Multidestination Travel of the Slovenian Population

Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, No. 49 (2020): 49–63 http://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2020-0023

BULLETIN OF GEOGRAPHY. SOCIO–ECONOMIC SERIES

journal homepages: https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/bog/bog-overview.xml ISSN 1732–4254 quarterly http://apcz.umk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/BGSS/index

Multidestination travel of the Slovenian population

Dejan Cigale

University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department of Geography, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; e-mail: dejan.cigale@ ff.uni-lj.si, phone: +38612411240

How to cite: Cigale, D. (2020). Multidestination travel of the Slovenian population. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 40(49): 49-63. DOI: http://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2020-0023

Abstract. This paper focuses on the multidestination travel of the Slovenian pop- Article details: ulation. It presents the results of a questionnaire survey that aimed to gain insight Received: 18 April 2020 into some relevant characteristics of the travel behaviour of the Slovenian pop- Revised: 26 May 2020 ulation and its links to factors that were found in previous research to be relat- Accepted: 16 June 2020 ed to the incidence of multidestination travel. A destination was defined within this research as any location where an overnight stop is made. Single-destination Key words: trips prevailed. Still, a considerable percentage of respondents’ most recent trips multidestination travel, had been multidestination trips. The greater part of them was directed to just one tourism, country within which they visited several overnight destinations. The results indi- tourism geography, cate that duration of trip, distance of destination from tourists’ residential location, Slovenia, familiarity of destination, travel-group size and tourists’ activities are associated tourist destination, with the likelihood of multidestination travel. travel behaviour

Contents: 1. Introduction ...... 50 2. Some characteristics of the travel behaviour of the Slovenian population ...... 52 3. Data and method ...... 53 4. Results ...... 55 4.1. General characteristics of respondents’ travel behaviour ...... 55 4.2. Factors associated with multidestination travel ...... 56 5. Discussion and conclusions ...... 60 References ...... 61

© 2020 (Dejan Cigale) This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License http://( creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 50 Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63

