Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

92
University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate eses and Dissertations Graduate School 3-22-2017 Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors on Cruise Vacations: A Conjoint Analysis Frida Bahja University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: hp://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons , and the Marketing Commons is esis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate eses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Scholar Commons Citation Bahja, Frida, "Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors on Cruise Vacations: A Conjoint Analysis" (2017). Graduate eses and Dissertations. hp://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6677

Transcript of Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

Page 1: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

University of South FloridaScholar Commons

Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School

3-22-2017

Evaluating the Relative Importance of InfluencingFactors on Cruise Vacations: A Conjoint AnalysisFrida BahjaUniversity of South Florida, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd

Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, and theMarketing Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GraduateTheses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Scholar Commons CitationBahja, Frida, "Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors on Cruise Vacations: A Conjoint Analysis" (2017). GraduateTheses and Dissertations.http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6677

Page 2: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors on Cruise Vacations:

A Conjoint Analysis

by

Frida Bahja

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Department of Hospitality Management

College of Hospitality and Tourism Leadership

University of South Florida

Major Professor: Cihan Cobanoglu, Ph.D.

Katerina Berezina, Ph.D.

Carolin Lusby, Ph.D.

Date of Approval:

March 20, 2017

Keywords: Cruise vacation, conjoint analysis, influencing factor, cruise attribute

Copyright© 2017, Frida Bahja

Page 3: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

DEDICATION

To my grandmother, Rabie Zeneli: For all what she has done to raise me, which I will

always be grateful for. You are my pillar of strength in life!

To my parents, Agim and Raimonda Bahja: For their unconditional love, support and

sacrifices. You are my inspiration and happiness. I feel honored and blessed to be your daughter!

To my sisters, Jonilda, Gerta and Migena Bahja: For being my best cheerleaders through

their presence and spirit. Thank you for bringing so much joy into my life!

Page 4: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to gratefully acknowledge various people who have journeyed with me as I

have completed my thesis work.

I owe my deepest gratitude to my thesis advisor Dr. Cihan Cobanoglu for accepting to chair

my thesis. His guidance, support and encouragement in completing my thesis work are precious.

Thank you for looking at my work in different ways, for opening my mind and for challenging me

to do better. You have been a great mentor, advisor and professor. Thank you very much!

I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Ekaterina Berezina for serving on my

thesis committee. Dr. Berezina has unconditionally supported me with her thoughtful feedback

and has always aimed towards moving me forward. Your passion and patience about education

and research have inspired me. Thank you very much!

I want to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Carolin Lusby for serving on my thesis

committee. Thank you for your time, valuable feedback and insights on my thesis work. Thank

you very much!

Beside my thesis committee, I would like to thank, Dr. Patric Moreo, Dean of College of

Hospitality, Tourism and Leadership at University of South Florida, for his generous support with

data collection for my thesis. Thank you very much!

I have no words to express my thanks to my beloved family members, aunts, loved ones

and friends for their emotional support. Your prayers and love gave me the energy to complete my

thesis work. Thank you very much to all of you!

Page 5: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Figures ...............................................................................................................................................................iv

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................................... v

Chapter I: Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Limitations ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

Delimitations ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Assumptions .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................................ 4

Chapter II: Literature Review ........................................................................................................................................ 6

Cruise Customers’ Decision-Making Process ................................................................................................. 6

Factors Influencing Cruise Customers’ Decision ............................................................................................ 9

Cruise Vacation Price ...................................................................................................................... 14

Cruise Itinerary ............................................................................................................................... 15

Duration of Cruise Vacation ........................................................................................................... 16

Distance from Cruise Port ............................................................................................................... 18

Environmental Friendliness of Cruise Line .................................................................................... 19

Cruise Online Reviews .................................................................................................................... 20

Summary of Literature .................................................................................................................................. 22

Research Question ......................................................................................................................................... 23

Chapter III: Methods: .................................................................................................................................................. 25

Research Design ............................................................................................................................................ 25

Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis ................................................................................................................... 28

Establishing the Attributes and the Level of Attributes ................................................................................. 29

