Tourism Geographies

ISSN: 1461-6688 (Print) 1470-1340 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtxg20

Tourist Routes: A Time-Geographical Approach on

German Car-Tourists in Sweden
Malin Zillinger
To cite this article: Malin Zillinger (2007) Tourist Routes: A Time-Geographical
Approach on German Car-Tourists in Sweden, Tourism Geographies, 9:1, 64-83, DOI:
10.1080/14616680601092915
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616680601092915

Published online: 31 Jan 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 463

View related articles

Citing articles: 23 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtxg20
Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UA]

Date: 14 September 2016, At: 07:23

Tourism Geographies
Vol. 9, No. 1, 6483, February 2007

Tourist Routes: A Time-Geographical

Approach on German Car-Tourists
in Sweden
MALIN ZILLINGER
Department of Social and Economic Geography, Umea University, Umea, Sweden

ABSTRACT Tourism is often studied as if it was static. Yet, mobility constitutes an important
part of the tourism system. The paper argues that tourists are travelling according to an individual travel rhythm, which can be defined as a travel pattern that tourists relate to, independent
from the tourist sites that are visited. It was found out that there are long travel distances on
the first and last day of the holiday, that mobility and stationariness are concentrated in time
and that tourists along a round tour often spend the longest time in the region with the longest
distance to the home region. The paper concludes that a travel rhythm exists, and that it is only
partly influenced by the time the tourist spends at the destination, and the previous number
of visits. Time geography was applied as underlying theory, and its use can be encouraged in
forthcoming tourism studies.
KEY WORDS: Itinerary, mobility, Sweden, travel diary, travel rhythm

Introduction
An increasing number of tourists do not travel straight to a single tourist site and then
home again, but rather tour along a more or less planned route (Tideswell and Faulkner
2002). Nevertheless, tourism is often treated as if it was a static issue, e.g. by counting
guest nights and by measuring the amount of time people spend at individual places.
Due to sparse data, little is known about the routes between the different places for
stay-over. However, knowing how tourists move through time and space is important,
not only because large sums of money are spent between the places where guest nights
are counted, but also because tourists can be assumed to travel in a certain rhythm,
which can be defined as an individual travel pattern, independent of the tourist sites
that are visited. Consequently, a more profound knowledge about travel itineraries
is of importance both for tourist researchers and for the tourism industry, because
a better knowledge base can improve demand forecasting. In addition, knowledge
Correspondence Address: Malin Zillinger, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Umea University, S-90187 Umea, Sweden. Fax: +46 90 786 6359; Tel.: +46 90 786 5468; Email: malin.zillinger@
etour.se
C 2007 Taylor & Francis
ISSN 1461-6688 Print/1470-1340 Online /07/01/0006420 
DOI: 10.1080/14616680601092915

Tourist Routes: German Car-Tourists in Sweden

65

of which places and attractions are frequently linked can be helpful in identifying
strategic partners in tourism.
Tourism does not occur randomly in space. Rather, it could be argued that factors
such as the distance between a tourist site and the tourists place of origin, their
previous journey experience, the length of their stay, prior information and individual
motivation lead to particular spatial patterns. In addition, travel in time and space is
also influenced by political boundaries (Timothy 2001).
There exist a number of different models and theories of spatial mobility (Greer and
Wall 1979; Pearce 1989; Flognfeldt 1995b; Oppermann 1995; Job 2003), most of them
studying inter-site rather than intra-site mobility. Tourism and mobility have been examined by Leiper (1989), Murphy and Keller (1990), Lue et al. (1993), Flognfeldt
(1995a, 1999, 2005), Lew and McKercher (2002), McKercher and Lew (2004), Lehto
et al. (2004) and Pearce (2005). The authors stress the importance of taking into account that tourism takes place at tourist sites as well as between them. Mobility
in relation to time and space has been studied by Miller (1991), Jansson (1994),
Dietvorst (1995), Frandberg (1998) and Hall (2005a, 2005b), all of them taking their
starting point in Hagerstrands (1973) time geography. Multi-destination trips have
been focused on by Jeng and Fesenmaier (1998), Tideswell and Faulkner (1999,
2002, 2003) and Hwang and Fesenmaier (2003), who declared that it is favourable
for entrepreneurs to identify marketing synergies, as round tours have increased in
importance. However, the question of whether there is a regularity which exists independent of the geography of mobility has not yet been studied.
As en-route tourism is increasing in importance, so is the number of visitors staying at a place on their way to or from another destination. McKercher (2001) and
Flognfeldt (2005) argued that this visitor group does not choose to stop at a destination only because of its range of attractions, but also due to its location in relation
to other tourist sites. However, although tourists may have stopped partly due to
geographical reasons, this does not mean that they have stopped accidentally.
This paper presents a study conducted in 2004, which examined the mobility of
tourists by investigating the travel routes of individual German car-tourists in Sweden.
Due to different patterns, other types of trip were not included. The aim of this survey
is to analyse how tourists move through time and space. The paper posits the question
of how the availability of time influences the travel route. Further, it asks in what way
does the travel route depend on the previous number of visits? Lastly, an analysis is
undertaken to ascertain if individual travel rhythms exist. If so, do they depend on
the distance between home and destination? The reason for choosing German tourists
was that they constitute the largest foreign visitor group in Sweden, as far as multi-day
visitors are concerned (Swedish Tourist Authority 2005).
First, some background information is given concerning mobility in time and space.
Models that are important for tourism mobility are presented, as well as external and
internal limits and influences on time/space mobility according to the emergence
of individual travel rhythms. The methodology used in this research project is also