1. Introduction They influence tourist satisfaction, which is related to tourists’ loyalty to a destination and repeat visits (e.g. Castro et al., 2017; Chi and Qu, 2008; Ryan, Tourism is an important industry, but it is also a 1995; Sun et al., 2013). complex spatial phenomenon. Considered as a sys- Many tourists do not travel from home to just tem, it includes destination region, region of ori- one location. Instead, they link within a single jour- gin, and the space in between them (see, e.g., model ney visits to various locations, and stay at these lo- of the geographical elements of tourism by Leiper, cations for various amounts of time. Therefore, 1979). Likewise, its formal definitions indicate the their journeys are in fact multidestination journeys. crucial importance of travel (i.e. movement through Multidestination travel has been studied by various space) as an inherent component of the tourism authors (earlier works include Flognfeldt, 1999; Lue phenomenon. For example, tourism as “any activi- et al., 1993; Mings and McHugh, 1992; Oppermann, ty concerned with the temporary short-term move- 1995). According to Tideswell and Faulkner (1999), ment of people to destinations outside the places tourists undertake multidestination trips to maxim- where they normally live and work, and their activ- ise the benefits of travel. Some forms of tourism are ities during the stay at these destinations” (Vanhove, especially closely related to multidestination travel. 2005: 2; the author quoted a definition adopted Probably the best such example is backpacker tour- by the British Tourism Society based upon earli- ism. Its definitions usually include as a crucial el- er works). The characteristics of travel differ a lot ement “a prolonged multiple-destination journey in regard to its duration, means of transportation with a flexible itinerary” (Sørensen, 2003: 851). used, travel group, characteristics of destinations When studying multidestination travel, the visited, and also in regard to trips’ spatial charac- question arises of what a destination is. Because of teristics (distances travelled, spatial distribution of differences between definitions of destination, -un locations visited and ways of linking them within a derstandings – as well as conceptualisations – of single journey, etc.). Knowledge of these character- what multidestination travel is also differ considera- istics is useful when dealing with tourism impacts bly. Already Hwang and Fesenmaier (2003) pointed or destination marketing (Hwang and Fesenmaier, out the lack of clarity in what is meant by “multi- 2003; Lue et al., 1993; Oppermann, 1995; Popp and destination travel”. Higham (2005: 8) states that McCole, 2016; Tussyadiah et al., 2006). tourist destinations are “places that attract and pro- Tourist travel requires an input of time, money vide for the needs of visitors”. Cho (2000: 144) de- and effort. This input increases with distance. Con- fines destination as: sequently, demand generally diminishes as distance the place where tourists intend to spend their time increases. Travel to land neighbours dominates out- away from home. This geographical unit visited bound travel, accounting for 53% of all departures by tourists may be a self-contained centre, a vil- (McKercher and Mak, 2019). Eighty percent of all lage or a town or a city, a region or an island or a international travel is directed towards countries country […], a single location, a set of multi-des- within a 1,000-km radius of tourists’ home coun- tination as part of a tour, or even a moving des- try (McKercher et al., 2008). The share of depar- tination such as a cruise. tures for travel of more than 5,000 km is typically Similarly, Flores and Scott (2016) stress the fact 3% or lower (McKercher and Mak, 2019). In gener- that the term “destination” is used to describe loca- al, the number of visitors to a specific destination is tions at a range of scales, from an individual resort positively related to the population size of the vis- to even a continent. Framke (2002: 103) points out itor’s areas of origin and inversely related to their that destination exists “at various geographical lev- distance from destination (e.g. Mings and McHugh, els, but it is never a place with clear boundaries”, 1992). Of course, in addition to distance or accessi- while Saarinen (2004) sees in destination a prob- bility, visits to a destination are related to numerous lematic concept and concludes that destination can other factors. A destination’s attributes that affected be conceptualised as “a historically produced struc- its attractiveness were frequently discussed as pull ture which is experienced and represented through factors (Klenosky, 2002; Prayag and Ryan, 2011). Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63 51 different administrative, economic and cultural spatial behaviour and mobility of tourists change in practices” (Saarinen, 2004: 165). regard to the phase of a trip (Zillinger, 2007). Vari- Authors researching multidestination trav- ous spatial movement patterns can also be observed el have usually, for practical reasons, disregarded within destination areas (e.g. Lew and McKercher, the complexities involved in defining destination. 2006; McKercher and Lau, 2008). Definitions (explicit or implicit) of destination in A series of intervening factors can affect tour- empirical studies have differed considerably. Con- ist movements: distance decay and market access, sequently, so too have the notions of multidestina- time and financial budgets, trip and personal char- tion travel differed among various studies. Wu and acteristics (McKercher and Zoltan, 2014). In regard Carson (2008) defined destinations as “overnight to multidestination travel, Tideswell and Faulkner stops”. The same decision was adopted by Parroco (1999) summarised factors affecting the incidence et al. (2012). Unlike them, Hwang and Fesenmaier of multidestination travel patterns. First, they iden- (2003: 167) defined multidestination travel as “a trip tified five basic “predisposing factors”: multiple-ben- that has at least one additional ‘significant’ stop (or efit seeking (the individuals’ need to seek variety), side trip) whose purpose is other than spending the heterogeneity of preferences (different members of night, transportation transfer, or dropping off/pick- a travel group differing in the benefits they seek ing up a passenger”, while Hwang et al. (2006) stud- from destinations on a vacation), risk and uncer- ied multidestination travel only in relation to urban tainty reduction (i.e. by relying on several desti- destinations (multicity trips). nations rather than on a single one to provide the Empirical studies have focused on various popu- benefits sought, travellers may perceive that they relations. To mention just a few, Mings and McHugh duce level of risk), economic rationalism, and visit- (1992) researched Yellowstone visitors and their ing friends and relatives. This last could be seen as travel movements to and from Yellowstone, Opper- being an extension of multiple-benefit seeking. In mann (1995) focused on international tourists (only addition, the same authors (Tideswell and Faulkner, air travellers!) to Malaysia, Tideswell and Faulkner 1999) mentioned several other factors that in their (1999) on international visitors in Queensland opinion can be classified as constraints and/or op- (Australia), and Hwang and Fesenmaier (2003) on portunities associated with multidestination travel domestic travellers in the USA using ground trans- patterns. Empirical research dealing with multides- portation. Stewart and Vogt (1997) researched the tination travel has shed some light on the role of spatial behaviour of visitors to Branson (Missouri, these and some other factors. USA) using ground transportation (thus excluding Hwang and Fesenmaier (2003) found that the air travel), while Hwang et al. (2006) studied the share of multidestination travel among domestic behaviour of international tourists using air trans- tourists in the United States increased with an in- portation, besides which, they considered only a crease in distance from place of residence. Like- special case of multidestination travel, i.e. multicity wise, distance between visitors’ home country and trips. Parroco et al. (2012) have taken into consid- destination was the most significant variable in eration all tourists in Sicily excluding residents of determining the extent of multidestination trav- the island, and Kang (2016) considered US domes- el of international visitors to Queensland, Austral- tic