CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Pull

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

Pull Factors that Can Make a Microstate an Attractive Destination for American Tourists:

The Case of Andorra

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Tourism, Hospitality, and Recreation Management

Lluís Miquel Gonzàlez Solà

May 2019 Copyright © 2019 by Lluís Miquel Gonzàlez Solà All rights reserved. This thesis or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.

ii The graduate thesis of Lluís Miquel Gonzàlez Solà is approved:

______Dr. Mechelle Best Date

______Dr. Joong-won Lee Date

______Dr. Hui (Jimmy) Xie, Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

iii Acknowledgment

I sincerely thank my committee members, Dr. Joong-won Lee and Dr. Mechelle Best for sharing their expertise throughout this project. Special thanks to the committee chair Dr. Hui

(Jimmy) Xie for his time, guidance, and encouragement.

There are people in everyone’s lives who make success both possible and rewarding.

Special thanks go to Nelli Marutyan and Wendy Brown for their invaluable help during this process. Also, this Master’s project could not be completed without the funding support from the

Office of Research and Graduate Studies.

Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to the Department of Tourism &

Education of Andorra and especially to the Fulbright Committee for giving me the opportunity to pursue my Master’s program in the United States of America.

iv Dedication

This is for you, Vikki.

v Table of Contents

Copyright ii Signature Page iii Acknowledgment iv Dedication v List of Figures vii List of Tables viii Abstract ix Introduction 1 Literature Review 5 Travel decision process 6 Understanding the tourists´ motivators 8 Definition of pull factors 12 Microstates as tourism suppliers 16 Andorra’s overview 19 Pull factors of Andorra 21 Current issues regarding tourism in Andorra 22 Andorra as a complementary destination 25 The tourism demand: US tourist 27 Methodology 29 Method´s design 30 Sample 30 Structure 31 Logistics and outcome 33 Data Analysis 34 Results 36 Conclusion 45 References 47 Appendix A: Research Instrument 54

vi List of Figures

Figure 1. Study variables 3

Figure 2. Consumer’s decision making process 7

Figure 3. Travel process 7

Figure 4. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs 10

Figure 5. Travel Career Ladder 11

Figure 6. Consolidated nine attributes and dimensions assessing the destination image 22

Figure 7. Europe’s map 24

Figure 8. US outbound tourists’ arrivals to Spain 30

Figure 9. Concept groups 35

Figure 10. Travel decision process diagram 42

vii List of Tables

Table 1. Attributes and dimensions assessing the destination image perceived by the tourist 15

Table 2. Arrivals of non-resident tourists at national borders 23

Table 3. Sample demographics distribution 33

Table 4. Focus groups schedule 34

Table 5. Individual interviews schedule 34

Table 6. What are US tourists’ perceptions of Andorra as a destination? 36

Table 7. What pull factors are more relevant for US tourists for choosing Andorra (Categories) 38

Table 8. What pull factors are more relevant for US tourists for choosing Andorra (Items) 40

viii Abstract

Pull Factors that Can Make a Microstate an Attractive Destination for American Tourists:

the Case of Andorra

Lluís Miquel Gonzàlez Solà

Master of Science in Tourism, Hospitality, and Recreation Management

While many microstates rely on tourism as a way of economic development, little research has been conducted on how to market and promote a microstate destination to distant international markets. Based on previous research on tourist motivations and decisions, this research argues that tourists from distant markets may consider traveling to a microstate if the right pull factors (destination features) are promoted. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to explore which pull factors have the potential to make a microstate an attractive destination for

US tourists, using the landlocked European microstate of Andorra as a study case.

To address the study purpose, a qualitative research method was employed. First, purposive sampling was used to select twenty US residents that traveled to Spain, Andorra’s

ix neighboring state. The sample consisted of individuals of different age and household income ranges. Then, four focus groups and four individual interviews were conducted to explore the attractiveness of Andorra´s pull factors.

The results of this study indicated that the small size of the country made it difficult for

Andorra to be considered as a sole destination for American tourists. However, Andorra’s local culture, mountain scenery, entertainment opportunities, and outdoor activities may be marketed to American tourists visiting Spain or France as an opportunity to discover another country during their trip. In addition, participants mentioned uniqueness and unknownness as potential reasons for traveling to Andorra. Those two elements may have marketing opportunities as they are arguably more applicable to microstates than larger countries.

This study contributed to tourism marketing literature by examining the effectiveness of pull factors in the promotion of microstates as travel destinations. In addition, the study results provided practical recommendations for developing Andorra’s international tourism marketing strategies.

Keywords: Travel Motivators, Pull Factors, Microstate, Andorra, US tourist

x Introduction

Tourism plays a critical role in the economy of a microstate. In fact, the idea that tourism is almost inevitable as a form of economic development (Wilkinson, 1989) has been stated by many authors that have written about tourism to microstates (Fagence, 1997; Ford, 2016; Milne,

1992; Milne & Nowosielski, 1997). Destination Marketing Organizations (DMO) in microstates have been working on developing strategies to attract tourism from distant countries like the

United States, China or India (Sharma & Zemp, 2016). US residents have one of the most significant expenditures on outbound tourism in the world spending more than 160 billion dollars every year for this purpose (World Bank, 2016); however, there is a limited understanding of how to promote microstate destinations to distant international markets such as the United States.

Assessing the motivators of travelers and developing a customer profile of potential visitors can maximize the overall value of the destination by tailoring the destination tourist products to the visitors´ needs (Kutner & Cripps, 1997). However, there is a lack of agreement upon the conceptualization of tourism motivation (Fodness, 1994). Several authors have accepted the push/pull model as an acceptable principle (Crompton, 1979; Hanqin & Lam, 1999; Lam &

Hsu, 2004). This research uses the push/pull model as its theoretical framework. Pull factors are defined as the "drawing force generated by the overall attractions existing in a given place"

(Kaur, 1981, p.19). Whereas, push factors are the intrinsic motivations that make visitors look for activities to fulfill their needs, such as the need to escape, relax, fame, health or socialization

(Crompton, 1979). Because push factors are more linked to the development of the travel need

(Bello & Etzel, 1985), this research solely focuses on the pull factors as they are considered more influential during the destination choice process (Bello & Etzel, 1985). The pull factors of the

1 study destination were segmented using the nine dimensions and attributes determining the perceived tourist destination image of Beerli and Martı́n (2004) and consolidating them within four areas: (1) Natural and cultural resources, (2) tourist and leisure infrastructure, (3) opportunities for sports activities, and (4) atmosphere, social setting, and social environment.

The purpose of this research is to examine what pull factors have the potential to make a microstate an attractive destination to distant markets, using the landlocked European microstate of Andorra as a study case.

Three reasons supported the selection of Andorra as a study case. First, with less than

80,000 inhabitants, Andorra is a microstate by definition, as it is “a sovereign country with a population below 2 million inhabitants” (World Economic Policy and Debt Department, 2005, p.3). Second, tourism is a central pillar in the economy of Andorra; with the service activity representing the 89% of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and with a tourism industry that employs 14.7% of the country's overall labor force (Andorra Department of Statistics, 2017).

Third, Andorra’s tourism industry relies heavily on tourists from neighboring countries, such as

Spain, which represented 71% of the total arrivals to the country in 2016 (World Tourism

Organization, 2017). This dependence on the Spanish market may condition Andorra to diversify its tourism markets by promoting its travel experiences to more distant countries. Yet, Andorra

Tourism Organizations have done little promotion of their tourism products to the US market.

Andorra as a country has enough potential of turning into a popular leisure-destination for

US tourists. Having one of the lowest crime rates in the world, Andorra offers idyllic alpine landscapes with multiple ski resorts and wellness centers at a price lower than that in main

European Capitals. The low Value Added Tax of 4.5% in comparison to the European average of

20% (European Commission, 2018) can also make Andorra a popular shopping destination for

US tourists. Notwithstanding, the relatively small size of the country makes it virtually impossible to make Andorra a sole destination for American tourists, Andorra’s affordable ski resorts and shopping centers may be marketed as part of the packages offered to American visitors to Spain as an opportunity to visit another country during their trip.

This research hypothesizes that US tourists may consider a microstate as a complementary destination if the right pull factors (destination features) are advertised during their travel-decision process.

Fig. 1. Study Variables

Destinations Marketing Organizations should be aware that the perception that they have about the destination may or may not be the same as that of potential travelers. As an example, in the study conducted by R. Henkel, P. Henkel, W. Agrusa, J Agrusa, and Tanner in 2006 assessing the perception of Thailand attributes from both the local community and international visitors perspective, showed that while locals felt that cultural exploration, the kindness of the people and gastronomy were key factors to decide to visit Thailand, international visitors considered nightlife and entertainment significantly more relevant. That means that although

Andorra has been historically considered as an attractive destination for snow activities, this may

not be a relevant factor for an average American visitor. For instance, a resident in Los Angeles may perceive that it is not worth the money and time investment to ski in Andorra due to the abundance of ski resorts in California. Therefore, the main research questions that guided the study are as follows:

● Research Question 1: What are US tourists´ perceptions of Andorra as a destination?

● Research Question 2: What Pull Factors are more relevant for US tourists for choosing Andorra as a travel destination?

● Research Question 3: Which scenario may drive US tourists to choose Andorra as a travel destination?

Literature Review

Defining tourism has been a historic challenge because it comprises several interconnected elements. As indicated by Butnaru and Timu (2011), in 1896 Guyer Freuler defined tourism as:

A phenomenon of modern times, based on the growing necessity to rebuild health, and to

change the environment, to cultivate the feeling of receptivity towards beauties of nature

[...], a result of the development of commerce, industry, and means of transportation. (p.

