2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study

i

2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study

Conducted by:

Jason Draper, Ph.D. (Principal Investigator) and

Jiaping (Bailey) Bai

University of Houston

Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management

May 2011

Project funded by the Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau and

Austin Convention Center Department

i

i

Acknowledgments

The research team would like to thank the Austin Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and

Austin Convention Center for funding this study. Margo Richards and Jennifer Walker of the

Austin CVB were extremely helpful with providing feedback throughout the study, especially

during questionnaire development. Finally, we would like to thank the more than 600

respondents who took the time to respond to the online questionnaire and provide valuable

feedback to the Austin CVB.

Research team:

Jason Draper, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor



229 C. N. Hilton Hotel & College

Houston, TX 77204-3028

[email protected]

(713) 743-2416

Jiaping “Bailey” Bai

Graduate Student



This research was done by University of Houston in accordance with the guidelines and

standards of the University Standard Research Agreement. The results of this study in no way

express the promotion of the outcome by the University of Houston.

mailto:[email protected]

i



Conrad N. Hilton College

i

Executive Summary

During the spring of 2011 the University of Houston’s Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant

Management conducted a visitor inquiry study for the Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau

(CVB). The study was conducted online by sending email requests to inquirers of the Austin

CVB who requested the Official Visitors Guide to Austin or signed up to receive the Austin

Insider’s Club: eNews over the past 2 years. A total of 627 questionnaires were completed. Of

the inquirers who completed a questionnaire, 48.5% indicated they visited Austin in the past 2

years, 17.2% had not visited, and 34.3% were local area residents.

Of the respondents who visited Austin in the past 2 years, most visited multiple times. The area

of Austin visitors indicated they most like to visit is the Downtown/Capitol area. The most

popular primary purpose for visiting Austin was pleasure/vacation, but additional interest in

visiting Austin included the live music and culture/history. Most of the visits to Austin were

overnight trips and typically visitors stayed in a hotel/motel. Visitors indicated the Austin CVB

website and Official Visitors Guide to Austin were important sources of information for both

planning and during their trip to Austin. Visitors were highly satisfied with their most recent

visit to Austin and indicated high levels of likelihood to both visit again and recommend their

friends and/or relatives visit Austin.

Respondents who did not visit Austin in the past 2 years also had positive images of Austin as a

travel destination and indicated they are likely to visit in the next 2 years. For respondents who

have not yet visited Austin, some of the important sources of information for them to learn about

Austin as a destination were the Austin CVB website, friends, and the Official Visitors Guide to

Austin. This group of respondents indicated the Downtown/Capitol area of Austin is the area

they would most like to visit in the future.

Visitors, non-visitors, and residents all generally had favorable images of Austin as a travel

destination. However, a series of comparisons on the images of Austin as a travel destination

were conducted between the groups of inquirers to examine any differences that may exist.

There was a consensus between the groups of respondents that Austin is a destination for

entertainment and special events. The groups were significantly different in their level of

agreement with Austin as a destination for a weekend getaway, with residents having the highest

level of agreement, followed by visitors and then respondents who have not visited Austin in the

past 2 years. Similar results were found for the level of agreement with Austin being a day trip

destination.

Although all respondents generally agreed with going to Austin to enjoy live music, residents

had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to both visitors and non-visitors. The

same results were found with Austin being a destination to enjoy nightlife. Inherently, visitors

and residents have better knowledge of what Austin offers travelers compared to non-visitors.

The result for Austin being a destination where visitors can enjoy a wide variety of food reflects

this knowledge with visitors and residents having significantly higher levels of agreement

compared to respondents who have not visited. A similar pattern in the results was revealed for




ii

Austin being a destination with great natural scenery/landscape and being a destination that does

not require a lot of pre-planning.

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of adjectives and

phrases to describe Austin as a travel destination. For a number of adjectives and phrases

visitors, non-visitors, and residents had significantly different levels of agreement with residents

having the highest levels of agreement, followed by visitors and then non-visitors. Examples of

adjectives and phrases where all three groups were significantly different with residents having

the highest levels of agreement, followed by visitors and then non-visitors included creative,

eclectic, friendly, outdoorsy, environmentally friendly, intelligent, unlike the rest of Texas,

weird, and family oriented.

Results of this study were compared to a 2003 visitor inquiry study (conducted by Behavior

Research Center, Inc.) and recent qualitative study (conducted by Fire Studios, 2010). In 2003,

75.0% of visitors agreed Austin is a great destination to enjoy live music. The percentage of

visitors that agreed or strongly agreed Austin is a destination to enjoy live music in this study

increased to 94.2%. The recent qualitative study and this study both indicated friends and

editorials were important sources of information in the decision to visit Austin. Both studies also

revealed visitors think Austin is a unique destination. For example, visitors in the qualitative

study used phrases such as “western chic”, “hip”, and “just the right amount of Texas friendly

southern culture” to describe Austin. In this study visitors had very high levels of agreement that

Austin is creative and eclectic.

In sum, visitors, non-visitors, and local residents had favorable images of Austin as a travel

destination, especially regarding the promotion of Austin as the “Live Music Capital of the

World®” and nightlife. Not only did Austin being a live music scene result in a large increase in

terms of agreement by visitors from 2003 to the current study, but was a unique characteristic

that appealed to all groups of inquirers, including respondents who have not visited Austin and

experienced the live music scene. A related characteristic of Austin that appealed to all groups

was the nightlife. Austin appears to have a unique image in the minds of visitors, as well as

inquirers who have not yet visited.




iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ i

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... viii

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

Study Purpose ............................................................................................................... 1

Report Outline ............................................................................................................... 1

Research Design and Methods ............................................................................................ 2

Sample........................................................................................................................... 2

Questionnaire Design .................................................................................................... 3

Online/Email Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 3

Pilot Test ....................................................................................................................... 4

Main Study .................................................................................................................... 4

Results ................................................................................................................................. 7

Type of Inquirer ............................................................................................................ 8

Sample Demographics .................................................................................................. 8

Visitor Inquirers ............................................................................................................ 11

Non-Visitor Inquirers .................................................................................................... 31

Resident Inquirers ......................................................................................................... 41

Comparisons of Inquirers .............................................................................................. 50

Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 65

References ........................................................................................................................... 68

Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 69

Appendix A: Cover Letters ........................................................................................... 70

Appendix B: Questionnaire........................................................................................... 76

Appendix C: Social Media, Mobile Apps, and Other Websites Used to Find

Out About Austin ..................................................................................... 109

Appendix D: Reason for Ranking Area of Austin to Visit as the Number

One Area .................................................................................................. 118

Appendix E: Visitors’ and Residents’ Explanations of Why Travelers Should

Visit Austin .............................................................................................. 156

Appendix F: Non-Visitor Inquirers Explanation for Not Visiting Since Inquiring ...... 175

Appendix G: Other Destinations that Come to Mind When Thinking About

Taking a Trip............................................................................................ 180

Appendix H: Other Thoughts About Austin ................................................................. 192




iv

List of Tables

Table 1: Frequency Distribution by Type of Inquirer ......................................................... 8

Table 2: Frequency Distribution for Demographics ........................................................... 9

Table 3: Frequency Distribution for Number of Times Visiting Austin in Past 2 Years ... 11

Table 4: Frequency Distribution for Importance of Sources of Information for Visitors

Deciding to Visit ................................................................................................... 12

Table 5: Frequency Distribution for Visitors Rankings of Top Areas They Like to

Visit in Austin ...................................................................................................... 14

Table 6: Frequency Distribution for Knowledge of Austin Prior to Most Recent Visit ..... 14

Table 7: Frequency Distribution for Approximate Number of Days in Advance for

Trip Decision ....................................................................................................... 15

Table 8: Frequency Distribution for Primary Purpose and Additional Interests or Reasons

for Visiting Austin ................................................................................................ 15

Table 9: Frequency Distribution for Travel Party and Size ................................................ 16

Table 10: Frequency Distribution for Day and Overnight Trip .......................................... 17

Table 11: Frequency Distribution for Overnight Trip Characteristics ................................ 17

Table 12: Frequency Distribution for Transportation To and Around Austin .................... 18

Table 13: Frequency Distribution for Satisfaction with Most Recent Visit ....................... 19

Table 14: Frequency Distribution for Usefulness of Resources While Planning Visit

to Austin ............................................................................................................. 20

Table 15: Frequency Distribution for Usefulness of Resources During Visit to Austin .... 20

Table 16: Comparison of Usefulness of Resources While Planning and During Visit

to Austin ............................................................................................................. 21

Table 17: Frequency Distribution for Overall Satisfaction with Most Recent Visit to

Austin ................................................................................................................ 22

Table 18: Frequency Distribution for Likelihood of Visiting Again and Recommending to

Friends/Relatives ................................................................................................ 22




v

Table 19: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin during

Four Seasons ....................................................................................................... 23

Table 20: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for

Various Types of Trips ....................................................................................... 23

Table 21: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for

Various Types of Activities ................................................................................ 24

Table 22: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Various Attributes

of Austin ............................................................................................................. 25

Table 23: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Adjectives to

Describe Austin .................................................................................................. 27

Table 24: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Emotional Solidarity

with Austin Residents ......................................................................................... 28

Table 25: Per Party Per Day Spending by Overnight Visitors............................................ 29

Table 26: Visitors’ Travel Experience in the Past 2 Years ................................................. 29

Table 27: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Tourism Destinations .... 30

Table 28: Non-Visitors’ Likelihood of Visiting Austin in the Next 2 Years...................... 31

Table 29: Frequency Distribution for Importance of Sources of Information for

Non-Visitors Deciding to Visit ........................................................................... 31

Table 30: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors Rankings of Top Areas They

would Like to Visit in Austin in the Future........................................................ 34

Table 31: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin

during Four Seasons ........................................................................................... 34


for Various Types of Trips ................................................................................. 35


for Various Types of Activities .......................................................................... 36

Table 34: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Various

Attributes of Austin ............................................................................................ 37




vi

Table 35: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Adjectives to

Describe Austin .................................................................................................. 38

Table 36: Non-Visitors’ Travel Experience in the Past 2 Years ......................................... 39

Table 37: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Tourism

Destinations ........................................................................................................ 40

Table 38: Frequency Distribution for Top Areas Residents Would Recommend

Visitors Go ......................................................................................................... 42

Table 39: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Visiting Austin

during Four Seasons ........................................................................................... 42

Table 40: Frequency Distribution for Resident’s Agreement with Visiting Austin

for Various Types of Trips ................................................................................. 43

Table 41: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Visiting Austin

for Various Types of Activities .......................................................................... 44

Table 42: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Various Attributes

of Austin ............................................................................................................. 45

Table 43: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Adjectives to

Describe Austin .................................................................................................. 46

Table 44: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Emotional Solidarity

with Austin Visitors ............................................................................................ 48

Table 45: Residents’ Travel Experience in the Past 2 Years .............................................. 49

Table 46: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Tourism

Destinations ....................................................................................................... 49

Table 47: Comparison of Inquirers on Areas to Visit in Austin ......................................... 50

Table 48: Comparison of Inquirers on Seasons to Visit Austin.......................................... 51

Table 49: Comparison of Inquirers on Types of Trips to Austin ........................................ 52

Table 50: Comparison of Inquirers on Types of Activities to do in Austin ....................... 54

Table 51: Comparison of Inquirers on Various Attributes of Austin ................................. 57

Table 52: Comparison of Inquirers on Adjectives to Describe Austin ............................... 60




vii

Table 53: Comparison of Inquirers on Destinations to Visit .............................................. 63




viii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of the Origin of Austin CVB Inquirers ....................................................... 2

Figure 2: Map of the Origin of Austin CVB Inquirers in North America .......................... 3

Figure 3: Map of the Origin of All Respondents ................................................................ 5

Figure 4: Map of the Origin of Respondents Who Visited Austin in the Past 2 Years ...... 6

Figure 5: Map of the Origin of Respondents Who did not Visit Austin in the Past

2 Years ................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 6: Map of Austin for Ranking Top Areas Visitors Like to Visit ............................. 13

Figure 7: Map of Austin for Ranking Top Areas Non-Visitors Would Like to Visit ......... 33

Figure 8: Map of Austin for Ranking Top Areas Residents Would Recommend

Visitors Go ........................................................................................................... 41




1

Introduction

A key role of destination marketing organizations (DMOs) such as convention and visitor

bureaus (CVBs) is to market the destination to various segments of travelers. Inherently, to

market and promote a destination effectively DMOs require an understanding of the

characteristics of their visitors and potential visitors, their images or perceptions of the

destination, as well as trip characteristics of actual visitors.

Both visitors and potential visitors’ images or perceptions of a destination are important for

CVBs to assess. As a destination, one of the biggest challenges is to identify how to effectively

position the destination (Echtner & Ritchie, 2003). Molina, Gomez, and Martin-Consuegra

(2010) suggest destination images are a critical component for successful marketing and

management in tourism. The images visitors and non-visitors have of a destination are important

for tourism marketing and management agencies to understand in order to identify if the intended

message is being received. In addition, it is important to determine if visitors and non-visitors

have different images of a destination. Destination images can change over time and it is

important for a destination to have a current assessment of the images both visitors and non-

visitors have of the respective destination. The last visitor inquiry study conducted for the

Austin CVB was in 2003 by the Behavior Research Center, Inc.

Study Purpose

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the images of Austin as a travel destination.

Image items and phrases that reflect what visitor and non-visitor inquirers might think of when

they think of Austin were developed during the questionnaire development phase of the study.

Another important component of this study was to test for differences of the images of Austin as

a destination between different types of inquirers of the Austin CVB (i.e., those who visited,

those who did not, and Austin area residents). In addition to the primary purpose of the study,

inquirers who indicated they visited Austin in the past two years were asked about trip

characteristics of their most recent visit.

Report Outline

The remainder of this report includes three main sections. The research design and methods

section describes the sample used to conduct the study, questionnaire design, pilot test, and how

the main part of the study was conducted. Next, the results of the study are presented, including

demographic information, descriptive statistics for the questions asked of each group, and

comparisons of the three groups for similar questions asked of all three types of inquirers. The

main portion of the report concludes with a discussion of the findings. The appendices include

the cover letters (Appendix A) sent to the sample, the final questionnaire (Appendix B), and

responses to the open ended questions asked in the study (Appendix C thru H).




2

Research Design and Methods

Sample

Participants for this study consisted of inquirers of the Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau.

Inquiries were made to receive the Official Visitors Guide to Austin and/or sign up to receive the

Austin Insiders Club: eNews on the Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau website

(www.austintexas.org). The study limited the inquirers included in the sample to those who

made an inquiry in the past two years and provided an email address (n = 4,619). The list did not

provide an indicator of who visited and who did not visit Austin. The list included a sizeable

amount of Austin area residents that were included in the sample. The zip codes provided for

inquirers were mapped to provide an overview of where the inquirers live (Figure 1). As shown,

inquirers lived throughout the world, but most lived in the United States.

Figure 1: Map of the Origin of Austin CVB Inquirers

To generate a better image of inquirers who resided in North America another map was

generated (Figure 2). There was a heavy concentration of inquirers in the east part of Texas, as

well as along the east coast of the United States. California and Florida also appeared to have

large numbers of inquirers of the Austin CVB.

http://www.austintexas.org/




3

Figure 2: Map of the Origin of Austin CVB Inquirers in North America

Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire for this study was developed by the University of Houston research team after

preliminary meetings with the Austin CVB. At several stages during the project the

questionnaire was reviewed by the Austin CVB for feedback to ensure approval of the questions.

The destination image section of the questionnaire was developed by reviewing contents of the

Official Visitors Guide to Austin, the Austin CVB website (www.austintexas.org), Facebook,

Google searches, and informal discussions with people who both visited and did not visit Austin.

A number of questions asked respondents to rate items on a Likert-type scale (e.g., level of

agreement measured by 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). The questionnaire can be

found in Appendix B.