tourists in selected South Carolina coastal areas. ia (Tideswell and Faulkner, 1999). Similar findings Such diversity precludes detailed comparison be- were made by Parroco et al. (2012) and Wu and tween findings. Nonetheless, some general conclu- Carson (2008). sions are very evident. One is that multidestination In the case of international tourists in USA trav- travel is very common (Hwang et al., 2006; Önder, elling by air (Hwang et al., 2006), differences in the 2017; Parocco et al., 2012; Stewart and Vogt, 1997; number of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) Tideswell and Faulkner, 1999) and not an anoma- visited and the choice of MSAs were observed with ly. Multidestination travel varies spatially as well as respect to familiarity with destination (as a conse- temporally. In regard to the latter, it has been shown quence of a previous visit). In Sicily, first-time vis- that frequency of specific travel itineraries varies itors more frequently engaged in multidestination seasonally (Stewart and Vogt, 1997). Furthermore, travel (Parroco et al., 2012). Differences between 52 Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63 first-time and repeat visitors were observed also teristic is difference between package tourists and within the context of intradestination spatial behav- independent travellers. According to Oppermann iour in Hong Kong: first-time visitors were inclined (1992), non-package international tourists in Ma- to wander throughout the destination, while repeat laysia visited more places than package tourists. On visitors concentrated their activities in fewer plac- the other hand, Debbage (1991) observed no sig- es (McKercher et al., 2012; see also Wang, 2004). nificant difference in spatial behaviour between the The use of private or rented vehicles translated, two groups of tourists visiting a spatially confined in the case of tourists in Queensland (Tideswell and resort destination (i.e. Paradise Island, Bahamas). Faulkner, 1999), into an increased number of over- However, the spatial level of analysis differed be- night stops being made. The authors ascribed this tween the two cases. to visitors’ increased mobility levels (Tideswell and Spatial configuration of destinations (spatial Faulkner, 1999). In accordance with this, Wu and structure of the supply of tourism resources/recrea- Carson (2008) assumed that domestic visitors may tion opportunities) has been suggested by Lue et al. have greater potential for dispersal, arising primar- (1993) and by Tideswell and Faulkner (1999) as an ily from greater use of private motor vehicles. On important factor influencing multidestination trav- the whole, however, their trips in South Australia el. In accordance with this, Hwang and Fesenmaier tended to be limited to one or two nights and to be (2003) concluded that variation in multidestination centred on Adelaide. travel between and within US states suggests the in- Kang (2016) noted that the purpose of travel of fluence of geographical characteristics. US domestic tourists visiting selected South Caro- The research on multidestination travel dis- lina coastal areas was significantly associated with cussed above was (with only one partial exception) the incidence of multidestination travel. Parroco et based on surveys among tourists visiting a particu- al. (2012) also found an association between travel lar destination. In contrast, this paper focuses on purpose and multidestination travel; sea-and-sand tourists from a specific area of origin, i.e. Slovenia. holiday tourists were less likely to engage in multi- It intends to provide an insight into the travel be- destination travel than other tourists (e.g. those in- haviour of the Slovenian population and factors af- terested in culture, ecotourism, etc.). Visiting friends fecting multidestination travel in general. and relatives was suggested by Lue et al. (1993) as a In the first part of the paper (Section 2), based factor increasing the tendency to visit more destina- on the data of the Statistical Office of the Republic tions, but empirical research did not confirm this. of Slovenia, some characteristics of the travel be- In fact, Oppermann (1995) found that respondents haviour of the Slovenian population are presented who stated pleasure as their sole purpose were less briefly. These data should provide a general picture likely to visit just one destination, in contrast to re- of the tourism travel of the Slovenian population spondents visiting friends and/or relatives and those and thus offer a context for the central part of the on business visits. paper (Chapters 3 and 4), which presents the re- Tideswell and Faulkner (1999) observed that sults of a questionnaire survey whose specific aim larger travel-group sizes resulted in fewer over- was to gain insight into some relevant characteris- night stop destinations, which contrasted with sug- tics of the multidestination travel of the Slovenian gestions by Lue et al. (1993) that larger travel-group population and its links to factors that were found size should be associated with heterogeneity of pref- to be related to incidence of multidestination travel erences of different members of a group and should in previous research. therefore positively influence frequency of multidestination travel. Similarly, Oppermann (1992) noted that number of overnight destinations is negatively 2. Some characteristics of the travel behav- related to group size. iour of the Slovenian population In regard to duration of trip, a close relationship between number of places visited by foreign tourists in New Zealand and their length of stay was found The Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia by Oppermann (1994). Another relevant charac- regularly collects various data about the tourism Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63 53 travel of the Slovenian population. This travel in- tions of longer private trips stayed more or less the cludes business trips, which are less relevant for this same (48.3%) (Gostiša and Belak, 2006). When tak- paper. Therefore, only data on “private” trips (i.e. ing into account all private travel, Croatia’s share is leisure, including visiting friends and relations) will smaller (e.g., 38.2% of trips in 2017). be presented. The majority of private trips is of a rather short The share of the Slovenian population taking duration. More than 50% of them involve three overnight private trips in a particular year amounts overnight stays at most (see Table 2). The share to more than 60% (see Table 1). The share of those of longer trips is, accordingly, around 40% or less who went on at least one longer private trip (at (36.2% in 2014, 42.7% in 2016). The percentage of least four overnight stays) is between 50% and 60% trips with 15 overnight stays or more is between 2 (51.8% in 2014, 59.5% in 2018). and 3% (2.4% in 2017, 3.3% in 2016). When going on longer private trips, Slovenian Therefore, these data show that the typical pri- tourists usually use private motor vehicles (78.9% in vate trips of the Slovenian population are of rel- 2014 and 2018, 82.2% in 2017). Their share is even atively short duration, usually involve the use of bigger in the case of shorter private trips (fewer than personal cars, and are directed towards nearby des- four overnights) and surpasses 90%. The majority of tinations (and especially the Croatian coastal resorts Slovenian tourists direct their longer private trips to in the case of longer private trips). destinations outside the home country. Slovenia is close to several leading European destinations (Ita- ly, Austria, Croatia, etc.). The most popular destina- 3. Data and method tion for Slovenian tourists is neighbouring Croatia, with its long and attractive Adriatic coast; its share among destinations of longer private trips is around For the purpose of this research, data on travel be- 50%. In recent years, this share has ranged behaviour were collected by questionnaire survey, tween 47.4% (in 2014) and 51.0% (in 2015). De- which took place in 2015 as a web survey among spite important changes in tourism demand in the the Slovenian population of at least fifteen years old. last decade, the popularity of Croatia as a tourist Respondents were invited to participate through so- destination is a persistent, long-term characteris- cial media and web forums. The sample only in- tic of Slovenian tourists’ behaviour. For example, in cluded those persons who had already taken at 2005 the percentage of Croatia among the destina- least one longer private trip, i.e. a trip involving at

