~

"l)mri,m Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 123, 13l, 1996

Copyright 1996 Elsc',icr Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights rcscrved
02f~l-5177/t)6 $15.1R) + {}.[RI

Pergamon

0261-5177(95RR)I 15--8

The determinants of planning time

in vacation travel
Antoine Zalatan
Leisure Studies, University o f Ottawa, 550 Cumberland, Ottawa, Ontario. Canada K I N 6N5

A travel decision model is developed to assess the relationship between planning time and
explanatory variables related to a specific trip. The determinants of planning time strongly
suggest that there is a pattern of stable behaviors in the planning of a pleasure vacation. Higher
levels of education extend planning time. Age and distance are positively correlated with
planning time while familiarity and the use of a travel agent are negatively correlated with
planning time.
Kcywords: planning time, distance, travel agent, familiarity, age, education

For the majority of tourists, a trip of one week or

longer is often a major decision, which requires
planning. In general, the trip-planning function is
essential in order to reduce uncertainty and increase
tourist satisfaction through added excitement, expectation, foreseeable pleasure, anticipation and the
like. It is suggested ~ that information acquisition can
'sensitize people favorably to the idea of having a
wmation by engendering particular expectations and
creating fantasies' (p 104). Although the planning of
a trip is an important element in the travel decision,
i! has attracted sparse attention from scholars 2'3 and
there is no clear evidence to confirm that the planning of a vacation is influenced by certain parameters in any orderly way. Previous research has not
been concerned with the 'determinants' of the travel
decision but rather with the consumer 'decisionmaking process'. For instance, Davis and Rigaux 4
and Myers and Moncrief 5 reported that a family
vacation decision is mainly syncretic (a joint decision
of husband and wife). Jenkins's study 2 concluded
that on dimensions such as vacation length, time of
vacation and money spent, husbands tend to dominate. On other dimensions including accommodation and selection of destination, there is a joint
dectsion. Indeed, research indicates that wives
"know what they want' and usually play an important
role in the planning process. 6
While governments collect some data with regard
.to planning time, very little is known about the
relationship between planning time and characteris-

tics of the tourist or the vacation trip. Van Raaij 7

suggested that the determinants of the decisionmaking process may include 'advertising by travel
agents, household communication and interaction
style, level of education and experience with wications, price sensitivity and sensitivity to the other
vacation attributes, loyalty to destinations, and types
of vacations' (p 4). However, his research was essentially concerned with the decision-making process
itself, rather than with the explanatory factors behind the travel decision. No studies were found in
the tourism literature which established a measurable relationship between 'planning time' and a set
of 'explanatory variables' with the exception of an
article by Schul and Crompton s where psychographics as well as sociodemographic variables were
correlated with length of time used in seeking travel
information prior to a vacation experience. One
notes also that Woodside and Lysonski, '~ in developing their general model of traveler choice destination, included "traveler variables' (age, income . . .)
as well as 'marketing variables" (travel agents, channel decisions). This inclusion suggests that planning
is influenced by endogenous as well as exogenous
variables which can be verified empirically. However, partial evidence has been presented in terms of
the travelers" decision-making behavior. For instance Bronner and de Hoog m have investigated the
process of destination choices of holiday travels.
Snepenger et al II identified the major factors which
influence 'information search behavior', lnforma-

123

Planning time in vacation travel: A Zalatan

tion search behaviors were grouped according to

three sources: travel agent only, travel agent and
other sources, and sources other than travel agents.
In turn, these sources were related to travel party
characteristics, lodging type, leisure activities and
on-site behavior. In some cases l't2 research has
been more concerned with 'decision style' and attributes considered in choosing among destinations.
van Raaij and Francken ~ introduced a 'vacation
sequence' which includes three stages dealing directly with the planning function (generic decision,
information acquisition and decision making). Variables were identified (eg income, vacation characteristics) but their relationship with the travel decision
or planning time was not statistically established.
Crompton and Ankomah ~3 suggested 'a funneling
process consisting of three primary stages' (p 462).
The potential traveler has choices and the selection
decision requires time to evaluate the alternatives.
Research developed by Woodside and Lysonski 9
suggests that consumers' travel decisions are complex and involve four destination categories (consideration set, inert set, unavailable-aware set and
inept set). Each of these categories has several
destinations and planning time will then be used not
only to obtain information on the 'final' destination
but also to eliminate the other destinations. Elsewhere, vacation planning has been equated to information acquisition for selecting destinations,
accommodations, transportation and tours.~4'15
Cook and McCleary r6 identified factors affecting
'cognitive distance estimates' and suggested that
distance 'is a critical constraint variable in most
travelers' vacation destination decision-making process' (p 31). The role of the family and family life
cycle have been extensively researched in terms of
influence on the decision-making process. 14.17-19
Davidson 2 stressed the importance of planning as
the basis to influence a decision or change a behavior. Enhancing our knowledge of the explanatory
factors has definite theoretical and practical implications in terms of marketing, advertising and packaging of specific vacations. For instance, if it were
established that planning time increases with travel
distance, then marketing efforts could take into
consideration this finding and travel agents could
produce and market their services differently for
distant destinations. Thus, the length of the planning
time would not only be a private concern for the
tourist but would also be used as a basis for marketing in the tourism business.