Online/Email Questionnaire

This study used an online data collection method whereby inquirers were sent a series of emails

(explained in more detail later) to recruit participation in the study. Prior to the pilot test and

subsequent main study data collection, the online questionnaire was programmed and tested.

The questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics, an online survey software program. Once

programmed, the research team sent emails to a group of individuals at the Austin CVB and

Austin Convention Center Department, who sponsored the study. The purpose of this phase of

the study was to internally test the online questionnaire and make any necessary modifications

prior to sending to the list of inquirers for the pilot test and main study.





4

Pilot Test

A pilot test was conducted in order to replicate a portion of the methods used for the full study.

A random sample of 200 email addresses was drawn from the full sample provided by the Austin

CVB to conduct the pilot test. The purpose of the pilot test was to ensure the system was

working properly, estimate a response rate, and determine if any modifications to the

questionnaire and/or data collection process were needed. Pilot testing also helps ensure clarity

of the questions and acceptability (Rea & Parker, 2005). Acceptability includes assessing the

length of the questionnaire by identifying if there are too many participants who do not complete

it in its entirety. In order to encourage completion of the questionnaire two incentives were

included. First, the first 400 respondents who completed the questionnaire and provided an

email address as the last item received free Austin music download cards. Second, a drawing

was included for the Austin Rock Star Weekend. These incentives were included in the pilot test

in order replicate how the main data collection procedures were conducted.

The first email for the pilot test was sent on the afternoon of Friday, April 1, 2011. As of Sunday

in the early afternoon seven people had begun the survey and five completed the online

questionnaire. A reminder was programmed and sent shortly before 1:30pm on Sunday, April 3rd

and remained active through the morning of Monday, April 4, 2011. The pilot test responses

were only used to determine if changes needed to be made to the questionnaire and data

collection procedures. Responses to the pilot test were not included in any data analysis for this

report.

Main Study

A modified Dillman (2009) method that included multiple contacts (n = 3) was used to collect

data for this study. The remaining 4,419 email addresses provided by the Austin CVB were sent

an email introducing the study, its purpose, incentives, rights as participants, and a unique link to

the online questionnaire on Monday, April 4, 2011. The unique link provided a way for follow-

up or reminder emails to be sent to those who had not completed the online questionnaire at the

time of subsequent reminder emails. The first reminder email was sent Thursday, April, 7, 2011.

The final reminder was sent on Monday, April 11, 2011. The cover letters from the body of the

emails sent to the sample can be found in Appendix A.

The final questionnaire (found in Appendix B) was sent to 4,419 inquirers for the main portion

of this study. Twenty email addresses returned a message indicating the email was

undeliverable, the potential respondent was out of the office or no longer with the company, the

person no longer uses the email account, the email account currently is not accepting emails

because the capacity was exceeded, or there was a filter blocking it from reaching the person.

Once these 20 potential respondents were subtracted from the sample size of 4,419, the total of

627 usable questionnaires resulted in a net or effective response rate of 14.25%.

Respondents were asked to provide their zip code at the beginning of the demographics

questions. Figure 3 displays pushpins representing the origin of respondents who provided a zip

code. Figure 4 displays the origin of respondents who visited Austin in the past 2 years. Figure

5 displays the origin of respondents who did not visit Austin in the past 2 years.




5

Figure 3: Map of the Origin of All Respondents




6

Figure 4: Map of the Origin of Respondents Who Visited Austin in the Past 2 Years




7

Figure 5: Map of the Origin of Respondents Who did not Visit in the Past 2 Years

Results

This section includes the descriptive results of this study, as well as statistical comparisons of

inquirer groups for the images of Austin as a travel destination. Results are presented by a

summary followed by a table that includes results for each variable included in the study. The

results begin with the branching question that asked what type of inquirer (i.e., visited Austin in

past 2 years, NOT visited Austin in past 2 years, local area resident) best describes the

respondents. Then, the demographic characteristics of the three groups are presented. The

results of the rest of the questions asked of each group are then presented in the following order:

visitors, non-visitors, and residents. The results section concludes with a section that statistically

compares the three groups for items asked of all three groups of inquirers. The following are

definitions of abbreviations and terms found in the results:

Valid cases (n) – the number of respondents that answered the question.

Mean (M) – the mathematical average score.

Standard deviation (SD) – average distance an individual score differs from the mean.




8

Median (Mdn) – when all observations or measurements for a variable are placed in

ascending order the median is the center point. The median is often used when the mean

is skewed by extreme responses to a question.

Significant difference (e.g., α = 0.05) – scores are statistically different with less than 5%

chance the difference is an error. In other words, there is 95% or more confidence there

is a significant difference. When comparisons are made, asterisks are used to indicate the

alpha (α) level as 0.05 (*), 0.01 (**), or 0.001 (***). For the 0.01 and 0.001 alpha (α)

levels, the confidence levels are 99% and 99.9%, respectively.

Type of Inquirer

The first item of the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate the type of inquirer that best

described them (Table 1). The question served to branch respondents to subsequent sections of

the questionnaire. Close to half (48.5%) of respondents visited Austin in the past 2 years, 17.2%

did not visit, and 34.3% of respondents were local area residents.

Table 1: Frequency Distribution by Type of Inquirer

Frequency Percent

I visited Austin in the past the past 2 years 304 48.5

I have NOT visited Austin in the past 2 years 108 17.2

I am a local area resident 215 34.3

627 100.0

Sample Demographics

The demographic questions were asked of all respondents at the end of the online questionnaire

(Table 2). In all three sub-samples, females more frequently completed the online questionnaire

with 66.6% for visitors and 61.3% non-visitors. For the resident sub-sample, 82.5% of the

completed online questionnaires were completed by females. The average age of visitor and

non-visitor inquirers was nearly 50 years, while residents’ average age was just over 43. All

three groups are well educated with 66.5% of visitors, 58.0% of non-visitors, and 71.2% of

residents having a four-year college degree or higher level of education. Two-thirds or more for

each of the three groups of inquirers was employed full-time with 66.0% for visitors, 67.9% non-

visitors, and 70.1% residents. The most frequent household income interval for each group was

$100,000-149,999 with at least 20% of respondents in each group of inquirers indicating this

interval as their household income. The majority of respondents in each inquirer group indicated

their ethnicity as white, with 85.6% for visitors, 86.4% non-visitors, and 73.7% residents.




9

Table 2: Frequency Distribution for Demographics

Visitors Non-Visitors Residents

Frequency (Percent) Frequency (Percent) Frequency (Percent)

Gender

Female 199 (66.6) 65 (61.3) 174 (82.5)

Male 100 (33.4) 41 (38.7) 37 (17.5)

299 (100.0) 106 (100.0) 211 (100.0)

Age

18 – 29 24 (8.1) 5 (4.8) 33 (15.9)

30 – 39 41 (13.9) 16 (15.4) 56 (27.1)

40 – 49 70 (23.6) 23 (22.1) 49 (23.7)

50 – 59 105 (35.5) 42 (40.4) 48 (23.2)

60 – 69

70 – 79

51 (17.2)

5 (1.7)

13 (12.5)

5 (4.8)

18 (8.7)

3 (1.4)

296 (100.0) 104 (100.0) 207 (100.0)

M = 49.23;

SD = 11.88

M = 49.94;

SD = 11.60

M = 43.02;

SD = 12.69

Household Makeup

Children (< 18) n = 246;

M = 0.49; SD = 0.89

n = 90;

M = 0.32; SD = 0.68

n = 195;

M = 0.41; SD = 0.82

Adults n = 295;

M = 1.95; SD = 0.80

n = 106;

M = 1.98; SD = 0.81

n = 211;

M = 1.89; SD = 0.82

Highest Education Level

Grade school or some

high school

1 (0.3) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.5)

High school diploma

or GED

23 (7.7) 4 (3.7) 3 (1.4)

Technical, vocational,

or trade school

11 (3.7) 5 (4.7) 4 (1.9)

Some college

(including junior

college)

65 (21.8) 36 (33.6) 53 (25.0)

Four-year college

(B.A., B.S.,

B.F.A.)

109 (36.6) 41 (38.3) 92 (43.4)

Masters Degree (M.A.,

M.S., M.F.A.,

M.Arch., M.B.A.)

70 (23.5)

16 (15.0)

52 (24.5)




10

Table 2 (continued)

Ph.D./Professional

(M.D., J.D.,

D.V.M., D.D.M.)

19 (6.4) 5 (4.7) 7 (3.3)

298 (100.0) 107 (100.0) 212 (100.0)

Employment Status

Employed full-time 196 (66.0) 72 (67.9) 148 (70.1)

Employed part-time 38 (12.8) 7 (6.6) 22 (10.4)

Retired 38 (12.8) 16 (15.1) 14 (6.6)

Homemaker 13 (4.4) 5 (4.7) 9 (4.3)

Student 7 (2.4) 5 (4.7) 13 (6.2)

Unemployed 5 (1.7) 1 (0.9) 5 (2.4)

297 (100.0) 106 (100.0) 211 (100.0)

Household Income

Less than $10,000 4 (1.4) 0 (0.0) 5 (2.5)

$10,000–24,999 9 (3.2) 3 (3.2) 12 (6.0)

$25,000–39,999 25 (9.0) 8 (7.4) 19 (9.5)

$40,000–54,999 34 (12.3) 17 (18.3) 29 (14.6)

$55,000-69,999 28 (10.1) 13 (14.0) 24 (12.1)

$70,000-84,999 34 (12.3) 11 (11.8) 18 (9.0)

$85,000-99,999 30 (10.8) 9 (9.7) 23 (11.6)

$100,000-149,999 65 (23.5) 19 (20.4) 43 (21.6)

$150,000-199,999 25 (9.0) 7 (7.5) 15 (7.5)

$200,000 or greater 23 (8.3) 6 (6.5) 11 (5.5)

277 (100.0) 93 (100.0) 199 (100.0)

Ethnicity

White 250 (85.6) 89 (86.4) 154 (73.7)

Hispanic 22 (7.5) 7 (6.8) 29 (13.9)

African American 8 (2.7) 3 (2.9) 13 (6.2)

Asian 4 (1.4) 0 (0.0) 5 (2.4)

Other 8 (2.7) 4 (3.9) 8 (3.8)

292 (100.0) 103 (100.0) 209 (100.0)

LGBT traveler

Yes 16 (5.8) 4 (4.2) 16 (7.8)

No 258 (94.2) 91 (95.8) 189 (92.2)

274 (100.0) 95 (100.0) 205 (100.0)

n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation




11

The next three sections provide an overview of the results for the three respective groups

included in this study (i.e., visited in past 2 years, did not visit in past 2 years, and local area

residents). Following the three sections for each of the types of inquirers is a section that

provides a statistical comparison of the three inquirer groups for the destination image questions

that were asked of all three groups.

Visitor Inquirers

Respondents who indicated they visited Austin in the past 2 years were asked a series of

questions about visiting Austin. First, they were asked how many times they visited in the past 2

years (Table 3). Aside from providing just the number of times, a number of respondents typed a

note about having family in Austin who they frequently visit or that they themselves live in a

nearby city, such as San Antonio, and make frequent trips to Austin. The average number of

trips visitors made to Austin in the past 2 years was 4.80.

Table 3: Frequency Distribution for Number of Times Visiting Austin in Past 2 Years

Frequency Percent

1 105 36.0

2 43 14.7

3 33 11.3

4 32 11.0

5 17 5.8

6 18 6.2

7 0 0.0

8 11 3.8

10-19 18 6.2

20-29 10 3.4

30 or more 5 1.7

292 100.0

M = 4.80; SD = 8.63

M = mean; SD = standard deviation

Next, visitor inquirers were asked to rate the importance of various sources of information in the

decision to visit Austin on a scale of 1 = Not at all Important to 5 = Extremely Important (Table

4). Previous trips to Austin were the most important source of information with a mean of 3.66

out of 5.00, which falls between moderately and very important. Other sources of information

that exceeded the moderately important level (3.00) were friends (M = 3.43), the Austin CVB

website (M = 3.20), and relatives (M = 3.10). The Official Visitors Guide to Austin was also

moderately important with a mean 2.98. This series of questions was followed by asking

respondents to list the social media, mobile apps, and other websites they used to find out about

Austin as a travel destination. The responses to the open ended question can be found in

Appendix C.




12

Table 4: Frequency Distribution for Importance of Sources of Information for Visitors Deciding

to Visit

Not at all

Important

Slightly

Important

Moderately

Important

Very

Important

Extremely

Important

Values given are percentages

Previous trips to Austin

(n = 293; M = 3.66; SD = 1.47)

18.4 3.1 11.3 29.0 38.2

Friends

(n = 290; M = 3.43; SD = 1.41)

15.9 10.0 18.3 26.6 29.3

Austin Convention & Visitors

Bureau Website

(www.austintexas.org)

(n = 292; M = 3.20; SD = 1.34)

16.8 12.3 23.6 28.8 18.5

Relatives

(n = 290; M = 3.10; SD = 1.72)

33.4 7.2 10.0 14.5 34.8

Official Visitors Guide to Austin

(n = 295; M = 2.98; SD = 1.33)

19.3 16.9 24.1 25.4 14.2

Magazines/editorial (e.g., articles

or stories

(n = 287; M = 2.85; SD = 1.29)

23.0 13.2 28.9 25.8 9.1

Online ad

(n = 284; M = 2.56; SD = 1.34)

33.1 14.4 22.2 23.6 6.7

Online booking engine (e.g.,

Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, etc.)

(n = 287; M = 2.49; SD = 1.42)

37.6 14.6 20.2 16.4 11.1

Other websites

(n = 283; M = 2.49; SD = 1.33)

36.0 12.0 24.4 21.6 6.0

Austin eNEWS

(n = 287; M = 2.41; SD = 1.37)

40.4 10.5 24.4 16.7 8.0

Print ad

(n = 287; M = 2.08; SD = 1.24)

48.8 14.6 20.9 11.1 4.5

Social media (e.g., Facebook,

Twitter)

(n = 288; M = 1.98; SD = 1.24)

54.2 12.8 19.1 9.0 4.9

Mobile apps

(n = 285; M = 1.72; SD = 1.13)

64.6 13.3 11.6 7.0 3.5

Travel agent/tour operator

(n = 287; M = 1.39; SD = 0.90)

80.1 7.7 7.7 2.1 2.4






13

Next, visitors were shown the map in Figure 6. The instructions for the question asked

respondents to rank up to the top five areas of Austin they like to visit. Respondents were

shown the names of the five areas on the map and dragged their responses to a “Top Areas” box

on the screen. Respondents could also click and drag the options in the “Top Areas” box to

reorder their rankings.

Figure 6: Map of Austin for Ranking Top Areas Visitors Like to Visit




14

Visitors’ responses to ranking the top areas they like to visit in Austin are presented in Table 5.

With the lower mean representing the area visitors ranked as the top area, it is easily the

Downtown/Capitol area with a mean of 1.40 and almost three-fourths (71.4%) of visitors

indicating it as the number one area they like to visit in Austin. The area that resulted with the

second lowest mean was South at 2.84, followed by University at 2.90 as the third ranked area

visitors like to visit in Austin. Respondents were asked to explain why they selected the

respective area of Austin as the top area they like to visit. Responses to the open ended question

can be found in Appendix D.