Table 1. Percentage of Slovenian population who went on private trips (business trips not included) in the five year peri- od 2014–18 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Went on a private trip 62.9 62.6 66.6 65.6 69.3 Went on a longer private trip (at least four over- 51.8 52.3 53.5 55.6 59.5 nights) Source: SORS, 2020a

Table 2. Duration of overnight private trips (business trips not included) of the Slovenian population in the five year pe- riod 2014–18 (percentage of trips) Number of days 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1–3 63.8 57.4 57.3 62.8 60.2 4–7 23.9 27.2 27.3 23.7 26.2 8–14 9.8 12.4 12.1 11.1 10.9 15+ 2.5 2.9 3.3 2.4 2.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: SORS, 2020b 54 Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63 least four overnight stays. The latter condition was to focus on pursuing particular interests (Tideswell deemed necessary because it is hardly possible (or and Faulkner, 1999). Consequently, they should at least very unlikely) to perform multidestination be less inclined to visit many destinations. The re- travel in the case of very short trips (e.g. two over- spondents were asked about the previous visits to nights). The sample included 606 respondents. the destination country of their most recent longer The questionnaire contained mostly close-end- private trip and the number of their visits, but not ed questions on respondents’ general travel be- about specific places visited (overnight stops). haviour and, more in detail, on respondents’ most Distance of a visited destination country (or recent longer private trip. In the majority of cases, countries) from Slovenia. Distance from the tour- the respondents were asked to choose the appropri- ists’ area of origin can be considered in relation to ate answer from those offered in the questionnaire. risk reduction. Visitors from more distant areas of Possible answers are shown in Table 3. A destina- origin invest more time and money into their trip. tion was defined as the location of an overnight stop Consequently, they will be more sensitive to the risk (similarly as in Parroco et al., 2012; and Wu and involved (Tideswell and Faulkner, 1999). It can also Carson, 2008). be considered in regard to economic rationality: in- Despite the considerable size of the sample it is, clusion of additional destinations into a travel itin- in fact, a convenience sample, which is one of the erary would require only a relatively small increase limitations of this research. It could be supposed in time and money (Lue et al., 1993), which is es- that it includes, to an above-average extent, persons pecially relevant in the case of visits to distant des- who were interested in the topic and thus willing tinations. Respondents were not asked about the to answer the questions. Nevertheless, the charac- exact distance of destinations visited from respond- teristics of the sample in regard to travel behaviour ents’ homes and it would be unrealistic to expect of the respondents are to a large extent congruent all respondents to provide such information. How- with the characteristics of the travel behaviour of ever, they were asked to name the countries visited the Slovenian population (the leading role of Cro- during their last longer tourist trip. For the analy- atia as a destination for longer private trips, the sis, the countries visited have been classified into predominance of trips of a short to modest dura- five groups with respect to their proximity/distance: tion, the predominance of personal motor vehicle as Group 1: Slovenia; Group 2: neighbouring countries; transport mode used; see next section). Therefore, Group 3: countries which are at least partly with- it could be assumed that findings to a considerable in a 500-km radius of central Slovenia (neighbour- extent reflect the behaviour of the general Sloveni- ing countries excluded); Group 4: other (i.e. more an population. distant) European countries as well as non-Euro- The questionnaire survey was focused on the pean Mediterranean countries (Egypt, Tunisia, Tur- role of several factors that were found or assumed key, etc.); the latter are located in relative proximity to be relevant in the literature on multidestination to Slovenia and, additionally, they are rather pop- travel with regard to the incidence of multidestina- ular holiday destinations; Group 5: non-European tion travel, as presented below. countries (excluding non-European Mediterranean Duration of the most recent trip (of at least countries). In the case of a visit to several countries, four overnights). The amount of time available for the most distant one was taken into consideration. a trip quite obviously affects the number of desti- Use of personal motor vehicle as the primary nations that can be included in the itinerary (Tide- mode of transport. Use of personal motor vehicle swell and Faulkner, 1999). Respondents in the results in increased travel mobility and consequent- survey were asked about the number of days spent ly facilitates visits to several destinations (Tideswell on their last trip. Duration of trip is not necessarily and Faulkner, 1999). On longer trips, travellers equivalent to available time but it is certainly close- probably use several modes of transportation, while ly related to it. in the case of single-destination travel the prevail- Previous visit(s) to destination country and ing (or exclusive) use of just one mode of trans- number of previous visits. Familiarity with a desti- portation could be expected. Therefore, respondents nation may reflect a tendency among repeat visitors who visited more than one destination (i.e. multi- Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63 55 destination visitors) were offered the possibility to (χ2) test. As a measure of association, standardised choose up to three responses, i.e. the most frequent- contingency coefficient was used, which has a max- ly used transportation modes. We included into the imum value of 1 (see e.g. Blaikie, 2003). further analysis only responses on the use or non- use of a personal motor vehicle (including a rented one), which was the most frequently used mode 4. Results of transport by far. Other transport modes were far less common. Involvement of travel agency in trip organi- 4.1. General characteristics of respondents’ sation (package tours versus self-organised travel). travel behaviour Independent travellers can act like “explorers” (see Cohen, 1972) while tourists on package tours are The majority of respondents (79.0%) had been on a constrained by the travel programme and prede- longer private trip (i.e. at least four overnight stays) termined itinerary. However, distinctions between in the last 12 months, 14.4% in the last 1–3 years, tourists using travel agency services and those who 2.5% in the last 4–5 years, and the remaining 4.1% organise their trips independently are often quite had taken such a trip more than 5 years previous- blurred. Many tourists use travel agency services ly. Usually, their most recent trips had been of a just in relation to some elements of their trip (e.g. rather short duration; 54.9% of trips had been 5–7 booking of tourist accommodation). days long, 29.8% had been 8–14 days long, and only Size of travel group (number of persons) can 15.4% of respondents’ most recent trips had been be related to heterogeneity of preferences of trav- longer than two weeks (see Table 3). el group members – i.e. different travel expecta- Respondents tend to visit familiar destinations. tions and requirements of different members of the Only 39.8% visited a country that they had not visit- same travel group – which encourages the selection ed before during their last trip. The most frequently of multiple destinations (Lue et al., 1993). Conse- mentioned destination country was Croatia (visit- quently, multidestination travel becomes more com- ed by 38.1% of respondents) followed by Slovenia mon when one travels with more people. On the and Italy. Moreover, 44.0% of respondents had visit- other hand, small travel groups could be inclined ed a particular destination country more than three to explore a country or region, with many destina- times before their most recent trip. Among these re- tions being included in their itinerary as a conse- spondents the largest group by far were those who quence (Lue et al., 1993; Oppermann, 1992). The had visited Croatia (71.2%). respondents were offered six possible responses. Almost 60% (58.3%) of trips included just a visit One included variable group size since, especially to a single overnight destination. Therefore, 41.7% in the case of very long trips, number of persons in of respondents’ most recent trips were multides- a group can change. tination trips; the greater part of them (69%) was Respondents’ main activities during trip. Ac- directed to just one country, within which they vis- tivities on a trip are closely related to trip purpose ited several overnight destinations. The prevailing and they define the nature of a trip. Respondents mode of transportation was personal motor vehi- were allowed to state up to three main activities un- cle. It was used by 61.4% of respondents. Only a dertaken during a trip. Included were the following minority of respondents had used travel agencies to (see Table 4): relaxation, rest; entertainment, meet- organise their last trip. Fifteen point five percent of ing people; visiting natural and cultural attractions; trips were wholly organised by travel agencies, while attending cultural/entertainment/sports events; vis- 7.3% of trips were partly organised by them. This, iting friends and/or relatives; staying at a health re- again, is a consequence of the fact that the most sort, taking care of one’s own health; participation common type of tourist trip consists of self-organ- in sports activities; other. ised travel to seaside resorts in Croatia. The majori- Because of the mostly nominal nature of the data, ty of travel groups included 3–5 persons (34.9%) or the association of these variables with the incidence two persons (34.2%). On the other hand, the least of multidestination travel was tested by chi-square 56 Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63 frequent travel group size was one person (6.2%). Familiarity with destination country. Visiting The most common activity during a trip was “re- a previously unknown (i.e. not visited) destination laxation, rest” (69.1% of respondents), followed by country is moderately associated with the incidence visiting natural and cultural attractions (54.6%), and of multidestination travel (Cs = 0.482). Of the re- entertainment / meeting people (46.6%). Other ac- spondents who undertook multidestination travel, tivities (sports activities, visiting friends and/or rela- 59.10% visited at least one destination country for tives, attending cultural/entertainment/sport events, the first time on their most recent longer tourism etc.) were of lesser importance. trip. Among single-destination visitors, this percent- As already mentioned, the majority of trips age is only 23.40%. It should be stressed that fa- were single-destination trips, i.e. trips with just miliarity with destination was considered only as one overnight stop. However, these trips largely in- familiarity with destination country, not overnight cluded one-day trips to various attractions. Only stop, which was defined as a destination within this 18.0% of single-destination visitors stayed at only research. the one destination for the whole duration of their In addition, multidestination travel is positively trip. Twenty-three point one percent of them made associated with the number of previous visits to a one excursion into the surroundings of their desti- destination country (Cs = 0.362). This is related to nation, while the majority of them (58.9%) made the fact that the most frequently visited destinations several (at least two) day excursions. Therefore, a are the ones in relative proximity to tourists’ homes. considerable leisure mobility of respondents is evi- These destinations can be visited even when just a dent even in the cases when they are, from the per- small amount of time is available. spective of accommodation statistics, staying in just Distance of a destination. Standardised con- one place. tingency coefficient was the highest s(C = 0.547) in regard to the distance of a destination country, as represented by previously described groups of 4.2. Factors associated with multidestination countries. The majority of single-destination visi- travel tors (54.2%) visited a neighbouring country. On the other hand, for multidestination visitors the This research was specifically focused on the role of most popular destinations were other European various factors in relation to multidestination trav- and Mediterranean countries (42.6%). Among the el (i.e. duration of trip, familiarity with destination, respondents who during their last trip visited ei- distance to destination, use of personal motor vehi- ther Slovenia, neighbouring countries or Group 3 cle, role of travel agencies in trip organisation, size countries (within a 500-km radius), single-destina- of travel group, purpose of trip). Knowledge of as- tion visitors prevailed (Fig. 1). The results were very sociations between these variables is helpful in un- different in the case of the respondents who visit- derstanding the phenomenon studied and tourist ed more distant countries. Among them, multidesti- travel behaviour in general. The results are present- nation visitors overwhelmingly dominated. This was ed also in Tables 3 and 4. most evident in the case of non-European coun- Duration of trip. An association between multi- tries, where the share of multidestination visitors destination travel and length of trip is very evi- was even 91.4%. dent (Cs = 0.521). Of the respondents who visited Use of personal motor vehicle. In contrast with only one destination (i.e. single-destination visi- the results of some other studies (e.g. Tideswell and tors), 69.7% spent 5–7 days on their last trip. This Faulkner, 1999), use of personal motor vehicle did percentage is only 34.3% in the respondents who not positively affect the incidence of multidestina- visited more than one destination (i.e. multidestination travel. The value of the standardised contin- tion visitors). On the other hand, only 1.2% of sin- gency coefficient is 0.184, which indicates only a gle-destination visitors went on a trip for more than weak association (according to Blaikie, 2003: 100). 21 days, while among multidestination visitors this Among single-destination visitors, the share of per- percentage was 22.7%. sonal motor vehicle users was 66.8%, while among multidestination visitors it was only 53.8%. This is Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63 57