66 M. Zillinger
discussed. Following this, the results are presented and the paper ends with some
conclusions.
A Theoretical Perspective on Tourist Routes in Time and Space
Models of Spatial Mobility
Models of spatial mobility in tourism have been developed since the 1960s. They focus
on the links between different places and on the relationship between the tourists
origins and their destinations. Most models are independent of each other. Yet, three
topics are taken up in most of them, namely distance decay, spatial hierarchy and
reciprocity.
Whereas Campbell (Pearce 1989) noticed three types of travel (there and back on
the same route; journey to a place and smaller trips from there; round trip), Marriot
(Pearce 1989) asserted that there are three different routes that link the homes of
tourists with their destinations: the access and return route, which may occasionally
but not necessarily coincide, and the recreational route, which provides the traveller
with a range of services. With this approach, Marriot indicated that travelling in some
cases entails more than mere transport, alluding to Clawson and Knetsch (1966), who
identify anticipation, the journey to the tourist site, the on-site experience, the journey
back home and the recollection afterwards as the five phases of a journey. Gunn
(Pearce 1989) suggested a destination trip and a touring trip, and Lue et al. (1993)
distinguished between single destination, en route, base camp, regional tour and tripchaining a concept taken up later by Oppermann (1995). In Lundgrens model of the
spatial hierarchy of tourist flows (Pearce 1989), the functions of individual places and
their tourist flows are identified. The degree of generation versus inflow of tourists
in a region, the relative geographical centrality, attractions and supply are crucial
elements of this model. Flognfeldt (1995a) modified the above models and suggested
five different modes of travel: day trips, resort trips, base holiday trips, round trips
and passing through.
Even if the initial models have been modulated, many of the modifications consist of renaming already existing types. Most models comprise only one transport
mode. Further modifications, combining different kinds of transport modes, would
be helpful. For a more detailed presentation of the models, see Zillinger (2005).
Factors Limiting Theoretical TimeSpace
In the theory of time geography, time and space are regarded as factors that directly
influence the daily structure of life. The basic ideas of time geography were developed
by Hagerstrand (1973), who described timespace restrictions on the activities of
human beings. Pred (1981) and Hall (2005b) have, amongst others, worked with this
concept later.

Tourist Routes: German Car-Tourists in Sweden

67

Time geography highlights both continuity and connectedness of daily events

(projects), which are bounded in time and space (Hagerstrand 1973). These projects
are restricted by a number of constraints that are both spatial and temporal. Due to
capability constraints, spatial mobility is affected by the individuals physical and socioeconomic ability. In relation to travel routes, this implies that tourists cannot drive
continuously without sleep. Coupling constraints comprise social rules, according to
which individuals have to be situated at certain places at certain times. For example, tourists adjust their itineraries to the opening hours of attractions. The arrival
and departure times of ferries also act as constraints. Authority constraints consist of
restrictions that exclude people from certain places at certain times. Even if it is theoretically possible to drive very long distances every day, it is not likely that tourists
will actually do so. It could be argued that routines are transferred from everyday
life to tourists holidays and that a combination of constraints reduces the time spent
travelling every day.
Originally, time geography was developed to describe and explain everyday situations. Up until now, it has rarely been applied to tourism research (Jansson 1994;
Frandberg 1998; Hall 2005a). One explanation for the relative neglect of time geography in tourism could be the difference between holidays and everyday life, because
tourism is said to reverse the conditions which are characteristic of the built-in routines of everyday life. However, it can be assumed that not only are daily activities
constrained by time and space, but holiday trips as well.
There is no even distribution of possibilities when travelling is concerned. Geographically, this means that neither tourists nor tourist destinations are spread evenly
over the Earth. The economic time restriction is spread unevenly, too, which means
that it can be more or less difficult for people to travel, depending on their incomes.
Jansson (1994) analysed the attraction value and the economic time restriction on
tourist travels, and presented how travellers choices are restricted, as the cost of
travel influences the rest of the journey.

Factors Influencing Mobility in Time and Space

The mobility of tourists in time and space is influenced by both external and internal factors. Whereas the external aspects cannot be influenced by the travellers, the
internal factors are connected with the individual tourist.
Regarding external factors, a key factor in determining the course of the tourist
routes is the geography of tourist amenities. It is clear that the existence of an attraction
is fundamental to a journey to that place, whatever the attraction may be. However, the
location of tourist sites relative to other attractions, as well as to the visitors homes,
should not be underestimated. This can be seen easily when comparing the northern
and southern parts of Sweden. While the distances between tourist sites are relatively
short in the south, they tend to be longer in the north.