372)

This definition was quite broad but a great starting point to develop the science of tourism. Later on, Mathieson and Wall emphasized the role of tourism in economy and gave an economic perspective of tourism, defining it as “the temporary movement of people to destinations outside of their normal place of work and residence, the activities undertaken during their stay in those destinations, and the facilities created to cater their needs” (as cited in

Trebicka, 2016, p.17). Furthermore, Chadwick (1994) identified three main areas within tourism: the movement of people, an economic sector, and a wide web of interconnected systems between people's needs.

Economy-oriented definitions of tourism have been based on tourist or business supplying activities. However, in 2007 the World Tourism Organization accepted that the demand-based approach was more suitable, and defined tourism as the activities that travelers engage outside their usual environment for less than a year and for the main purpose other than to be employed.

All these definitions give important insight into the concept of tourism, but say little about tourist behavior. Understanding the travel decision process has been a priority to a whole array of authorities working in the field of tourism (Pearce, 2005) resulting in ample research.

The travel decision process

Tourism is a continually expanding economy. Transportation and technological advancements have facilitated the travel process and given tourists more alternatives to explore.

To keep a competitive market share, Destination Marketing Organizations [DMO] need to understand the complicated processes underlying the tourist decision-making process. To facilitate this process, destination managers attempt to group visitors into market segments not only based on traditional demographics, like ethnicity or education level, but also based on motivations, character, and lifestyle (Williams, 1981). The main issue when developing a tourism marketing strategy is to find the most effective methods to manipulate travelers’ behavior. Some tourism companies, like tour operators, have developed well-elaborated strategies based on the knowledge of tourist behavior (Da Silva, Costa, & Moreira, 2018)

Detailed analysis of consumer behavior literature is required to fully understand the mechanisms that guide the travel decision-making process (Garms, Fredman, & Mose, 2017).

Consumer behavior refers to the pre-purchasing stage, to the actual purchase and to the phase that follows it. As shown in Figure 2, decision-making is a six-step process that begins when a need or problem is recognized and ends after its consumption (Engel, Blackwell, & Miniard, 1995).

Many studies have tried to apply the consumption decision theory to the tourism field.

However, tourism products have unique characteristics, such as a longer planning process, that cannot be compared to other products (Garms et al., 2017).

Other early authors, like Clawson and Knetsch (1966), defined the recreation experience not as a one-step process but rather as one that contains five different phases. (Fig. 3)

The anticipation step is the preparation process undertaken before the travel. This phase involves Engel´s et al. (1995) first and second step of the consumer's decision process; need recognition and search. Many variables can influence tourists’ behavior. Motives, for instance, are an essential part of the decision process. Although they can be more influential at the beginning of the process, some authors argued that motivation and needs might influence the rest of the phases as well (Engel et al., 1995).

Freyer (2006) argued that tourism demand may be affected by all areas of societal life, as well as by ecological, economic, governmental, individual, and supply factors. However, motivations are the most relevant intervening variables in behavioral science (Williams, 1981).

Understanding the tourists’ motivators

Broussard and Garrison (2004) paraphrased Gredler and defined as “the attribute that moves us to do or not to do something” (p. 106). There are two types of motivations, extrinsic and intrinsic (Mundt, 2013). Extrinsic motivators are linked to the subject´s setting (e.g., gaining prestige amongst its community or receive a salary raise) whereas intrinsic motivators are based on the fulfillment of an inner need activated by interest or pleasure (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan,

1999). Motivation includes several different pieces that are correlated such as ideas, opinions, preferences, interests, and actions (Lai, 2011).

Motivation emerges when a need generates an impulse (Guay et al., 2010). Once the need arises, the sense of satisfaction will not appear until the need has been fulfilled (Deci, 1976). The subject will form an expectation on his mind that will determine the perceived satisfaction of services, goods, and experiences (Garms et al., 2017). Therefore, motivation can impact on satisfaction (Gnoth, 1997)

Understanding tourist motivation requires a thorough analysis of the reasons why people travel. Nevertheless, clearly defining the connections between a person's motives and the destination choice is not a simple task (Krippendorf, 1987).

Many reasons can influence an individual to transform into a tourist and leave the familiar surroundings behind (Mundt, 2013). Usually, the decision of traveling is triggered by an inner

impulse, and typically motivation is what determines the type of vacation and the destination

(Gnoth, 1997).

Two different approaches try to clarify tourists’ motivations: a societal-historical and an individualistic (Freyer, 2006). The first one recognizes that the traveler´s context would influence the travel decision, whereas the second one is related to an individual’s own needs and expectations

A positive driving force could stimulate travelers to visit a destination, while negative forces could prevent this stimulus (e.g., Fear). For instance, a potential visitor to Israel would like to visit Palestine motivated by religious or cultural considerations but could decide not to go because of current and historical conflicts between those two countries.

Also, the current world is in constant change in terms of economy, social relations and political climate. Therefore, some destinations that are popular today might not be as popular in the future. This is why, there is a continuous need to be conscious of the interrelationship among different motivators and foretell the impact of any potential change (Williams, 1981).

When trying to identify travel motivators, there is also the added difficulty that some motives are unconscious or may be in constant change depending on the environment. An individual may not even understand his/her true motives or the conscious motives may be conflicting with other personal values making the person repress them (Williams, 1981).

The famous psychologist Maslow (1954) defined the renowned hierarchy of needs (Fig.

4). Maslow’s theory explains the individual’s pursuit of specific goals in preference to others.

The pyramid structure reveals the interdependence of the needs relating to their importance. It follows an order in which needs tend to arise, and in which they need to be reached. The first

four levels represent deficit needs: they are stimulated when something is lacking. Fulfilling these needs will decrease dissatisfaction. The fifth level is the only source of real satisfaction. It is the inherent necessity to expand one’s abilities, personal growth and a potential source of happiness (Williams, 1981).

It is not feasible to assign a travel type to each of Maslow's levels (Mundt, 2013). A trip can be induced through every level. Therefore, Maslow's theory is not enough to explain the motivations of a leisure trip (Mundt, 2013).

Later on, Pearce (1982) applied Maslow’s hierarchy to tourist motivations and behavior and developed the so-called Travel Career Ladder (TCL). As shown in Figure 5, Pearce’s model

distinguishes five different hierarchical levels concerning tourist behavior. The first four levels of

Pearce’s model specify both extrinsic and intrinsic motives (Pearce, 1982).

In the TCL model, fulfillment needs can be found at the top of the pyramid, followed by development/self-esteem, relationship, safety/security, and physiological needs. A critical idea that can be extracted from this model is that motives evolve during the travel experience (Huang

& Hsu, 2009). The more the tourist travels, the more he/she looks for the fulfillment of higher level needs. Also, past travel experiences may influence the motivation of the traveler (Pearch &

Lee, 2005).

Because of a lack of agreement upon the conceptualization of tourism motivation

(Fodness, 1994), several authors have accepted the push/pull model as an acceptable principle

(Crompton, 1979; Hanqin & Lam, 1999; Lam & Hsu, 2004). Pull factors are the destination attributes that can be appealing for tourists (Gnoth, 1997): those arise from the destination´s attractiveness which includes cultural resources, entertainment activities and natural features

(Uysal and Jurowski, 1994). Meanwhile, push factors are the intrinsic motivations that make visitors look for activities to fulfill their needs, such as the need to escape, relax, fame, health or socialization (Crompton, 1979). Traditionally, pull factors are considered more influential during the destination choice process, while push factors are more linked to the development of the travel need (Bello & Etzel, 1985; Crompton, 1979).

Definition of pull factors

As previously explained, pull factors are the destination attributes that can be appealing for tourists (Gnoth, 1997): those arise from the destination´s attractiveness, which includes cultural attractions, entertainment activities and natural features (Uysal and Jurowski, 1994).

The push-pull factors model is widely used in literature. However, it is worth noticing that pull factors by themselves may not determine the election of the destination. In some cases, the pull factors are even considered unimportant. For instance, if an individual has severe aerophobia, the beauty of the ocean landscape of Caribbean Island will not be regarded as a relevant factor. In other cases, however, the pull factors alone can determine the election of the destination; for example, when visiting friends. It goes without saying that in this case what matters is the friends’ willingness to see each other and not the features of the destination. On the other hand, it can also be assumed that sometimes the absence of friends at the home country can

lead the individual to visit friends or relatives elsewhere. Therefore, it is not always possible to establish a clear distinction between factors (Mundt, 2013). Mundt (2013) proposed a feasible solution to that dilemma when he related pull factors to growth needs and push factors to basic necessities. When an individual fulfills his/her basic needs, he/she will expand the horizon looking for further benefits.

Push and pull factors are related to destination attractiveness as well as two different approaches can be taken when defining the attractiveness of a destination; the supply-based perspective (Destination / Pull factors) and the demand-based perspective (Tourist / Push factors). The first one relates tourism attractiveness to the "drawing force generated by the overall attractions existing in a given place" (Kaur, 1981, p.19). The second defines attractiveness as the ability of the destination to fulfill the expectations of visitors (Mayo &

Jarvis, 1981). In any case, tourism destinations need to present a consistent and attractive catalog of tourism products to be perceived as attractive by their potential visitors (Cracolici, Nijkamp, &

Rietveld, 2008).

Several authors have discussed the different factors that make a destination attractive.

