained factors Benefit factor

Activity factor Excitement Social bonding Meeting role expectations

Back country 0.280*** 0.069 −0.160** Educational 0.286*** −0.034 −0.031

Relaxation −0.051

−0.140* 0.150** 0.272***

−0.053 0.094 −0.074 0.070 −0.003

General enjoyment

0.159** 0.035 0.096

−0.117* 0.072 0.050 0.028 0.001

−0.025

City based Physical Cultural Non-physical Themed Simple pleasure Spiritual

−0.060 0.059 −0.014 −0.079

0.053 0.046 0.107 0.018 0.132* −0.065 0.072 0.053

0.011 0.112 0.015 −0.109 0.058 0.081

0.168** 0.090 0.151**

* p 0.001; **p 0.01; ***p 0.05.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Retirees’ Tourism

73

Four clusters among retirees based on destination activities

Cluster analysis conducted on the destination activities’ factors identified four groups. Each group was labelled based on the factor whose centroid showed the highest scores. Results are presented at Table 4.

The first group, labelled learner, consisting of 34.8% of the sampled respondents, had the highest cluster centroid score in the ‘educa- tional’ activity factor and the lowest in ‘city- based’ factor. The largest group, urban, which includes 48.1% of the sample, scored highest on the ‘city-based’ activity factor and the lowest on the ‘educational’ activity factor. The third group, labelled entertained, consisting of 11.6% of the sampled, scored highest on ‘physical’ and ‘simple pleasure’ activity factors, and the lowest on ‘educational’ and ‘spiritual’ factors. The last group, with only 5.5% of the sample, scored extremely high on the ‘spiritual’ and low on the ‘city-based’ activity factor. This group was labelled spiritual.

Background characteristics of the four groups

Additional data was used to further portray the groups. Table 5 shows that the learners, more than the other groups, tend to purchase

a package deal, while the spirituals tend to travel independently. The learners also tend to define the purpose of their travel as tourism more than the other groups, while most respon- dents who belong to the entertained group define their travel purpose as vacation.

The socio-demographic results show that the learners are significantly older than the other groups and the spirituals are the young- est. The spirituals is the group with the smallest percentage of high-income households and the entertained have the highest percentage of higher income and also the highest percentage of the below average income. The spirituals have, on average, more children and grand- children than the other groups, followed by the learners who have an average of 5.2 grandchildren.

Differences in benefits gained between the four groups

Additional analysis compared the mean factor scores of the benefit factors on each group utilising one-way ANOVA and LSD post-hoc tests. Results are displayed in Table 6. As shown, the learners’ factor scores on ‘excite- ment’ are, on average, higher than the urban group’s factor scores. The entertained group’s average factor scores on ‘relaxation’ are signifi- cantly higher than the other groups.

Table 4. Four clusters of travelling retirees’ activity styles

Activities factor

Back country Educational City based Physical Cultural Non-physical Themed Simple pleasure Spiritual Cluster size Percentage of sample

Learner

0.11666

0.81152a,b,c −0.39442a −0.21702a −0.15987

0.04079a

0.08853 −0.28229a −0.32566a

102 34.8

Cluster Cluster centroids

Urban −0.09002

Entertained Spiritual −0.01754 0.15929

−0.46464b 0.15347c −0.16542 −0.41858b 1.2223a,b,c 0.38550c

−0.52011 −0.01912 0.76983a,b,c 0.04108c

−0.39838 0.19846 1.02647a,b,c 0.04142c

−0.41276c 3.4027a,b,c 34 16 11.6 5.5

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

−0.48654a 0.35646a,b

−0.25953b 0.19482 −0.20669b

−0.15507 −0.04838b −0.03478b

141 48.1

Note: Means that are significantly different are denoted by ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

74

G. Nimrod, and A. Rotem

Table 5. Last travel abroad and background characteristics of the four groups % of group

Type (n)

Travel format (%) Independent trip Organised tour Package deal

Travel purpose (%) Tourism

Vacation Visiting friends/relatives Other

Income (%) Low

About average High

Mean Age Mean number of children Mean number of grandchildren

Learner Urban (102) (141)

48.0 59.6 6.9 7.8 45.1 32.6

77.5 63.8 13.7 25.5 16.7 23.4 15.7 14.9

21.6 19.7 24.7 22.0 53.6 58.3

67.8a,b,c 65.6a

2.8a 2.7b 5.2a,b,c 3.8a,d

Entertained (34)

55.9 23.5 20.6

41.2 67.6 20.6 11.8

30.3 6.1 63.6

64.5b 2.6c

3.8b,e

Spiritual (16)

68.8 6.3 25.0

43.8 6.3 31.3 37.5

12.5 56.3 31.3

62.1c 3.9a,b,c

9.1c,d,e

% of sample N 293

55.6 9.2 35.2

64.8 25.3 21.2 16.0

21.2 23.0 55.8

66.0 2.8 4.6

Note: Pearson chi-square 0.05 in all cross-tabs presented. Means that are significantly different are denoted by ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, ‘d’ and ‘e’.