Theoretical framework
Planning a vacation trip is part of a complex decision
process involving many determinants which can be
identified only if the structural scheme is well established. Theoretically this scheme would describe a
phenomenon in terms of a list of variables that make

124

up its morphology (content) and functional relations

through which the variables affect each other
(mechanisms).
These variables and relationships reflect the basic
decision process that has its roots in 'consumer
behavior and preferences', and which are in turn
influenced by the 'market characteristics' of the
destination and the 'socioeconomic characteristics'
of the travelers. This process culminates in 'planning
time' and confirms the view that the theory of
decisions has been expanded by the development of
several psychological approaches in human decision
behaviour research (2t p 4).
Within this process, the consumer (tourist) has a
set of preferences which are assumed to be limited to
a given amount of time (there is an upper limit to the
quantity of planning time available to the consumer)
and consistent (the consumer is always aware of
his/her preferences under any circumstance). Consistency effectively rules out the possibility of conflict between too much and too little planning.
Preferences indeed dictate the behavior and decision
process of the recreationist. 22'23 Moreover, given a
tourist's degree of knowledge (information, capability with regard to problem solving (limited cognition), as well as attitude towards risk (risk)taker or
risk-averter), he/she will try to reach a certain level
of planning commensurate with his/her personality
traits as well as other contextual variables (eg age,
level of education). The tourist will also take into
consideration certain attributes of the destination.
The whole process is dynamic and there is a continuous interaction between the elements of the
decision process. For instance, while the 'software
environment' of the destination, including publicity,
can be measured and related directly to the sum of
all tourists visiting a destination, for each individual
tourist such an environment has an impact on his/her
planning time ielative to his/her scale of preferences,
attitudes and socioeconomic characteristics. This
interrelationship can also be illustrated by consumer
preferences which 'are partly dependent on what is
available in the market, and partly on what consumers consider to be "ideal" products or services' (7 p 6)
such as comparing destinations and obtaining information on prices, facilities, exchange rates and the
many other details of the trip. Mansfeld 24 segments
the information-collection function into two parts.
The first part deals with information required to
ascertain the endogenous constraints limits, and the
second is concerned with the type of information
that allows the tourist to evaluate the alternatives
offered. In general, some individuals spend a great
deal of time planning all the different facets of their
trip, while others reach the decision to travel in a
'snap'. 2 Some will attend to all the details and
concern themselves with all the dimensions of their
trip, while others will simply leave the decisions to
the travel agent. Between this spectrum of 'total'

Planning time in vacation travel: A Zalatan

planning and 'lack' of planning there is probably a

range of behaviors that are dictated by variables
such as distance, complexity of the trip, level of
familiarity with the destination, and attitudes of the
tourist. In fact, seldom would one variable determine the full extent to which individuals plan their
trips. Interrelations exist between at least the following three dimensions:
attributes of trip: such as distance, length of stay,
costs, familiarity with destination;
attitude o f individual: individuals could be risktakers or risk-averters, pay attention to details or
simply look at the overall picture; and
socioeconomic characteristics of the tourist: such
as age and education, which may influence the
level of planning.
The interaction of the above dimensions influences
the level of planning of the tourist. For instance, if
tourists are familiar with a destination, have a risktaking attitude and are young, they might invest less
time in the planning of a trip. On the other hand, the
older tourist seeking an unfamiliar destination and
staying a longer period might invest more time in the
planning of a trip. However, it should be recognized
that the "amount' of planning is not the sole outcome, and attention should also be given to the
'type' of planning. Tourists may do little planning
themselves if they can delegate most of it to a travel
agent. The travel decision model should then include
the 'source' of planning in order to accurately reflect
the relationship between the 'overall' planning time
(tourist and travel agent) and other variables related
to a specific trip. Thus a general hypothesis may be
formulated as follows:
Attributes of the trip, socioeconomic characteristics
of the tourist, knowledge of the destination and the
involvement of a travel agent have a strong influence on planning time devoted to a pleasure vacation.
In a more segmented way, the following five hypotheses are formulated:
(1) The longer the distance to be travelled, the
longer the planning time.
(2) The more familiar the tourist is with the destination, the shorter the planning time.
(3) The younger the tourist the shorter the planning
time.
(4) The higher the level of education of a tourist,
the longer the planning time.
(5) The more a tourist relies on a travel agent, the
shorter the planning time.
Although some of these hypotheses are self-evident
it is useful to present the rationale which supports
them. For instance Crompton and Ankomah ~3 linked distance with information: 'the greater the distance to a destination, the less opportunities are