Table 5: Frequency Distribution for Visitors Rankings of Top Areas They Like to Visit in Austin

Ranking

Downtown/

Capitol

University

South

East

West

Frequency (Percentage)

1 195 (71.4) 23 (10.1) 32 (13.9) 15 (7.2) 11 (5.2)

2 53 (19.4) 79 (34.8) 76 (33.0) 22 (10.6) 32 (15.2)

3 19 (7.0) 58 (25.6) 49 (21.3) 36 (17.3) 60 (28.6)

4 5 (1.8) 32 (14.1) 43 (18.7) 59 (28.4) 60 (28.6)

5 1 (0.4) 35 (15.4) 30 (13.0) 76 (36.5) 47 (22.4)

273 (100.0) 227 (100.0) 230 (100.0) 208 (100.0) 210 (100.0)

M = 1.40;

SD = 0.73

M = 2.90;

SD = 1.23

M = 2.84;

SD = 1.26

M = 3.76;

SD = 1.25

M = 3.48;

SD = 1.15


The next question asked Austin visitors how knowledgeable they were about Austin prior to their

most recent visit on a scale of 1 = Not at all Knowledgeable to 5 = Extremely Knowledgeable

(Table 6). About one-fourth (26.0%) were very or extremely knowledgeable prior to visiting

Austin on their most recent visit.

Table 6: Frequency Distribution for Knowledge of Austin Prior to Most Recent Visit

Frequency Percent

Not at all Knowledgeable 23 7.6

Slightly Knowledgeable 102 33.6

Moderately Knowledgeable 100 32.9

Very Knowledgeable 60 19.7

Extremely Knowledgeable 19 6.3

304 100.0

M = 2.84; SD = 1.03





15

On average, inquirers who visited Austin in the past 2 years made the decision to visit Austin

63.42 days prior to their actual trip (Table 7). Almost one-third (31.4%) made the decision

between 50 and 99 days prior to visiting.

Table 7: Frequency Distribution for Approximate Number of Days in Advance for Trip Decision

Frequency Percent

0 3 1.0

1-9 50 17.4

10-19 23 8.0

20-29 13 4.5

30-39 48 16.7

40-49 9 3.1

50-99 90 31.4

100-199 41 14.3

200 or more 10 3.5

287 100.0

M = 63.42; SD = 68.57


Two questions were asked of visitor inquirers about their primary purpose and additional reasons

for visiting Austin on their most recent visit (Table 8). Over one-third (34.9%) of visitors

indicated their primary purpose for visiting Austin was pleasure/vacation, followed by 24.0% to

visit relatives, and 15.1% a weekend getaway. The second item asked respondents to check all

that apply for additional interests or reasons for visiting Austin. Over half (59.5%) indicated live

music as an additional reason for visiting Austin and 47.7% for the culture/history. Two

additional interests or reasons that more than one-third of visitors selected were special event(s)

(39.8%) and outdoor recreation (37.2%).

Table 8: Frequency Distribution for Primary Purpose and Additional Interests or Reasons for

Visiting Austin

Frequency Percent

Primary Purpose

Pleasure/vacation 106 34.9

Visit relatives 73 24.0

Weekend getaway 46 15.1

Visit friends 20 6.6

Business travel 19 6.3

Group meeting/convention 9 3.0

Other 31 10.2

304 100.0




16

Table 8 (continued)

Additional Interests or Reasons*

Live music 181 59.5

Culture/history 145 47.7

Special event (e.g., festival) 121 39.8

Outdoor recreation 113 37.2

Sporting event(s) 30 9.9

Golf 20 6.6

*Check all that apply (the percentage is based on n = 304 of inquirers who indicated they visited

in past 2 years)

Just over half (52.0%) of the visitors indicated they traveled with a spouse/partner on their most

recent visit to Austin (Table 9). One fifth of visitors indicated they traveled by themselves

(20.1%) or with friends (20.1%). The average travel party included 2.45 adults.

Table 9: Frequency Distribution for Travel Party and Size

Frequency Percent

Travel Party*

Spouse/partner 158 52.0

By yourself 61 20.1

Friends 61 20.1

With kids 60 15.4

Other family 32 14.8

Work colleagues 15 4.9

Club 2 0.7

Group tour 0 0.0

Other 4 1.3

Number of Adults n = 293; M = 2.45; SD = 2.01

Number of Children (under 18) n = 127; M = 0.76; SD = 1.96


*Check all that apply (the percentage is based on n = 304 who indicated they visited in past 2

years)




17

The majority (85.0%) of visitor inquirers’ most recent visit to Austin was an overnight trip

(Table 10). Overnight visitors were asked a few subsequent questions regarding the type of

accommodations and number of nights they spent in Austin on their most recent visit.

Table 10: Frequency Distribution for Day and Overnight Trip

Frequency Percent

A day trip 44 15.0

An overnight trip 249 85.0

293 100.0

Over half (64.5%) of the overnight visitors to Austin stayed in a hotel/motel on their most recent

visit (Table 11). Another 26.6% of overnight visitors to Austin indicated they stayed with

friends/relatives (Table 11). The average length of stay for overnight visitors was over four

(4.31) nights. However, some respondents had an extended length of stay. Therefore, the

median of 3.00 is a more accurate measure of the average length of stay. An adjusted length of

stay was measured by excluding cases where respondents indicated extended lengths of stay.

Most of the lengths of stay ranged from one to 11 nights. Then, there was a jump in the number

of nights and responses such as 14, 20, 21, and higher were reported for the number of nights

overnight visitors stayed in Austin. As a result an adjusted length of stay was calculated

excluding responses above 11 nights as the length of stay. The adjusted length of stay that

excluded the extended stays (i.e., greater than 11 nights) was 3.61 for the mean and 3.00 for the

median. The average length of stay for overnight visitors who reported staying in a hotel/motel

was 3.48 nights. The median for hotel/motel overnight stays was also 3.00 nights.

Table 11: Frequency Distribution for Overnight Trip Characteristics

Frequency Percent

Accommodations

Hotel/motel 160 64.5

Friends/relatives 66 26.6

Rental home/condo 13 5.2

Campground/RV park 2 0.8

Other 7 2.8

248 100.0

Number of nights n = 246; M = 4.31; SD = 7.89; Mdn = 3.00

Adjusted number of nights n = 241; M = 3.61; SD = 2.04; Mdn = 3.00

Hotel/motel number of nights n = 159; M = 3.48; SD = 1.80; Mdn = 3.00

n = valid cases; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Mdn = median




18

The most frequent type of transportation used to get to Austin was a personal car (48.7%),

followed by airplane (44.4%) (Table 12). A personal car (57.9%) was also the most common

type of transportation to get around Austin while visiting. Rental cars were used by over one-

fourth (29.3%) and walking by almost one-fourth (24.0%) of visitors to get around Austin while

visiting.

Table 12: Frequency Distribution for Transportation To and Around Austin

Frequency Percent

To Austin

Personal car 148 48.7

Airplane 135 44.4

Rental car 15 4.9

Recreational vehicle 2 0.7

Tour bus 0 0.0

Other 4 1.3

304 100.0

Get Around Austin*

Personal car 176 57.9

Rental car 89 29.3

Walk 73 24.0

Taxi 34 11.2

Metro Bus Transit 19 6.3

Bicycle 13 4.3

Pedicab 5 1.6

*Check all that apply (the percentage is based on n = 304 who indicated they visited in past 2

years)

Visitors were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with a series of items about their most

recent visit on a scale of 1 = Not at all Satisfied to 5 = Extremely Satisfied (Table 13). A “Not

Applicable” option was offered in case an item(s) (e.g., accommodations for day visitors) was

not used or experienced by visitors. Only two items resulted in a mean score below very

satisfied (4). Those items were public transportation (M = 3.61) and directional signage (M =

3.89). The top five items with which visitors were most satisfied included the local cuisine (M =

4.46), recreational activities (M = 4.45), nightlife (M = 4.42), special events (M = 4.39), and

historical/cultural attractions (M = 4.35). The next two items with the highest means were

information on the Austin CVB website (M = 4.28), and information in the Official Visitors

Guide to Austin (M = 4.25).




19

Table13: Frequency Distribution for Satisfaction with Most Recent Visit

Not at all

Satisfied

Slightly

Satisfied

Moderately

Satisfied

Very

Satisfied

Extremely

Satisfied


Local cuisine

(n = 296; M = 4.46; SD = 0.64)

0.0 0.7 5.7 40.2 53.4

Recreational activities

(n = 225; M = 4.45; SD = 0.69)

0.0 1.3 7.1 36.9 54.7

Nightlife

(n = 236; M = 4.42; SD = 0.78)

0.8 2.1 6.4 35.2 55.5

Special events

(n = 194; M = 4.39; SD = 0.82)

0.5 2.6 10.3 30.4 56.2

Historical/cultural attractions

(n = 254; M = 4.35; SD = 0.68)

0.0 1.6 7.1 45.7 45.7

Information on the Austin CVB

Website (www.austintexas.org)

(n = 230; M = 4.28; SD = 0.81)

0.0 3.0 13.5 36.1 47.4

Information in the Official

Visitors Guide to Austin

(n = 217; M = 4.25; SD = 0.80)

0.0 3.2 12.9 39.2 44.7

Accommodations

(n = 235; M = 4.23; SD = 0.77)

0.4 2.1 11.9 45.1 40.4

Shopping

(n = 246; M = 4.22; SD = 0.87)

1.2 2.0 15.9 35.0 45.9

Austin visitor center

(n = 111; M = 4.20; SD = 1.00)

0.9 8.1 11.7 28.8 50.5

Information about Austin’s live

music

(n = 210; M = 4.18; SD = 0.90)

1.0 4.8 12.9 38.1 43.3

Safety

(n = 272; M = 4.11; SD = 0.84)

0.7 3.7 14.3 46.0 35.3

Affordability of Austin as a

destination

(n = 286; M = 4.02; SD = 0.82)

0.7 2.1 22.0 45.1 30.1

City tours

(n = 86; M = 4.00; SD = 0.95)

0.0 10.5 12.8 43.0 33.7

Directional signage

(n = 256; M = 3.89; SD = 0.97)

3.1 3.1 25.4 38.7 29.7

Public transportation

(n = 102; M = 3.61; SD = 1.13)

4.9 9.8 31.4 27.5 26.5






20

On a scale of 1 = Not at all Useful to 5 = Extremely Useful, visitors indicated that the Austin

CVB website (M = 4.00) and Official Visitors Guide to Austin (M = 3.97) were the most useful

resources while planning their most recent visit to Austin (Table 14). The least useful resource

was Twitter (M = 2.29). The two most useful resources were the only two created and

distributed by the Austin CVB. The rest of the items in the list are social media.

Table 14: Frequency Distribution for Usefulness of Resources While Planning Visit to Austin

Not at all

Useful

Slightly

Useful

Moderately

Useful

Very

Useful

Extremely

Useful


Austin CVB Website


(n = 229; M = 4.00; SD = 0.94)

0.9 4.8 24.5 33.2 36.7


(n = 215; M = 3.97; SD = 0.97)

1.9 4.2 25.1 33.0 35.8

Yelp

(n = 74; M = 3.12; SD = 1.39)

21.6 9.5 20.3 32.4 16.2

Facebook

(n = 81; M = 3.06; SD = 1.53)

25.9 11.1 17.3 22.2 23.5

Urbanspoon

(n = 74; M = 3.05; SD = 1.33)

23.0 6.8 21.6 39.2 9.5

Austin Way

(n = 53; M = 2.85; SD = 1.61)

35.8 7.5 13.2 22.6 20.8

Twitter

(n = 51; M = 2.29; SD = 1.47)

45.1 19.6 7.8 15.7 11.8


Visitors were also asked how useful resources were during their most recent visit to Austin on a

scale of 1 = Not at all Useful to 5 = Extremely Useful (Table 15). The Official Visitors Guide to

Austin (M = 4.09) was the most useful, followed by the Austin CVB website (M = 4.00). The top

two resources that were useful during visitors’ most recent visit to Austin were created by the

Austin CVB, while the rest are social media.

Table 15: Frequency Distribution for Usefulness of Resources During Visit to Austin

Not at all

Useful

Slightly

Useful

Moderately

Useful

Very

Useful

Extremely

Useful



(n = 170; M = 4.09; SD = 1.00)

2.4 4.1 19.4 30.6 43.5

Austin CVB Website


(n = 150; M = 4.00; SD = 1.12)

4.7 5.3 18.0 29.3 42.7






21

Table 15 (continued)

Urbanspoon

(n = 66; M = 3.23; SD = 1.59)

27.3 4.5 15.2 24.2 28.8

Yelp

(n = 62; M = 3.18; SD = 1.55)

25.8 9.7 9.7 30.6 24.2

Facebook

(n = 65; M = 2.91; SD = 1.55)

29.2 12.3 20.0 15.4 23.1

Austin Way

(n = 42; M = 2.86; SD = 1.66)

38.1 4.8 14.3 19.0 23.8

Twitter

(n = 39; M = 2.21; SD = 1.45)

51.3 12.8 7.7 20.5 7.7


There was a noticeable change in the percent of respondents that indicated Extremely Useful for

resources while planning visitors’ most recent visit and during their most recent visit. Table 16

provides a comparison of the percent of respondents that indicated Extremely Useful for

resources while planning and during their most recent visit to Austin for the resources asked

about in the study. The order of the resources is descending by the percent of visitors that

indicated Extremely Useful for the resources during their most recent visit to Austin. The most

notable increase is for Urbanspoon as a resource. Almost one out of ten (9.5%) visitors indicated

Urbanspoon was Extremely Useful while planning their most recent visit, but over one-fourth

(28.8%) indicated Urbanspoon was Extremely Useful during their most recent visit to Austin.

The Official Visitors Guide to Austin and the Austin CVB website were the number one and two

resources both while planning the trip and during the trip to Austin when ranked by percent of

visitors rating them as Extremely Useful.

Table 16: Comparison of Usefulness of Resources While Planning and During Visit to Austin

Extremely Useful While

Planning

Extremely Useful During

Trip


Official Visitors Guide to Austin 35.8 43.5

Austin CVB Website


36.7 42.7

Urbanspoon 9.5 28.8

Yelp 16.2 24.2

Austin Way 20.8 23.8

Facebook 23.5 23.1

Twitter 11.8 7.7





22

The majority (93.4%) of visitors were Very or Extremely Satisfied with their most recent visit to

Austin (Table 17). On a scale of 1 = Not at all Satisfied to 5 = Extremely Satisfied, the mean of

4.38 indicates visitors had a high level of overall satisfaction with their most recent visit to

Austin.

Table 17: Frequency Distribution for Overall Satisfaction with Most Recent Visit to Austin

Frequency Percent

Not at all Satisfied 0 0.0

Slightly Satisfied 3 1.0

Moderately Satisfied 17 5.6

Very Satisfied 144 47.5

Extremely Satisfied 139 45.9

304 100.0

M = 4.38; SD = 0.64


On a scale of 1 = Not at all Likely to 5 = Extremely Likely, visitors were asked how likely they

are to visit Austin again within the next 2 years, as well as to recommend their friends and/or

relatives visit (Table 18). Visitors were Very to Extremely Likely (M = 4.56) to visit again and

even more likely to recommend their friends and/or relatives visit Austin (M = 4.65).

Table 18: Frequency Distribution for Likelihood of Visiting Again and Recommending to

Friends/Relatives

How likely are you to...

Not at all

Likely

Slightly

Likely

Moderately

Likely

Very

Likely

Extremely

Likely


visit Austin again within the next

2 years

(n = 299; M = 4.56; SD = 0.80)

0.7 3.0 6.7 19.4 70.2

recommend your friends and/or

relatives visit Austin

(n = 299; M = 4.65; SD = 0.65)

0.3 1.0 4.3 22.4 71.9


On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, visitors were asked their level of

agreement with Austin being a destination to visit during different times of the year (i.e., winter,

spring, summer, fall) (Table 19). Visitors indicated the spring (M = 4.61) and fall (M = 4.50) as

the two seasons they agreed with the most for times of the year during which Austin is a

destination to visit.




23

Table 19: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin during Four

Seasons

Austin is a destination to go in

the...