One of the most basic ones is the scenery or natural resources of a destination (Murphy,

Pritchard, & Smith, 2000). Besides, historical and cultural assets, such as museums or architecture can also generate tourism demand (Deng, King, & Bauer, 2002). Also, the relative ease of reaching and staying at a destination has been identified as a dominant driving force of tourist attractiveness; this can include both infrastructures (e.g., roads or public transportation) and tourist amenities (e.g., accommodation or food and beverage opportunities) (Kim & Song,

1998). Attractions and leisure activities can also reinforce the sense of the uniqueness of a

destination and influence the decision of choosing one destination over another (Ritchie &

Crouch, 2003). Entertainment represents an additional tourism resource, as it creates an emotional link with visitors and therefore can be used as an efficacious way to fight competition

(Pullman & Gross, 2004). Last, the local community can also be a tourist asset as it can reinforce the sense of connection to a destination through the interaction with locals (Kim, Ritchie, &

McCormick, 2012)

Other researchers have tried to identify some other pull factors as well. Yuan and

McDonald (1990) recognized eight groups: (a) wilderness, (b) budget, (c) ease of travel, (d) culture, (e) history, (f) hunting, (g) cosmopolitan environment, and (h) facilities. Later on, Oh,

Uysal and Weaver (1995) reduced these factors to five: (a) inexpensive | budget, (b) safety | upscale, (c) sports | activity, (d) nature | outdoor, and (e) historical | cultural. Another classification was made by Sirakaya and McLellan (1997), in their research they identified nine groups of pull factors: (a) recreation & sporting activities, (b) trip cost & convenience, (c) unusual & distant vacation spot, (d) change in daily life environment, (e) entertainment & drinking opportunities, (f) perceptions of a safe/secure environment, (g) personal & historical link, (h) local hospitality & services, and (i) cultural & shopping services.

For the purpose of this research, an adaptation of the nine dimensions and attributes determining the perceived tourist destination image was used (Beerli and Martı́n, 2004). Beerli and Martı́n classified common tourist destination attributes in the following nine categories: (a) natural resources, (b) general infrastructure, (c) tourist infrastructure, (d) tourist leisure & recreation, (e) culture, history & art, (f) political & economic factors, (g) natural environment, (h) social environment, and (i) atmosphere of the place (See Table 1).

Table.1 Attributes and dimensions assessing the destination image perceived by the tourist

Source: Beerli and Martı́n, 2004

Microstates as tourism suppliers

“Finding a definition for micro-state is not easy but you certainly know when you are in one”

(Ford, 2003, para. 2). This statement assumes a limited agreement among researchers in defining the concept of microstate. According to Merriam-Webster, a microstate can be defined as “a nation that is extremely small in area and population.” (Microstate, 2018) However, this definition raises some questions; namely, whether the political and economical factors should be a consideration or not (Dumienski, 2014).

Some organizations define microstates based on the number of inhabitants; yet, again there is some disagreement. For instance, in 2005 the World Economic Policy and Debt unit defined small states as “sovereign countries with populations below 2 million inhabitants”

(World Economic Policy and Debt Department, 2005, p.3). But at the same time, the World Bank defines small states as “countries with a population below 1.5 million” (World Bank, 2018, para.

1).

Because of this lack of agreement, some authors decided to take a qualitative approach.

For instance, in 2014 Dumienski suggested to regard microstates as modern protected states the sovereignty of which has been delegated to larger powers in exchange for protection .

In any case, there are some common issues that those considered microstates have in common. Neil Ford (2016) discussed three of them. First, there is a high per capita running costs for public services, as the cost of public institutions should be split amongst a small population.

Second, microstates face specific economic challenges, mainly caused by having limited sources of revenue, less space for the land-based industry and difficulties to diversify their economy.

Third, they lack international influence which limits their potential for having an influence on global politics, making them dependant on third countries.

Many microstates rely on tourism to overcome those challenges. In fact, the idea that tourism is almost inevitable as a form of economic development (Wilkinson, 1989) has been stated by most authors that have written about tourism to microstates. Although a significant part of the current literature has been focused on islands microstates (Fagence, 1997; Ford, 2016;

Milne, 1992; Milne & Nowosielski, 1997), particularly those located in the Pacific region, some ideas can be transferred to our case of study.

First, micro destinations can obtain substantial benefits by developing uncommon tourist attractions that are overlooked in larger destinations. For example, Timothy (2001) and Brunn

(2015) explored the implications of attracting tourism using philately as the principal tourism product. As pointed out by both authors, some market attractors, like postage stamps that may be relatively unimportant in large countries, may create a significant demand when applied to microstates, becoming a reasonable opportunity to promote tourism in areas where resources are limited.

Second, tourism to small regions may be jeopardized by changes in their ecological integrity, especially to the destinations for which natural environment is one of the main tourism assets (De Albuquerque, & McElroy, 1992). Early authors took a sustainable approach about the tourism in small national entities (Fagence, 1997; Milne, 1992; Wilkinson, 1989) emphasizing the importance of planning and developing community-based strategies to ensure a prosperous tourism-based economy. More recent authors, like Ford (2003) suggested that to lessen the

impact on the environment, destination managers should target high worth visitors by developing high-scale tourism infrastructures.

Third, because microstates have limited resources, each tourism-focused campaign should aim to maximize the number of arrivals, boosting the return of the initial investment. Efficient use of technology, such as the implementation of distribution technologies, can have a significant effect on marketing strategies. In that sense, Milne and Nowosielski (1997), analyzed how the use of Computer Reservation System (CRS) tools could influence the flows of arrivals to small islands. Their findings show that those entities that do not implement CRS systems are at a clear disadvantage in the competitive market.

Along the same line, understanding the characteristics of current and future visitors could be crucial for developing effective tourism-based marketing campaigns. As stated by Kutner and

Cripps (1997), a customer profile that includes the consumer drivers and client profitability can help businesses tailor offerings aimed at maximizing the overall value of their client portfolio.

For instance, the Switzerland Tourism Organization in India realized that while most Indian tourists considered Switzerland as a relax-based destination, a new trend arose among Indian travelers looking for more adventurous experiences (Sharma & Zemp, 2016). In consequence, in

2016, Switzerland launched a marketing campaign with the tagline "You can, but you don't have to." (Sharma & Zemp, 2016, para.1). The goal of this strategy was to target two distinct types of tourists and increase the number of arrivals by showcasing that Switzerland could offer not only picturesque beauty but also numerous adventures and experiences.

It is clear from the examples stated above that the development of successful marketing strategies is always based on thorough research that guides the assessment of motivators

underlying tourists’ decision to travel to a certain destination. Similarly, Andorra tourism strategies will benefit from specific research aimed at determining the potential motivators to visit the country. This is an important step in the attempt to attract the overlooked American tourist market.

Andorra’s overview

Andorra is a mountainous microstate, located in Southern Europe that connects Spain and

France. With a population of 73,105 inhabitants (Andorra Department of Statistics, 2017) and an area of 180.55 square miles (Central Intelligence Agency, n.d.), it is one of the smallest countries in the world.

The principality of Andorra is a diarchy headed by the French President and the Catholic

Bishop of Urgell in Catalonia (Spain). The support from the Spanish and French government was crucial for the development of Andorra and for having a stronger international position among other European countries (Torres & Gil, 2016). Because of its size limitations, Andorra also has individual agreements with Spain and France concerning protection, economy, and representation.

Andorra became a member of the United Nations and Council of Europe in 1993, once the original Andorran Constitution was established and a parliamentary government set. Andorra also holds customs and economic agreements with Europe Euro being the primary currency of the country (European Central Bank, n.d.). Despite that, Andorra is not part of the European

Union.

The country holds one of the leading Human Development Indices (35th position worldwide) mainly because of its a high life expectancy (8th world ranking), its public education

system and its Gross National Income (17th world ranking) (United Nations Development

Program, 2017). Furthermore, there is a low percentage of pollution (World Health Organization,

2016), and the crime rate is below that of many other developed countries (United Nations,

2016).

A microstate such Andorra may have some perceived advantages compared to big countries, for example; smaller population allows a better understanding between the governmental authorities and ordinary citizens (Ford, 2003). However, at the same time, it is more exposed to economic fluctuations. The economic recession that started in 2008 and ended in 2010 deeply affected the economy of the country, forcing the Andorran government to take actions to improve the economy (i.e., reforming the foreigner investment law to attract international investments). These measures helped move towards economic consolidation by reaching an increase in the estimated gross domestic product of 1.6% in 2016 (Linhardt, 2017).

Andorra is a developed economy, with an income per person superior to the average in

Europe, including its direct neighbors France and Spain (United Nations Development Program,

2017). The economy highly relies on the service industry that represents 88.6% of the Gross

Domestic Product (Andorra Department of Statistics, 2017), and is mainly represented by the commerce, banking and tourism sectors (Linhardt, 2017). The hospitality industry engages

14.7% of the labor force (Andorra Department of Statistics, 2017). Eight million visitors come to

Andorra every year, essentially pulled by ski resorts, warm summer climate and inexpensive goods (Linhardt, 2017).

Since the end of the world war, Andorra has been traditionally known as a shopping destination, mainly because of the agreement reached in 1867 with Spain and France that exempted Andorra from paying import duties (“Five tiny secrets of success,” 1988). However, due to a drop in VAT rates in the neighboring countries, shopping became less worthwhile, and

Andorra had to diversify its economy (Martínez, 1991). Nowadays, although still attractive as a commerce center, Andorra is mainly known for its ski resorts, offering 7,600 acres (3,075 Ha) of skiable areas. However, other leisure opportunities have been developed, including wellness facilities (Caldea), Eco-theme park (Naturlandia), the Ice Palace, and complimentary tourist attractions, such as the Cirque du Soleil acrobatic show or the Madriu-Perafita-Claror nature reserve, listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Cultural Landscape. Also, the first national casino is planned to open in 2020, offering new leisure opportunities for visitors.

Andorra is considered by the World Tourism Organization to have potential tourism research opportunities due to its significant amount of visitors (Turkeshi, 2018). In spite of that, no research about the Andorra tourism industry has been published yet. This research

encompasses an in-depth analysis of Andorra tourism attributes (Pull factors).