likely to be available for people to be exposed to

information about a destination' (p 464). Paucity of
information about 'distant' destinations consumes
time and increases the probability of planning time.
Moreover, longer distances often, but not always,
imply a different sociocultural environment from the
home environment. This would induce the tourist to
do more search to acquaint him/herself with this
distant environment. Distance is often equivalent to
costs. The further the distance the higher the transportation as well as other travel costs. To maximize
utility, the tourist will ensure that he/she possesses as
much information as possible. Gathering this information is clearly time consuming. Schul and
Crompton ~ suggest that planning time is related to
the cost of the trip: 'the literature suggests that
planning and information search are likely to be
greater for major than for minor investments' (p 25).
Familiarity decreases the amount of required information and consequently planning time. A study
by Bennett and Mandel125 established a negative
relationship between the information required to
purchase an automobile and past familiarity and
satisfaction with an automobile brand. Knowledge is
cumulative and previous knowledge about a destination can be retained and added to newly acquired
knowledge. This is particularly true in tourism where
the basic characteristics of site~ are fairly rigid. If Pei
has given the Louvre a new 'entrance" it is still
basically the same Louvre. Thus, familiarity with a
destination will tend to reduce planning time.
Age is expected to be positively correlated with
planning time. In general, older persons have more
vacation and free time. 26 They prefer certainty and
will tend to reduce the perceived risk by increasing
the search for information, s
There are a variety of conflicting arguments as to
the effect of education on planning time. While
Schul and Crompton s found that the "educational
level' of a tourist was positively correlated with the
length of time over which the external search process
occurred, the beta coefficient was not significant.
Thus, one might argue that people with a higher
education obtain a higher utility from the effort they
put into trip planning. On the other hand, travelers
with a higher level of education may know more
about their intended destination(s) and need less
information on which to base their decision. Also,
more highly educated people tend to lead busier
working lives and have less time to devote to travel
planning. When the theory is two-faced, empirical
evidence may partially assist researchers to determine the probable direction of the relationship and
its level of significance.
Finally, a 'compensation effect' is suggested bctween the tourist planning time and the services of a
travel agent. Indeed a travel agent can assist the
tourist to reduce choices by eliminating destinations
which do not respond to the tourist's needs and by

125

Planning time in vacation travel: A Zalatan

offering a range of possibilities which can reduce the

search time.
Testing the foregoing five hypotheses would constitute a reasonable basis for a better understanding
of the travel decision. Moreover, identification of a
robust relationship between 'planning time' and a set
of 'explanatory variables' would lead to a better
appreciation of the travel decision and in turn would
be useful in assessing the role of certain activities
related to tourism, such as booking, marketing and
the rate structure of air transportation.
Methodology

Given the preceding theoretical framework and the

five hypotheses to be tested, information was collected by a survey in order to measure variables
relevant to the planning process. The questionnaire
c o n t a i n e d two sections, one dealing with the
sociodemographic characteristics of the respondent
(gender, years of schooling, age and marital status),
and the other with travel habits during the previous
two years (vacation trips, destination, planning time,
use of travel agent services, previous visits and
familiarity with the destination site).
The survey was conducted in March 1992 in the
city of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada. Respondents
were adults between the ages of 20 and 65. The
participants were selected randomly in public areas
such as shopping malls, cafeterias, urban parks and
in a large recreational center. The sample was
collected over a two-week period at different time
intervals (eg daytime, night, weekends). Research
assistants were assigned a particular space and once
the first questionnaire was completed, they
approached every 10th passer by. If that person
refused to be interviewed, the next nine passers by
were skipped and the tenth was interviewed, and so
on. Each day a new position was assigned to the
interviewers in order to augment the probability of
diversification of potential respondents. Research
assistants directly approached potential respondents
and registered their answers. Several remarks should
be made on the sampling process as well as on the
technical aspects of some questions.
Initially, over 560 individuals were approached by
the research assistants to participate in the survey. About 300 persons agreed. In the final
count, 285 questionnaires were retained and 15
questionnaires were discarded because of missing
information.
The highest rate of 'non-response' was in shopping malls and the lowest in the recreational
center.
Women had a higher rate of willingness to participate in the survey than men.
To reduce estimation errors, the respondents
were asked to state only their destination rather