Table 6. Differences in vacation benefits gained among the four groups: one-way ANOVA and LSD tests

Benefits factor Excitement

F 3.366, p 0.019

Relaxation F 12.124, p 0.000

Type

Learner Urban Entertained Spiritual The sample

Learner Urban Entertained Spiritual The sample

(n) Mean (102) 0.228a

(141) −0.170a (34) −0.054 (16) 0.121

N 293 −0.002 (102) −0.263a

(141) −0.026b (34) 0.858a,b,c (16) −0.083c

N 293 −0.009

SD SE

0.922 0.091 1.064 0.090 0.828 0.142 0.851 0.213 0.992 0.058

0.926 0.092 0.974 0.082 0.774 0.133 1.069 0.267 0.994 0.058

Note: Means that are significantly different are denoted by ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’. ANOVA, analysis of variance; LSD, least significant difference; SD, standard deviation, SE, standard error.

DISCUSSION

This study incorporated two aspects of tourism in retirement: the behavioural aspect (i.e. des- tination activities of retired individuals) and the psychological aspect (i.e. benefits gained from the tourism experience). This combina- tion provided a deeper understanding of retirees’ tourism experience. It may serve

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

practitioners as well as theoreticians interested in the role of tourism in older adults’ lives.

The findings revealed simple and under- standable structures: those of destination activities and those of the benefits resulting from the tourism experience. The activities in each factor share, in most cases, common patterns. Even when the associations are not trivial, they are interpretable. It is possible, for

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Retirees’ Tourism

75

example, that ‘getting to know local people’ is associated with ‘attending local festival’ and ‘performing arts’, as they all enable exposure and, hopefully, understanding of the culture visited. Similarly, it is possible that ‘visiting friends or relatives’ is associated with ‘visiting amusement park or theme park’ and ‘attend- ing spectator sporting event’, because the last two activities are characterised by a social or familial context.

While the activity factors resemble struc- tures found in former studies (e.g. You and O’Leary, 2000; Littrell et al., 2004), the structure of the benefits gained is novel, as former studies investigating this issue among older adults were qualitative. Yet, they resemble some of the structures found in the many general studies of benefits sought (Sarigöllü and Huang, 2005; Papadimitriou and Gibson, 2008). Of the benefit factors, ‘excitement’ included the largest number of statements. As suggested by Weiss (2005), it is possible that ‘excitement’ is particularly meaningful after retiring from work, when the excitement and challenge asso- ciated with work are no longer available. Nonetheless, retirees also enjoy the benefits of ‘relaxation’ and ‘general enjoyment.’ The two social benefits, ‘social bonding’ and ‘meeting role expectations’, are consistent with former qualitative studies (e.g. Gibson, 2002; Nimrod, 2008), which found that travel and tourism help retirees preserve social and familial rela- tionships and roles.

Examining the associations between desti- nation activities and benefits gained on the activity level (i.e. correlations between activity and benefit factors) provided many insights. This examination clarified the relations between tourism behaviour and its results. While most correlations could be expected (e.g. the associ- ation between ‘educational’ activities and ‘excitement’, or between ‘physical’ activities and ‘relaxation’), some are somewhat surpris- ing. For example, the association between ‘spiritual’ and ‘themed’ activities and the ben- efits of ‘meeting role expectations’ may imply that these activities are not freely chosen des- tination activities, but rather perceived as a duty. The association between ‘cultural’ activi- ties and the benefit of ‘social bonding’ may imply that these activities are more than enter- tainment or intellectual stimulation. Even more

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

unclear is the absence of certain correlations that one might expect, such as a positive correlation between ‘cultural’ activities and ‘excitement’, or ‘non-physical’ activities and ‘relaxation’. It seems that the benefit gained from an activity is not always what we may expect it to be.