68 M. Zillinger
McKercher and Lew (2003) analysed the effect of distance decay on international
travel flows and observed an effective tourism exclusion zone (ETEZ) that exists
for multi-day tourists. Market access, mode of transportation, physical accessibility
and destination appeal were found collectively to produce ETEZs around the starting
points of tourists, where little or no tourism activity takes place. At a certain distance
around this zone, a secondary peak of tourism activity was observed. It could be
argued that ETEZs exist when analysing tourism including overnight stays. It is
questionable whether tourism really is excluded here, or whether it is excluded due to
a methodological approach, where day tourists are excluded. Possibly, tourism does
occur, but is not registered, because tourists travel home or to another tourist site
the same day. In those cases, it would appear to be only an ETEZ, because tourism
is not officially registered. Thus, these zones should be called tourism knowledge
exclusion zones (TKEZs), instead.
The existence and quality of infrastructure influences the ability of tourists to reach
tourist sites in a certain amount of time. The few entrance points for German visitors
travelling to Sweden limit travel itineraries to a reduced amount of possibilities close
to the border. The tourists arrival and departure times, too, affect their decisions on
where to stay for the first and the last night in Sweden. Lastly, the location of available
accommodation determines tourist routes, too.
Access to information is crucial for choosing the travel route and the attractions to
visit on the way. There are several forms of information, but ones own experience, the
advice given by friends and relatives, and guidebooks are the most frequent sources of
information. Guidebooks are intensively read especially by the German visitor group,
before as well as during the holiday, and a close relationship between the description
of a tourist region in the guidebooks and actual travel behaviour to this region has
been stated (FUR 2003; Zillinger 2006).
National boundaries constitute another factor that influences mobility (Timothy
2001; Hall 2005a). The border between what is well known on the one hand, and
what is regarded as new and exciting on the other hand, can be assumed to influence
the travel route.
The nationality of tourists has been found to exert an influence on the number of
visited places and attractions (Morrison et al. 1994). Pizam and Sussmann (1995)
found that 18 out of 20 behavioural characteristics could be explained by tourists
nationality. Flognfeldt (1999), however, stated that the nationality does not always
affect the way of travelling as strongly as it is often claimed.
Concerning internal factors, personal motivations have been studied by Pearce
(1989) and Jansson (1994), for example. According to Jansson (1994), there are five
motivations for tourist travels, some of which are overlapping: activities, relaxation,
status, personal motives and sunlust. Some visitors prefer to stay in one place during
major parts of their holidays, possibly going on day trips from there. Others travel
from place to place along a travel route. The number of participants in the travel
group can also influence individual choices, as the members of the travel group show

Tourist Routes: German Car-Tourists in Sweden

69

consideration to each others wishes. In principle, the more time tourists have at their
disposal, the further they can travel. However, what is possible in theory is the case
in practice only rarely, and the reason for this is the existence of constraints. It could
be argued that tourists travel according to a travel rhythm, rather than using all the
time that is at their disposal simply for covering distance.
The number of previous visits also affects mobility. Flognfeldt (1999) has recognised a decreasing mobility pattern, the more often a person has visited the country
in the past. In their study on the effect of prior experience on vacation behaviour,
Lehto et al. (2004) found that past experience also influences activity involvement.
According to them, the destination activity patterns change as a result of previous experience. McKercher (1998) observed that time also affects the choice of attractions.
Repeat visitors tend to avoid tourist spots with a strong market access. This behaviour
should also influence the travel itinerary.
Tourist Routes in Time and Space
The argument in the early part of the paper shows that although it is theoretically
possible to cover long distances during the holiday, this is rarely accomplished due to
the mentioned restrictions. Mobility has been described as an inherent element of the
total trip experience (Chavas et al. 1989). However, the journey has to be considered
as a means of reaching a tourist site. Even for tourists who travel along a chosen
itinerary, the mere act of travelling cannot be considered as attractive, unless it is
combined with tourist activities along the way. People usually want to rest after a day
of travelling. This implies that travel is not only fun, but also strenuous.
Looking at the individual travel route, it should be possible to identify a rhythm
which is noticeable in the mobility of tourists in time and space. Theoretically, these
patterns result in a travel rhythm that involves a combination of mobility and stationariness. Instead of driving continuously during the day, people prefer to travel shorter
distances than they could. The travel rhythm is highly individual, as peoples journeys
can differ due to their choice of attractions and activities, due to travel routes, to the
size of the travel group or to socioeconomic factors.
Mobility and stationariness are supposed to alternate in a rhythmic and reoccurring
way, which holds for both the entire holiday and the individual days. Hereby, this
study relates to Coopers (1980) survey on spatial and temporal patterns, finding that
the patterns change over time. The following factors are assumed to constitute the
individual travel rhythm. First, the trips in the beginning and at the end of a holiday
tend to be longer than the intervening ones, as there is a wish to spend as much time as
possible in the country chosen for ones holidays. Related to this, the border affects the
travel rhythm, making the travellers drive longer distances in their own, and shorter
distances in their destination countries. This implies that mobility is concentrated in
time and that tourists are mobile in order to be able to be stationary for some time.
Secondly, in order to cover great distances on the first days of the tour, the length of

70 M. Zillinger
the first stay-over is shorter than the others. Thirdly, the longer the stay at one place,
the larger is the distance covered the next day travelling. Fourthly, the length of stay
is longest in the region with the largest distance from the travellers homes.
However, it will hardly be possible to identify common rhythms, due to the huge
number of different travel routes and amenity possibilities. A more general travel
rhythm can be observable only where the number of possible routes is low, for example
around the few ferry ports to Sweden.
Methodology
Information about the travel habits of visitors was gathered by analysing travel diaries
which the respondents had updated at least once a day. This is an explorative way of
interpreting the results, trying to discover if travel rhythms exist and what different
travel routes and patterns can look like. The method of using travel diaries has been
employed predominantly in studies concerning everyday travel patterns in peoples
home regions (Axhausen et al. 2002). To a lesser degree, travel diaries have also been
used in tourism studies (Vogt and Andereck 2003).
In a travel diary study, respondents register their travel habits daily. The length of
the diaries used in this study depends on the duration of the respondents holiday in
Sweden. A general problem with this method is that the respondents give their own
appreciation of their daily journeys, which cannot be controlled. Another risk is that
the respondents can tire of writing the diary every day. However, compared with other
methods, travel diaries give a relatively complete reporting (Stopher 1992; Nationwide
Personal Transportation Survey 1995; Tillberg Mattson 2001). An alternative method
would have been to interview German tourists after their holiday in Sweden, which
would have increased the number of respondents. However, the problem with this
method is that the quality of information would have been lower, as people can hardly
remember every trip and activity during their holiday once their vacation is over.
Summing up, the method using travel diaries was chosen because it gives detailed
information about travel routes together with the decisions where, when and why
to stop and about the agenda of the days.
This survey was conducted in the summer of 2004. In order to get access to people
travelling to Sweden by car who might be interested in participating, a cooperation
with the Swedish Travel and Tourism Council was launched. This organization sends
a monthly newsletter with information about Scandinavia to 23,200 German-speaking
people in Germany, Switzerland and Austria.
In April 2004, the newsletter contained a promotion of the study. Readers were
asked if they were going to Sweden by car between 1 June and 31 August 2004, and if
they wanted to take part in the survey. A total of 114 registration forms were sent in via
email. The diaries were tested and revised twice before being sent to the respondents
two weeks prior to their departure for Sweden. Additionally, an email was sent to
the respondents as an aide-memoire four days before they left home. Out of the 114