126

Table 1 Preferred destinations

Destination

No

Percentage of total

United States
Canada
Europe
Mexico
Other
Total

79
54
26
17
15
191

41.4
28.3
13.6
8.9
7.8
100.0

than the distance travelled. Subsequently, distance travelled was estimated using road distances
provided by the Canadian Automobile Association and air distances provided by airlines servicing specific destinations.
An eleven-point scale (0-10) was used to measure
usage of travel agents' services. A pilot test
indicated that the use of a scale was easier to
recall than, say, the frequency of usage or the
number of visits or telephone calls to a travel
agency.
Familiarity with the destination was measured
subjectively as a self-reported score using a (~10
scale.
Limiting the questionnaire to the previous two
years diminished the risk of 'recall' questions with
regard to travel behavior.
Results

The tabulated results of the survey indicated that

more than 67% of the sample (191 respondents)
took at least one vacation trip (one week or more)
over the past two years. The average number of trips
was 3.1 trips for the two-year period with 47%
taking less than three trips and 9% taking more than
seven trips. While the gender distribution of the
sample was slightly in favor of women (56.1%), the
marital status of the respondents who travelled
compares favorably with tourist data published by
Statistics Canada: 55.1% married, 37.3% single,
4.9% divorced and 2.7% widowed. 27 Moreover,
nearly one-third of the tourists had more than .17
years of schooling and the average level of education
was over 15 years of schooling. This is higher than
the level of schooling of the Canadian tourist. 2s
The one-week vacation was the most popular
(37% of the respondents) but the respondents who
travelled a considerable distance stayed, on average,
2.2 weeks at their destination. Table 1 shows the
most preferred destinations among the respondents.
A 0-10 scale was introduced to measure the
degree of involvement of a travel agent, where 0
indicates no travel agent involvement and 10 is
indicative of heavy reliance on the service of a travel
agent (see Table 2). Over 22% of the respondents
extensively used the services of a travel agent for the
planning of their vacation.

Planning time in vacation tra,,el: A Zalatan

Table 2

Use of travel agent services

Usage

No

0 (no usage at all)

1-3
4-5
~7
8-9
I(I (high usage)
Total

Table 4 Explanatory variables of planning time"

(Planning time being the dependent variable)
Percentage of total

74
35
12
8
19
43

38.7
18.3
6.3
4.2
11).0
22.5

191

11}0.11

Explanatory
variables
Distance
Familiarity
Previous visits
Age
Schooling
Travel Agent

Coefficient
0.415
-1). 1611
-(I. 141
1.001
0.853
0.119

St. error

t-value

P~2-tail)

11.176
t).1186
0.11311
0.394
0.310
0.036

2.311
- 1.86
4.70
2.54
2.75
-L31

< 11.111
n.s.
< ().01
< 0.(11
< I).01
< ().01

R-squared 59.3%
Adjusted R-squared 55.2%

O v e r 61% of the respondents had used the services of a travel agent. This finding is comparable to
a study by Etzel and Wahlers 2'~ in terms of usage of a
travel agent. Moreover, it is interesting to note thai
over 64% of the tourists who indicated 'high usage"
of the services of the travel agent (a score of 10)
travelled a distance of over 1082 miles, which is
more than double the distance travelled by the
average respondent. This finding tends to suggest
that the farther away the destination the higher the
reliance on the services of a travel agent. The
distribution of the planning time is shown in Table 3.
The average planning time of the respondents in
the sample is 14.8 weeks. Data provided by Rao et
al ~ suggest an average planning horizon of 10.3
weeks for US outbound travelers visiting Mexico
and 15.5 weeks for those visiting Europe.

Regression
To test the five hypotheses in relation to planning
time, several regression equations were used. The
following regression model yielded the best results:
Y = f(Xt, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6), where:
Y = planning time, defined as the actual period
devoted to planning the trip. It includes
precise actions such as enquiries, p a p e r
searching, calling or visiting travel agencies
and was measured by days or weeks.
X~ = distance from origin to destination. As respondents indicated only their destination, it

Table 3

Distribution of planning time

Planning time (in weeks)

I or lcss
2 3
4 5
<~-S
~#-12
13 16
17 24
25 or more
Total

No

Percentage of total

10
16
12
23
28
30
38
34

5.2
8.4
6.3
12.0
14.7
15.7
19.9
17.8

191

1(10.0

X~ =

X3 =
X4 =
X5 =
X,, =

was necessary to estimate the road or air

distance travelled.
familiarity with the destination measured
on a continuous 0-10 scale. Familiarity is
not necessarily based on previous visits and
may include travel material, knowledge
gained by discussions with other tourists
who may have visited the destination in
question, and T V and media coverage.
number of previous visits to the destination.
age or the tourist.
years of schooling.
travel agent services, measured on a O-lll
scale where 0 denotes that the tourist has
not used the services of a travel agent, and
10 indicates a heavy reliance on the services
of a travel agent.