Sample Size ................................................................................................................................................... 32

Data Collection .............................................................................................................................................. 33

Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................................................. 34

Pilot Test ....................................................................................................................................................... 35

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 36

Chapter IV: Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 38

Demographic Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 38

Respondents’ Cruise Behavior ...................................................................................................................... 40

Conjoint Analysis Results ............................................................................................................................. 44

Further Findings about Online Reviews and Environmental Friendliness in Cruise Industry ...................... 48

Cruise Online Reviews .................................................................................................................... 48

Environmental Friendliness of Cruise Line .................................................................................... 49

Environmental concerns (EC) scale. ................................................................................. 51

Page 6: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

ii

Environmentally friendly tourism behaviors (EFTB) scale. ............................................. 52

Chapter V: Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 54

U.S. Cruise Customers’ Profile ..................................................................................................................... 57

Implications and Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 59

Future Suggestions for Research ................................................................................................................... 60

References ................................................................................................................................................................... 62

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................. 75

Appendix A: Survey Instrument .................................................................................................................... 76

Appendix B: IRB Approval Letter ................................................................................................................ 83

Page 7: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Cruise attributes as influencing factors .................................................................................................. 10

Table 2: Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) Model Attributes ................................................................................... 30

Table 3: Sociodemographic Profile of the Respondents ....................................................................................... 39

Table 4: Respondents’ Cruise Experiences .......................................................................................................... 41

Table 5: Importance of factors from when booking a cruise ................................................................................ 42

Table 6: Respondent Scores for Importance of Cruise Attributes When Booking a Cruise Vacation ................. 44

Table 7: Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ........................................................................................... 45

Table 8: Relative Utilities (Levels (Part-Worth)) ................................................................................................. 46

Table 9: Best Cruise Vacation Profile for U.S. Cruise Customers ....................................................................... 47

Table 10: Worst Cruise Vacation Profile for U.S. Cruise Customers .................................................................... 47

Table 11: Respondents’ Rank of Six Influencing Factors When Deciding About Cruise Vacations ..................... 48

Table 12: Respondent Scores for the Level of Importance with the Following Statements of Cruise

Environmental Friendly Factors ............................................................................................................. 50

Table 13: Importance of Environmental Friendly Factors When Choosing a Cruise Line .................................... 51

Table 14: Environmental Concerns (EC) Scale ...................................................................................................... 52

Table 15: Environmentally Friendly Tourism Behaviors (EFTB) Scale ................................................................ 53

Page 8: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Key Decision-making Factors Driving the Behavior of Cruise Customers (CLIA, 2016b). ........... 12

Figure 2: Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) Analysis Model Presented to Respondents of the Study ...................... 32

Figure 3: Residency States of Respondents. .......................................................................................................... 40

Page 9: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

v

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on exploring the relative importance of six influential factors in cruise

customers’ decision-making process such as: cruise vacation price, cruise duration, distance from

the cruise port, itineraries, environmental friendliness of cruise line and cruise online reviews.

The decision on which influencing factors to select was made based on the review of literature.

The complexity of cruise customers’ decision-making process for these six attributes with

several levels was examined with Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) Analysis. CBC was selected

due to its realistic approach to purchase decisions, in the form of trade-offs. The online survey

collected data anonymously. The survey was distributed through Amazon Mechanical Turk

(Mturk) platform. Only 450 cruise customers, who had experienced a cruise vacation before

were eligible to participate in the study.

The purpose of the study was to discover the relative importance of the influencing

factors to gain more insights about cruise customers. The findings of the study showed that

online reviews were the most influential attribute for cruise customers in their cruise decision,

followed very closely by the environmental friendliness of the cruise line. The next influential

factor was the duration of the cruise vacation which was followed by distance from the cruise

port, cruise itinerary and cruise vacation price. The best and the worst cruise vacation profile

were generated from CBC analysis. The findings of this study provide some insights with regard

to cruise customers’ importance about influencing factors when deciding on a cruise vacation.