Tourist Routes: German Car-Tourists in Sweden

71

diaries, 73 were returned after the respondents holidays in Sweden. All respondents
were Germans. The response rate based on the number of people who had registered
for the survey was 64 percent. If one takes the extensive and time-consuming effort
into account, this result can be assumed to be good. The response rate in comparable
studies ranges from 39 percent to 69 percent (Tillberg Mattson 2001).
The diary consisted of four parts. In the introductory part, there were eleven general
questions which had to be answered before the journey. The diary ended with five
questions to be answered after the trip. The middle part consisted of the key diary.
Each day, questions were asked concerning en-route stops, length of trip, roads chosen,
activities and personal comments. The fourth part consisted of a route map of Sweden,
in which the respondents charted their daily itinerary. The geographical data were
analysed with SPSS and Arc View. Thus, the travel rhythm was measured due to
statistical device and geographical coverage. Every day was interpreted as one unit.
The method of selection entails that the persons who received information about
the survey were already interested in Sweden and Scandinavia. This might have
led to a bias in the selection of respondents. However, since the pool of more than
23,000 people was quite big, one can safely assume that the sampling frame was
wide enough. Choosing other methods of contacting prospective participants would
presumably have decreased the number of respondents and would thus have affected
the credibility of the results.
German Tourists Spatial Mobility in Sweden
On average, the travel groups covered a distance of 3,770 km during their tour (5%
trimmed mean). This included the journey from Germany to the Swedish border.
During every week spent in Sweden, the tourists travelled, on average, 500 km.
The Influence of Length of Stay and Number of Visits on the Travel Behaviour
The distance travelled was longest during the first and last day of the journeys, when
the tourists travelled to and from Sweden. This pattern was independent of the length
of their stay. However, apart from these two days, the distance covered by those
staying in the country for up to eight days was considerably higher compared with
the distance covered by those travelling for a longer period of time (Table 1). This
implies that the length of stay influences the daily travel pattern.
For those travelling for more than eight days, there usually was a clear distance
peak on one day of travel in the middle of the journey. A reason for this might be that
travelling becomes more attractive again after some days of rest. Most respondents
were less inclined to travel before setting out for home, which may indicate the wish
to be stationary before driving the long way home. After all, a round tour consists not
only of driving, but also includes time spent at tourist sites. Thus, it can be stated that
time has a noticeable effect on the spatial mobility of tourists. Spending only a short

72 M. Zillinger
Table 1. Average daily travel distances on different days during the tour
Travel distance (km)
Time spent in Sweden (days)

Min

Max

<8
814
1521
>22

250
100
100
100

400
350
350
300

n = 46.

time in Sweden does not mean that only a few places are visited. Regardless of the
time spent in Sweden, the number of places for stay-overs remains about the same.
Instead of visiting fewer places because they have less time at their disposal, tourists
tend to decrease the length of stay at different places. By driving longer distances
every day, the respondents compensate less time with more mobility.
In the study group, 90 percent of the respondents had been to Sweden before, half
of them more than four times. In contrast to Flognfeldts (1999) results, the number
of visits to Sweden did not have any significant influence on the length of the tour,
which is not surprising if one takes the homogeneity of the group into account. While
the number of visits had only little effect on the travel distance, it did have an effect
on the choice of the travel region. The more often a person had been to Sweden
previously, the further northwards s/he tended to travel. This coincides with the fact
that the southern parts of Sweden are better known to the Germans than the north.
Most people who travelled to the northernmost parts of Sweden had been to the
country more than four times before. Also, those who rented a cottage had usually
been to Sweden several times. In contrast to repeat visitors, first-time visitors often
included the bigger cities in their round tours. On a standard itinerary, people travelled
to Gothenburg, around the lake Vanern, and then to Stockholm, from where they went
south again. Both Stockholm and Gothenburg are well known abroad. Thus, it can
be stated that personal knowledge and travel experience in Sweden determine the
journeys of tourists.

The Individual Travel Rhythm

The respondents travelled through Sweden either on a round tour (64%) or they stayed
at one place only, from where they went on day trips (26%, base tourists). In addition,
some tourists travelled along a round tour, but stayed at some places for several days
before moving on (10%). In this study, they were treated as base tourists.
Round tour. Tourists on a round tour visited tourist sites in the whole country. As
can be seen in Figure 1, the tourists drove long distances on their first and last days.

Tourist Routes: German Car-Tourists in Sweden

73

Figure 1. Round tour: average daily travel distance on four days each, in the beginning, in the
middle, and at the end of the journey (n = 46) (note: for those who have travelled less than 12
days, some days are counted twice).