In order to compare the numerical value of one

regression coefficient with that of another, we estimated a modified regression usually referred to as
the standardized regression. 3~ The resulting standardized beta coefficients are directly comparable to
each other in numerical value.
Applying the linear regression model to the collected data yielded the results shown in Table 4.
All the explanatory variables have the expected
sign.
All the explanatory variables except one (familiarity) are statistically significant.
Previous visits and the use of the services of a
travel agency are the most statistically significant
variables.
The results of the multiple regression equation
strongly confirm the hypotheses outlined in the
theoretical framework. Distance, education and age
are positively correlated with planning time. The
greater the distance, the longer the planning time.
Planning time tends to increase with the level of
education and with age. Familiarity, previous visits
and the use of a travel agent are negatively correlated with planning time. The higher the level of
these variables, the shorter the planning time.

127

Planning time in vacation travel: A Zalatan

Discussion
The determinants of planning time strongly suggest
that there is a pattern of stable behaviors in the
planning of a pleasure vacation. Planning is an
essential function in a trip which tends to vary in an
orderly manner. Although the increasing level of
competition and the widespread availability of package deals have exerted a downward pressure on
travel costs, a vacation is still an expensive activity
and the tourist is highly motivated to plan any trip
adequately. The planning process not only ensures
that uncertainty is reduced, but also acquaints the
tourist with particular details of the destination and
provides the opportunity to realize some savings. By
planning ahead, destinations can be compared, costs
can be evaluated and decisions can be reached that
better respond to needs and optimize satisfaction.
The statistical significance of the explanatory
model has several direct implications for the tourism
industry:
Higher levels of education extend planning time.
Educated tourists require more information and
more time to reach travel decisions. 29"32For these
tourists a trip yields utility which in turn is a
function of the importance of the decision to
travel. 33 They will try to obtain the maximum
return from their trip and will devote time and
effort to ensure that their trip is well organized.
Fragmented evidence 2v suggests an increase in the
level of education among tourists in general.
Moreover, on average, the level of satisfaction
with pleasure vacations has been shown to be
inversely related to the level of education. 34 A
higher level of education is conducive to lower
levels of satisfaction. Stated differently, one can
say that tourists with higher levels of education
would tend to be less satisfied with their pleasure
vacation experience. This fact is probably due to
the size of the gap between expectation and
realization. People with more education tend to
set higher goals, and consequently some divergence between their expectations and their
realizations can be expected to occur. Lower
levels of satisfaction could also be due to 'imperfections' in tourism supply. Such imperfections result from misinformation and a disequilibrium between the needs of the more educated
tourist and the offerings of the tourism industry.
Consequently, planning time would reduce uncertainty and improve the 'potential' level of satisfaction of the tourist.
Age is positively correlated with planning time.
The older a tourist is, the more planning time is
required. 35 A scatter diagram of planning time
(dependent variable) and age (independent variable) seems to suggest that the relationship between the two variables is a 'step' function. This is
indicative of a differential in planning time by