Table 3. Some characteristics related to respondents’ most recent trip Single- Multiple Total destination destination (% visitors visitors of χ2 C p-value df (% (% s respond- of of ents) respondents) respondents) Duration of the most recent trip (in days) 5–7 days 69.70 34.30 54.90 124.358 0.521 0.000 4 8–14 days 27.70 32.70 29.80 15–21 days 1.40 10.40 5.20 22–30 days 0.90 13.10 6.00 More than 30 days 0.30 9.60 4.20 Total 100 100 100 First visit of (at least one) destination country Yes 23.40 59.10 38.50 78.585 0.482 0.000 1 No 76.60 40.90 61.50 Total 100 100 100 Number of previous visits to destination country One 10.20 20.40 13.00 30.129 0.362 0.000 2 2–3 9.40 27.20 14.40 More than 3 80.40 52.40 72.60 Total 100 100 100 Type of destination, by distance/proximity Slovenia 9.80 3.60 7.20 139.243 0.547 0.000 4 Neighbouring countries 54.20 19.70 39.80 Countries within 500-km radius 10.70 8.40 9.70 Other European 23.60 42.60 31.50 and Mediterranean countries Non-European countries 1.70 25.70 11.70 Total 100 100 100 Use of personal motor vehicle (including rent-

al) Yes 66.80 53.80 61.40 10.313 0.184 0.001 1 No 33.20 46.20 38.60 Total 100 100 100 Organisation of trip by travel agency No 75.80 79.20 77.20 2.922 0.092 0.232 2 Yes 17.60 12.70 15.50 Partly 6.60 8.20 7.30 Total 100 100 100 Size of travel group (number of persons) One person (i.e. the respondent) 4.60 8.60 6.20 32.822 0.285 0.000 5 Two persons 33.90 34.70 34.20 3–5 persons 40.80 26.50 34.90 6–10 persons 11.50 7.80 9.90 More than 10 persons 8.00 17.10 11.80 Variable group size (variable number of per- 1.10 5.30 2.90 sons) Total 100 100 100 Source: Author’s survey 58 Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63