The daily travel distance in the middle of the holiday ranged between 100 km and
200 km. The pattern of travelling longer one day and shorter the next constituted a
clear travel rhythm.
Due to the long shape of the country, the distance travelled can vary considerably.
Consequently, the country was divided into four regions for this study. Region 1
is located in the utmost south (up to the latitude of Jonkoping); Region 2 is situated
between Jonkoping and Gavle. Region 3 reaches northwards to Umea, whereas Region
4 is located even further north (see Figure 2).

Region 1: Southern Sweden

Those travelling in Region 1 usually did so for two weeks. The average number of
lodging places was six, with the time spent at the first destination never being more
than one night. The distances between the lodging sites on the round trips were fairly
similar. In this pattern, there was a difference from those itineraries that reached
the north of Sweden: for them, the longer the distance between the respondents
homes and the Swedish border, the more probable was a stay-over in Denmark. This
situation confirms the assumption that tourists most often do not travel as long as they
theoretically could. Most travellers passed the Swedish border before staying over

74 M. Zillinger
for the first time on their tour. A great part of the respondents chose to spend the first
night in Sweden either directly behind the border or within a short distance from it.
Those who stayed in Denmark during the first night drove longer distances in Sweden
the following day.
The distances between different destinations were relatively even, but there was a
slight tendency for people to travel longer distances after having stayed in one place
for some days. This indicates that a higher level of stationariness is followed by a
higher level of mobility, as the time in which places can be visited is limited and
tourists dislike not going to places they had planned to see. Those who travelled to
a new site every day drove shorter distances. So, while some chose to experience
the surroundings in more detail, others preferred to get an overall picture of southern
Sweden.
Apart from Malmo and Trelleborg, which are entrance points into Sweden, the
bigger towns were not favoured. Many respondents combined places on the coast
with sites in the inland. Also, ferry or bridge routes to and from Sweden were often

combined, indicating that the ferry trip or the crossing of the Oresund
Bridge is seen
as an attraction in itself that is part of the whole trip.
Region 2: Middle Sweden, Southern Part
The respondents spending their time in this region usually travelled between ten and
twenty days. On average, they stayed over at eight different places during this time,
and they typically spent one to three days at each place. The respondents never lodged
at the first site for more than one night, and the location of the first lodging site was
still very frequently close to the entrance point into Sweden. A stay-over in Denmark
was not as usual as it was for those travelling to Region 1.
The distance between the different lodging sites varied considerably and there was
a correlation between the distance covered and the length of the subsequent stay.
This indicates that a tour to a place has to repay in terms of experience. This pattern
can be compared with longer, international tours: the further people travel, the more
time they usually want to spend at the destination. Another pattern that emerged
is that the travellers spent a comparatively long time at the destination which was
furthest away from their homes. Many respondents travelled through the inland of
Region 2, and apparently the rural parts attracted far more travellers than the urban
ones.
Region 3: Middle Sweden, Northern Part
Most of the people who travelled to Region 3 were on the move for three weeks. On
average, nine places were visited for stay-overs, but the range was relatively wide
(616). As in the other regions, the first stay-over in Sweden seldom lasted longer
than one night. In contrast however, the first stay-over was generally not located close

Tourist Routes: German Car-Tourists in Sweden

75

to the border, but further north of the entrance point into Sweden. One pattern is
that the shorter the distance between home and the first lodging site, the shorter the
distance between the first and the second one.
Many people drove relatively long distances the first one or two days of the journey,
trying to get rather far away from their home regions in order to reach, or to get as
close as possible to, their target regions. Thus, the first stay-over can be seen only as a
means to get there. The daily travel-distances were longer on the tour from home and
shorter on the way back. This pattern is opposite to that of the shorter travel routes:
in Regions 1 and 2, the respondents had the tendency to travel shorter distances to
the target place furthest away from home, while the daily distances were longer on
their way back. It is important to mention that the respondents in this group would
have been able to go all the way home within one day. As soon as this was no longer
possible, the pattern turned around, as can be seen with Regions 3 and 4. With tourist
sites being located so far away, the journey to these regions partly becomes a means
of transit. This is also the reason why ferry and bridge routes were not combined by
the respondents travelling to Regions 3 and 4.
The length of stay was longest in the region at the largest distance from the tourists
homes. Either, the respondents stayed at only one place for several days and went on
day trips from there, or they stayed shorter periods of time at different sites that were
located close to each other. Usually, they visited rural areas. The geographical spread
of the respondents was considerable. Of those travelling to Region 3, only few visited
Stockholm, and stop-overs in other cities on the route were also rare.
Region 4: Northern Sweden
Tourists visiting Region 4 usually travelled for three weeks or more. The number
of lodging places varied, but was normally above ten. In comparison with the other
regions, the number of lodging places increased, as both the distance from home and
the length of the holiday did. All respondents passed the direct surroundings of the
entrance point into Sweden and most travelled for one or two more hours before
staying for the night (Figure 2).
Some tourists from the southern parts of Germany stayed over in Denmark, a region
that is well suited for a stay-over on the tour northwards due to its location between
Germany and Sweden. Most of the respondents from the northern parts of Germany
drove a longer distance in Sweden during the first day than those who live further
south of the Swedish border. The fact that most respondents travelling in Region 4
chose not to lodge close to the Swedish border during their first night indicates that the
border itself is less significant for this visitor group than for the respondents touring
in southern Sweden. It is the north of Sweden that is of interest for these travellers,
not Sweden as a whole.
As in Region 3, the distances travelled daily on the way north were rather long.
Many respondents travelled from home to the north of Sweden in five days only,