128

age-groups. The three age-groups, 'less than 30

years', '31-50' and '50 and over', fit quite well
into this step function. This finding militates
strongly for tourism market segmentation by agegroups and establishes a net difference in the
behavior of tourists based on age. A dummy
variable was introduced into the regression equation to take into effect the influence of 'agegroups'. While the coefficients of age-groups
were all significant at the 5% level, the significance of the overall age regression coefficient
dropped slightly and no noticeable improvement
in the adjusted R square was made.
The greater the distance involved, the longer the
trip-planning horizon - a fact confirmed by the
behavior of the US outbound market. 3 Distance
has a definite influence on the travel decision, and
the model yielded a positive relationship with
distance. Tourists were only required to state
their destination; distance estimates were made at
a later stage. While straight road or air distances
could raise the issue of 'cognitive' as compared
with 'real' distance, 36 and consequently introduce
bias, planning time would still tend to increase
with distance. That is to say, a trip to the Far East
or to Egypt would of necessity usually require
more planning time than a local trip. However, a
simple regression of planning time and distance
suggest that the relationship is not linear. Indeed,
a logarithmic function yields better results than
the linear function. This finding suggests that
beyond a certain distance, the rate of increase in
planning time tends to diminish or at least remains constant.
Previous trips have been recognized as an important source of information for trip planning. 3v'38
Familiarity and previous visits are negatively
correlated with planning time and tourists 'frequently have limited knowledge about a destination that they have not previously visited' (22 p 18).
Etzel and Wahlers 29 suggest that familiarity with
a site, as well as previous visits, is related to less
information seeking which in turn can be reasonably equated with less planning time. The rationale
dictating the inclusion of two variables that have
the potential to be collinear is based on the abundance of available information on vacation trips
and the strong reliance on friends and family in
planning a trip. Thus, a tourist may be familiar
with a destination without necessarily having
made previous visits. 39 Conversely, a previous
visit may not directly lead to a high degree of
familiarity owing to the nature of the trip (eg
attending a conference), the length of stay or
other reasons. Regressing familiarity and previous visits (independent variables) with planning
time (dependent variable) shows a certain collinearity between the independent variables (r =
0.423) but not enough to dictate the removal of

Planning time in vacation travel: A Zalatan

one of the two variables. The low statistical

significance of 'familiarity' in the overall equation
is probably due to the manner by which it was
measured. The 0-10 scale was estimated subjectively by the respondent and was solely based on
this self-perceived degree of familiarity. A bias is
often introduced when a measure is totally subjective. In about 10% of the cases, the level of
familiarity was higher for respondents who had
recorded no previous visits. While this situation
might be theoretically valid, there is no way to
determine the degree of divergence between the
possession of information that constitutes the
basis of familiarity and the self-assigned familiarity level.
Finally, the negative relationship between planning time and the use of the services of a travel
agent is a reflection of the transfer of responsibilities from the tourist to the travel agent. This
transfer is not always positive. Hamilton-Smith 4
notes situations in which the tourist is 'quickly
subordinated to the ready availability of prepackaged opportunities' and raises the issue of establishing 'policies to increase customer power in the
decision process'. However, travel agents were
highly used by at least one-third of the respondents. This is particularly true for distant destinations, suggesting the cognitive importance of distance.

Conclusion and further research

Among leisure activities, a vacation trip is probably
the most expensive activity and existing trends clearly indicate that the price of tourism will continue to
increase. Thus, it is not surprising that tourists will
devote considerable time and energy to the travel
decision in order to identify better deals and obtain
the best return on their expenditure. This is also
reinforced by the fact that the population is growing
older and the level of education is increasing, two
factors that are positively correlated with planning
time. From a marketing perspective, travel agencies
play a key role in reducing planning time as well as
uncertainty, particularly in travel to distant destinations. Based on this research, marketers of tourism
destinations would recognize that older tourists, for
instance, require more time to prepare for a trip.
Thus, publicity aimed at attracting seniors should
have a higher time lead. You simply do not tell
seniors 'join us for a trip to Spain, next w e e k . . , it is
a real bargain'. This approach might be effective for
junior travelers but would not attract seniors even if
they have more disposable time. Moreover, travel
agencies should use more visual communication aids
such as videos in order to augment the available
information and to reduce the planning time. It can
be argued that planning time has a high utility
because it increases the tourist level of knowledge

and reduces risk and uncertainy. Opposite arguments can also be presented where planning time has
a low utility and the consumer is often caught in a
non-productive cobweb process. While it is outside
the scope of this paper to measure the utility of the
tourist planning time one can at least argue that the
length of search allows travel agencies to influence
the destination selection decision and to augment
business volume. Mayo 41 suggested that planning
time is consumed in obtaining numerous details
about a trip.
The results of this research allow marketers of
tourism to segment their business not only in terms
of destinations but also on the basis of the information
provided as it relates to the sociodemographic
characteristics of the tourists, This fact should be
recognized by travel agencies and reflected in their
publicity and marketing. Time scarcity is part of the
post-Keynesian consumption function, and has
received recent emphasis. Travel agencies are not
only 'facilitators" or travel brokers, but also 'money
and time savers'. They should be more concerned
with the vacation rather than the destination, and
the element of more efficient planning should be
clearly highlighted in their publicity. Moreover airline companies should recognize that planning time
is positively correlated to distance. Such a finding
should be considered in seasonal air fare promotions
and further research should assess the availability of
'bargain vacations' with respect to planning time.
While this paper identifies variables having a
statistical significance in determining planning time,
the following changes may be introduced to improve
the explanatory power of the model:
'Familiarity" should be an objectively measured
variable. An index of familiarity based on factual
information, such as number of articles read on
the destination/number of visits to travel agencies
could be developed.
The analysis could be segmented by types of
destination and purpose of trip. 'Sun-seekers'
may devote less time planning a trip than tourists
seeking cultural activities. The information collected in the present study did not permit such
differentiation. Future research should consider
'purpose of trip' as a possible explanatory variable.
The size of the travel party could be introduced in
the model. Planning time would probably tend to
increase with the number of individuals in a given
party. Further research should investigate this
relationship.
Further research could, explicitly, take into consideration attitude of the individual (eg risktakers, risk-averters) and its influence on planning time.
An ex p o s t measure of satisfaction may also be
introduced. Is longer planning time conducive to