Fig. 1. Percentage of multidestination/single-destination trips of respondents visiting various groups of destination countries Source: Author largely a consequence of the prevalent type of holi- Organisation of a trip by travel agency. Pro- day, which is based on a seaside stay on the Adriatic clivity for multidestination travel is not different be- coast. The resorts on this coast are easily and quick- tween the respondents who were on a trip wholly ly accessible by car, which is consequently the most or partly organised by travel agency and other re- frequently used mode of transportation. Therefore, spondents. Trips organised by travel agencies in- despite increased level of mobility related to the use clude seaside travel packages (stay at a single coastal of personal motor vehicles, this does not necessar- destination) as well as touring groups, whose typi- ily translate into larger likelihood of multidestina- cal travel behaviour includes visits to numerous des- tion travel. On the contrary; since personal motor tinations. By contrast, independent travel includes vehicles are usually not used when visiting more seaside holidays (especially on the Adriatic coast) distant destinations, use of various forms of pub- as well as backpacker travel (multidestination trav- lic transportation (especially air transportation) is el of long duration and flexible itinerary). more common within multidestination travel. Nev- Size of travel group. Size of travel group is ertheless, it might be expected that when compar- weakly to moderately associated with multidestina- ing travel of similar length and to similarly distant tion travel (Cs = 0.285). However, the supposed ef- destinations, use of personal motor vehicles would fect of heterogeneity of preferences, which is related prove to be related to a greater likelihood of multi- to larger groups (see e.g. Tideswell and Faulkner, destination travel. However, such analysis was out- 1999), is not evident. In fact, multidestination trav- side of the scope of this research. el is more common among larger groups (ten peo- Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63 59 ple or more) but also among solo travellers, as well Activities undertaken during trip. Only a as among groups of varying size. This is probably a few activities are associated with the incidence of consequence of the fact that multidestination travel multidestination travel. Among the activities neg- is, on the one hand, very common among solo trav- atively associated with it are “relaxation and rest” ellers who travel as explorers (e.g. backpackers) and, (Cs = 0.274) and “staying at health resort, taking on the other hand, among larger groups, which are care of one’s own health” (Cs = 0.120). On the oth- in fact organised tour groups on a trip with a pre- er hand, more frequent multidestination travel has determined itinerary. Multidestination travel is the been observed only in regard to visiting natural least common among groups of 3–5 persons (usual- and cultural attractions (Cs = 0.417). Other activ- ly families with children), who are largely sea-and- ities (“visiting friends and relatives”, “entertainment sand tourists on the Adriatic coast. and meeting people”, “visiting cultural, entertain-

Table 4. Trip activities of single-destination and multiple destination visitors Single- Multiple destination destination Total visitors visitors (% Main activity on trip χ2 C p-value df (% (% of s of of respondents) respondents) respondents) Relaxation, rest Yes 76.70 58.20 69.10 23.054 0.274 0.000 1 No 23.30 41.80 30.90 Total 100 100 100 Entertainment, meeting people Χ2 C p-value df Yes 48.00 44.70 46.60 0.634 0.047 0.426 1 No 52.00 55.30 53.40 Total 100 100 100 Visiting natural and cultural attractions Χ2 C p-value df Yes 41.70 73.00 54.60 56.622 0.417 0.000 1 No 58.30 27.00 45.40 Total 100 100 100 Attending cultural/entertainment/sports Χ2 C p-value df events Yes 8.00 12.30 9.80 2.93 0.099 0.087 1 No 92.00 87.70 90.20 Total 100 100 100 Visiting friends or/and relatives Χ2 C p-value df Yes 10.10 11.10 10.50 0.155 0.023 0.693 1 No 89.90 88.90 89.50 Total 100 100 100 Staying at health resort, taking care of Χ2 C p-value df one’s own health Yes 3.40 0.80 2.40 4.292 0.120 0.038 1 No 96.60 99.20 97.60 Total 100 100 100 Sports activities (participation) Yes 17.50 18.90 18.10 0.17 0.024 0.680 1 No 82.50 81.10 81.90 Total 100 100 100 Source: Author’s survey 60 Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63 ment, sport events”, and “sport activities”) did not virtually all other studies were conducted on des- show association with the incidence of multidesti- tination areas. Nevertheless, some differences can nation trips. The results indicate that single-destina- be noted. In contrast with the findings of Opper- tion visitors are somewhat less active during their mann (1992) and Tideswell and Faulkner (1999), trip than multidestination visitors. However, differ- larger size of travel group is not necessarily nega- ences between the two groups are not very obvious tively associated with multidestination travel. Rath- since both single-destination and multidestination er, its role is much more ambivalent. Similarly, use trips can be very heterogeneous in regard to tour- of personal cars as the main transportation mode ists’ motivations. is not positively associated with multidestination travel (in contrast with the findings of Tideswell and Faulkner, 1999). Furthermore, in comparison 5. Discussion and conclusions with some previous research, results also conflict- ed in part on the role of travel agencies and visiting friends and relatives as a travel motivation. This The purpose of this study was to contribute to a indicates the importance of contextual/geographi- better understanding of multidestination travel. Pre- cal factors in influencing multidestination travel. It vious research usually studied tourists visiting par- could be assumed that these factors include, among ticular destination areas, while this one was focused others, accessibility and geographical distribution of on tourists from a specific area of origin, i.e. Slove- tourism opportunities. nia. It examined the role of various factors in affect- Further research is needed to clarify some is- ing multidestination travel. sues. For example, is there a hierarchy of tourist Single-destination trips prevailed. To a large ex- destinations visited during a single trip (primary, tent, they were base-camp trips. Respondents were secondary, etc. destinations), and how does this hi- based in a single overnight destination but they erarchy affect the characteristics of travel itinerar- went on many day-excursions to attractions in the ies and number of destinations visited? How should surrounding areas. It appears that, in the case of we understand relations between some of the vari- the leisure travel of the Slovenian population, sin- ables included in the analysis? Is longer duration of gle-destination travel is relatively rare on trips to trip a consequence of multidestination travel (tour- locations of more than 500 km away. Unfortunate- ists want to see many destinations and consequently ly, data on precise destinations visited are lacking. need more time to visit them) or is it that, con- Only data on countries visited were collected. Con- versely, multidestination travel is a result of having a sequently, detailed analysis of spatial range and large amount of available time? Furthermore, some travel patterns has not been possible, although it of the results are (as already pointed out) affected could shed additional light on the phenomenon be- by the geographic characteristics of the area studied ing studied. and its neighbourhood. In regard to this, addition- The results show the relevance of the majority al research in other areas of tourists’ origin would of variables considered in this research. Multidesti- be very welcome. nation travel is most common in the case of longer The rather technical (quantitative) approach to trips to distant destinations, and also to unfamil- the research on multidestination travel allows only iar (i.e. previously not visited) destinations (desti- limited insight into the nature of multidestination nation countries). Among multidestination visitors, travel. Definitions of the concept of destination in- two groups prevail: solo travellers and large tour- dicated that destination is to a considerable extent ing groups. In regard to tourist activities, multi- the tourist’s construction. Accordingly, a tourist’s ex- destination travel is related to an above-average perience of multidestination travel could be much extent to visiting natural and cultural sights and to more complex than presented in the paper and in a below-average extent to rest and relaxation, and the majority of research on multidestination travel. health-related tourist motivations. The factors affecting multidestination travel and dis- In general, the results are congruent with the cussed in the research literature have, so far, been findings of previous research, despite the fact that interpreted from the perspective of researchers Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63 61

