Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
A fi nal observation from the comparison was that smartphone users take more trips per year
for both business and leisure purposes. More than 20 per cent of smartphone users take more
than 12 business trips per year while less than 10 per cent of non-users do. However, in the
leisure category, where we might expect a higher incidence of travel amongst the older age
group, we also noted a higher frequency of leisure trips amongst smartphone owners. Around
25 per cent of smartphone users take more than nine trips for leisure compared to only
5 per cent of non-users. Therefore, whilst the limitations concerning the skewed dataset towards
older people amongst non-users may have an impact on the fi ndings, it does appear that in
general smartphone users can be characterized as more frequent travellers with a greater reliance
on online services and who use the Internet more frequently for all types of activity including
travel-related information and purchases.
This fi nding has some correspondence with previous studies. Chircu, Keskey and Kauffman's
(2001) work for example revealed that frequent travellers use online booking features with less
cognitive effort than infrequent travellers. They reported differences in usage preferences, for
example they found that frequent travellers are more likely to use online booking services.
Similarly, Tan, Fu, Goh and Theng (2007) found that less frequent travellers felt that information
about the destination was more important than frequent travellers, whereas frequent travellers
felt that maps and directional guides were more important. This suggests there are differences in
the types of information and online experiences sought between smartphone users and non-
users, or perhaps that the drivers of behaviour associated with different types of trips (business or
leisure) lead to different levels of engagement with Internet technology and mobile applications.
Smartphone use in tourism now and in the future
In order to fi nd out what kinds of activities are undertaken in general in tourism related contexts,
respondents were asked to select amongst a range of activities (search for information, purchase
tours, transport and accommodation, purchase tickets for events, fi nd out what's on, get live
reports on traffi c, get live information on the weather forecast and E check-in). The most cited
activities were
search for information
(n=164),
purchase tours, transport and accommodation
(n=164)
and
fi nd out what's on
(n=146). And among different channels (tourist information centre,
smartphone, Internet via a hotel or café and other), most respondents accessed the Internet for
these activities from their hotel or café (but note that 22 per cent of the respondents owned a
smartphone). For those who own a smartphone, the most common activities were
to get live
information on the weather forecast
(n=46) followed by
to get live reports on traffi c
(n=38) and
search for
information for planning
(n=24). Therefore smartphones (as well as the wider Internet) are used
most frequently to serve functional, information needs, rather than to enrich the experience
of travel itself.
Finally, non-smartphone users were asked if they were considering purchasing a smartphone
in the future (in a range of time categories). The respondents who confi rmed that they were
considering a purchase, together with current users, were asked how likely they would be to use
the range of smartphone applications as for the previous question, in the future. A total of
253 respondents answered this question. Again, the most likely useful types of applications were
(n=number ticking very likely and somewhat likely)
directional services
(n=198), followed by
transport planning
(n=148),
accommodation planning
(n=137) and
tourist assistance applications
(n=130). However, future users (those considering a smartphone purchase) also highlighted the
potential for behaviourally relevant applications such as
travel planning
,
tour guide
and
attraction
applications,
in the future, which were all signifi cant in tests of signifi cance (p<0.05).