129

Planning time in vacation travel: A Zalatan

h i g h e r l e v e l s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n ? W h a t is t h e r e l a tionship between planning time and satisfaction?

D e s t i n a t i o n s a r e n o t h o m o g e n e o u s 42'43 a n d d i f f e r e n c e s in p l a n n i n g t i m e m i g h t b e i n f l u e n c e d by t h e
various
elements
which
characterize
these
d e s t i n a t i o n s . 44
An assumption
is m a d e
t h a t a t r i p is a
h o m o g e n e o u s l e i s u r e a c t i v i t y (a t r i p is a trip).
However, a case can be made that highly educated travellers might tend to take more complex
trips a n d this c o m p l e x i t y d o e s r e q u i r e m o r e p l a n ning time.
Further research should probably differentiate
b e t w e e n t h e a m o u n t o f t i m e s p e n t in s e l e c t i n g a
d e s t i n a t i o n as c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e a m o u n t o f t i m e
s p e n t in o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t this d e s t i n a tion.

D e s p i t e s o m e l i m i t a t i o n s i m p l i c i t in t h e m e a s u r e ment of two explanatory variables (familiarity and

t h e u s e o f t r a v e l a g e n t s e r v i c e s ) , this r e s e a r c h i d e n t i f i e d s o m e o f t h e k e y v a r i a b l e s t h a t h a v e an i n f l u e n c e
on the amount of planning time for vacation travel.
P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h has b e e n r e l a t e d m a i n l y to t h e
decision-making process which does not provide
e n o u g h d e t a i l s to r e n d e r it u s e f u l f r o m an o p e r a t i o n al v i e w p o i n t . V a n R a a i j 7 r e c o m m e n d e d
a 'stage
a p p r o a c h ' to r e l a t e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g to t o u r i s t b e h a v i o r . H o w e v e r , h e was m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e
behavior of tourists than the variables that explain
this b e h a v i o r . R e c o g n i z i n g t h e v a r i a b l e s t h a t e x p l a i n
t h e t r a v e l d e c i s i o n c a n h a v e d i r e c t a n d u s e f u l app l i c a t i o n s in m a r k e t i n g t r a v e l s e r v i c e s a n d e s t a b lishing a b e t t e r l i n k a g e b e t w e e n v a c a t i o n p l a n n i n g
time and types of tourists.

References
%an Raaij, W F and Francken, D A 'Vacation decisions, activities and satisfactions" Annals of Tourism Res'earch 1984 11
101-112
2jenkins, R L 'Family vacation decision-making" Travel Research
1978 16(4) 2-7
3Francken, D A and van Raaij, W F 'Satisfaction with leisure
time activities" Leisure Research 1981 13(4) 33%352
4Davis, H L and Rigaux, B P 'Perception of marital roles in
decision processes' Consumer Research 1974 1(1) 51-62
-SMyers, P B and Moncrief, L W 'Differential leisure travel
decision-making between spouses' Annals" of Tourism Research
1978 5 157-165
6Smith, L 'Women: the taste-makers in tourism" Annals of
Tourism Research 1979 6 49-60
7Van Raaij, W F "Consumer research on tourism, mental and
behavioral constructs' Annals of Tourism Research 1986 13 1-9
SSchul, P and Crompton, J L 'Search behavior of international
vacationers: travel-specific lifestyle and sociodemographic variables' Travel Research 1983 22 25-30
'~Woodside, D J and Jenkins, J M 'Cognitive distance: a neglected
issue in travel behavior' Travel Research 1992 31 24-29
mBronner, F and de Hoog, R. 'A recipe for mixing decision
ingredients' European Res'earch 1985 13 109-115
l~Snepenger, D, Meged, K, Snelling, M and Worrall, K 'Information search strategies by destination-naive tourists' Travel Re-