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


winter (December, January,

February)

(n = 289; M = 3.88; SD = 0.96 )

1.7 4.8 28.0 34.3 31.1

spring (March, April, May)

(n = 296; M =4.61; SD = 0.60 )

0.3 0.3 3.0 30.1 66.2

summer (June, July, August)

(n = 292 ; M = 3.65 ; SD = 1.18)

6.2 11.3 21.2 33.6 27.7

fall (September, October,

November)

(n = 294; M = 4.50; SD = 0.68 )

0.3 0.3 7.5 32.7 59.2


On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, visitors indicated their level of

agreement with different types of trips for which Austin is a destination (Table 20). The top five

items according to the means were Austin is a destination to go for entertainment (M = 4.63),

weekend getaway (M = 4.57), leisure (M = 4.55), special events (M = 4.54), and a last minute

getaway (M = 4.38). The only item that did not exceed the 4 = Agree level was a day trip with a

mean of 3.94.

Table 20: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for Various

Types of Trips

Austin is a destination to go

for...

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


entertainment

(n = 297; M = 4.63; SD = 0.57)

0.0 0.0 4.4 27.9 67.7

a weekend getaway

(n = 297; M = 4.57; SD = 0.76)

1.3 0.7 6.1 23.6 68.4

leisure

(n = 294; M = 4.55; SD = 0.65)

0.0 1.0 5.4 31.0 62.6

special events

(n = 295; M = 4.54; SD = 0.64)

0.0 0.3 7.1 30.5 62.0

a last minute getaway

(n = 289; M = 4.38; SD = 0.83)

0.7 2.8 9.7 31.1 55.7

a vacation (about a week or

longer)

(n = 297; M = 4.25; SD = 0.93)

1.0 4.4 14.5 28.6 51.5




24


business trips

(n = 286; M = 4.18; SD = 0.80)

0.0 0.7 22.0 35.7 41.6

conventions

(n = 282; M = 4.16; SD = 0.79)

0.4 0.0 23.0 36.5 40.1

group meetings

(n = 286; M = 4.11; SD = 0.82)

0.0 0.7 26.2 34.3 38.8

a day trip

(n = 286; M = 3.94; SD = 1.15)

5.6 6.6 15.4 33.2 39.2


When asked about agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) with various types

of activities and experiences Austin provides as a destination visitors most highly agreed Austin

is a destination to enjoy live music (M = 4.70), enjoy a variety of food (M = 4.54), enjoy night

life (M = 4.50), and see performing arts (M = 4.49) (Table 21). Agreement with Austin is a

destination to experience the unique community and attend special events tied for the fifth

highest mean at 4.44. The two items visitors least agreed with were Austin is a destination to

play golf (M = 3.40) participate in sports (M = 3.51), and watch sporting events (M = 3.66).

Table 21: Frequency Distribution for Visitors Agreement with Visiting Austin for Various Types

of Activities

Austin is a destination to...

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


enjoy live music

(n = 295; M = 4.70; SD = 0.62)

0.3 0.7 4.7 16.9 77.3

enjoy a variety of food

(n = 299; M = 4.54; SD = 0.64)

0.0 0.7 5.7 33.1 60.5

enjoy nightlife

(n = 295; M = 4.50; SD = 0.71)

0.3 0.3 9.5 28.5 61.4

see performing arts (e.g., music,

drama, dance)

(n = 299; M = 4.49; SD = 0.73)

0.3 1.0 8.7 29.1 60.9

experience the unique community

(n = 295; M = 4.44; SD = 0.72)

0.3 0.7 9.2 34.2 55.6

attend special events

(n = 294; M = 4.44; SD = 0.68)

0.0 0.3 9.9 35.7 54.1

go to cultural/historical sites

(n = 297; M = 4.25; SD = 0.72)

0.3 1.7 9.1 50.2 38.7

participate in outdoor recreation

activities

(n = 291; M = 4.23; SD = 0.81)

0.7 0.7 17.5 37.1 44.0




25


experience the multicultural arts

scene

(n = 294; M = 4.21; SD = 0.80)

0.7 1.4 15.6 40.8 41.5

experience many unique cultures

(n = 293; M = 4.09; SD = 0.89)

0.7 3.1 21.8 35.8 38.6

go shopping

(n = 296; M = 4.07; SD = 0.86)

1.4 2.0 19.3 42.9 34.5

experience ethnic diversity

(n = 292; M = 3.83; SD = 0.91)

0.7 5.1 31.2 36.3 26.7

enjoy kid friendly activities

(n = 281; M = 3.74; SD = 0.92)

1.1 2.5 44.8 24.2 27.4

watch sporting events

(n = 286; M = 3.66; SD = 0.90)

2.1 2.8 42.0 32.9 20.3

participate in sports

(n = 284; M = 3.51; SD = 0.89)

2.1 2.5 55.6 21.5 18.3

play golf

(n = 286; M = 3.40; SD = 0.86)

2.8 4.5 62.9 17.5 15.0


The top five attributes visitors’ agreed (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) with for

Austin as a destination were Austin is a destination where people like them would enjoy visiting

(M = 4.44), with a lot to do downtown (M = 4.43), offers visitors a wide variety of things to do

(M = 4.41), is a destination with great natural scenery/landscape (M = 4.37), and unique

restaurants (M = 4.34) (Table 22). Two of the items visitors agreed with the least were related to

transportation. Visitors rated Austin is a destination with convenient transportation to get around

the city (M = 3.67) and with convenient transportation to get to the city (M = 3.74) between

neutral and agree. The other items based on the average that visitors rated between neutral (3)

and agree (4) were Austin is a destination that is LGBT friendly (M = 3.74) and Austin is a

destination with pleasant year round weather (M = 3.89).

Table 22: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Various Attributes of Austin

Austin is a destination...

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


where people like me would

enjoy visiting

(n = 295; M = 4.44; SD = 0.69)

0.0 2.0 5.1 39.3 53.6

with a lot to do downtown

(n = 296; M = 4.43; SD = 0.74)

0.3 2.3 5.7 37.5 54.1

that offers visitors a wide variety

of things to do

(n = 295; M = 4.41; SD = 0.67)

0.3 1.4 4.4 44.4 49.5




26


with great natural

scenery/landscape

(n = 291; M = 4.37; SD = 0.70)

0.0 1.0 10.0 39.9 49.1

with unique restaurants

(n = 293; M = 4.34; SD = 0.67)

0.0 0.7 9.2 45.1 45.1

with friendly local residents

(n = 294; M = 4.33; SD = 0.73)

0.3 1.0 10.2 42.2 46.3

that does not require a lot of pre-

planning

(n = 292; M = 4.20; SD = 0.81)

0.3 4.8 8.6 46.9 39.4

with a variety of types of lodging

facilities (e.g., hotels,

campgrounds, bed & breakfasts,

resorts)

(n = 295; M = 4.12; SD = 0.81)

0.3 2.0 19.0 42.4 36.3

with top notch lodging facilities

(n = 292; M = 4.11; SD = 0.82)

0.7 1.7 19.5 42.1 36.0

with unique retail stores

(n = 294; M = 4.10; SD = 0.85)

1.4 2.4 16.3 44.9 35.0

that is walkable for visitors

(n = 296; M = 4.05; SD = 0.89)

0.7 6.1 14.9 43.9 34.5

that is reasonably priced for

visitors

(n = 296; M = 4.01; SD = 0.74)

0.0 2.7 18.6 54.1 24.7

that is safe

(n = 296; M = 4.00; SD = 0.78)

1.0 2.4 17.2 54.1 25.3

with pleasant year round weather

(n = 294; M = 3.89; SD = 0.98)

1.4 9.5 16.7 43.2 29.3

that is a LGBT friendly

destination

(n = 285; M = 3.74; SD = 0.84)

0.0 1.1 48.4 25.6 24.9

with convenient transportation to

get to the city

(n = 287; M = 3.74; SD = 0.94)

1.4 4.5 39.0 28.9 26.1


get around the city

(n = 287; M = 3.67; SD = 0.99)

1.7 6.3 42.2 23.3 26.5





27

When asked about level of agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) with

adjectives and phrases to describe Austin, the top five items according to visitors were creative

(M = 4.42), eclectic (M = 4.41), friendly (M = 4.40), scenic (M = 4.37), and outdoorsy (M = 4.34)

(Table 23). Visitors were somewhat neutral that Austin is stereotypically country (M = 2.75), but

agreed it is unlike the rest of Texas (M = 4.12).

Table 23: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Adjectives to Describe Austin

Austin is...

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


Creative

(n = 292; M = 4.42; SD = 0.64)

0.3 0.0 6.2 43.8 49.7

Eclectic

(n = 293; M = 4.41; SD = 0.71)

0.3 0.3 9.9 36.9 52.6

Friendly

(n = 293; M = 4.40; SD = 0.70)

0.3 1.0 7.2 41.3 50.2

Scenic

(n = 292; M = 4.37; SD = 0.67)

0.0 1.0 7.9 44.2 46.9

Outdoorsy

(n = 290; M = 4.34; SD = 0.71)

0.3 1.0 8.6 44.5 45.5

Exciting

(n = 291; M = 4.33; SD = 0.72)

0.3 1.0 9.6 43.3 45.7

Relaxing

(n = 290; M = 4.31; SD = 0.69)

0.3 0.7 8.6 48.6 41.7

Historical

(n = 293; M = 4.25; SD = 0.71)

0.3 1.4 9.9 49.8 38.6

Charming

(n = 292; M = 4.21; SD = 0.76)

0.3 1.4 14.0 45.2 39.0

Environmentally friendly

(n = 286; M = 4.20; SD = 0.76)

0.0 1.0 17.5 41.6 39.9

Intelligent

(n = 290; M = 4.18; SD = 0.76)

0.7 0.3 16.6 45.2 37.2

Clean

(n = 294; M = 4.17; SD = 0.75)

0.7 1.0 14.3 49.0 35.0

Diverse

(n = 289; M = 4.15; SD = 0.84)

0.7 2.8 16.3 41.2 39.1

Unlike the rest of Texas

(n = 289; M = 4.12; SD = 0.92)

0.7 3.1 23.2 29.8 43.3

Sincere

(n = 288; M = 4.05; SD = 0.79)

0.0 1.4 24.3 42.4 31.9

Family oriented

(n = 289; M = 3.91; SD = 0.84)

0.3 2.8 29.8 39.8 27.3

Weird

(n = 291; M = 3.89; SD = 1.09)

3.1 8.6 20.6 31.6 36.1




28


Fashionable

(n = 292; M = 3.88; SD = 0.85)

0.7 3.8 27.1 43.8 24.7

Stereotypically country

(n = 289; M = 2.75; SD = 1.14)

12.1 32.9 32.9 11.8 10.4


On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, visitors agreed they had positive

interactions with Austin residents (M = 4.26) and felt welcomed as a visitor to Austin (M = 4.22)

(Table 24). Visitors rated the remaining items about emotional solidarity with Austin residents

between neutral and agree.

Table 24: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Emotional Solidarity with Austin

Residents

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


I had positive interactions with

Austin residents

(n = 298; M = 4.26; SD = 0.65)

0.0 0.3 9.4 53.7 36.2

I felt welcomed as a visitor to

Austin

(n = 297; M = 4.22; SD = 0.70)

0.3 1.3 9.8 52.9 35.7

I feel Austin residents appreciate

visitors for the contribution we

(as visitors) make to the local

economy

(n = 297; M = 3.89; SD = 0.77)

0.3 3.0 24.6 51.2 20.9

I identify with Austin residents

(n = 295; M = 3.89; SD = 0.88)

1.4 3.7 25.4 43.1 26.4

I have a lot in common with

Austin residents

(n = 297; M = 3.87; SD = 0.87)

0.7 5.1 25.9 43.8 24.6

I feel Austin residents appreciate

the benefits associated with me (a

visitor) coming to the community

(n = 298; M = 3.86; SD = 0.72)

0.3 3.0 28.2 47.3 21.1

I feel close to some residents I

have met in Austin

(n = 296; M = 3.69; SD = 0.96)

1.4 6.8 37.8 29.7 24.3

I have made friends with some

Austin residents

(n = 297; M = 3.69; SD = 1.00)

1.3 9.4 34.0 29.3 25.9





29

Average trip expenditures were calculated on a per party per day basis for overnight visitors

(Table 25). There were insufficient responses from day trip visitors to include their spending.

Overnight travel parties spent an average of $126.04 per day on their hotel, $59.06 in restaurants,

and $39.51 in retail stores. The total average daily spending for overnight travel parties was

almost $400 ($395.14).

Table 25: Per Party Per Day Spending by Overnight Visitors

Sector

Average Daily Spending

Per Overnight Travel

Party

Hotel/Motel/Other Lodging 126.04

Restaurants 59.06

Other transportation (e.g., airplane, shuttles, limo) 44.84

Retail shopping 39.51

Entertainment (e.g., movies, performing arts, music, etc) 33.27

Automobile transportation (e.g., parking, gas, service, rental car 27.93

Grocery 26.34

Nightclubs and bars 24.67

Recreational activities (e.g., golf, fishing) 13.48

Total $395.14

Visitors to Austin averaged 7.51 total leisure and 3.43 business trips in the past 2 years (Table

26). Of the total trips just over one (1.02) were outside the United States.

Table 26: Visitors’ Travel Experience in the Past 2 Years

M SD

Leisure (n = 286) 7.51 9.55

Business (n = 221) 3.43 7.48

Outside the United States (n = 261) 1.02 2.22





30

Visitors were asked their level of agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) with

various tourism destinations they would like to visit (Table 27). The five destinations visitors

had the highest levels of agreement with were Austin, Texas (M = 4.62), San Francisco,

California (M = 4.10), New York, New York (M = 4.04), San Diego, California (M =- 4.01), and

San Antonio, Texas (M = 3.98).

Table 27: Frequency Distribution for Visitors’ Agreement with Tourism Destinations

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


Austin, Texas

(n = 294; M = 4.62; SD = 0.68)

1.0 0.7 2.7 26.9 68.7

San Francisco, California

(n = 288; M = 4.10; SD = 1.15)

5.9 5.2 10.4 29.9 48.6

New York, New York

(n = 290; M = 4.04; SD = 1.16)

5.5 5.9 14.5 27.6 46.6

San Diego, California

(n = 288; M = 4.01; SD = 1.05)

3.8 4.9 17.0 35.4 38.9

San Antonio, Texas

(n = 291; M = 3.98; SD = 0.95)

2.4 5.2 15.8 45.0 31.6

New Orleans, Louisiana

(n = 285; M = 3.91; SD = 1.13)

4.2 9.8 13.7 35.4 36.8

Seattle, Washington

(n = 284; M = 3.89; SD = 1.03)

3.5 5.3 21.8 37.7 31.7

Santa Fe, New Mexico

(n = 290; M = 3.84; SD = 0.97)

3.1 4.1 24.8 40.7 27.2

Chicago, Illinois

(n = 283; M = 3.65; SD = 1.20)

7.4 10.2 20.1 34.6 27.6

Nashville, Tennessee

(n = 283; M = 3.61; SD = 1.02)

3.9 9.5 26.5 41.7 18.4

Portland, Oregon

(n = 284; M = 3.59; SD = 1.20)

7.7 8.8 27.5 28.9 27.1

Los Angeles, California

(n = 287; M = 3.33; SD = 1.31)

11.5 16.4 23.3 25.1 23.7

Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas

(n = 281; M = 3.23; SD = 1.13)

10.0 12.2 36.3 28.5 13.2

Houston, Texas

(n = 285; M = 2.98; SD = 1.12)

12.3 31.2 36.1 24.2 8.4





31

Non-Visitor Inquirers

The second group of respondents in this study included those who inquired about Austin as a

destination, but did not visit in the past 2 years. On a scale of 1 = Not at all Likely to 5 =

Extremely Likely, non-visitor inquirers were asked how likely they are to visit Austin in the next

2 years (Table 28). On average, non-visitor inquirers are moderately to very likely to visit

Austin in the next 2 years (M = 3.50). Almost half (49.1%) of the non-visitor inquirers indicated

they are very (27.4%) or extremely likely (21.7%) to visit Austin in the next 2 years.