Pull factors of andorra

The tourism attributes of Andorra have been analyzed by taking into account the nine attributes and dimensions to assess the destination image perceived by the tourist made by Beerli and Martı́n (2004) and consolidating them into four categories: (a) Natural and Cultural resources

(the richness and beauty of the landscape and the importance of cultural and historical places);

(b) tourist and leisure infrastructure (shopping opportunities, food and accommodation, wellness and other leisure facilities); (c) opportunities for sports activities, such as ski, hiking, golf or climbing; (d) atmosphere, social setting, and social environment. (See Figure 6)

Figure 6 was crucial for the development of the Methodology section of this study as it gave an overview of the different pull factors that can be found in Andorra. However, some of those attributes may be subordinated to external factors which are out of Andorran authorities’ control. For example, climate change worldwide can affect the quality and quantity of the

snowfall, jeopardizing the attraction potential of the ski resorts. That's why an analysis of some current issues in the field of tourism, including but not limited to climate change, seasonality of some tourist attractions, strong dependence on the Spanish market, etc. should be carried out.

Current issues regarding tourism in Andorra

Seasonality is one of the tourism issues that can be found in Andorra. As pointed out by

Turkeshi (2018), the lack of snow during the off-winter season impacts the number of travelers that visit the country during that period. However, Andorra public and private organizations have developed a catalog of activities to attract tourists during Fall and Summer. Those activities are mainly related to nature, shopping, wellness, and cultural attractions.

Another issue is the dependence on tourist flows from neighboring countries. As can be seen in Table 2, arrivals from Spain and France represented more than 87% of the market share.

Similar trends can also be observed before 2016. Many authors suggested that excessive reliance on a specific tourism market should be avoided and that diversification is the key to develop a sustainable tourism sector (Oglethorpe, 1984; Orsini, 2018). Also, even small-sized destinations have to face international competitors (Webster & Ivanov, 2014). Therefore promoting Andorra to other markets, such as the US could be an opportunity to decrease the potential risks of depending on the Spanish Market.

Table 2. Arrivals of non-resident tourists at national borders

Source: World Tourism Organization (2017)

In addition, because of the lack of airports, railroads, and ports, the most common way to access the territory is by car or bus, using one of the two roads that connect Andorra with its neighboring countries. An inadequate transport infrastructure impedes the development of tourism (Jovanović & Ilić, 2016), and is a major hindrance for attracting tourist flows to Andorra.

Andorra is one of the few countries where most of the public transportation market is served by

bus, in contrast to other popular tourist destinations with good public transportation where subway or tramway lines cover the demand (Sort, 2006). That creates some adverse effects, such as traffic congestion. Some infrastructure investments have been made to make an impact on the country's potential for attracting tourists. In 2015 the airport of Andorra-La Seu d'Urgell was reopened as a public airport and began accepting regular flights from Spain and France.

However, the fact that it is not located within the country's boundaries, and that it has a small runway, limits the arrivals of international flights. Other infrastructures, such as an international heliport are planned to open in the near future (Linhardt, 2017). Nowadays, the closest international airport is located in Barcelona (Spain) at a distance of 122 miles (197 km).

Climate change is another major issue threatening the economic future of Andorra. The rise of temperature that has already affected such tourist destinations as the Seychelles Island

(Ford, 2003) may also affect the amount of the snowfall. The ski resorts of the country may experience a decrease in the available skiable area, reducing the number of snow tourists, hence reducing the national employment rates. Furthermore, some wildlife and landscape may be damaged, decreasing the attractiveness of Andorra as a nature-based destination.

Andorra as a complementary destination

As previously stated, microstates have a limited potential for promoting or directly influencing their surroundings, making them dependant on third parties (Ford, 2016). Being internationally represented by Spain and France, Andorra is not an exception. However, the importance that Spain and France have as a tourism destination, and their proximity to Andorra could be an opportunity for the country to become a complementary destination.

Although there is abundant literature on the development of destination demand, most of the existing models are based on the erroneous assumption that tourists usually choose a single destination (Lue, Crompton, & Fesenmaier, 1993). Research shows that travelers choose a multi-destination trip in more than 30% of the cases (O’Kelly, 1983). However, because each tourism organization focuses on quantifying the number of arrivals to their specific destination, limited data about multi-destination tourism patterns is available (Leiper, 1989)

Lue et al. (1993) note that visiting different destinations during the same trip is a logical behavioral pattern, especially in long-distance journeys. The research conducted by Tideswell and Faulkner (1999) on tourists visiting Queensland (Australia) indicated that tourists that traveled from nearby destinations, such as New Zealand, showed less propensity to engage in multi-destination itineraries than those who started their trip from further regions (e.g., North

America or Europe). Therefore, we can assume that US tourists that visit Spain will be prone to

include Andorra in their travel itinerary. As a significant amount of time and financial resources are needed to travel from the US to Europe, it is reasonable to incorporate several alternative destinations during the same trip instead of taking single trips to single main destinations. By incorporating multiple destinations in their itinerary, travelers secure additional benefits for relatively small increases in cost. Besides saving time and money (Ben-Akiva & Lerman, 1985), multi-destination trips can also increase the potential benefits of the trip. For instance, they can serve to satisfy the specific needs of each group member; add variety to the holiday experience or reduce the perceived level of risks by diversifying the visitation opportunities (Lue et al., 1993).

Multi-destination travel is a recent field of study, mostly based on big data analysis. For instance, the model of two destination choice using real-time GPS data made by Huang and

Levinson (2017) showed that an empirical method could be built to predict travelers’ behavior.

The authors created an algorithm that predicted the probability of choosing a specific destination when other variables, such as distance or time-saving ratio were modified. Although this model focused on short trips, the main idea that destination-decision may be affected by quantifiable variables can also be applied in our research. Other authors, like Oender I. (2017) and Vu, Li,

Law, and Ye (2015) conducted similar studies by using pictures from Flickr as a primary source of data. The results suggested some opportunities to increase the effectiveness of future tourism marketing campaigns as well as the creation of new tourism products among urban communities.

The research findings in the field of multi-destination travel suggest that Andorra can benefit from multi-destination logical patterns due to its proximity to main tourist attraction areas, such as Barcelona (Spain).

The tourism demand: US tourists

The main component of tourism demand is the traveler. The World Tourism Organization

(2007) defined traveler as “Someone who moves between geographic locations for any purpose or any duration” (p.4). Also, a traveler can be defined as a visitor who is “taking a trip to a main destination outside his/her usual environment for less than a year, for any main purpose

(business, leisure or other personal purposes) other than to be employed” (p.4). Furthermore, visitors will be classified as tourists if “their trip includes an overnight stay” (p.3) otherwise they will be considered excursionists.

Not all travelers are identical; destination managers have been trying to group visitors into market segments not only based on traditional demographics, like ethnicity or education level, but also based on motivations, character, and lifestyle (Williams, 1981). First of all, note that there is not a standardized type of a US tourist: factors as region, social status or previous experience can make people have different tourist motivators. For this research, our sample is based on three main demographic characteristics: gender, age, and household income.

In a study conducted in 1992 by Loker and Perdue, a group of visitors to North Carolina were analyzed in different clusters, and the results showed six (6) different market segments based on the perceived benefit from their vacation:

1. Those looking for excitement and escape 4. A group that appreciates the natural opportunities environment (Naturalists)

2. Stimulation and adrenaline seekers 5. Visitors that emphasized the importance of escape by itself 3. Those interested in family-oriented activities 6. Those who enjoy every benefit

A possible definition of tourism demand can be “the number of people that plan to buy tourism products supported by sufficient purchasing power and spare time in order to meet tourism needs of people” (M. Samirkaş & M.C. Samirkaş, 2015, p.117). Price can be a crucial factor that influences the tourism demand of a destination, but it is not the only one. Other subjective factors like the traveler motivators, the destination’s image or the type of holiday are factors that come into play when choosing a travel destination (M. Samirkaş & M.C. Samirkaş,

2015).

Destination Marketing Organizations should be aware that the perception that they have about the destination may or may not be the same as that of potential travelers. As an example, the study conducted by R. Henkel et al. (2006) assessed the perception of Thailand attributes from both the local community and international visitors perspective and showed that while locals felt that cultural exploration, the kindness of the people and gastronomy were key factors to decide to visit Thailand, international visitors considered nightlife and entertainment significantly more relevant. That means that although Andorra has been historically considered as an attractive destination for snow activities, this may not be a relevant factor for an average

American visitor. For instance, a resident in Los Angeles may consider that it is not worth the money and time investment to ski in Andorra due to the abundance of ski resorts in California.

However, there is no research aimed at assessing the attractivity of Andorra to US tourists. That being said, the above-mentioned assumption has never been proved or disproved by any study.

28 Methodology

A vast amount of literature has been focused on identifying which components have a broader impact on visitors’ motivation. Some early research regarding motivators usually applied open-ended questions to examine possible motives, and their results contributed to the formulation of motivational constructs (Manning, 1999). Escape, retreat, proximity to the natural environment, and social interaction are some motivators that are commonly found in the literature (Graefe, Thapa, Confer, & Absher, 2000).

Traditionally, literature has focused on the analysis of motivators. However, recent studies have also explored such factors as feelings, sentiments or physical sensations caused by the visitor´s experiences, their social context, and their personal preferences (Cole & Williams,

2012). Some studies demonstrate that motivators vary depending on the participant´s activities and, furthermore, that they can also differ amongst members with similar activities (Graefe,

Ditton, Roggenbuck, & Schreyer, 1981; Knopf & Lime, 1984). Other factors can also influence motivators. For instance, the frequency of past visitations (Knopf & Lime, 1984; Schreyer, Lime,

& Williams, 1984) or the size and configuration of the group (Schuett, 1994).