This study identified four differentiated sub- segments within the older adults’ travelling population. These sub-segments share common characteristics with sub-segments identified in former segmentations. The urban group resem- bles the inert travellers found in the study of You and O’Leary (2000), the learner group shares some common patterns with the active tourists identified by Littrell et al. (2004) and the entertained group resembles the relaxation seekers in the study of Lehto et al. (2001). Still, they have their own distinctive characteristics and there is one sub-segment, namely, the spir- itual, which seems to be unique to this sample. The latter group is yet to be investigated. Their relatively higher involvement with activities associated with ‘meeting role expectations’ and the fact that their travel purposes were more frequently ‘visiting friends/relatives’ and ‘other’ than among other groups, may suggest that their travels have unique patterns. Further research is needed to explore the special needs of this group.

Examining the associations between desti- nation activities and benefits gained on the participant level (i.e. differences between sub- segments) suggested that certain groups of people that differ in terms of activity patterns do not necessarily differ in terms of benefits gained. Based on the correlations found between activity and benefit factors, one might have expected to find many significant differ- ences between the four sub-segments in terms of benefits gained from their last travel experi- ence. It could be expected that the learners, who were more involved in ‘educational’ activities, would experience more ‘excitement’, and that the urban group, which was more involved in ‘city-based’ and ‘cultural’ activities, would experience more ‘relaxation’ and ‘social bonding.’ It could also be expected that the entertained group would experience more ‘relaxation’ and less ‘general enjoyment’, as a result of their higher involvement in ‘physical’ activities, and that the spiritual group would

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

76

G. Nimrod, and A. Rotem

experience more ‘meeting role expectations’ as a result of their involvement in ‘themed’ and ‘spiritual’ activities.

Yet, only two of these expected differences were found: the learners experienced more ‘excitement’, but the only significant difference found was between them and the urban group; and the entertained group experienced more ‘relaxation’ than the other groups. Both the largest and the smallest group, namely, the urban and the spiritual, did not gain any dis- tinctive benefit, despite their specific behav- ioural patterns.

The detailed picture, provided by analysing the correlations between activity and benefit factors (i.e. in the activity level), became blurred when examining the differences between groups of tourists that share similar behav- iours (i.e. in the participant level). The rela- tively minor differences between the groups may suggest that since people participate in various destination activities, different combi- nations of activities may lead to similar benefits gained. It is possible, then, that two tourists, who were involved in completely different activities (for example, ‘back country’ and ‘physical’ activities versus ‘educational’ and ‘city-based’), will eventually experience very similar psychological benefits.

Departing from the assumption that what people chose to do reflect their motivations (Sarigöllü and Huang, 2005), one may conclude that older adults significantly differ in their travel motivations. However, it is possible that they chose different ways to reach similar goals and satisfy similar needs, as suggested by classic motivation theories (e.g. Murray, 1938; Maslow, 1943). Taking into account that the benefits realised do not always accurately reflect the benefits sought (Shoemaker, 1994; Papadimitriou and Gibson, 2008) it is hard to conclude from this study’s results any definite conclusions on older adults’ travel motiva- tions. Yet, the findings suggest a balance mechanism in older adults’ tourism that leads to maximisation of benefits in different activi- ties and/or circumstances.

Older tourists seem to choose a combination of activities that, while diverse, yield similar benefits. This mechanism may be explained by the Selective Optimization and Compensation (SOC) model advanced by Baltes and Baltes

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(1990) and Baltes and Carstensen (1996, 1999). The SOC model defined successful ageing in terms of making the best of what one has rather than reaching a particular objective level of functioning. It is possible, then, that older tour- ists use the suggested mechanism to make the best of what is available and possible in each of their travels. In addition, they may use travels not only to learn about the world and about themselves (Houle, 1984; Roberson, 2001, 2003), but also as a sphere where they can practise adaptation strategies. Further research should explore whether this balance mecha- nism is activated upon physical, cognitive or socio-emotional deterioration as people age.

Except for the theoretical inference, the findings also suggest practical implications. It seems that segmenting older travellers based on benefits sought (e.g., Ahmad, 2003; Cleaver Sellick, 2004; Jang and Wu, 2006) and planning services based on such segmentation do not necessarily lead to different benefits gained. Apparently, planning tourism services for retirees may be a rather flexible process. The most significant benefits continuum, which should guide this process, is the one that ranges between relaxation and excitement. In order to provide a particular set of benefits, different combinations of destination activities may be suggested and recommended based on per- sonal preferences and the desire for either relaxation or excitement.