Table 28: Non-Visitors’ Likelihood of Visiting Austin in the Next 2 Years

Frequency Percent

Not at all Likely 3 2.8

Slightly Likely 16 15.1

Moderately Likely 35 33.0

Very Likely 29 27.4

Extremely Likely 23 21.7

106 100.0

M = 3.50; SD = 1.08


When asked about the importance (1 = Not at all Important to 5 = Extremely Important) of

sources of information in deciding to visit Austin or not, non-visitors generally rated most

sources of information below the moderately important level according to the mean (Table 29).

The Official Visitors Guide to Austin (M = 3.25) and Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau

website (www.austintexas.org) (M = 3.37) were two of four sources of information with a mean

above moderately important. Friends (M = 3.26) and magazines/editorial (M = 3.08) were also

rated above moderately important.

Table 29: Frequency Distribution for Importance of Sources of Information for Non-Visitors

Deciding to Visit

Not at all

Important

Slightly

Important

Moderately

Important

Very

Important

Extremely

Important


Austin Convention & Visitors

Bureau Website


(n = 105; M = 3.37; SD = 1.13)

9.5 8.6 31.4 36.2 14.3

Friends

(n = 105; M = 3.26; SD = 1.49)

23.8 4.8 17.1 30.5 23.8


(n = 106; M = 3.25; SD = 1.27)

14.2 11.3 27.4 30.2 17.0

Magazines/editorial (e.g., articles

or stories

(n = 104; M = 3.08; SD = 1.09)

11.5 13.5 38.5 28.8 7.7






32

Table 29 (continue)

Previous trips to Austin

(n = 99; M = 2.63; SD = 1.71)

48.5 3.0 7.1 20.2 21.2

Online booking engine (e.g.,

Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, etc.)

(n = 103; M = 2.61; SD = 1.33)

31.1 13.6 26.2 21.4 7.8

Relatives

(n = 103; M = 2.60; SD = 1.50)

41.7 3.9 17.5 26.2 10.7

Online ad

(n = 100; M = 2.58; SD = 1.26)

29.0 14.0 34.0 16.0 7.0

Austin eNEWS

(n = 102; M = 2.49; SD = 1.27)

33.3 13.7 28.4 19.6 4.9

Other websites

(n = 100; M = 2.43; SD = 1.30)

36.0 15.0 25.0 18.0 6.0

Print ad

(n = 99; M = 2.17; SD = 1.12)

39.4 19.2 27.3 13.1 1.0

Social media (e.g., Facebook,

Twitter)

(n = 100; M = 1.88; SD = 1.15)

53.0 21.0 15.0 7.0 4.0

Travel agent/tour operator

(n = 100; M = 1.63; SD = 1.08)

70.0 8.0 13.0 7.0 2.0

Mobile apps

(n = 99; M = 1.60; SD = 0.95)

66.7 12.1 17.2 3.0 1.0





33

Next, the non-visitor inquirers were shown the map in Figure 7. The instructions asked

respondents to rank up to the top five areas of Austin they would like to visit in the future.

Respondents were shown the names of the five areas on the map and dragged their responses to a

“Top Areas” box on the screen. Respondents could also click and drag the options in the “Top

Areas” box to reorder their rankings.

Figure 7: Map of Austin for Ranking Top Areas Non-Visitors Would Like to Visit




34

The area of Austin non-visitors would most like to visit in the future is Downtown/Capitol (M =

1.31) (Table 30). The second area non-visitors would most like to visit in Austin is the

University area (M = 2.95), followed by East (M = 3.29). Following this ranking question

respondents were asked to explain why they selected the area they did as the number one area

they would like to visit. The explanations can be found in Appendix D.

Table 30: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Rankings of Top Areas They would Like to

Visit in Austin in the Future

Ranking

(Area on

map)

Downtown/

Capitol (1)

University (2)

South (3)

East (4)

West (5)


1 71 (80.7) 4 (5.3) 7 (10.1) 4 (5.5) 2 (2.9)

2 12 (13.6) 36 (48.0) 11 (15.9) 17 (23.3) 7 (10.0)

3 2 (2.3) 12 (16.0) 15 (21.7) 16 (21.9) 26 (37.1)

4 1 (1.1) 6 (8.0) 19 (27.5) 26 (35.6) 17 (24.3)

5 2 (2.3) 17 (22.7) 17 (24.6) 10 (13.7) 18 (25.7)

88 (100.0) 75 (100.0) 69 (100.0) 73 (100.0) 70 (100.0)

M = 1.31;

SD = 0.78

M = 2.95;

SD = 1.30

M = 3.41;

SD = 1.30

M = 3.29;

SD = 1.14

M = 3.60;

SD = 1.07


Non-visitors had the highest levels of agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree)

with Austin being a destination to go to in the spring (M = 4.39) and fall (M = 4.21) (Table 31).

On average, non-visitors ratings of Austin as a destination to visit in the winter (M = 3.36) and

summer (M = 3.29) were between neutral and agree.

Table 31: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin during Four

Seasons


the...

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree



February)

(n = 102 ; M = 3.36; SD = 0.92)

2.9 13.7 35.3 40.2 7.8


(n = 106; M = 4.39; SD =0.68)

0.9 5.7 46.2 47.2 47.2


(n = 104; M = 3.29; SD = 1.08)

3.8 24.0 23.1 37.5 11.5


November)

(n = 105; M = 4.21; SD = 0.76)

1.0 1.0 11.4 49.5 37.1





35

On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, the top five types of trips non-visitor

inquirers agreed with were Austin as a destination for entertainment (M = 4.64), special events

(M = 4.42), leisure (M = 4.39), a vacation (M = 4.25), and a weekend getaway (M = 4.10) (Table

32). The only item with an average below neutral was Austin is a destination for a day trip (M =

2.81).

Table 32: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for Various

Types of Trips


for...

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


entertainment

(n = 100; M = 4.64; SD = 0.58)

0.0 0.0 5.0 26.0 69.0

special events

(n = 100; M = 4.42; SD = 0.70)

0.0 1.0 9.0 37.0 53.0

leisure

(n = 99; M = 4.39; SD = 0.65)

0.0 1.0 6.1 45.5 47.5


longer)

(n = 103; M = 4.25; SD = 0.87)

4.9 13.6 33.0 48.5 48.5

a weekend getaway

(n = 103; M = 4.10; SD = 0.91)

1.0 6.8 10.7 44.7 36.9


(n = 97; M = 3.86; SD = 0.97)

0.0 11.3 20.6 39.2 28.9

conventions

(n = 99; M = 3.68; SD = 0.92)

2.0 5.1 36.4 36.4 20.2

business trips

(n = 99; M = 3.63; SD = 0.92)

2.0 6.1 37.4 36.4 18.2

group meetings

(n = 98; M = 3.57; SD = 0.90)

2.0 5.1 42.9 33.7 16.3

a day trip

(n = 99; M = 2.81; SD = 1.30)

17.2 31.3 17.2 22.2 12.1


On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, according to non-visitor inquirers the

top five activities for which Austin is a destination to go to included to enjoy live music (M =

4.69), enjoy nightlife (M = 4.51), see performing arts (M = 4.50), experience the multicultural

arts scene (M = 4.26), and enjoy a variety of food (M = 4.26) and attend special events (M =

4.26) tied for fifth (Table 33). Non-visitors rated play golf (M = 2.88) and participate in sports

(M = 2.87) as relatively neutral in terms of their average level of agreement.




36

Table 33: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for Various

Types of Activities


Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


enjoy live music

(n = 104; M = 4.69; SD = 0.61)

1.0 0.0 1.9 23.1 74.0

enjoy nightlife

(n = 104; M = 4.51; SD = 0.71)

0.0 1.0 9.6 26.9 62.5


drama, dance)

(n = 104; M = 4.50; SD = 0.72)

0.0 2.0 7.7 28.8 61.5


scene

(n = 103; M = 4.26; SD = 0.75)

0.0 1.9 12.6 42.7 42.7


(n = 104; M = 4.26; SD = 0.76)

1.0 0.0 13.5 43.3 42.3


(n = 103; M = 4.26; SD = 0.79)

1.0 1.0 12.6 41.7 43.7


(n = 103; M = 4.25; SD = 0.74)

1.0 0.0 11.7 47.6 39.8


(n = 101; M = 4.09; SD = 0.69)

0.0 2.0 13.9 57.4 26.7


(n = 103; M = 4.02; SD = 0.87)

1.0 1.0 28.2 35.0 35.0

go shopping

(n = 103; M = 3.90; SD = 0.91)

1.0 4.9 26.2 38.8 29.1


activities

(n = 103; M = 3.86; SD = 0.93)

2.9 3.9 21.4 47.6 24.3


(n = 103; M = 3.72; SD = 0.92)

1.9 4.9 34.0 37.9 21.4


(n = 102; M = 3.25; SD = 1.00)

3.9 13.7 50.0 17.6 14.7


(n = 102; M = 3.08; SD = 1.08)

8.8 15.7 46.1 17.6 11.8

play golf

(n = 103; M = 2.88; SD = 0.99)

10.7 16.5 53.4 12.6 6.8


(n = 103; M = 2.87; SD = 0.94)

9.7 15.5 58.3 10.7 5.8





37

On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, non-visitor inquirers agreed Austin is

a destination with a lot to do downtown (M = 4.38), that offers a wide variety of things to do (M

= 4.32), where people like them would enjoy visiting (M = 4.31), with great natural

scenery/landscape (M = 4.13), and with a variety of types of lodging facilities (M = 4.09) for the

top five (Table 34).

Table 34: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Various Attributes of Austin


Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree



(n = 104; M = 4.38; SD = 0.64)

0.0 0.0 8.7 44.2 47.1


of things to do

(n = 103; M = 4.32; SD = 0.67)

0.0 1.0 8.7 47.6 42.7


enjoy visiting

(n = 103; M = 4.31; SD = 0.63)

0.0 1.0 5.8 54.4 38.8

with great natural

scenery/landscape

(n = 103; M = 4.13; SD = 0.71)

0.0 1.0 16.5 51.5 31.1




resorts)

(n = 103; M = 4.09; SD = 0.69)

0.0 0.0 19.4 52.4 28.2


(n = 103; M = 4.08; SD = 0.70)

0.0 0.0 20.4 51.5 28.2


(n = 103; M = 4.07; SD = 0.73)

0.0 0.0 23.3 46.6 30.1


(n = 103; M = 4.06; SD = 0.73)

0.0 0.0 23.3 47.6 29.1


(n = 103; M = 4.05; SD = 0.72)

0.0 0.0 23.3 48.5 28.2


(n = 103; M = 3.88; SD = 0.81)

0.0 1.9 33.0 39.8 25.2


visitors

(n = 103; M = 3.87; SD = 0.76)

0.0 1.0 33.0 43.7 22.3

that is safe

(n = 104; M = 3.83; SD = 0.76)

0.0 0.0 38.5 40.4 21.2




38



planning

(n = 104; M = 3.81; SD = 0.86)

0.0 5.8 30.8 40.4 23.1


(n = 103; M = 3.80; SD = 0.87)

0.0 9.7 20.4 50.5 19.4


get around the city

(n = 103; M = 3.69; SD = 0.82)

0.0 2.9 44.7 33.0 19.4


get to the city

(n = 103; M = 3.66; SD = 0.82)

0.0 3.9 44.7 33.0 18.4


destination

(n = 101; M = 3.55; SD = 0.79)

0.0 1.0 60.4 20.8 17.8


On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, non-visitor inquirers top five

adjectives to describe Austin were exciting (M = 4.25), scenic (M = 4.24), creative (M = 4.22),

eclectic (M = 4.18), and friendly (M = 4.16) (Table 35). Non-visitors were somewhat neutral

when asked if Austin is stereotypically country (M = 2.82) and between neutral and agree Austin

unlike the rest of Texas (M = 3.79).

Table 35: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Adjectives to Describe

Austin

Austin is...

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


Exciting

(n = 101; M = 4.25; SD = 0.67)

0.0 1.0 9.9 52.5 36.6

Scenic

(n = 102; M = 4.24; SD = 0.65)

0.0 0.0 11.8 52.9 35.3

Creative

(n = 101; M = 4.22; SD = 0.64)

0.0 0.0 11.9 54.5 33.7

Eclectic

(n = 102; M = 4.18; SD = 0.67)

0.0 0.0 14.7 52.9 32.4

Friendly

(n = 102; M = 4.16; SD = 0.67)

0.0 1.0 12.7 55.9 30.4

Historical

(n=104; M = 4.13; SD= 0.70)

0.0 1.9 12.5 55.8 29.8

Diverse

(n = 103; M = 4.08; SD = 0.67)

0.0 0.0 18.4 55.3 25.0

Outdoorsy

(n = 102; M = 4.06; SD = 0.70)

0.0 1.0 18.6 53.9 26.5




39


Relaxing

(n = 101; M = 4.03; SD = 0.71)

0.0 2.0 17.8 55.4 24.8

Charming

(n = 102; M = 4.03; SD = 0.72)

0.0 2.0 18.6 53.9 25.5

Intelligent

(n = 102; M = 3.98; SD = 0.74)

0.0 1.0 25.5 49.0 24.5


(n = 102; M = 3.96; SD = 0.70)

0.0 0.0 26.5 51.0 22.5

Clean

(n = 102; M = 3.95; SD = 0.69)

0.0 0.0 26.5 52.0 21.6

Fashionable

(n = 101; M = 3.93; SD = 0.70)

0.0 3.0 18.8 60.4 17.8

Sincere

(n = 102; M = 3.83; SD = 0.73)

0.0 1.0 33.3 47.1 18.6


(n = 102; M = 3.79; SD = 0.88)

0.0 4.9 36.3 33.3 25.5

Family oriented

(n = 102; M = 3.67; SD = 0.81)

0.0 3.9 43.1 35.3 17.6

Weird

(n = 101; M = 3.55; SD = 0.99)

2.0 11.9 33.7 33.7 18.8


(n = 102; M = 2.82; SD = 0.98)

8.8 24.5 49.0 10.8 6.9


When asked about travel in the past 2 years, non-visitor inquirers indicated an average of 4.13

leisure trips and 1.66 business trips (Table 36). Of the non-visitors’ trips the past 2 years, an

average of 1.44 were taken outside the United States.

Table 36: Non-Visitors’ Travel Experience in the Past 2 Years

M SD

Leisure (n = 92) 4.13 3.91

Business (n = 87) 1.66 2.53






40

When asked about agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) with various

destinations they would like to visit, the top five destinations non-visitor inquirers of Austin

indicated they would like to visit included Austin (M = 4.60), San Francisco, California (M =

3.99), New York, New York (M = 3.97), Seattle, Washington (M = 3.90), and San Diego,

California (M = 3.90) (Table 37).