(based on the concepts of heterogeneity of prefer- Flognfeldt, T. (1999). Traveler geographic origin and ences, economic rationalisation, etc.) and not from market segmentation: The multi trips destination case. the perspective of tourists/travellers. Qualitative re- Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 8(1): 111–124, search on multidestination travel could give valua- DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v08n01_07 ble insights into the researched phenomenon. For Flores, A. and Scott, N. (2016). Destination. In J. Ja- instance, it would be of interest to know how multi- fari, H. Xiao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Tourism (pp. 249– destination travel is perceived by tourists and how 252). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. it contributes to the nature and quality of tourist Framke, W. (2002). The destination as a concept: A dis- experience. cussion of the business-related perspective versus the Multidestination travel has many important im- socio-cultural approach in tourism theory. Scandina- plications. As pointed out by Lue et al. (1993), in- vian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 2(2): 92–108. clusion of a destination into a multidestination DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15022250216287 travel itinerary can enhance its appeal for visitors. Gostiša, N. and Belak, E. (2006). Survey on tourism Moreover, multidestination travel can contribute to travels of domestic population, 2005. Ljubljana: Sta- spatial dispersion of tourist flows and, consequent- tistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. ly, result in dispersal of the economic benefits relat- Higham, J. (2005). Sport tourism destinations: issues, ed to tourism. It can also contribute to easing the opportunities and analysis. In J. Higham (Ed.), Sport problems of excessive concentration of tourist vis- tourism destinations, 1–14. Amsterdam, Burlington its in the most popular tourist destinations. There- (MA): Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. fore, better knowledge of multidestination travel is Hwang, Y.-H. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (2003). Multi- of considerable practical relevance and deserves ad- destination pleasure travel patterns: Empirical ev- ditional attention. idence from the American travel survey. Journal of Travel Research, 42: 166–171. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0047287503253936 References Hwang, Y.-H. Gretzel, U. and Fesenmaier, D. R. (2006). Multicity trip patterns: Tourists to the United States. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4): 1057–1078. DOI: Blaikie, N. (2003). Analyzing quantitative data: From http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2006.04.004 description to explanation. London, Thousand Oaks, Kang, S. (2016). Associations between space–time con- New Delhi: SAGE Publications. DOI: http://dx.doi. straints and spatial patterns of travels. Annals of org/10.4135/9781849208604 Tourism Research, 61: 127–141. DOI: https://doi. Castro, J.C. Quisimalin, M. de Pablos, C. Gancino, org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.09.010 V. and Jerez, J. (2017). Tourism Marketing: Meas- Klenosky, D. (2002). The ‚Pull‘ of Tourism Destina- uring Tourist Satisfaction. Journal of Service Science tions: A Means-End Investigation. Journal of Trav- and Management, 10: 280–308. DOI: https://doi. el Research, 40(4): 385–395. DOI: https://doi. org/10.4236/jssm.2017.103023 org/10.1177/0047287502040004005 Chi, C.G.-Q. and Qu H. (2008). Examining the Struc- Leiper, N. (1979). The framework of tourism: Towards a tural Relationships of Destination Image, Tourist definition of tourism, tourist, and the tourist indus- Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty: An Integrat- try. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4): 390–407. DOI: ed Approach. Tourism Management, 29(4): 624–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(79)90003-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.007 Lew, A. and McKercher, B. (2006). Modeling tourist Cho, B.–H. (2000). Destination. In J. Jafari (Ed.), Ency- movements: A local destination analysis. Annals of clopedia of tourism (pp. 144–145). London, New York: Tourism Research, 33(2): 403–423. DOI: http://dx. Routledge. doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.12.002 Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international Lue, C.C. Crompton, J.L. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (1993). tourism. Social Research, 39: 164–182. Conceptualization of multi-destination pleasure trips. Debbage, K.G. (1991). Spatial behavior in a Bahamian Annals of Tourism Research, 20(2): 289–301. DOI: resort. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2): 251–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(93)90056-9 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(91)90008-y 62 Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63