76 M. Zillinger

Figure 2. Example of the most typical travel rhythms in northern Sweden (combination of
several travel routes).

although they were touring for three weeks or more. Obviously, there was a wish
to overcome as great a distance as possible each day on the way to the most distant
region of the tour. The length of stay south of Stockholm was shorter compared
with the northern region, and the bigger cities were usually avoided. Similarly, the
south-eastern part of Sweden was excluded.
In Region 4 itself, the European Highway 4 (E4) was used as a transport route in
order to get to different tourist sites in a relatively fast way. The respondents did not
stay for more than one night at any one place along the E4. Neither did the cities
on their itineraries attract many people. The inland, however, was a popular region
among the respondents. Many people travelled along the mountains and went on
smaller tours every day, or else they left their vehicle at one place in order to hike
for several days in the mountains. A typical travel pattern is that people travelled
relatively fast on the E4 in one direction, and then more slowly on the Interior Way
in the other direction.
Figure 3 shows the mean travel distance of the first ten days of holiday in Sweden.
At first sight, the four curves are fairly similar: on the first day, the average travel
distance is high, compared with the rest of the holiday. The only difference is the
distance that is actually covered. Compared with respondents heading to Regions 1

Tourist Routes: German Car-Tourists in Sweden

77

Figure 3. Average daily distances to the four Swedish regions (round tour) (n = 46).

and 2, a respondent who intends to travel to the north of Sweden travels around twice
the distance each day.
Another pattern that is similar in all four groups is that the distance dwindles after
the first day. This can be interpreted in the way that once the respondents have reached
Sweden, they do not feel the need to travel such long distances anymore. Generally,
the four curves approach each other the more days the respondents have stayed in
Sweden. Towards the end of this ten day-period, the respondents travel around 100
km a day, apart from those heading for Region 4, who still travel considerably longer
daily distances. Reasons for the relatively long daily travel distances to and in Region
4 are not only the distance from the tourists points of departure in Germany, but also
the distance between different tourist amenities in this part of the country. Still, it is
astonishing that the difference between the daily travel distances is not bigger than
shown.
Base holiday. Most of the base tourists stayed in rented cottages, while only few
lodged in their own houses. It was usual to stay at only one place during the holiday
in Sweden, but occasionally a travel group rented two different cottages, or stayed at
a cottage for one part of the time and went to visit friends or relatives elsewhere.
As can be seen in Figure 4, the base holiday group had shorter daily travel distances
than those who went on a round tour. Furthermore, the variation between long and
short daily travel distances in the middle of the holiday did not exist.
The geographical mobility varied, but most respondents enjoyed going on excursions in the wider neighbourhoods of their bases. Most journeys were up to a total
of 100 km and tours of that length were carried out regularly. The majority of the

78 M. Zillinger

Figure 4. Base holiday: Average daily travel distance on four days each, in the beginning, in
the middle, and at the end of the journey (n=27) (note: for those who have travelled less than
12 days, some days are counted twice).

respondents were relatively immobile during their first and their last days at the
cottage. For many respondents the maximum distance was a total of 400 km per
excursion, and they often went on one or two of these long excursions during each vacation, usually during the second half of the holiday. This result differs from Coopers
(1980) study on base tourists on Jersey, who were found to go on excursions early
during the holiday. No respondent stayed overnight during the excursions; all of them
returned to their cottages again in the evening (Figure 5).
The mobility was not influenced by the length of the stay. Those who rented a
cottage for a shorter period of time were as mobile as those who stayed longer.
Neither did the distance between the cottage and the respondents homes influence
their mobility. Excursions were only slightly longer the further north the cottage was
located. However, most of the respondents in this group came from the northern parts
of Germany, and no cottages were rented in northern Sweden (Region 4) with its long
distance to Germany.
Normally, easily accessible tourist sites were chosen for the excursions. They also
displayed a geographical similarity in that the respondents did not usually go on
excursions in the direction from which they had originally come. If possible, tourists
seem to avoid taking the same road twice. When they travel to another place by car,
they usually do so either to enjoy nature or to visit attractions or towns.

Tourist Routes: German Car-Tourists in Sweden

79

Figure 5. Example of the spatial mobility of base tourists (Region 3).

Conclusions
This study has focused on the mobility of tourists in time and space. It has been
shown that tourists follow evident mobility rhythms. These patterns are influenced
not only by the tourist sites themselves, but also by their relative location to other
sites, their distance to the tourists homes and by the overall time the tourists stay in
Sweden. Thus, a complex connection between time, space and tourist mobility has
been affirmed. The use of time geography in this study has been shown to be helpful,
and its use in other tourism-related analyses is encouraged.
The three research questions raised at the beginning of this paper can be answered
as follows: To begin with, the availability of time does influence the travel route in that
a shorter stay in Sweden is compensated by longer daily travel distances. Secondly,
the number of previous visits does not influence the travel route directly in itself, but
it does play a role for the location of the travel region.
Thirdly, a travel rhythm has indeed been found to exist in the group under investigation. One feature of this rhythm is that tourists cover the longest distance during their
first day, shorter distances while in the target country, and a slightly shorter distance
on their last day than on their first day. Furthermore, the longer the respondents stay in
Sweden, the less they travel on average per day. This means that, while space hardly
affects the daily travel rhythm, time does. Being on the move is surely an important