Table 37: Frequency Distribution for Non-Visitors’ Agreement with Tourism Destinations

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


Austin, Texas

(n = 105; M = 4.60; SD = 0.58)

0.0 1.0 1.9 33.3 63.8


(n = 104; M = 3.99; SD = 1.04)

3.8 4.8 16.3 38.5 36.5

New York, New York

(n = 104; M = 3.97; SD = 1.14)

3.8 9.6 13.5 31.7 41.3

Seattle, Washington

(n = 102; M = 3.90; SD = 0.92)

1.0 6.9 20.6 44.1 27.5


(n = 104; M = 3.90; SD = 0.90)

1.0 4.8 25.0 41.3 27.9

San Antonio, Texas

(n = 104; M = 3.87; SD = 1.06)

2.9 9.6 17.3 38.5 31.7


(n = 104; M = 3.81; SD = 1.14)

4.8 9.6 18.3 34.6 32.7


(n = 105; M = 3.79; SD = 1.01)

1.0 13.3 17.1 42.9 25.7


(n = 103; M = 3.79; SD = 1.09)

2.9 11.7 19.4 35.9 30.1

Portland, Oregon

(n = 103; M = 3.63; SD = 1.08)

2.9 9.7 35.9 24.3 27.2

Chicago, Illinois

(n = 103; M = 3.58; SD = 1.21)

9.7 6.8 23.3 35.9 24.3


(n = 103; M = 3.20; SD = 1.17)

6.8 23.3 28.2 26.2 15.5


(n = 103; M = 3.01; SD = 1.09)

8.7 25.2 29.1 30.1 6.8

Houston, Texas

(n = 103; M = 2.99; SD = 1.09)

8.7 25.2 32.0 26.2 7.8





41

Resident Inquirers

Austin area resident inquirers were shown the map in Figure 8. The instructions asked

respondents to rank up to the top five areas of Austin that they would recommend visitors go

when in Austin. Respondents were shown the names of the five areas on the map and dragged

their responses to a “Top Areas” box on the screen. Respondents could also click and drag the

options in the “Top Areas” box to reorder their rankings.

Figure 8: Map of Austin for Ranking Top Areas Residents Would Recommend Visitors Go




42

The number one area Austin residents would recommend visitors go to when in Austin is the

Downtown/Capitol area (M = 1.21), followed by the South area (M = 2.67) and University (M =

3.04) (Table 38).

Table 38: Frequency Distribution for Top Areas Residents Would Recommend Visitors Go

Ranking

(Area on

map)

Downtown/

Capitol (1)

University (2)

South (3)

East (4)

West (5)


1 168 (86.6) 5 (2.8) 17 (9.4) 1 (0.6) 4 (2.2)

2 14 (7.2) 68 (38.4) 69 (38.3) 20 (12.0) 19 (10.7)

3 9 (4.6) 44 (24.9) 57 (31.7) 25 (15.1) 49 (27.5)

4 3 (1.4) 35 (19.8) 30 (16.7) 40 (24.1) 59 (33.1)

5 0 (0.0) 25 (14.1) 7 (3.9) 80 (48.2) 47 (21.9)

194 (100.0) 177(100.0) 180 (100.0) 166 (100.0) 178 (100.0)

M = 1.21;

SD = 0.56

M = 3.04;

SD = 1.12

M = 2.67;

SD = 0.99

M = 4.07;

SD = 1.08

M = 3.71;

SD = 1.04


On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, resident inquirers indicated the

highest level of agreement for times to visit Austin as the spring (M = 4.80) and fall (M = 4.55)

(Table 39). Resident inquirers rated winter (M = 3.82) and summer (M = 3.60) between neutral

and agree.

Table 39: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Visiting Austin during Four

Seasons


the...

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree



February)

(n = 211; M = 3.82; SD = 1.02)

2.4 9.0 20.4 40.3 28.0


(n = 211; M = 4.80; SD = .059)

0.9 0.9 0.9 11.8 85.3


(n = 210; M = 3.60; SD = 1.23)

7.1 13.8 20.0 30.5 28.6


November)

(n = 211; M = 4.55; SD = 0.74)

0.9 1.4 5.2 27.0 65.4





43

Resident inquirers indicated the highest levels of agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 =

Strongly Agree) with Austin being a destination to go for a weekend getaway (M = 4.75),

entertainment (M = 4.74), special events (M = 4.63), leisure (M = 4.60), and a last minute

getaway (M = 4.51) (Table 40). All of the other types of trips to Austin resulted in means over

the agree option, indicating residents generally agree Austin is a good destination for visitors for

a variety of types of trips.

Table 40: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for Various

Types of Trips


for...

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


a weekend getaway

(n = 212; M = 4.75; SD = 0.52)

0.5 0.0 1.4 20.3 77.8

entertainment

(n = 213; M = 4.74; SD = 0.60)

0.5 1.4 1.4 17.4 79.3

special events

(n = 213; M = 4.63; SD = 0.64)

0.5 0.9 3.3 25.4 70.0

leisure

(n = 212; M = 4.60; SD = 0.58)

0.0 0.5 3.3 32.1 46.2


(n = 211; M = 4.51; SD = 0.77)

0.5 2.4 7.1 26.1 64.0

conventions

(n = 211; M = 4.49; SD = 0.74)

0.0 2.8 6.2 30.3 60.7

group meetings

(n = 212; M = 4.44; SD = 0.68)

0.0 0.5 9.4 35.8 54.2

business trips

(n = 211; M = 4.44; SD = 0.72)

0.0 1.4 9.0 33.6 55.9

a day trip

(n = 210; M = 4.37; SD = 0.87)

1.4 3.3 7.6 32.4 55.2


longer)

(n = 211; M = 4.28; SD = 0.85)

0.5 3.8 11.8 34.6 49.3


On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, 90.6% of residents strongly agreed

with Austin as a destination to enjoy live music (M = 4.87) (Table 41). Other activities making

the top five according to Austin residents included to enjoy nightlife (M = 4.73), participate in

outdoor recreation (M = 4.63), experience the unique community (M = 4.57), and attend special

events (M = 4.55).




44

Table 41: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Visiting Austin for Various

Types of Activities


Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


enjoy live music

(n = 213; M = 4.87; SD = 0.47)

0.5 0.0 2.3 6.6 90.6

enjoy nightlife

(n = 212; M = 4.73; SD = 0.58)

0.5 0.5 2.8 17.9 78.3


activities

(n = 211; M = 4.63; SD = 0.62)

0.5 0.0 4.7 25.6 69.2


(n = 213; M = 4.57; SD = 0.70)

0.9 0.5 4.7 28.3 65.6


(n = 210; M = 4.55; SD = 0.70)

0.5 1.4 4.8 29.0 64.3


(n = 213; M = 4.51; SD = 0.79)

0.9 3.8 1.9 30.0 36.6


drama, dance)

(n = 213; M = 4.49; SD = 0.76)

0.5 2.8 5.2 30.5 61.0


(n = 212; M = 4.14; SD = 0.91)

0.5 6.1 13.7 38.2 41.5


scene

(n = 213; M = 4.09; SD = 0.95)

1.4 5.2 17.4 35.2 40.8


(n = 211; M = 4.07; SD = 0.93)

1.4 1.9 25.6 30.8 40.3

go shopping

(n = 211; M = 4.01; SD = 0.88)

1.4 4.3 17.1 46.4 30.8


(n = 211; M = 3.99; SD = 1.00)

1.9 7.1 17.5 36.5 37.0


(n = 212; M = 3.92; SD = 0.92)

1.9 1.9 29.7 35.4 31.1


(n = 209; M = 3.84; SD = 1.06)

2.4 9.6 22.5 32.5 33.0

play golf

(n = 211; M = 3.81; SD = 0.92)

0.5 4.3 37.4 29.4 28.4


(n = 212; M = 3.69; SD = 1.05)

2.8 10.4 26.9 34.9 25.0





45

When asked about attributes of Austin, resident inquirers had the highest levels of agreement (1

= Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) that Austin is a destination with friendly local

residents (M = 4.60), is somewhere people like them would enjoy visiting (M = 4.57), has a lot to

do downtown (M = 4.55), offers visitors a wide variety of things to do (M = 4.53), and with great

natural scenery/landscape (M = 4.51) (Table 42). The lowest rated items by local area resident

inquirers were Austin is a destination with convenient transportation to get to the city (M = 3.49)

and with convenient transportation to get around the city (M = 3.30).

Table 42: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Various Attributes of Austin


Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree



(n = 212; M = 4.60; SD = 0.68)

0.9 0.5 4.2 25.9 68.4


enjoy visiting

(n = 213; M = 4.57; SD = 0.67)

0.5 0.9 4.2 29.6 64.8


(n = 213; M = 4.55; SD = 0.80)

1.4 1.9 3.8 26.3 66.7


of things to do

(n = 211; M = 4.53; SD = 0.67)

0.0 1.9 4.3 33.2 60.7

with great natural

scenery/landscape

(n = 210; M = 4.51; SD = 0.71)

0.5 1.0 6.7 30.5 61.4


(n = 213; M = 4.49; SD = 0.71)

0.5 1.9 4.2 34.7 58.7


(n = 211; M = 4.33; SD = 0.81)

0.5 2.8 10.4 35.5 50.7


planning

(n = 211; M = 4.33; SD = 0.79)

0.9 2.4 7.1 42.2 47.7


(n = 211; M = 4.31; SD = 0.83)

0.5 2.8 11.8 35.1 49.8

that is safe

(n = 212; M = 4.21; SD = 0.77)

1.4 1.9 7.1 53.8 35.8




resorts)

(n = 212; M = 4.07; SD = 0.91)

0.5 5.7 18.4 37.7 37.7




46



destination

(n = 209; M = 4.05; SD = 0.86)

1.0 0.5 26.8 35.9 35.9


visitors

(n = 211; M = 3.98; SD = 0.87)

1.4 4.3 17.5 48.8 28.0


(n = 213; M = 3.92; SD = 0.98)

1.9 8.0 17.4 41.8 31.0


(n = 211; M = 3.84; SD = 1.03)

1.9 13.3 10.4 47.7 27.0


get to the city

(n = 210; M = 3.49; SD = 1.19)

6.2 15.2 26.2 28.6 23.8


get around the city

(n = 212; M = 3.30; SD = 1.20)

7.5 19.3 28.3 25.5 19.3


On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, resident inquirers had the highest

levels of agreement that Austin is creative (M = 4.68), eclectic (M = 4.64), friendly (M = 4.64),

outdoorsy (M = 4.62), and unlike the rest of Texas (M = 4.57) (Table 43). Residents were

between disagree and neutral that Austin is stereotypically country (M = 2.57), but agreed Austin

is unlike the rest of Texas (M = 4.57).

Table 43: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Adjectives to Describe Austin

Austin is...

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


Creative

(n = 210; M = 4.68; SD = 0.58)

0.5 0.5 1.4 26.2 71.4

Eclectic

(n = 211; M = 4.64; SD = 0.63)

0.5 0.9 2.4 27.0 69.2

Friendly

(n = 211; M = 4.64; SD = 0.60)

0.5 0.5 2.4 28.0 68.7

Outdoorsy

(n = 211; M = 4.62; SD = 0.61)

0.5 0.9 0.9 31.3 66.4


(n = 211; M = 4.57; SD = 0.75)

0.0 2.8 7.6 19.0 70.6

Scenic

(n = 211; M = 4.54; SD = 0.68)

0.9 0.0 4.7 33.2 61.1




47


Intelligent

(n = 211; M = 4.48; SD = 0.69)

0.5 0.5 7.1 34.6 57.3


(n = 211; M = 4.46; SD = 0.69)

0.5 0.9 5.7 38.4 54.5

Exciting

(n = 208; M = 4.44; SD = 0.71)

0.5 1.4 5.3 38.9 53.8

Relaxing

(n = 211; M = 4.41; SD = 0.72)

0.9 0.9 5.2 41.7 51.2

Weird

(n = 206; M = 4.39; SD = 0.87)

1.5 2.4 7.8 32.5 55.8

Historical

(n = 209; M = 4.22; SD = 0.77)

0.0 3.3 11.0 45.9 39.7

Sincere

(n = 210; M = 4.20; SD = 0.83)

1.0 1.9 14.8 41.4 41.0

Charming

(n = 210; M = 4.19; SD = 0.81)

0.5 2.9 13.8 43.3 39.5

Family oriented

(n = 209; M = 4.19; SD = 0.82)

0.5 2.4 15.8 40.2 41.1

Clean

(n = 210; M = 4.14; SD = 0.86)

1.0 4.3 12.4 44.8 37.6

Diverse

(n = 211; M = 4.13; SD = 0.95)

1.9 5.7 10.9 40.3 41.2

Fashionable

(n = 211; M = 3.95; SD = 0.90)

1.4 5.2 19.0 45.5 28.9


(n = 206; M = 2.57; SD = 1.19)

17.0 40.3 21.4 11.7 9.7





48

Resident inquirers asked a series of questions related to emotional solidarity with Austin visitors

(Table 44). On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, residents indicated they

appreciate visitors for the contribution they make to the local economy (M = 4.67), the

community benefits from having visitors in Austin (M = 4.64), and resident inquirers indicated

they welcome visitors to Austin (M = 4.62). Two more emotional solidarity items with a mean

score above the agree level were that residents had positive interactions with Austin visitors (M =

4.28) and residents identify with visitors in Austin (M = 4.04).

Table 44: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Emotional Solidarity with

Austin Visitors

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


I appreciate visitors for the

contribution they make to the

local economy

(n = 211; M = 4.67; SD =0.61)

0.5 0.5 2.8 24.2 72.0

I feel the community benefits

from having visitors in Austin

(n = 212; M = 4.64; SD = 0.65)

0.5 0.9 3.8 23.6 71.2

I welcome visitors to Austin

(n = 212; M = 4.62; SD = 0.67)

0.9 0.5 3.3 26.4 68.9

I had positive interactions with

Austin visitors

(n = 208; M = 4.28; SD =0.74)

0.5 0.0 13.9 41.8 43.8

I identify with visitors in Austin

(n = 210; M = 4.04; SD =0.87)

1.0 2.4 22.4 40.0 34.3

I have a lot in common with

Austin visitors

(n = 210; M = 3.91; SD = 0.90)

1.0 3.8 28.1 37.1 30.0

I have made friends with some

visitors in Austin

(n = 212; M = 3.86; SD =0.99)

1.9 5.7 28.8 32.1 31.6

I feel close to some visitors I have

met in Austin

(n = 210; M = 3.83; SD =1.00)

1.0 7.1 32.4 26.7 32.9





49

Resident inquirers averaged 6.50 leisure trips and 5.11 business trips over the past 2 years (Table

45). Just over one (1.04) of the trips was taken outside the United States.

Table 45: Residents’ Travel Experience in the Past 2 Years

M SD

Leisure (n = 191) 6.50 7.18

Business (n = 175) 5.11 10.46



On a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree, the top five destinations residents

would like to visit were Austin, Texas (M = 4.39), San Francisco, California (M = 4.36), New

York, New York (M = 4.35), San Diego, California (M = 4.05), and Seattle, Washington (M =

3.95) (Table 46).

Table 46: Frequency Distribution for Residents’ Agreement with Tourism Destinations

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly

Agree


Austin, Texas

(n = 210; M = 4.39; SD = 0.85)

0.5 1.4 16.7 21.4 60.0


(n = 211; M = 4.36; SD = 0.93)

2.4 2.8 9.0 27.5 58.3

New York, New York

(n = 209; M = 4.35; SD = 1.04)

3.3 5.7 4.8 24.9 61.2


(n = 208; M = 4.05; SD = 0.96)

1.9 5.8 14.4 41.3 36.5

Seattle, Washington

(n = 208; M = 3.95; SD = 1.00)

1.0 8.7 20.2 34.6 35.6

Chicago, Illinois

(n = 210; M = 3.88; SD = 1.20)

4.3 13.8 11.4 30.5 40.0


(n = 210; M = 3.86; SD = 1.04)

1.4 11.0 20.5 34.3 32.9


(n = 209; M = 3.86; SD = 1.18)

5.3 11.5 11.0 36.8 35.4

Portland, Oregon

(n = 210; M = 3.83; SD = 1.08)

1.4 12.9 20.5 31.4 33.9

San Antonio, Texas

(n = 212; M = 3.59; SD = 1.06)

5.2 9.9 24.5 41.5 18.9


(n = 211; M = 3.51; SD = 1.10)

4.3 15.2 25.6 35.1 19.9


(n = 210; M = 3.42; SD = 1.26)

7.6 19.0 21.9 26.7 24.8




50



(n = 212; M = 2.87; SD = 1.13)

12.7 25.5 30.7 24.1 7.1

Houston, Texas

(n = 211; M = 2.64; SD = 1.10)

17.7 29.4 28.9 21.3 3.3


Comparisons of Inquirers

This section compares visitors, non-visitors, and residents for the destination image related items

asked of all three inquiry groups. In each table, the overall mean (M) and standard deviation

(SD) is reported in the first column with the item. The items in each table are in descending

order according to the overall mean. The next three columns include the mean and standard

deviation for the visitor, non-visitor, and resident inquirers, respectively. Analysis of variance

(ANOVA) tests were used to statistically determine which groups were significantly different for

each item. Significant differences are identified for each variable with asterisks and the level of

significance is indicated by the number of asterisks, with three asterisks being the most highly

significant. Groups that have a significant difference are indicated by superscript letters

representing the groups that are significantly different. For example, if visitor and resident

inquirers are significantly different for a respective item, the visitor column for that item has a

superscript R and the resident column a superscript V. A series of bullet points follows each

table to interpret or explain significant differences.