Limitations and future research opportunities

The combination of the behavioural aspects and psychological aspects suggested in this study may serve as a framework for further studies that examine older adults’ tourism. Because the study was conducted in Israel, a central issue to be explored is its national/cul- tural context. Would the findings apply every- where or would they differ in various countries? Moreover, this study focused on retirees who travelled in the year preceding the survey. This means that the analysis describes only a certain (somewhat upper) class of Israeli retirees and does not represent the Israeli ageing popula- tion. It also does not represent the respondents’ activities and benefits in their tourism travel in Israel and abroad over longer periods. Future

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Retirees’ Tourism

77

research should examine the associations between destination activities and benefits gained in more diverse populations and over time. In addition, combining the examination of the benefits sought and benefits realised in the same study (by using a pre- and post-travel investigations) may yield a deeper understand- ing of older tourists’ behaviour and choices.

REFERENCES

Ahmad R. 2003. Benefit segmentation: a potentially useful technique of segmenting and targeting older consumers. International Journal of Market Research 45(3): 373–388.

Baltes MM, Carstensen LL. 1996. The process of successful aging. Aging and Society 16: 397– 422.

Baltes MM, Carstensen LL. 1999. Social- psychological theories and their applications to aging: from individual to collective. In: Hand- book of Theories of Aging, Bengtson VL, Schaie KW (eds). Springer: New York; 209–226.

Baltes PB, Baltes MM. 1990. Successful Aging: Per- spectives from the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Blazey MA. 1992. Travel and retirement status. Annals of Tourism Research 19(4): 771–783.

Callan RJ, Bowman L. 2006. Selecting a hotel and determining salient quality attributes: a prelimi- nary study of mature British travelers. Interna- tional Journal of Tourism Research 2(2): 97–118.

Cleaver Sellick M. 2004. Discovery, connection, nostalgia: key travel motives within the senior market. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 17(1): 55–71.

Dann G. 1981. Tourist motivation: an appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research 8: 187–219.

Dann GMS. 2001. Senior tourism and quality of life. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 9(1/2): 5–18.

Farana W, Schmidt S. 1999. Segmentation and the senior traveler: implications for today’s and tomorrow’s aging consumer. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 8(1): 3–27.

Gibson H. 2002. Busy travelers: leisure-travel pat- terns and meanings in later life. World Leisure 44(2): 11–20.

Gibson H, Yiannakis A. 2002. Tourist roles: needs and the life course. Annals of Tourism Research 29(2): 358–383.

Gitelson RJ, Kerstetter DL. 1990. The relationship between sociodemographic variables, benefits sought and subsequent vacation behavior: a case study. Journal of Travel Research 28(3): 24–29.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Harvard Center for Health Communication. 2004.

Reinventing Aging: Baby Boomers and Civic Engage- ment. Harvard School of Public Health-Metlife Foundation: Cambridge, MA.

Hayslip B, Hicks-Patrick J, Panek PE. 2007. Adult Development and Aging. Krieger Publication: Malabar, FL.

Hossain A, Bailey G, Lubulwa M. 2003. Characteris- tics and travel patterns of older Australians: impact of population ageing on tourism. Paper presented at the International Conference on Population Ageing and Health, NATSEM, University of Canberra; the Australian Bureau of Statistics; the Applied Research and Analysis Directorate, Health Canada; Canada Customs and Reve- nue Agency and Statistics Canada, Canberra, Australia, December 2003.

Houle CO. 1984. Patterns of Learning: New Perspec- tives on Life-span Education. Jossey-Bass Publish- ers: San Francisco, CA.

Hsu CHC, Lee EJ. 2002. Segmentation of senior motorcoach travelers. Journal of Travel Research 40(4): 364–373.

Jang S, Wu CE. 2006. Seniors’ travel motivation and the influential factors: an examination of Taiwanese seniors. Tourism Management 27: 306–316.

Javalgi RG, Thomas EG, Rao SR. 1992. Consumer behavior in the US travel marketplace: an analy- sis of senior and non-senior travelers. Journal of Travel Research 31(1): 14–19.

Kelly JR. 1978. Leisure styles and choices in three environments. Pacific Sociological Review 21(2): 313–323.

Lago D, Poffley JK. 1993. The aging population and the hospitality industry in 2010: important trends and probable services. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 17(1): 29–47.