80 M. Zillinger
part of the holiday experience for travellers, but it is important to note that tourists
are mobile in order to then be static at some place. Driving to different places would
not make sense if tourists were not able to gain personal experience there. Another
feature of the travel rhythm is that the stay in the region which is situated the longest
distance from home is usually the longest stay during the holiday. Finally, the level
of mobility gets higher the longer tourists have stayed in one place.
Tourism does not occur randomly. Neither do tourists choose and combine different tourist sites accidentally. The various possibilities are mixed according to the
visitors location in space, their preferences and feasible opportunities. Contrary to
what many entrepreneurs think, different tourist amenities are seen as interrelated by
the tourists, which is a contributing factor when it comes to combining some attractions on a travel route while disregarding others. Thus, the location in space is truly
of importance for the demand side in tourism. Knowledge about the behaviour of
tourists in time and space strongly contributes to the awareness of mutual connections between different tourist sites. In this way, studies on the behaviour of tourists
in time and space can also improve the awareness of the strengths and limitations of a
destination.
This study is of an exploratory kind and needs to be compared with other surveys,
conducted with both national and international tourists. The typologies that have been
found in this study can be used as a point of departure for other research projects.
Topics for such studies could focus on more densely populated countries, or compare the travel rhythms of travel groups with different socio-economic backgrounds.
In order to gain a deeper knowledge, it would be advantageous to use as well an
inter-disciplinary approach, where disciplines such as geography, psychology and
economics could be combined, and an intra-disciplinary line, where questions from
the different fields within tourism are included.
References
Axhausen, K. W., Zimmermann, A., Schonfelder, S., Rindfuser, G., & Haupt, T. (2002) Observing the
rhythms of daily life: a six-week travel diary, Transportation, 29, pp. 95124.
Chavas, J. P., Stoll, J., & Sellar, C. (1989) On the commodity value of travel time and recreational activities,
Applied Economics, 21, pp. 711722.
Clawson, M. & Knetsch, J. L. (1966) Economics of outdoor recreation (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press).
Cooper, C. P. (1980) Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Tourist Behaviour, Regional Studies, 15(5), pp.
359370.
Dietvorst, G. J. (1995) Tourist behaviour and the importance of timespace analysis, in: G. J. Ashworth &
A. G. J. Dietvorst (Eds) Tourism and Spatial Transformations, pp. 163181 (Oxon: CAB International).
Flognfeldt, T. (1995a) Areal sted og reiserute (Oslo: Fagbokforlaget).
Flognfeldt, T. (1995b) Reiselivsgeografi (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget).
Flognfeldt, T. (1999) Traveler geographic origin and market segmentation: The multi trips destination case,
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8(1), pp. 111124.
Flognfeldt, T. (2005) The Tourist Route System Models of Travelling Patterns, BELGEO, 12, pp. 35
58.

Tourist Routes: German Car-Tourists in Sweden

81

Frandberg, L. (1998) Distance matters. An inquiry into the relation between transport and environmental
sustainability in tourism (Gothenburg: School of Business, Economics and Law, Department of
Human and Economic Geography).
FUR (Forschungsgemeinschaft Urlaub und Reisen e.V.) (2003) Informationsquellen und Internetbenutzung
(Kiel/Hamburg: FUR).
Greer, T. & Wall, G. (1979) Recreational hinterlands: a theoretical and empirical analysis, in: G. Wall (Ed.)
Recreational Land Use in Southern Ontario, pp. 227245 (University of Waterloo: Department of
Geography Publication Series no. 14).
Hagerstrand, T. (1973) The domain of human geography, in R. J. Chorley (Ed.) Directions in Geography,
pp. 6787 (London: Methuen).
Hall, C. M. (2005a) Reconsidering the geography of tourism and contemporary mobility. Unpublished
paper, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Hall, C. M. (2005b) Tourism. Rethinking the social science of mobility (Harlow: Pearson/Prentice Hall).
Hwang, Y. & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2003) Multidestination pleasure travel patterns: empirical evidence from
the American travel survey. Journal of Travel Research, 42, pp. 166171.
Jansson, B. (1994) Borta bra men hemma bast. Svenskars turistresor i Sverige under sommaren (Umea
University: Department of Social and Economic Geography).
Jeng, J. M. & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1998) Destination compatibility in multidestination pleasure travel,
Tourism Analysis, 3, pp. 7787.
Job, H. (2003) Reisestile: Modell des raumzeitlichen Verhaltens von Reisenden, Tourismus Journal, 7(3),
pp. 355376.
Lehto, X. Y., OLeary, J. T., & Morrison, A. M. (2004) The effect of prior experience on vacation behaviour,
Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), pp. 801818.
Leiper, N. (1989) Main destination ratios. Analyses of tourist flows, Annals of Tourism Research, 16(4),
pp. 530541.
Lew, A. A. & McKercher, B. (2002) Trip destinations, gateways and itineraries: The example of Hong
Kong, Tourism Management, 23(6), pp. 609621.
Lue, C. C., Crompton, J. L. & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1993) Conceptualization of multidestination pleasure
trips, Annals of Tourism Research, 20, pp. 289301.
McKercher, B. (1998) The effect of market access on destination choice, Journal of Travel Research, 37,
pp. 3947.
McKercher, B. (2001) A comparison of main-destination visitors and through travelers at a dual-purpose
destination, Journal of Travel Research, 39, pp. 433441.
McKercher, B. & Lew, A. A. (2003) Distance decay and the impact of effective tourism exclusion zones
on international travel flows, Journal of Travel Research, 42, pp. 159165.
McKercher, B. & Lew, A. A. (2004) Tourist flows and the spatial distribution of tourists, in: A. A. Lew,
C. M. Hall, & A. M. Williams (Eds) A Companion to Tourism, pp. 3648 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Miller, H. J. (1991) Modelling accessibility using timespace prism concepts within geographical information systems, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5(3), pp. 287
301.
Morrison, A. M., Hsieh, S., & OLeary, J. (1994) A comparison of the travel arrangements of international
travelers from France, Germany and the UK, Tourism Management, 15(6), pp. 451463.
Murphy, P. E. & Keller, C. P. (1990) Destination travel patterns: An examination and modeling of tourist
patterns on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Leisure Sciences, 12(1), pp. 4965.
Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (1995), available at http://npts.ornl.gov/npts/1995/
courseware/DataCollection Nav3 6 20.html (accessed 1 July 2005).
Oppermann, M. (1995) A model of travel itineraries, Journal of Travel Research, 33, pp. 5761.
Pearce, D. (1989) Tourist Development (Harlow: Longman).
Pearce, P. L. (2005) Tourist Behaviour: Themes and Conceptual Schemes (Clevedon: Channel View Publication).