The first items tested for differences between the types of inquirers were the rankings of the five

areas to visit in Austin (Table 47). The areas of Austin that were ranked are in order from the

top spot to fifth in the first column, which includes the overall mean and standard deviation.

Since the question asked respondents to rank the areas, the lower the mean the stronger the

feeling it is an area to visit in Austin. Following the table are bullet points to describe the

differences found in ranking the areas of Austin.

Table 47: Comparison of Inquirers on Areas to Visit in Austin

Visitors (V) Non-visitors (N) Residents (R)

Mean (Standard Deviation)

Downtown/Capitol

(M = 1.32; SD = 0.70)*

1.40 (0.73) R 1.31 (0.78) 1.21 (0.60)

V

South

(M = 2.86; SD = 1.19)***

2.84 (1.26) N 3.41 (1.30)

V, R 2.67 (0.99)

N

University

(M = 2.96; SD = 1.20)

2.90 (1.23) 2.95 (1.30) 3.04(1.12)

West

(M = 3.59; SD = 1.10)

3.48 (1.15) 3.60 (1.07) 3.71 (1.04)

East

(M = 3.80; SD = 1.20)***

3.76 (1.25) N, R

3.29 (1.14) V, R

4.07 (1.08) V, N

*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001




51

Downtown/Capitol:

o Residents (M = 1.21) had a significantly stronger feeling compared to visitors (M

= 1.40) that the Downtown/Capitol area of Austin is an area to visit.

South:

o Visitors (M = 2.84) had a significantly stronger feeling compared to non-visitors

(M = 3.41) that the South area of Austin is an area to visit.

o Residents (M = 2.67) had a significantly stronger feeling compared to non-visitors

(M = 3.41) that the South area of Austin is an area to visit.

East:

o Non-visitors (M = 3.29) had a significantly stronger feeling compared to visitors

(M = 3.76) that the East area of Austin is an area to visit.

o Visitors (M = 3.76) had a significantly stronger feeling compared to residents (M

= 4.07) that the East area of Austin is an area to visit.

o Non-visitors (M = 3.29) had a significantly stronger feeling compared to residents

(M = 4.07) that the East area of Austin is an area to visit.

All three groups of inquirers generally agreed spring and fall are the times of the year to visit

Austin (Table 48). However, for the spring all three groups were significantly different in the

level of agreement with residents having the highest level of agreement with each of the seasons,

followed by visitors, and then residents. For the fall visitors and residents had significantly

higher levels of agreement compared to non-visitors, but visitors and residents were not

significantly different. Following the table are bullet point explanations of the significant

differences found for the level of agreement with the seasons during which to visit Austin.

Table 48: Comparison of Inquirers on Seasons to Visit Austin



Winter (December, January, February)

(M = 3.77; SD = 0.99)***

3.88 (0.96) N 3.36 (0.92)

V, R 3.82 (1.02)

N

Spring (March, April, May)

(M = 4.64; SD = 0.63)***

4.61 (0.60) N, R

4.39 (0.68) V, R

4.80 (0.59) V, N

Summer (June, July, August)

(M = 3.57; SD = 1.19)*

3.65 (1.18) N 3.29 (1.08)

V 3.60 (1.23)

Fall (September, October, November)

(M = 4.47; SD = 0.72)***

4.50 (0.68) N 4.21 (0.76)

V, R 4.55 (0.74)

N

*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001

Winter:

o Visitors (M = 3.88) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to

non-visitors (M = 3.36) that Austin is a destination to go to in the winter.

o Residents (M = 3.82) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to

non-visitors (M = 3.36) that Austin is a destination to go to in the winter.




52

Spring:


non-visitors (M = 4.39) that Austin is a destination to go to in the spring.


visitors (M = 4.61) that Austin is a destination to go to in the spring.


non-visitors (M = 4.39) that Austin is a destination to go to in the spring.

Summer:


non-visitors (M = 3.29) that Austin is a destination to go to in the summer.

Fall:


non-visitors (M = 4.21) that Austin is a destination to go to in the fall.


non-visitors (M = 4.21) that Austin is a destination to go to in the fall.

When asked about types of trips to Austin a number of significant differences were found (Table

49). In general, residents displayed the highest level of agreement with each type of trip to

Austin, followed by visitors, and then non-visitors. Following the table is a bullet point list

explaining the significant differences between the three inquiry groups for types of trips to

Austin.

Table 49: Comparison of Inquirers on Types of Trips to Austin



entertainment

(M = 4.67; SD = 0.58)

4.63 (0.57) 4.64 (0.58) 4.74 (0.60)

a weekend getaway

(M = 4.55; SD = 0.75)***

4.57 (0.76) N, R

4.10 (0.91) V, R

4.75 (0.52) V, N

special events

(M = 4.55; SD = 0.65)*

4.54 (0.64) 4.42 (0.70) R 4.63 (0.64)

N

leisure

(M = 4.54; SD = 0.63)*

4.55 (0.65) 4.39 (0.65) R 4.60 (0.58)

N

a last minute getaway***

(M = 4.34; SD = 0.86)

4.38 (0.83) N 3.86 (0.97)

V, R 4.51 (0.77)

N

a vacation (about a week or longer)

(M = 4.26; SD = 0.89)

4.25 (0.93) 4.25 (0.87) 4.28 (0.85)

conventions

(M = 4.20; SD = 0.84)***

4.16 (0.79) N, R

3.68 (0.92) V, R

4.49 (0.74) V, N

business trips

(M = 4.18; SD = 0.84)***

4.18 (0.80) N, R

3.63 (0.92) V, R

4.44 (0.72) V, N




53


group meetings

(M = 4.14; SD = 0.84)***

4.11 (0.82) N, R

3.57 (0.90) V, R

4.44 (0.68) V, N

a day trip

(M = 3.90; SD = 1.21)***

3.94 (1.15) N, R

2.82 (1.30) V, R

4.37 (0.87) V, N

*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001

A weekend getaway:


non-visitors (M = 4.10) that Austin is a destination to go to for a weekend

getaway.


visitors (M = 4.57) that Austin is a destination to go to for a weekend getaway.


non-visitors (M = 4.10) that Austin is a destination to go to for a weekend

getaway.

Special events:


non-visitors (M = 4.42) that Austin is a destination to go to for special events.

Leisure:


non-visitors (M = 4.39) that Austin is a destination to go to for leisure.

A last minute getaway:


non-visitors (M = 3.86) that Austin is a destination to go to for a last minute

getaway.


non-visitors (M = 3.86) that Austin is a destination to go to for a last minute

getaway.

Conventions:


non-visitors (M = 3.68) that Austin is a destination to go to for a convention.


visitors (M = 4.16) that Austin is a destination to go to for a convention.


non-visitors (M = 3.68) that Austin is a destination to go to for a convention.

Business trips:


non-visitors (M = 3.63) that Austin is a destination to go to for business trips.




54


visitors (M = 4.18) that Austin is a destination to go to for business trips.


non-visitors (M = 3.63) that Austin is a destination to go to for business trips.

Group meetings:


non-visitors (M = 3.57) that Austin is a destination to go to for group meetings.


visitors (M = 4.11) that Austin is a destination to go to for group meetings.


non-visitors (M = 3.57) that Austin is a destination to go to for group meetings.

A day trip:


non-visitors (M = 2.82) that Austin is a destination to go to for a day trip.


visitors (M = 3.94) that Austin is a destination to go to for a day trip.


non-visitors (M = 2.82) that Austin is a destination to go to for a day trip.

When asked about activities and experiences in Austin visitor, non-visitor, and resident inquirers

also had some significantly different levels of agreement (Table 50). A few of the largest

differences occurred with all three groups having different levels of agreement that Austin is a

destination to go to play golf, participate in sports, and for outdoor recreation activities, with

residents having the highest level of agreement, followed by visitors, and then non-visitors.

Following Table 50 is a bullet point list explaining the significant differences found for activities

to do in Austin.

Table 50: Comparison of Inquirers on Types of Activities to do in Austin

Visitors Non-visitors Residents


enjoy live music

(M = 4.76; SD = 0.58)**

4.70 (0.62) R 4.69 (0.61)

R 4.87 (0.47)

V, N

enjoy nightlife

(M = 4.58; SD = 0.68)***

4.50 (0.71) R 4.51 (0.71)

R 4.73 (0.58)

V, N

see performing arts (e.g., music, drama,

dance)

(M = 4.49; SD = 0.74)

4.49 (0.73) 4.50 (0.72) 4.49 (0.76)


(M = 4.48; SD = 0.72)**

4.54 (0.64) N 4.26 (0.76)

V, R 4.51 (0.79)

N




55



(M = 4.45; SD = 0.72)**

4.44 (0.72) 4.25 (0.74) R 4.57 (0.70)

N


(M = 4.45; SD = 0.71)**

4.44 (0.68) 4.26 (0.79) R 4.55 (0.70)

N


activities

(M = 4.31; SD = 0.82)***

4.23 (0.81) N, R

3.86 (0.93) V, R

4.63 (0.62) V, N


(M = 4.19; SD = 0.79)

4.25 (0.72) 4.09 (0.69) 4.14 (0.91)

experience the multicultural arts scene

(M = 4.18; SD = 0.85)

4.21 (0.80) 4.26 (0.75) 4.09 (0.95)


(M = 4.04; SD = 0.93)

4.09 (0.89) 4.02 (0.87) 4.00 (1.00)

go shopping

(M = 4.02; SD = 0.88)

4.07 (0.86) 3.90 (0.91) 4.01 (0.88)


( M = 3.76; SD = 0.96)

3.83 (0.91) 3.72 (0.92) 3.69 (1.05)


(M = 3.74; SD = 1.01)***

3.74 (0.92) N, R

3.08 (1.08) V, R

4.07 (0.93) V, N


(M = 3.66; SD = 1.00)***

3.66 (0.90) N 3.25 (1.00)

V, R 3.84 (1.06)

N


(M = 3.55; SD = 0.98)***

3.51 (0.89) N, R

2.87 (0.94) V, R

3.92 (0.92) V, N

play golf

(M = 3.46; SD = 0.96)***

3.40 (0.86) N, R

2.88 (0.99) V, R

3.81 (0.92) V, N

*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001

Enjoy live music:


visitors (M = 4.70) that Austin is a destination to enjoy live music.


non-visitors (M = 4.69) that Austin is a destination to enjoy live music.

Enjoy nightlife:


visitors (M = 4.50) that Austin is a destination to enjoy nightlife.


non-visitors (M = 4.51) that Austin is a destination to enjoy nightlife.

Enjoy a variety of food:


non-visitors (M = 4.26) that Austin is a destination to enjoy a variety of food.


non-visitors (M = 4.26) that Austin is a destination to enjoy a variety of food.




56

Experience the unique community:


non-visitors (M = 4.25) that Austin is a destination to experience the unique

community.

Attend special events:


non-visitors (M = 4.26) that Austin is a destination to attend special events.

Participate in outdoor recreation activities:


non-visitors (M = 3.86) that Austin is a destination to participate in outdoor

recreation activities.


visitors (M = 4.23) that Austin is a destination to participate in outdoor recreation

activities.


non-visitors (M = 3.86) that Austin is a destination to participate in outdoor

recreation activities.

Enjoy kid friendly activities:


non-visitors (M = 3.08) that Austin is a destination to enjoy kid friendly activities.


visitors (M = 3.74) that Austin is a destination to enjoy kid friendly activities.


non-visitors (M = 3.08) that Austin is a destination to enjoy kid friendly activities.

Watch sporting events:


non-visitors (M = 3.25) that Austin is a destination to watch sporting events.


non-visitors (M = 3.25) that Austin is a destination to watch sporting events.

Participate in sports:


non-visitors (M = 2.87) that Austin is a destination to participate in sports.


visitors (M = 3.51) that Austin is a destination to participate in sports.


non-visitors (M = 2.87) that Austin is a destination to participate in sports.

Play golf:


non-visitors (M = 2.88) that Austin is a destination to play golf.




57


visitors (M = 3.40) that Austin is a destination to play golf.


non-visitors (M = 2.88) that Austin is a destination to play golf.

The attributes of Austin had differences between the three groups of inquirers (Table 51). Once

again, in general Austin resident inquirers showed higher levels of agreement compared to

visitors and non-visitors for several items. However, when asked if Austin is a destination with

convenient transportation to get around the city residents had a significantly lower level of

agreement compared to both visitor and non-visitor inquirers. Following Table 51 is a bullet

point list explaining the significant differences for the attributes of Austin.

Table 51: Comparison of Inquirers on Various Attributes of Austin



where people like me would enjoy

visiting

(M = 4.47; SD = 0.68)**

4.44 (0.69) 4.31 (0.63) R 4.57 (0.67)

N


(M = 4.46; SD = 0.74)

4.43 (0.74) 4.38 (0.64) 4.55 (0.78)

that offers visitors a wide variety of

things to do

(M = 4.44; SD = 0.68)*

4.41 (0.67) 4.32 (0.67) R 4.53 (0.67)

N

with great natural scenery/landscape

(M = 4.38; SD = 0.72)***

4.37 (0.70) N 4.12 (0.71)

V, R 4.51 (0.71)

N


(M = 4.38; SD = 0.74)***

4.33 (0.73) N, R

4.05 (0.72) V, R

4.60 (0.68) V, N


(M = 4.35; SD = 0.71)***

4.34 (0.67) N, R

4.06 (0.73) V, R

4.49 (0.71) V, N


planning

(M = 4.18; SD = 0.83)***

4.20 (0.81) N 3.81 (0.86)

V, R 4.33 (0.79)

N


(M = 4.17; SD = 0.81)**

4.11 (0.82) R 4.07 (0.73)

R 4.31 (0.83)

V, N


(M = 4.14; SD = 0.84)***

4.10 (0.85) R 3.88 (0.81)

R 4.33 (0.81)

V, N


facilities (e.g., hotels, campgrounds,

bed & breakfasts, resorts)

(M = 4.10; SD = 0.83)

4.12 (0.81) 4.09 (0.69) 4.07 (0.91)

that is safe

(M = 4.04; SD = 0.78)***

4.00 (0.78) R 3.83 (0.76)

R 4.21 (0.77)

V, N




58



(M = 4.01; SD = 0.90)

4.05 (0.89) 4.08 (0.70) 3.92 (0.98)

that is reasonably priced for visitors

(M = 3.97; SD = 0.79)

4.01 (0.74) 3.87 (0.76) 3.98 (0.87)


(M = 3.86; SD = 0.98)

3.89 (0.98) 3.80 (0.87) 3.84 (1.03)

that is a LGBT friendly destination

(M = 3.82; SD = 0.86)***

3.74 (0.84) R 3.55 (0.79)

R 4.05 (0.86)

V, N

with convenient transportation to get to

the city

(M = 3.64; SD = 1.02)*

3.74 (0.94) R 3.66 (0.82) 3.49 (1.19)

V

with convenient transportation to get

around the city

(M = 3.54; SD = 1.06)***

3.67 (0.99) R 3.69 (0.82)

R 3.30 (1.20)

V, N

*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001

Where people like me would enjoy visiting:


non-visitors (M = 4.31) that Austin is a destination where people like them would

enjoy visiting.