Lehto XY, O’Leary JT, Lee G. 2001. Mature interna- tional travelers: an examination of gender and benefits. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Market- ing 9(1/2): 53–72.

Lieux EM, Weaver PA, McCleary KW. 1994. Lodging preferences of the senior tourism market. Annals of Tourism Research 21(4): 712–728.

Littrell MA, Paige RC, Song K. 2004. Senior travel- lers: tourism activities and shopping behaviours. Journal of Vacation Marketing 10(4): 348–362.

Lohmann M, Danielsson J. 2001. Predicting travel patterns of senior citizens: how the past may provide a key to the future. Journal of Vacation Marketing 7(4): 357–366.

Martin LG, Preston SH. 1994. Demography of Aging. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

Maslow A. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50: 370–396.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr

78

G. Nimrod, and A. Rotem

Mathur A, Sherman E, Schiffman LG. 1998. Oppor- tunities for marketing travel services to new-age elderly. The Journal of Services Marketing 12(4): 265–277.

Milman A. 1998. The impact of tourism and travel experience on seniors’ psychological well-being. Journal of Travel Research 37(2): 166–170.

Mok C, DeFranco AL. 1999. Chinese cultural values: their implications for travel and tourism market- ing. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 8(2): 99–114.

Murray H. 1938. Exploration and Personality. Oxford University Press: New York.

Nimrod G. 2007. Retirees’ leisure: activities, bene- fits, and their contribution to life satisfaction. Leisure Studies 26(1): 65–80.

Nimrod, G. 2008. Retirement and tourism: themes in retirees’ narratives. Annals of Tourism Research 35(4): 859–878.

Papadimitriou D, Gibson H. 2008. Benefits sought and realized by active mountain sport tourists in Epirus, Greece: pre- and post-trip analysis. Journal of Sport & Tourism 13(1): 37–60.

Patterson I. 2006. Growing Older: Tourism and Leisure Behaviour of Older Adults. CABI: Oxfordshire, UK; Cambridge, MA.

Pearce P, Caltabiano M. 1983. Inferring travel motives from traveler’s experiences. Journal of Travel Research 22(2): 16–20.

Pennigton-Gray L, Lane CW. 2001. Profiling the silent generation. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing 9(1/2): 73–95.

Roberson DN. 2001. The impact of travel on older adults: an exploratory investigation. Tourism 49(2): 99–108.

Roberson DN. 2003. Learning experience of senior travelers. Studies of Continuing Education 25(1): 125–144.

Robinson JP, Godbey G. 1997. Time for Life: The Surprising Way Americans Use Their Time. The Pennsylvania State University Press: State College, PA.

Sakai M, Brown J, Mak J. 2000. Population aging and Japanese international travel in the 21st century. Journal of Travel Research 38(3): 212– 220.

Sarigöllü E., Huang R. 2005. Benefits segmentation of visitors to Latin America. Journal of Travel Research 43: 277–293.

Schröder A, Widmann T. 2007. Demographic change and its impact on the travel industry: oldies — nothing but goldies? In Trends and Issues in Global Tourism 2007, Conrady R, Buck M (eds.). Springer: Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany; 3–17.

Shoemaker S. 1989. Segmentation of the senior pleasure travel market. Journal of Travel Research 17(3): 14–21.

Shoemaker S. 1994. Segmenting the US travel market according to the benefits realized. Journal of Travel Research 32(3): 8–21.

Shoemaker S. 2000. Segmenting the mature market: 10 years later. Journal of Travel Research 39(1): 11–26.

Statts S, Pierfelice L. 2003. Travel: a long-range goal of retired women. The Journal of Psychology 137(5): 483–494.

Weiss RS. 2005. The Experience of Retirement. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY.

White NR, White PB. 2004. Travel as transition: identity and place. Annals of Tourism Research 31(1): 200–218.

Woodside A, Jacobs L. 1985. Step two in benefit segmentation: learning the benefits realized by major travel markets. Journal of Tourism Research, 24: 7–13.

You X, O’Leary JT. 2000. Age and cohort effects: an examination of older Japanese travelers. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 9(1/2): 21– 42.

Zimmer Z, Brayley RE, Searle MS. 1995. Whether to go and where to go: identification of important influences on seniors’ decisions to travel. Journal of Travel Research 33(3): 3–10.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Tourism Res. 12, 65–78 (2010) DOI: 10.1002/jtr