McKercher, B. Chan, A. and Lam, C. (2008). The im- Issues in Tourism, 19(10): 988–1004. DOI: http://dx. pact of distance on international tourist movements. doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.942259 Journal of Travel Research, 47: 208–224. DOI: http:// Prayag, G. and Ryan C. (2011). The Relationship be- dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287508321191 tween the ‘Push’ and ‘Pull’ Factors of a Tour- McKercher, B. and Lau, G. (2008). Movement pat- ist Destination: The Role of Nationality – an terns of tourists within a destination. Tourism Ge- Analytical Qualitative Research Approach. Current ographies, 10(3): 355–374. DOI: http://dx.doi. Issues in Tourism, 14(2): 121–143. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1080/14616680802236352 org/10.1080/13683501003623802 McKercher, B. and Mak, B. (2019). The impact of dis- Ryan, C. (1995). Learning about Tourists from Conversa- tance on international tourism demand. Tourism tions: The over-55S in Majorca. Tourism Management, Management Perspectives, 31: 340–347. DOI: http:// 16(3): 207–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0261- dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.07.004 5177(95)00005-9 McKercher, B. Shoval, N. Ng, E. and Birenboim, A. Saarinen, J. (2004). Destinations in change: The trans- (2012) First and repeat visitor behaviour: GPS track- formation process of tourist destinations. Tour- ing and GIS analysis in Hong Kong. Tourism Geog- ist Studies, 4: 161–179. DOI: http://dx.doi. raphies, 14(1): 147–161. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.10 org/10.1177/1468797604054381 80/14616688.2011.598542 Sørensen, A. (2003). Backpacker ethnography. Annals of McKercher, B. and Zoltan, J. (2014). Tourist flows and Tourism Research, 30(4): 847–867. DOI: http://dx.doi. spatial behavior. In A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. M. org/10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00063-X Williams (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion SORS (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia), to Tourism, 33–44. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley 2020a. Participation of residents in tourism trips, an- Blackwell. nually. Available at: https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatDb/ Mings, R.C. and McHugh, K.E. (1992). The spatial pxweb/en/20_Ekonomsko/20_Ekonomsko__21_ configuration of travel to Yellowstone National Park. gostinstvo_turizem__06_potovanja__10_21698_ Journal of Travel Research, 30(4): 38–46. DOI: http:// udelezenost_letno/?tablelist=true (10.02.2020) dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728759203000406 SORS, 2020b. Tourism trips by characteristics of trips, Önder, I. (2017). Classifying multi-destination trips in annually. Available at: https://pxweb.stat.si/SiStatDb/ Austria with big data. Tourism Management Perspec- pxweb/en/20_Ekonomsko/20_Ekonomsko__21_gost- tives, 21: 54–58. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. instvo_turizem__06_potovanja__30_21702_znacil- tmp.2016.11.002 nosti_letno/?tablelist=true (10.02.2020) Oppermann, M. (1992). Intranational tourist flows in Stewart, S.I. and Vogt, C.A. (1997). Multi-destina- Malaysia. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(3): 482–500. tion trip patterns. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2): DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(92)90132-9 458–461. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0160- Oppermann, M. (1994). Length of stay and spatial dis- 7383(97)80017-5 tribution. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(4), 834–836. Sun, X. Chi, C.G.-Q. and Xu H. (2013). Developing DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(94)90087-6 destination loyalty: the case of Hainan Island. Annals Oppermann, M. (1995). A model of travel itineraries. of Tourism Research, 43: 547–577. DOI: https://doi. Journal of Travel Research, 33(4): 57–61. DOI: http:// org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.04.006 dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728759503300409 Tideswell, C. and Faulkner, B. (1999). Multidestination Parroco, A.M. Vaccina, F. De Cantis, S. and Fer- travel patterns of international visitors to Queensland. rante, M. (2012). Multi-destination trips: A survey Journal of Travel Research, 37: 364–374. DOI: http:// on incoming tourism in Sicily. Economics Discussion dx.doi.org/10.1177/004728759903700406 Papers, 2012-21. Available at: http://www.econom- Tussyadiah, I.P. Kono, T. and Morisugi, H. (2006). ics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2012-21 A model of multidestination travel: Implica- Popp, L. and McCole, D. (2016). Understanding tourists’ tions for marketing strategies. Journal of Trav- itineraries in emerging rural tourism regions: the ap- el Research, 44: 407–417. DOI: http://dx.doi. plication of paper-based itinerary mapping method- org/10.1177/0047287505282950 ology to a wine tourism region in Michigan. Current Vanhove, N. (2005). The Economics of Tourism Destina- tions. Oxford, Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann. Dejan Cigale / Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series / 49 (2020): 49–63 63

Wang, D. (2004). Tourist behaviour and repeat visita- travel. Journal of Travel Research, 46: 311–317. DOI: tion to Hong Kong. Tourism Geographies, 6(1): 99– http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287506304046 118. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680320001 Zillinger, M. (2007). A time-geographical ap- 722355 proach on German car-tourists in Sweden. Tour- Wu, C.-L. and Carson, D. (2008). Spatial and tempo- ism Geographies, 9(1): 64–83. DOI: http://dx.doi. ral tourist dispersal analysis in multiple destination org/10.1080/14616680601092915

The proofreading of articles, positively reviewed and approved for publishing in the ‘Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series’, was financed from the funds of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education earmarked for activities popularizing science, in line with Agreement No 695/P-DUN/2018.