130

search 1990 17 13-16

12Thompson, J R and Cooper, R D 'Additional evidence on the

limited size of evoked and inept sets of travel destinations' Travel
Research 1979 18 23-25
~3Crompton, J L and Ankomah P 'Choice set propositions in
destination decisions' Annals of Tourism Research 1993 20 461476
J4Ritchie, J R B and Filiatrault, P 'Family vacation decisionmaking- a replication and extension' Travel Research 198117 3-14
~SPerdue, R R 'Segmenting state travel information inquirers by
timing of the destination decision and previous experience' Travel
Research 1985 23 6-11
16Cook, R L and McCleary, K W "Redefining vacation distances
in consumer minds' Travel Research 1983 10 31-34
~TCosenza, R M and Davis, D L 'Family vacation decision making over the family life cycle: a decision and influence structure
analysis' Travel Research 1981 8 17-23
ISNichols, C and Snepenger, D "Family decision making and
tourism behavior and attitudes' Travel Research 1988 26 2-6
J"Fodness, D 'The impact of family life cycle on the vacation
decision-making process" Travel Research 1992 19 8-13
~Davidson, T L 'Strategic planning: a competitive necessity" in
The Battle for Market Share: Strategies in Research and Marketing,

Travel and Tourism Research Association, Graduate School of

Business, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (1985) 103-108
21Scholz, R W Decision Making Under Uncertainty NorthHolland, Amsterdam/New York/Oxford (1983)
22Um, S and Crompton, J L 'The roles of perceived inhibitors and
facilitators in pleasure travel destination decisions' Travel Research 1992 31 18--25
Z3Harris, C C, Driver, B L and Bergersen, E P 'Do choices of
sport fisheries reflect angler preferences for site attractions?" in
Stankey, G H and McCool, S F (eds) Proc: Symposium on
Recreation Choice Behavior, lntermountain Research Station
General Technical Report INT-184, USDA Forest Service,
Ogden UT, 46-53
24Mansfeld, Y 'From motivation to actual travel" Anna~s' oJ"
Touris'm Research 1982 19 399-419
25Bennett and Mandell 11969; details not available)
2~'Zalatan, A "Socio-touristic profile of French tourists in Canada'
Ottawa, unpublished research (1995)
eTStatistics Canada "Touriscope, international travel national and
provincial counts' Cat No 66-0111 11991)
2SStatistics Canada "Education in Canada, a statistical review' Cat
No 81-229 (1991)
>Etzel, M J and Wahlers, R G "The use of requested promotional material by pleasure travelers' Travel Research 1985 23 2-6
3Rao, S R, Thomas, E G and Javalgi, R G 'Activity preferences
and trip-planning behavior of the US outbound pleasure travel
market" Travel Research 1992 19 3-12
3~Ramanatathan, R Introductory Econometrics" HBJ Publishers,
Orlando, FL 11989)
~2Francken, D A and van Raaij, W F "Longitudinal study of
vacationers information acquisition behavior" Papers" on Economic Psychology 1979 (No 2) Erasmus University, Rotterdam
~-~Sternthal, B and Craig, C S Consumer Behavior Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 11982)
34Zalatan, A "Tourist satisfaction: a predetermined model' Tourist Review 1994 I 9-13
~SJavalgi, R G, Thomas, E G and Rao, S R 'Consumer behavior
in the US pleasure travel marketplace: an analysis of senior and
nonsenior travelers" Travel Research 1992 31(2) 14-19
36Walmsley, D J and Jenkins, J M 'Cognitive distance: a neglected issue in travel behavior' Travel Research 1992 31 24-29
37Tierney, P T 'The influence of state traveler information ccnters
on tourist length of stay and expenditures' Travel Research 1993
31(3) 28-32
3SMitchie, D A "Family travel behavior and its implications for
tourism management' Tourism Management 1986 13 8-2/)
3"Nolan, S D 'Tourists" use and evaluation of travel information
sources: summary and conclusions" Travel Research 1976 14 6-8
4Hamilton-Smith, E "Four kinds of tourism?' Annals of Travel

Planning time in vacation travel: A Zalatan

Research 1987 14 332-344
UMayo, E "Tourism and the national parks: a psychographic and
atlitudinal survey' Travel Resareh 1975 14 14-18
~eMurphy, P E "Perceptions and attitudes of decisionmaking
groups in tourism centers' Travel Research 1983 (Winter) 8-12

a3Murphy, P E "Preferences and perceptions of urban decisionmaking groups: congruence or conflicts'?' Regional Studies 1978 12
749-759
44Crompton, J l. ',Structure of vacation destination choice sets"
Annals ~l"Tourism Research 1992 19 420-434

131