Destination stakeholders can have a crucial advantage if they understand the motivational patterns of their current and potential visitors and use this information to improve the planning development phase, prevent future conflicts or develop management goals (Garms et al., 2017).

Data for this study was collected by implementing qualitative research methods, formed by focus groups and individual interviews. The methodology of this study was approved by the

Institutional Review Board at California State University, Northridge on July 2nd, 2019 before starting the collection of data.

29 Method´s design

Sample: Purposive sampling was carried out to recruit twenty (20) participants from two main demographics;

1. Age: (a) Younger than 30; (b) From 31 to 50; (c) Older than 51

2. Household annual income: (a) < $75,000/year; (b) > $75,000/year

Participants that resided in the US at the time of the study, and that traveled to Spain at some point in the past, were eligible to participate in this study. Each participant was recruited through personal and professional contacts of the principal investigator. Only US residents that visited Spain were targeted because tourists visiting Spain can be prone to travel to Andorra due to its proximity. Figure 8 displays the number of US arrivals between 2016 and 2018. In 2018,

2.949.710 US visitors, which represent 3,56% of Spain´s inbound tourism market, went to Spain (Spanish National Institute for Metrics and Statistics, 2019). With a growth rate of 47,35 % since

2016 (Spanish National Institute for Metrics and Statistics, 2019), Spain has raised in reputation amongst US travelers.

Fig. 8. US outbound tourists’ arrivals to Spain (Spanish National Institute for Metrics and Statistics, 2019)

30 Structure

Following the work of Krueger and Casey (1988), the session was divided into six different stages. (The script and survey can be found in Appendix A)

1. Welcoming participants

In this stage, an informed consent form was given to the attendants, asking them to read and sign it. After that, an overview of the topic and guidelines of the meeting were presented.

Some ground rules were provided as well.

2. Opening question

Opening questions have an important role because they give the participants the opportunity to engage in the conversation right away. The research shows that there is a direct relationship between the time the person starts talking in a group session and her/his willingness to participate in the discussion (Krueger & Casey, 1988). This is why at the beginning of our focus group all participants were asked to introduce themselves and to share where they came from. The answers were not analyzed as part of the research, as they were only used to get everyone to talk.

3. Introductory question

All attendants were asked to describe their past trip to Spain. An open-ended question was given to make participants start thinking about their connection to the discussed topic. This question served to elicit the participants’ point of views.

4. Transition question - Research about Andorra

This part of the session was used to connect the introduction with the main part of the study. Attendants were asked to take ten (10) minutes to research about Andorra using their

personal phones. To ensure that the information perceived wasn´t biased, no guidelines on that research were given. Also, some tablets were offered to attendants.

5. Key Questions

This part was the longest, and it required a longer preparation and post-session review.

Because of the its length, this part was split into two sections with a break in between. During the first half, two questions were asked:

● In general, what do you think about Andorra?

● From what you know so far, what reasons will make you want to visit Andorra?

Explain your reasons.

During the second part, a short presentation about Andorra was given, and open-ended questions were asked about specific pull factors of Andorra (e.g. Which natural features are more attractive to you to visit Andorra? Why?). To effectively conduct the conversation, the questions were grouped in four pull factor categories (See Figure 6). The question list in this section was concluded by inquiring about potential reasons for which the participants will not visit Andorra. Attendants were encouraged to be completely honest in their answers.

6. Concluding Questions

As a closure, a questionnaire was given to the attendants to learn about their demographics. They were also asked to share any comments or concerns that had not been addressed during the session. This last question allowed to have a deeper understanding of the preferences of each attendee. At the end of the session, final remarks were made, and the attendants were rewarded as a token of appreciation.

Logistics and outcome

As it has been mentioned before, the purpose of the focus group and individual interviews was to explore potential pull factors or destination features of Andorra that may attract tourists to include Andorra in their future travel itinerary. A total of four focus groups were conducted.

Each group was comprised of approximately four participants; all US Residents that visited

Spain in the past. To ensure the heterogeneity of the group, at least one person of each following demographic was represented during every session; age (younger than 35, 35 to 49, older than

50) and household annual income (Less than $75,000/year, more than $75,000/year) (See Table

3). All four sessions were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using Excel. In addition to the focus groups, four personal interviews were conducted following the same structure.

Table 3. Sample demographic distribution

The focus groups and interviews were scheduled as listed in Table 4 and Table 5. All sessions lasted for approximately 60 minutes.

Table 4. Focus groups schedule

Date Participants Attended

Group 1 Thursday, 14th February 4

Group 2 Friday, 22nd February 5

Group 3 Tuesday, 26th, February 4

Group 4 Monday, 11th March 3

Table 5. Individual interviews schedule

Date

Interview 1 Friday, 1st March

Interview 2 Tuesday, 5th March

Interview 3 Tuesday, 12th March

Interview 4 Thursday, 14th March

Data analysis

Each session was transcribed, condensed, clustered, and sorted to perform a comparative analysis. This process is known as data transformation (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2000).

Comments and remarks from participants of the interviews and focus groups were qualitatively analyzed. First, the transcripts were reviewed repeatedly searching for relevant themes. Then, a coding scheme was developed. Concepts were arranged in groups in an attempt to answer the research questions.

Fig. 9. Concept groups

As shown in Figure 9, Group 1 was used to assess the baseline of the attendant´s knowledge about Andorra. The remaining two concept groups served to answer the primary questions of the research. Additionally, the second group was subcategorized to estimate how attendees’ opinions changed after watching the presentation about Andorra.

In total 228 mentions (G1;44, G2;122, G3;62) were retrieved, and 43 different themes

(G1;11, G2;23, G3;9) were identified. Then, a scoring scheme was used to measure the influence of each identified element (Klenosky, 2002). One point was given every time a participant described a factor as relevant or influential on his travel decision-process. (e.g., I will consider going to Andorra for skiing). To avoid any bias, the different mentions were given the same score, notwithstanding the context in which they were mentioned. As, according to the Cochrane reviewer handbook, “calculating a summary score inevitably involves assigning ‘weights’ to different items in the scale, and it is difficult to justify the weights assigned” (Higgins & Green,

2008, p. 192).

Results

What are US tourists´ perceptions of Andorra as a destination? As displayed in Table 6, most participants indicated that they have never heard about

Andorra before (N=13), and the remaining did not know much about Andorra other than general characteristics of the country such as its location (N=7) or its small size (N=7). However, two participants referred to Andorra as a place that has its own color. For example, a participant said:

I don't know much about Andorra, but I would assume that is a small European country

with its own color.

A small number of participants were aware of specific characteristics of the country, such as historical and cultural assets, the type of government and some historical facts.

Table 6. What are US tourists´ perceptions of Andorra as a destination?

Mention Detail N % I have never heard about Andorra before 13 30.95 Close to Spain and France 7 16.66 Small country 7 16.66 Ski Destination 4 9.52 Own Color 2 4.76 Mountainous Region 2 4.76 Catalan (Official language) 2 4.76 Low tax region 2 4.76 Historical buildings 1 2.38 Type of government 1 2.38 Historical Facts 1 2.38

N=Number of Mentions

Also, while most participants learned about Andorra from the internet, some knew

Andorra from friends or relatives. For example, two participants said:

In my case, I heard about Andorra because I am a geography freak. I mean, when I was a

little kid I was constantly reviewing geographical facts of any kind. So at some point

when I saw the Andorran flag, I got interested, and I started looking about more facts

about Andorra.

When I was there (Spain), my roommate from college ended up marrying someone from

Andorra, and she shared with me her stories about the beauty of Andorra´s mountain

landscape.

During the focus groups, participants mentioned some of the websites used to research about Andorra:

Google Visitandorra Britannica

Lonely Planet Tourism Andorra Everything-everywhere

Wikipedia Travel Andorra The World Factbook (CIA)

Smithsonian BBC Infoplease

Besides, some participants shared that while they were researching about Andorra, they found blogs that contained negative reviews about the country. One of the most mentioned was an article posted in June 2012 in the Smithsonian by Alastair Bland.

What pull factors are more relevant for US tourists for choosing Andorra as a travel destination?

As shown in Table 7, 36.07% of participants’ mentions were related to atmosphere, social setting & social environment, followed by natural & cultural resources (28.69%), tourist & leisure infrastructure (20.49%) and opportunities of sport activities (14.75%).

Table 7. What pull factors are more relevant for US tourists for choosing Andorra as a travel destination? Number of mentions Nt % Atmosphere, Social Setting & Social 44 36.07 Environment

Natural and Cultural Resources 35 28.68

Tourist and Leisure Infrastructure 25 20.49

Opportunities of Sport Activities 18 14.75 Nt=Total Number of Mentions

Most participants agreed that the most relevant factors for going to Andorra were linked to an opportunity to visit a new country (n=14), followed by scenery & mountain landscape

(n=9), outdoor activities (n=9) and ski resorts (n=9). Regarding the former, four people also mentioned that skiing would not be a reason to visit Andorra. This confirms that the local considerations in terms of the pull factors of a particular tourist destination do not always align with the actual tourist motivations. For example, a participant said:

I don't see any other thing to do in there (Andorra) other than ski. But what happens if I

don't like to ski? Based on the information I found online, I don't see a reason to go to

Andorra.