82 M. Zillinger
Pizam, A. & Sussmann, S. (1995) Does nationality affect tourist behavior?, Annals of Tourism Research,
22(4), pp. 901917.
Pred, A. (1981) Social reproduction and the time-geography of everyday life, Geografiska Annaler, 63B,
pp. 522.
Stopher, P. R. (1992) Use of activity-based diary to collect household travel data, Transportation, 19, pp.
159176.
Swedish Tourist Authority (2005) Fakta om svensk turism 2005 (Stockholm: Swedish Tourist Authority).
Tideswell, C. & Faulkner, B. (1999) Multidestination travel patterns of international visitors to Queensland,
Journal of Travel Research, 37, pp. 364374.
Tideswell, C. & Faulkner, B. (2002) Multi-destination tourist travel: some preliminary findings on international visitors exploration of Australia, Tourism, 50(2), pp. 115130.
Tideswell, C. & Faulkner, B. (2003) Identifying antecedent factors to the travelers pursuit of a multidestination travel itinerary, Tourism Analysis, 7, pp. 170190.
Tillberg Mattson, K. (2001) Barnfamiljers dagliga fritidsresor i bilsamhallet: ett tidspussel med geografiska
och konsmassiga variationer (Uppsala University: Department of Social and Economic Geography).
Timothy, D. J. (2001) Tourism and political boundaries (London: Routledge).
Vogt, C. A. & Andereck, K. L. (2003) Destination perception across a vacation, Journal of Travel Research,
41, pp. 348354.

Zillinger, M. (2005) A spatial approach on tourists travel routes in Sweden (Ostersund:

Etour).
Zillinger, M. (2006) The importance of guide books for destination choice. A study of German tourists in
Sweden, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6(3), pp. 229247.

Notes on Contributor
Malin Zillinger is a lecturer and PhD Student at the University of Umea, Sweden,
and works at the Department of Social and Economic Geography. She is also affiliated

with the MidSweden University in Ostersund,

Sweden.
Resume: Itineraires touristiques dallemands qui voyagent en Su`ede en voiture:
une approche par la geographique du temps
Le tourisme est souvent considere comme un sujet detude invariable. Pourtant, la mobilite est
un e lement important du syst`eme touristique. Larticle argumente que les touristes suivent un
rythme de voyage individuel qui peut e tre defini comme un mod`ele auquel les touristes sont attaches, independamment des sites qui sont visites. On a decouvert que les touristes voyagent sur
les plus longues distances le premier et le dernier jour de leurs vacances, que la mobilite ainsi
que la sedentarite sont concentrees temporellement et que les touristes qui suivent un circuit passent
le plus de temps dans la region la plus e loignee de chez eux. Larticle conclut quil existe un rythme
de voyage qui nest que partiellement influence par la duree du sejour a` la destination et le nombre
de visites anterieures. La theorie a` laquelle on a eu recours est celle de la geographie du temps et
nous encourageons son utilisation dans dautres e tudes du tourisme.

Mots-cles: Itineraire, mobilite, Su`ede, journal de voyage, rythme de voyage

Zusammenfassung: Touristische Reiserouten: Ein zeit-raumlicher Ansatz zu

deutschen Pkw-Touristen in Schweden
Tourismus wird oft analysiert, als handele es sich um ein statisches Untersuchungsgebiet. Mobilitat
macht jedoch einen erheblichen Bestandteil des Tourismussystems aus. Dieser Beitrag vertritt die

Tourist Routes: German Car-Tourists in Sweden

83

Ansicht, dass touristisches Mobilitatsverhalten einem individuellen Reiserhythmus folgt. Dieser Reiserhythmus kann als Mobilitatsmuster definiert werden, dem Touristen unabhangig von den besuchten touristischen Anlaufpunkten folgen. Die Resultate dieses Beitrags zeigen, dass die langsten
Tagesstrecken auf den ersten und letzten Reisetag fallen, dass Mobilitat und Immobilitat zeitlich
konzentriert sind und dass Rundreisetouristen die meiste Zeit in derjenigen Region verbringen, die
die grote Entfernung zu ihrer Heimatregion aufweist. Der Beitrag folgert, dass ein Reiserhythmus existiert und dass dieser nur teilweise von der Zeit, die die Touristen im Zielgebiet verbringen
sowie von der Anzahl fruherer

Besuche beeinflusst wird. Als zu Grunde liegende Theorie wurde

Zeitgeographie angewandt. Deren Gebrauch kann fur
zukunftige

Untersuchungen im Tourismus
empfohlen werden.

Stichworter: Mobilitat, Reiseroute, Reisetagebuch, Reiserhythmus, Schweden