That offers visitors a wide variety of things to do:


non-visitors (M = 4.32) that Austin is a destination that offers visitors a wide

variety of things to do.

With great natural scenery/landscape:


non-visitors (M = 4.12) that Austin is a destination with great natural

scenery/landscape.


non-visitors (M = 4.12) that Austin is a destination with great natural

scenery/landscape.

With friendly local residents


non-visitors (M = 4.05) that Austin is a destination with friendly local residents.


visitors (M = 4.33) that Austin is a destination with friendly local residents.


non-visitors (M = 4.05) that Austin is a destination with friendly local residents.




59

With unique restaurants:


non-visitors (M = 4.06) that Austin is a destination with unique restaurants.


visitors (M = 4.34) that Austin is a destination with unique restaurants.


non-visitors (M = 4.06) that Austin is a destination with unique restaurants.

That does not require a lot of pre-planning:


non-visitors (M = 3.81) that Austin is a destination that does not require a lot of

pre-planning.


non-visitors (M = 3.81) that Austin is a destination that does not require a lot of

pre-planning.

With top notch lodging facilities:


visitors (M = 4.11) that Austin is a destination with top notch lodging facilities.


non-visitors (M = 4.07) that Austin is a destination with top notch lodging

facilities.

With unique retail stores:


visitors (M = 4.10) that Austin is a destination with unique retail stores.


non-visitors (M = 3.88) that Austin is a destination with unique retail stores.

That is safe:


visitors (M = 4.00) that Austin is a destination that is safe.


non-visitors (M = 3.83) that Austin is a destination that is safe.

That is a LGBT friendly destination:


visitors (M = 3.74) that Austin is a LGBT friendly destination.


non-visitors (M = 3.55) that Austin is a LGBT friendly destination.

With convenient transportation to get to the city:


residents (M = 3.49) that Austin is a destination with convenient transportation to

get to the city.




60

With convenient transportation to get around the city:



get around the city.

o Non-visitors (M = 3.69) had a significantly higher level of agreement compared to


get around the city.

The comparison of adjectives and phrases to describe Austin revealed that residents generally

had higher levels of agreement than visitor and non-visitor inquirers for most items (Table 52).

Although all three groups generally agreed that Austin is eclectic, outdoorsy, friendly,

environmentally friendly, and creative, residents had the highest levels of agreement, followed

by visitors, and then non-visitors. The same significant differences were found for the item

asking if Austin is unlike the rest of Texas. Following Table 52 is a bullet point list describing

the significant differences for the adjectives to describe Austin.

Table 52: Comparison of Inquirers on Adjectives to Describe Austin



Creative

(M = 4.48; SD = 0.58)***

4.42 (0.64) N, R

4.22 (0.64) V, R

4.68 (0.58) V, N

Eclectic

(M = 4.45; SD = 0.69)***

4.41 (0.71) N, R

4.18 (0.67) V, R

4.64 (0.63) V, N

Friendly

(M = 4.44; SD = 0.68)***

4.40 (0.70) N, R

4.16 (0.67) V, R

4.64 (0.60) V, N

Scenic

(M = 4.41; SD = 0.68)**

4.37 (0.67) R 4.24 (0.65)

R 4.54 (0.68)

V, N

Outdoorsy

(M = 4.39; SD = 0.70)***

4.34 (0.71) N, R

4.06 (0.70) V, R

4.62 (0.61) V, N

Exciting

(M = 4.36; SD = 0.71)

4.33 (0.72) 4.25 (0.67) 4.44 (0.71)

Relaxing

(M = 4.30; SD = 0.71)***

4.31 (0.69) N 4.03 (0.71)

V, R 4.41 (0.72)

N


(M = 4.25; SD = 0.75)***

4.20 (0.76) N, R

3.96 (0.70) V, R

4.46 (0.69) V, N

Intelligent

(M = 4.25; SD = 0.76)***

4.18 (0.76) N, R

3.97 (0.74) V, R

4.48 (0.69) V, N

Historical

(M = 4.22; SD = 0.73)

4.25 (0.71) 4.13 (0.70) 4.22 (0.77)


(M = 4.22; SD = 0.90)***

4.12 (0.92) N, R

3.79 (0.88) V, R

4.57 (0.75) V, N

Charming

(M = 4.17; SD = 0.77)

4.21 (0.76) 4.03 (0.72) 4.19 (0.81)




61


Diverse

(M = 4.13; SD = 0.85)

4.15 (0.84) 4.08 (0.67) 4.13 (0.95)

Clean

(M = 4.12; SD = 0.79)

4.17 (0.75) 3.95 (0.69) 4.14 (0.86)

Sincere

(M = 4.06; SD = 0.80)**

4.05 (0.79) N 3.83 (0.73)

V, R 4.20 (0.83)

N

Weird

(M = 4.00; SD = 1.04)***

3.89 (1.09) N, R

3.55 (0.99) V, R

4.39 (0.85) V, N

Family oriented

(M = 3.97; SD = 0.85)***

3.91 (0.84) N, R

3.67 (0.81) V, R

4.19 (0.82) V, N

Fashionable

(M = 3.91 ; SD = 0.84)

3.88 (0.85) 3.93 (0.70) 3.95 (0.90)


(M = 2.70; SD = 1.13)

2.75 (1.14) 2.82 (0.98) 2.57 (1.19)

*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001

Creative:


non-visitors (M = 4.22) that Austin is creative.


visitors (M = 4.42) that Austin is creative.


non-visitors (M = 4.22) that Austin is creative.

Eclectic:


non-visitors (M = 4.18) that Austin is eclectic.


visitors (M = 4.41) that Austin is eclectic.


non-visitors (M = 4.18) that Austin is eclectic.

Friendly:


non-visitors (M = 4.16) that Austin is friendly.


visitors (M = 4.40) that Austin is friendly.


non-visitors (M = 4.16) that Austin is friendly.

Scenic:


visitors (M = 4.37) that Austin is scenic.




62


non-visitors (M = 4.24) that Austin is scenic.

Outdoorsy:


non-visitors (M = 4.06) that Austin is outdoorsy.


visitors (M = 4.34) that Austin is outdoorsy.


non-visitors (M = 4.06) that Austin is outdoorsy.

Relaxing:


non-visitors (M = 4.03) that Austin is relaxing.


non-visitors (M = 4.03) that Austin is relaxing.

Environmentally friendly:


non-visitors (M = 3.96) that Austin is environmentally friendly.


visitors (M = 4.20) that Austin is environmentally friendly.


non-visitors (M = 3.96) that Austin is environmentally friendly.

Intelligent:


non-visitors (M = 3.97) that Austin is intelligent.


visitors (M = 4.18) that Austin is intelligent.


non-visitors (M = 3.97) that Austin is intelligent.

Unlike the rest of Texas:


non-visitors (M = 3.79) that Austin is unlike the rest of Texas.


visitors (M = 4.12) that Austin is unlike the rest of Texas.


non-visitors (M = 3.79) that Austin is unlike the rest of Texas.

Sincere:


non-visitors (M = 3.83) that Austin is sincere.




63


non-visitors (M = 3.83) that Austin is sincere.

Weird:


non-visitors (M = 3.55) that Austin is weird.


visitors (M = 3.89) that Austin is weird.


non-visitors (M = 3.55) that Austin is weird.

Family oriented:


non-visitors (M = 3.67) that Austin is family oriented.


visitors (M = 3.91) that Austin is family oriented.


non-visitors (M = 3.67) that Austin is family oriented.

Interesting differences were found for the level of agreement with Austin, Texas being a

destination respondents would like to visit (Table 53). Although all three groups agreed it is

somewhere they would like to visit, visitors and non-visitors had higher levels of agreement than

residents that Austin is a destination they would like to visit. However, visitors and non-visitors

were not significantly different on their levels of agreement for Austin, Texas being a destination

they would like to visit. Following Table 53 is a bullet point list explaining the significant

differences for the level of agreement with the destinations respondents would like to visit.

Table 53: Comparison of Inquirers on Destinations to Visit



Austin, Texas

(M = 4.54; SD = 0.73)**

4.62 (0.68) R 4.60 (0.58)

R 4.39 (0.85)

V, N

New York, New York

(M = 4.13; SD = 1.12)**

4.04 (1.16) R 3.97 (1.14)

R 4.35 (1.04)

V, N


(M = 4.00; SD = 0.99)

4.01 (1.05) 3.90 (0.90) 4.05 (0.96)

Seattle, Washington

(M = 3.91; SD = 1.00)

3.89 (1.03) 3.90 (0.92) 3.95 (1.00)


(M = 3.87; SD = 1.15)

3.91 (1.13) 3.81 (1.14) 3.86 (1.18)


(M = 3.84; SD = 0.97)**

4.10 (1.15) R 3.99 (1.04)

R 4.36 (0.93)

V, N


(M = 3.84; SD = 1.00)

3.85 (0.97) 3.79 (1.01) 3.86 (1.04)




64


San Antonio, Texas

(M = 3.83; SD = 1.02)***

3.98 (0.95) R 3.87 (1.06) 3.59 (1.06)

V

Chicago, Illinois

(M = 3.72; SD = 1.21)

3.65 (1.20) 3.58 (1.21) 3.88 (1.20)

Portland, Oregon

(M = 3.68; SD = 1.14)

3.59 (1.20) 3.63 (1.08) 3.83 (1.08)


(M = 3.61; SD = 1.06)

3.61 (1.02) 3.79 (1.09) 3.51 (1.10)


(M = 3.34; SD = 1.27)

3.33 (1.31) 3.20 (1.17) 3.42 (1.26)


(M = 3.06; SD = 1.13)**

3.23 (1.13) R 3.01 (1.09) 2.87 (1.13)

V

Houston, Texas

(M = 2.86; SD = 1.12)**

2.98 (1.12) R 2.99 (1.09)

R 2.64 (1.10)

V, N

*significant at = 0.05; ** = 0.01; *** = 0.001

Austin, Texas:


residents (M = 4.39) with Austin, Texas being a destination they would like to

visit.


residents (M = 4.39) with Austin, Texas being a destination they would like to

visit.

New York, New York:


visitors (M = 4.04) with New York, New York being a destination they would like

to visit.


non-visitors (M = 3.97) with New York, New York being a destination they

would like to visit.

San Francisco, California:


visitors (M = 4.10) with San Francisco, California being a destination they would

like to visit.


non-visitors (M = 3.99) with San Francisco, California being a destination they





65

San Antonio, Texas:


residents (M = 3.59) with San Antonio, Texas being a destination they would like

to visit.

Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas:


residents (M = 2.87) with Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas being a destination they


Houston, Texas:


residents (M = 2.64) with Houston, Texas being a destination they would like to

visit.


residents (M = 2.64) with Houston, Texas being a destination they would like to

visit.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to assess the images of Austin, Texas as a travel

destination and, where appropriate, compare the image between types of inquirers (i.e., visited in

past 2 years, have not visited in past 2 years, local area residents) that comprised the study

sample. In general, respondents had favorable images of Austin as a travel destination.

However, when the three groups were compared on their level of agreement with images of

Austin a number of significant differences were identified. Austin area residents typically had

the highest level of agreement, followed by visitor and then non-visitor inquirers, suggesting as

inquirers spend more time in Austin the uniqueness and character of the city might become more

evident.

This study allowed some comparisons to the 2003 visitor inquiry study conducted for the Austin

CVB (Behavior Research Center, Inc), as well as a recent qualitative study (Fire Studios, 2010).

The 2003 study indicated that 45.0% of inquirers had visited Austin, but 32.0% who had not yet

visited planned to visit. In the current study, 48.5% of the total respondents had visited Austin in

the past 2 years, 17.2% had not visited in the past 2 years, and 34.3% were local area residents.

Of the respondents in the current study who had not yet visited Austin, 49.1% indicated they

were very or extremely likely to visit in the next 2 years.

In the 2003 visitor inquiry study, 12.0% of visitors were day-trip visitors to Austin, compared to

15.0% in the current study. In 2003 the median length of an overnight trip was 3.50 nights,

while the current study’s median length of stay for an overnight trip was 3.00 nights.




66

In 2003 Austin visitors were asked to rate Austin as a destination on a scale from excellent to not

sure and 85.0% of the visitors indicated either excellent or good. In the current study, 93.4%

were either very or extremely satisfied with their most recent visit to Austin.

The 2003 and current study also allow a general comparison of perceptions of Austin as a travel

destination. In 2003, 75.0% of visitors agreed Austin is a great destination for live music

options, while 94.2% agreed or strongly agreed Austin is a destination to enjoy live music in the

current study. Another interesting comparison is in 2003, 90.0% of visitors thought Austin is a

great place for people like them and in the current study 93.9% agreed or strongly agreed Austin

is a destination where people like them would enjoy visiting.

Both studies also allow some comparisons of non-visitor inquirers, including impressions of

destinations as a place to visit. In the 2003 study, 80.0% of non-visitors had positive images of

Austin as a destination. In the current study, 97.1% of non-visitor inquirers agreed or strongly

agreed Austin, Texas is a destination they would like to visit.

Recently, qualitative interviews of Austin visitors were conducted by Fire Studios for the Austin

CVB. The results share some common themes to the current quantitative study. For example,

both studies found friends and editorials as important sources of information in the travel

decision making process. Over half (55.9%) of visitors in the current study indicated friends

were very or extremely important sources of information in deciding to visit Austin. This was

the second most important source of information, following only previous trips to Austin.

Magazines/editorial was the sixth most important source of information, with 34.9% of visitors

indicating the source was very or extremely important.

In terms of information for planning a trip to Austin, the qualitative study indicated visitors did

not do much research prior to visiting and the decision to visit was made close to when the visit

actually occurred. The current study found the decision to visit Austin was made an average of

about 63 days prior to visiting and 26.0% of visitors indicated they were very or extremely

knowledgeable about Austin prior to their most recent visit.

The qualitative study indicated the music scene in Austin was the main reason people visited.

The majority (94.2%) of visitors in the current study agreed or strongly agreed Austin is a

destination to enjoy live music. Another important experience identified in the qualitative study

was the role of food when traveling. The majority (93.6%) of visitors in the current study were

very or extremely satisfied with the local cuisine in Austin on their most recent visit.

When assessing the “vibe” of Austin as a travel destination, the qualitative study used some of

the following terms and phrases to describe Austin according to visitors: “western chic”, “hip”,

“just the right amount of Texas friendly southern culture”. The current study found some similar

terms and phrases to result in the highest level of agreement among visitor inquirers. For

example, 93.5% agreed or strongly agreed Austin is creative and 89.5% agreed or strongly

agreed Austin is eclectic. Another interesting comparison between the two studies is related to

how “country” Austin is according to visitors. The qualitative study found the “Austin Vibe” is

not “Too country”. The phrase “Stereotypically country” received the least amount of agreement




67

in the current study for adjectives and phrases to describe Austin, with 45.0% of visitors

disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the phrase.

In conclusion, all three groups of inquirers in this study generally had positive images of Austin

as a tourism destination. The significant differences found for images between the three groups

of inquirers are mostly explained by the level of experience or time spent in Austin with

residents generally having highest levels of agreement for most items, followed by visitors and

then non-visitors.




68

References

Behavior Research Center, Inc. (2003, December). Austin Visitor Inquiry Study.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys:

The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2003). The meaning and measurement of destination image.

The Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(1), 37-48.

Molina, A., Gomez, M., & Martin-Consuegra, D. (2010). Tourism marketing information and

destination image management. African Journal of Business Management, 4(5), 722-728.

Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2005). Designing and conducting survey research: A

comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Documents

2010-2011 Austin Visitor Inquiry Study