The structure of focus groups and personal interviews allowed us to assess the participant´s willingness to visit Andorra both before and after watching an informative presentation about the destination. Before watching the presentation, participants considered the fact that Andorra is a new country (n=9), its uniqueness (n=8) and unknownness (n=6) as its most important features. Those features are generally related to microstates and not usual in larger and more popular destinations. Furthermore, some participants showed a particular interest to visit

Andorra as an opportunity to travel there before anyone else. For instance, a participant said:

Andorra may be one of those places that are unique, I would love to be one of those lucky

guys to get there before it becomes mainstream and millions of tourists kill all the fun.

On the other hand, after watching the destination presentation participants considered traveling to Andorra as an opportunity to visit Cirque du Soleil (n=8), to contemplate its architecture and savor gastronomy (N=6), to participate in wellness and outdoors activities (n=6), and to enjoy its scenery & mountainous landscape (n=5). This shows a change in the participants’ interests that can be best summarized in the following comment:

When I looked up about Andorra, I couldn't find anything that would make me go there,

but based on what I learned from today's presentation I would definitely go in my next

visit to Spain.

A detailed report of factors mentioned during the interviews and focus groups is presented in Table 8.

Table 8. What Pull Factors are more relevant for US tourists for choosing Andorra as a travel destination?

Mentions N % N % N % t a b Atmosphere, Social Setting & Social Environment 44 36.07% 19 22.89% 25 64.10%

New Country 14 11.48% 5 6.02% 9 23.08%

Unique Destination 8 6.56% - - 8 20.51%

Unknown Destination 6 4.92% - - 6 15.38%

Lack of Pollution / Cleanliness 5 4.10% 5 6.02% - -

Calm atmosphere 4 3.28% 4 4.82% - -

Affordable Destination 4 3.28% 2 2.41% 2 5.13%

Not Crowded (A Place for being in Solitude) 1 0.82% 1 1.20% - -

Safety 1 0.82% 1 1.20% - -

Social Wellbeing (Low inequality) 1 0.82% 1 1.20% - -

Natural and Cultural Resources 35 28.69% 29 34.94% 6 15.38%

Scenery and Mountain Landscape 9 7.38% 7 8.43% 2 5.13%

Historic / Cultural Attractions 8 6.56% 5 6.02% 3 7.69%

Architecture 7 5.74% 6 7.23% 1 2.56%

Nature Connection 5 4.10% 5 6.02% - -

Cultural Landscape 3 2.46% 3 3.61% - -

UNESCO Attractions 2 1.64% 2 2.41% - -

Local Fauna 1 0.82% 1 1.20% - -

Tourist and Leisure Infrastructure 25 20.49% 24 28.92% 1 2.56%

Cirque du Soleil 8 6.56% 8 9.64% - -

Gastronomy 7 5.74% 6 7.23% 1 2.56%

Wellness & Self Care 6 4.92% 6 7.23% - -

Eco-Theme Park 2 1.64% 2 2.41% - -

Shopping 2 1.64% 2 2.41% - -

Opportunities of Sport Activities 18 14.75% 11 13.25% 7 17.95%

Outdoor Activities (Other than Ski) 9 7.38% 6 7.23% 3 7.69%

Ski Resorts 9 7.38% 5 6.02% 4 10.26% Nt=Total Number of Mentions; Na=After Presentation; Nb=Before Presentation

Which scenario may drive US tourists to choose Andorra as a travel destination?

During the interviews and focus groups, the participants stated their willingness to visit

Andorra. However, they also noted that Andorra wouldn't be a final destination by itself, but rather a complimentary visit during their trip to Europe (N=14). For example, a participant said

For me going to Andorra would be like something that I would add on the vacation plan.

Like if I was in South France and I take advantage of its proximity to go to Andorra. But I

don't think I would fly to Europe to visit Andorra

The reasons why participants won’t consider going to Andorra as a final destination or as a complimentary stop during their European trip, were diverse. Most participants mentioned that not knowing about the country (N=7) would prevent them from traveling to the country. Also, other participants that knew about the country won´t consider going as they felt that there was nothing relevant to do or to see (N=6) that may be worth the time and cost invested in traveling to the country. Other reasons for not visiting Andorra were related to transportation issues (N=4), like the difficulty to reach the country. Language issues were also mentioned (N=3) as a factor that can potentially prevent the participants from visiting the country. Some participant(s) brought up the weather as a potential problem (N=1); others talked about alternative destinations that are more appealing than Andorra (N=2).

One participant indicated that he was planning to go to Andorra when he visited Spain, but he decided not to go because of a negative comment made by one of his Spanish friends. This shows the degree of influence that word of mouth has in a promotion of a destination like

Andorra:

I have a friend in Barcelona, and I told him that I wanted to go to Andorra and Gibraltar.

Mainly because they are different places and they are not part of Spain. But he told me that there was nothing to do there. And I didn't go because of that.

A diagram summarizing the findings of the study is presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Travel decision process diagram

Verbatim Responses

The following are participant responses that were not included in one of the previous main groups but are relevant for this study. These answers are presented verbatim, including any typographical or grammar errors. Within each subject, answers are in alphabetical order.

Subject: Visiting Andorra to add one more stamp in the passport.

❏ “That is interesting, and may be used as a marketing idea to promote the country.”

❏ “Yes, I feel that especially in young people adding one more stamp in the passport may be a relevant thing. Actually not only for young people, I personally keep counting how many countries I visited.”

Subject: Comments following the explanation that Andorra is a three-hour drive from Barcelona

❏ “In LA a three hours drive is something common.”

❏ “That is not that bad, is like my commuting time.”

❏ “The fact that they only way to get to Andorra is by car is a huge drawback. However, for some people, a three hours drive is something common on a daily basis.”

Subject: Ideas to encourage people to visit the country ❏ “I am thinking that if the only way to get to Andorra is by car, will be a good strategy to have free or affordable parking and to promote it.”

❏ “Let's say that you google “things to do in Barcelona” and have Andorra as one of the 10 or 20 “things to do”, that would be a really positive thing.”

❏ “Maybe there is nothing appealing to go to Andorra for someone who looks around on the internet. I mean I feel that, especially for people on the US, need some good storytelling to go somewhere.”

Subject: Ideas to promote the country. ❏ “And I think that food can make a difference. Having a specific type of food may be a good idea. Develop some regional type of food can be a good asset. Some people can find that it is worth to try Andorran food.”

❏ “If you want to promote the country the Andorra government should consider offering to the American Psychological Association (APA) or other association to conduct one of their events.“

❏ “I think that boosting the image of Andorra for those travelers to Spain will be a good idea in terms of tourism.”

❏ “I think that having a University and connect it with some tourism entities, you may explore “Elder Hosted Trips” or “Road Scholars”.”

❏ “I was thinking that because Montserrat is more advertised, it may be a good opportunity to use it as an attraction point. It may be a good idea to get contact with operators that promote Montserrat to include and promote Andorra.”

❏ “Maybe Andorra needs to have some kind of contract with tour agents in the US, for example, Contiki. A travel agency based on designing travel packages for young people (18 to 35).”

❏ “The fact that is a safe country will be a great asset for people that wants to retire. I think that you should use that in your branding. Offering to retire in Andorra is a good opportunity.”

Conclusion

Discussion

The results of this study show that the particularities of microstate like Andorra makes it very difficult to be marketed as a sole destination for American tourists. However, research findings in the field of multi-destination travel (Oender, 2017; Vu et al., 2015) suggest that

Andorra may be able to benefit from multi-destination logical patterns due to its proximity to main tourist attraction areas, such as Barcelona; Andorra’s local culture (N = 8), entertainment opportunities (N = 8), mountain scenery (N = 9) and outdoors activities (N = 9) may be marketed to American tourists visiting Spain or France (N = 14) as an “opportunity to discover another country” (N = 14) during their trip.

Culture, escape, proximity to the natural environment and social interaction are some motivators that are commonly found in the literature (Graefe, et al., 2000) and are also traditional attractors for larger destinations. Although a microstate like Andorra can use those to enhance its destination image, it also needs to promote its specific features to have a competitive advantage and become more attractive for potential visitors.

Participants of this study described the unknownness (N=6) and uniqueness (N=8) of the country as motivators to visit Andorra. Those two elements may have marketing opportunities as they are arguably more applicable to microstates than larger countries. However, unknownness also creates a sense of insecurity that may prevent potential visitors to travel to Andorra.

In a competitive tourism industry, Destination Marketing Organizations (DMOs) need to create effective marketing campaigns to promote a region. The results of this study provided

implications for marketing Andorra to US tourists, which may help diversify Andorra’s tourist markets and increase its tourism revenue.

Limitations

Some limitations must be noted when interpreting the results of this study. As it is common with qualitative studies, the small number of participants and type of sampling put limitations on the generalization of the results. Including a larger number of participants will broaden the results of this study.

Also, although push and pull factors may seem to be independent from one another, many researchers argue that they may be interconnected during the vacation planning process (Baloglu

& Uysal, 1996; Crompton, 1979; Oh, et al., 1995; Pyo, Mihalik, & Uysal, 1989; Uysal &

Jurowski, 1994;). Therefore, an analysis of the push factors that can motivate US tourists to visit a microstate are required to complement the results of this study.

Future implications

This study may contribute to tourism marketing literature on the promotion of microstates as travel destinations, and provide practical recommendations for developing Andorra’s international tourism marketing strategies. Also, this study may serve as a base for future quantitative research using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to explore if the perception of pull factors varies among people with different demographic characteristics or travel experiences.

References

Andorra Department of Statistics. (2017). Andorra in figures. Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://www.estadistica.ad/serveiestudis/publicacions/Publicacions/Andorra en Xifres_ang.pdf

Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments of push and pull motivations: A canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(3), 32-38. Beerli, A., & Martı́n, J. D. (2004). Tourists’ characteristics and the perceived image of tourist destinations: a quantitative analysis—a case study of Lanzarote, Spain. Tourism management, 25(5), 623-636.

Bello, D. C., & Etzel, M. J. (1985). The role of novelty in the pleasure travel experience. Journal of Travel Research, 24(1), 20-26. Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand (Vol. 9). MIT press. Bland, A. (2012, June 14). Andorra: The Ugliest Country in Europe? Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/andorra-the-ugliest-country-in-europe-121002597/

Broussard, S. C., & Garrison, M. E. B. (2004). The relationship between classroom motivation and academic achievement in elementary school-aged children. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 33(2), 106–120. Brunn, S. D. (2015). Philatelic Boosterism: Tourism Stamps of Small Island States. International Journal for Responsible Tourism, 4(2), 23. Butnaru, G. I., & Timu, F. I. (2011). European union and development of romanian tourism. Centre for European Studies (CES) Working Papers, 3(3). Central Intelligence Agency (n.d.) The World Factbook: Andorra. Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/print_an.html

Chadwick, R. A. (1994). Concepts, Definitions, and Measures Used in Travel and Tourism Research. Travel, Tourism, and Hospitality Research, 2nd ed. J.R.B. Ritchie and C.R. Goeldner, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons

Clawson, M., & Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Baltimore.

Cole, D. N., & Williams, D. R. (2012). Wilderness visitor experiences: Lessons from 50 years of research. In: Cole, David N., comp. Wilderness visitor experiences: Progress in research and management; 2011 April 4-7; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-66. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 3-20., 66, 3-20.

Cracolici, M. F., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (2008). Assessment of tourism competitiveness by analysing destination efficiency. Tourism Economics, 14(2), 325-342. Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6: 409-424.

da Silva, M. A., Costa, R. A., & Moreira, A. C. (2018). The influence of travel agents and tour operators' perspectives on a tourism destination. The case of Portuguese intermediaries on Brazil's image. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 34, 93-104. De Albuquerque, K., & McElroy, J. L. (1992). Caribbean small-island tourism styles and sustainable strategies. Environmental Management, 16(5), 619-632. Deci, E. L. (1976). Notes on the theory and metatheory of intrinsic motivation. Organizational behavior and human performance, 15(1), 130-145. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. Deng, J., King, B., & Bauer, T. (2002). Evaluating natural attractions for tourism. Annals of tourism research, 29(2), 422-438. Dumienski, Z. (2014). Microstates as modern protected states: towards a new definition of micro-statehood. Centre Small States Studies.

Engel, J. E., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1995). Information Processing. Consumer Behavior (8.ed.). Fort Worth: Dryden Press

European Central Bank. (n.d.). Use of the euro. Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/intro/html/index.en.html

European Commission. (2018). VAT rates applied in the Member States of the European Union. (Taxud.c.1). Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_v at_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf

Fagence, M. (1997). An uncertain future for tourism in microstates; the case of Nauru. Tourism Management, 18(6), 385-392. Five tiny secrets of success (1988).The Economist (US), Vol.308(7565), pp.39 (3) Retrieved from, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A6602926/EAIM?u=csunorthridge&sid=EAIM&xid=fd50322 b.

Fodness, D. (1994). Measuring Tourist Motivation.Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (3): 555-581 Ford, N. (2003). Small can be beautiful. (Tourism). African Business, Expanded Academic ASAP, pp. 38+. http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A101291130/EAIM?u=csunorthridge&sid=EAIM&xid=3e78e 15f. Ford, N. (2016). Microstate são tomé looks to tourism. African Business, , 80-81. Retrieved from http://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1783698611?accountid=7 285

Freyer, W. (2006). Tourismus. (8th edition). München.

Garms, M., Fredman, P., & Mose, I. (2017). Travel motives of German tourists in the Scandinavian mountains: the case of Fulufjället National Park. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(3), 239-258. Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism research, 24(2), 283-304.

Graefe, A. R., Ditton, R. B., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Schreyer, R. (1981). Notes on the stability of the factor structure of leisure meanings. Leisure Sciences, 4(1), 51-65. Graefe, A. R., Thapa, B., Confer, J. J., & Absher, J. D. (2000). Relationships between trip motivations and selected variables among Allegheny National Forest visitors. In In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 107-112 (Vol. 15). Guay, F., Chanal, J., Ratelle, C. F., Marsh, H. W., Larose, S., & Boivin, M. (2010). Intrinsic, identified, and controlled types of motivation for school subjects in young elementary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 711–735. Guyer Freuler, E. (1963), Contributions a une statistique du tourisme [Contributions to tourism statistics] CHET, Aix-en-Provence (translation from German).

Hanqin, Z. Q., & Lam, T. (1999). An analysis of Mainland Chinese visitors’ motivations to visit Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 20(5), 587-594. Henkel, R., Henkel, P., Agrusa, W., Agrusa, J., & Tanner, J. (2006). Thailand as a tourist destination: Perceptions of international visitors and Thai residents. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11(3), 269-287.

Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.

Huang, S., & Hsu, C. H. (2009). Effects of travel motivation, past experience, perceived constraint, and attitude on revisit intention. Journal of Travel Research, 48(1), 29-44. Huang, A., & Levinson, D. (2017). A model of two-destination choice in trip chains with GPS data. Journal of choice modelling, 24, 51-62. Jovanović, S., & Ilić, I. (2016). Infrastructure as important determinant of tourism development in the countries of Southeast Europe. Ecoforum journal, 5(1). Kaur, J. (1981). Methodological approach to scenic resource assessment. Tourism Recreation Research, 6(1), 19-22. Kim, J. H., Ritchie, J. B., & McCormick, B. (2012). Development of a scale to measure memorable tourism experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 51(1), 12-25. Kim, S., & Song, H. (1998). Analysis of inbound tourism demand in South Korea: a cointegration and error correction approach. Tourism Analysis, 3(1), 25-41.

Klenosky, D. B. (2002). The “pull” of tourism destinations: A means-end investigation. Journal of travel research, 40(4), 396-403. Knopf, R. C., & Lime, D. W. (1984). A recreation manager's guide to understanding river use and users (Vol. 38). US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Krippendorf, J. (1987). Ecological approach to tourism marketing. Tourism Management, 8(2), 174-176. Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Beverly Hills.

Kutner, S., & Cripps, J. (1997). Managing the customer portfolio of healthcare enterprises. In Healthcare Forum Journal, 40(5), 52-54. Lai, E. R. (2011). Motivation: A literature review. Person Research’s Report.

Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. (2004). Theory of planned behavior: Potential travelers from China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 28(4), 463-482. Leiper, N. (1989). Main destination ratios: Analyses of tourist flows. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(4), 530-541.

Linhardt, S. (2017). Report: Andorra - finance minister - Q&A - Jordi Cinica. The Banker, Retrieved from: http://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1866363357?accountid=7 285

Loker, L. E., & Perdue, R. R. (1992). A benefit-based segmentation of a nonresident summer travel market. Journal of Travel Research, 31(1), 30-35. Lue, C. C., Crompton, J. L., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1993). Conceptualization of multi-destination pleasure trips. Annals of tourism research, 20(2), 289-301. Manning, T. (1999). Indicators of tourism sustainability. Tourism management, 20, 179-182. Martínez, G. (1991). The Situation of the Economy and the Outlook for the Future. Catalònia, (25), 20-21.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Mayo, E. J., & Jarvis, L. P. (1981). The psychology of leisure travel. Effective marketing and selling of travel services. CBI Publishing Company, Inc.. Microstate [Def.1]. (2018) In Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved Dec 11, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/microstate Milne, S. (1992). Tourism and development in South Pacific microstates. Annals of tourism research, 19(2), 191-212.

Milne, S., & Nowosielski, L. (1997). Travel distribution technologies and sustainable tourism development: The case of South Pacific microstates. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 5(2), 131-150.

Mundt, A. (2013). Housing supply in Austria: Providers, motivation, competition. In ENHR Conference 2013 in Tarragona, Spain.

Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P., & Smith, B. (2000). The destination product and its impact on traveller perceptions. Tourism management, 21(1), 43-52. Oender, I. (2017). Classifying multi-destination trips in Austria with big data. Tourism Management Perspectives, 21, 54-58. Oglethorpe, M. K. (1984). Tourism in Malta: a crisis of dependence. Leisure Studies, 3(2), 147-161. Oh, H. C., Uysal, M., & Weaver, P. A. (1995). Product bundles and market segments based on travel motivations: A canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14(2), 123-137. O'Kelly, M. E. (1983). Impacts of multistop, multipurpose trips on retail distributions. Urban Geography, 4(2), 173-190. Orsini, K. (2018). Croatia's Tourism Industry: Beyond the Sun and Sea. DOI: 10.2765/380567.

Pearce, P. L. (1982). Perceived changes in holiday destinations. Annals of tourism research, 9(2), 145-164.

Pearce, P. L. (2005). Tourist Behaviour: Themes and Conceptual Schemes. Channel View Publications. Toronto Isbn: 9781845412456. pp 6-7 Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/books?id=OtRiNRU\_aSQC

Pearch, P., & Lee, U. (2005). Developing the travel career approach to tourism motivation. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 226-237. Pullman, M. E., & Gross, M. A. (2004). Ability of experience design elements to elicit emotions and loyalty behaviors. Decision sciences, 35(3), 551-578. Pyo, S., Mihalik, B. J., & Uysal, M. (1989). Attraction attributes and motivations: A canonical correlation analysis. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(2), 277-282. Ritchie, J. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. Cabi.

Samirkaş, M., & Samirkaş, M. C. (2015). The Impact of Exchange Rate on Tourism Industry: The Case of Turkey. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-8606-9.ch007. Retrieved from Handbook of Research on Global Hospitality and Tourism Management, 107-118. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2000). Collecting primary data through observation. Research methods for business students, 218-236. Schreyer, R., Lime, D. W., & Williams, D. R. (1984). Characterizing the influence of past experience on recreation behavior. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(1), 34-50. Schuett, M. A. (1994). Environmental preference and risk recreation: The case of white water kayakers. The Journal of Environmental Education, 25(2), 9-14.

51 Sharma, R., & Zemp, C. (2016). Switzerland Tourism launches winter, summer campaigns. Express Travel World. General OneFile. Retrieved on http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A470577058/ITOF?u=csunorthridge&sid=ITOF&xid=bd3031 5c. Accessed 18 Dec. 2018

Sirakaya, E., & McLellan, R. W. (1997). Factors Affecting Vacation Destination Choices of College Students. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8 (3): 31-44 Sort, J. J. (2006). Metropolitan networks. Editorial Gustavo Gili, SA. Spanish National Institute for Metrics & Statistics. (2019). Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. Retrieved from http://www.ine.es/jaxiT3/Datos.htm?t=23984

Tideswell, C., & Faulkner, B. (1999). Multi Destination travel patterns of international visitors to Queensland. Journal of Travel Research, 37(4), 364-374. Timothy, D. J. (2001). Postage stamps, microstates and tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 26(3), 85-88.

Torres, M. L., & Gil, D. (2016). Les particularités juridiques de la souveraineté de la co-principauté de l'Andorre (Doctoral dissertation, Toulouse 1). Trebicka, B. (2016). Tourism as a multiplier effect in economy: the case of Albania. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 5(1), 17-21. Turkeshi, G. (2018). Examining how segments based on motivation affect the relationship of destination personality in predicting tourist behavior: the case of Andorra.

United Nations. (2016). National accounts main aggregates database.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2008). Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework. Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/seriesf/seriesf_80rev1e.pdf

United Nations Development Program (2017). Human Development Reports. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI

Uysal, M., & Jurowski, C. (1994). Testing the Push and Pull Factors. Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (4): 844-846

Vu, H. Q., Li, G., Law, R., & Ye, B. H. (2015). Exploring the travel behaviors of inbound tourists to Hong Kong using geotagged photos. Tourism Management, 46, 222-232. Webster, C., & Ivanov, S. (2014). Transforming competitiveness into economic benefits: Does tourism stimulate economic growth in more competitive destinations?. Tourism Management, 40, 137-140.

Wilkinson, P. F. (1989). Strategies for tourism in island microstates. Annals of tourism research, 16(2), 153-177.

Williams, K. C. (1981). Behavioural Aspects of Marketing. London.

52 World Bank (2016). International tourism, expenditures (current US$). Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.XPND.CD?locations=US&year_high_desc=true

World Bank (2018, December 17). World Bank In Small States. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/smallstates/overview

World Economic Policy and Debt Department (2005, December 8) Economic Growth and Integration of Small States to the World Economy. Worldbank. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDEBTDEPT/Resources/468980-1206974166266/4833916- 1206989877225/SmallStatesDecember2005.pdf

World Health Organization (2016). Air pollution exposure interactive map. Retrieved from https://qz.com/794542/air-pollution-map-by-country-fine-particulate-matter/

World Tourism Organization (1995). Collection of Tourism Expenditure Statistics. UNWTO, Technical Manual. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20100922120940/http://pub.unwto.org/WebRoot/Store/Shops/Infosh op/Products/1034/1034-1.pdf

World Tourism Organization (2007), Understanding Tourism: Basic Glossary [Electronic], UNWTO. Retrieved from http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/glossaryenrev.pdf World Tourism Organization (2017), Yearbook of Tourism Statistics dataset [Electronic], UNWTO, Madrid, data updated on 24/03/2017.

Yuan, S., & McDonald, C. (1990). Motivational determinates of international pleasure time. Journal of Travel Research, 29(1), 42-44.

53 Appendix A: Research Instrument

Focus group / Individual interview design

1. Welcoming to participant/s (Script Attached) - 5 min a. Overview of the topic, guidelines and ground rules

2. Opening question - 5 min a. Self introduction 3. Introductory question - 15 min a. How many times have you been to Spain for vacation or pleasure travel? When you were in Spain, where did you go, and what did you do? What are your primary reason(s) for traveling to Spain? Or what attracts you to visit Spain?

b. How did you plan your trip to Spain?

c. Have you heard of Andorra? In general, what do you think about Andorra? Have you considered visiting Andorra? If so, what attracts you to visit Andorra? 4. Transition to the topic - Research about Andorra - 15 min A short video about facts of Andorra will be shown and Attendants were asked to take 5 minutes to research about Andorra using their personal phones (Tablets were also offered) 5. Key Question a. First half - 10 min i. Will you consider visiting Andorra? ii. Will you consider visiting Andorra next time when you visit Spain or France, or another region close to Andorra? 1. If yes, why? And what attracts you to visit Andorra? 2. If no, why? b. Break c. Second half - 10 min (A short presentation about Andorra was presented during this section) i. Which natural features | cultural resources | Sport Activities are more attractive

to you to visit Andorra? Why? ii. Which Tourist and Leisure Infrastructure | Atmosphere, Social Setting and Social

Environment characteristics are more attractive to you to visit Andorra? Why? iii. Which motivation (Knowledge, Well-being, Entertainment, Prestige) are more attractive to you to visit Andorra? Why? iv. Which factors are not attractive to you to visit Andorra? Why? v. Being Andorra an independent country would be a reason for visiting it? vi. 6. Ending Questions & Survey Questionnaire (Attached) - 5 min

54 1. Welcome to Participants

Good morning/Afternoon, first of all thank you for joining this focus group / interview. My name is Lluis M. Gonzalez and I will be the moderator of this session. As a first step, please I will need you to read the following informed consent and sign it if you agree (Time for attendants to read and sign).

We will start discussing some ground rules for today as well as giving an overview on the discussion topic. After that I will ask you to take the first ten minutes to research about Andorra. The focus group / Interview will start thereafter and will take no more than 120 minutes, including a 5 minutes break. Once completed I will ask you to fill a 10 minutes survey that will be used for classification purposes.

2. Ground Rules (Only for the focus group)

Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (Krueger & Casey, 1998) 3. Overview of the topic

Tourism plays a critical role in the economy of Andorra, a landlocked European microstate with 89% GDP and with more than half of the labor force concentrated in service industries. While Andorra’s tourism industry relies heavily on tourists from neighboring countries such as Spain and France, it is crucial for the country to diversify its tourism markets through promoting its travel products and experiences to more distant countries. However, there is limited understanding of how to promote a microstate such as Andorra to remote international markets such as the United States. US traveling residents have one of the most significant expenditures on outbound tourism in the world. Yet, Andorra Tourism Organizations have done little promotion of its tourism product to the US market. The purpose of this research is to examine what key factors or destination features have the potential to make Andorra an attractive destination to American tourists.

55 Survey Instrument

Demographic Questions (For classification purposes; this is never shared)

● How old are you? ● With what gender do you self-identify? ○ 18-24 ○ Female ○ 25-34 ○ Male ○ 35-49 ○ Transgender ○ 50-64 ○ Non-Binary ○ 65+ ○ Genderqueer ○ Intersex ● What is your household income? ○ Other ○ Under $29.999 ○ $30,000 - $49,999 ● Which country were you born in? ○ $50,000 - $74,999 ______○ $75,000 - $99,999 ○ $100,000 - $149,999 ● What is the highest level of education you ○ $150,000 - $199,999 have completed? ○ $200,000 or more ○ Less than High School ○ High School or equivalent ● What’s your marital status? ○ Technical certificate ○ Never married ○ Associate’s degree ○ Married ○ Bachelor’s degree ○ Widowed ○ Master’s degree ○ Divorced ○ Specialist ○ Separated ○ Ph.D., Ed. D., or professional degree ○ Engaged (Legally) ○ Other:

● What is your race/ethnicity? ● How many children live in your household ○ African American / Black ○ None ○ Asian or Pacific Islander ○ 1 ○ Caucasian / White ○ 2 ○ Latino / Hispanic ○ 3 ○ Native American / American Indian ○ 4 ○ 5 or more

● In which industry do you work? ______

56 Travel-Related Questions (For classification purposes; this is never shared)

● How many times have you traveled ● Which region of the world is your outside of the US in the past 5 years? favorite place to travel? ○ None ○ Africa ○ 1 ○ Asia ○ 2 ○ Central & South America ○ 3 ○ Europe ○ 4 ○ Middle East ○ 5 ○ North America ○ 6 or more ○ Pacific ○ Other: ______● How many times have you traveled to Europe in the past 5 years? ● Do you usually travel… (Check all that ○ None apply) ○ 1 ○ Alone ○ 2 ○ With a partner ○ 3 ○ With my children ○ 4 ○ With other family members ○ 5 ○ Friends ○ 6 or more ○ Organised tour group ○ Other:______● Which countries that you have visited you enjoyed the most? ● How did you usually plan your overseas’ ______trips? ______○ Through local travel agency ______○ Through online travel agency ______○ By myself ______○ Someone else plans it for me ______○ Other:______. ● During which season do you usually ● Thinking back to your most recent or travel? future holiday in Spain, how did you ○ Fall find out about the destination you visited? (Check all that apply) ○ Winter ○ Summer ○ I already knew of it ○ Spring ○ The Internet ○ Friends and relatives ● How long was / will be your trip to ○ Media Spain? ______○ Books and guides ○ Travel agency ● During your trip to Spain, did / will you ○ Fairs and/or exhibitions visit other countries during your trip? ○ It was part of the travel package. ○ No ○ Other, what: ○ If yes, which ______ones?______○