Page 10: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

1

CHAPTER I:

INTRODUCTION

Cruise tourism represents one of the fastest developing sectors of tourism (Duffy, 2013),

generating five to ten percent of the total annual global economy (Ballini & Bozzo, 2015) with

more than 448 cruise ships available (Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), 2005).

CLIA reported that the economic impact of the cruise industry in 2013 and also in 2015 had the

same figures: $117 billion profits at the global level, of which the United States earned $44

billion (CLIA, 2015; CLIA, 2017). Worldwide, 89% of cruise customers were highly satisfied

with their cruise vacation in 2015 (CLIA, 2015). Travel agents in the cruise industry reported

that from 2010 to 2016 the demand for cruise vacations increased by 68%. Only in 2015, 25.3

million passengers cruised, while CLIA estimated 23.19 million passenger to cruise (CLIA,

2015). In 2016, CLIA estimated 24.2 million passengers to cruise and for 2017 the number of

passengers expected to cruise was 25.3 million (CLIA, 2017).

Cruise industry reports estimated 2016 to be the best year for the cruise industry with a

ten percent increase from the previous year (CLIA, 2016b). CLIA reports that the average profile

of a cruise customer is an individual 49 years old, married, with a college degree, employed full

time, and with an average annual income of $114,000. The report states that 42% of respondents

chose the ‘ocean cruise vacation’ as the most preferred method of vacation in comparison to all

other types of vacations. In a total of 69%, cruise customers find cruise vacationing a better

option for the value compared to land-based vacations (CLIA, 2016b).

Page 11: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

2

The fast-paced growth of the cruise industry has brought a high number of options to

cruise customers, and has greatly increased the competition between the cruise line companies

(CLIA, 2015). The growth of the cruise industry stirred interest for researchers to analyze the

factors influencing the cruise customers’ decision-making process (Petrick, Li & Park, 2007). In

1992, in a study on novelty tourism, author John Crompton argued that cruise customers’

decision-making process is a complex process due to the influence of a variety of factors

(Crompton, 1992). Cruise customers’ decision-making models evolved from the tourism

decision-making models (Petrick et al., 2007).

One of the common models used for understanding tourists’ destination choice was the

“choice sets” model (Um & Crompton, 1990). The choice set model was considered a simple

applicable model composed of three main stages: the initial set, late consideration set and final

set for selecting the destination (Crompton, 1992). The travelers’ final choice in the choice set

model resulted from a gradually reduced set of choices among limited numbers of potential

choices. In support of this model, the Nicosia (1966) model postulated that a decision-making

process means eliminating the alternatives until the last choice is all that remains. Petrick et al.

(2007) suggested that the choice set model was a good fit for cruise vacation research. However,

Haahti (1984) and Shih (1986) recognized the importance of the influencing factors on decision-

making process, categorizing them as pull and push factors. In addition, the pull factor was

supported by the information integration theory, which suggested that travelers’ decision-making

process is influenced by the attributes of a product (Anderson, 1991). This study explored the

importance of cruise vacation attributes as influencing factors for cruise customers guided by the

information integration theory model (Anderson, 1991). This influences the last stage of the

choice set decision-making model (Crompton, 1992).

Page 12: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

3

Based on this literature review, a cruise vacation’s attributes are summarized below in

Table 1. The following factors were chosen for further investigation within this study due to their

importance and relevance: cruise vacation price (Ackerman, 2015; Adams, 2014; Ahmed,

Johnson, Pei Ling, Wai Fang, & Kah Hui, 2002; CLIA, 2016c; De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Juan

& Chen, 2012), cruise duration (Adams, 2014; De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Juan & Chen, 2012),

distance from the cruise port (Ackerman, 2015; Ahmed et al., 2002; CLIA, 2016a), cruise

itineraries (Ackerman, 2015; Adams, 2014; Ahmed et al., 2002; CLIA, 2016b; Murray, 2003;

Petrick et al., 2007), environmental friendliness of the cruise line (Ackerman, 2015; Adams,

2014; Han & Hwang, 2016), and cruise online reviews (Burton & Khammash, 2010; Jobber,

2004). The importance and relevance of these influencing factors has been investigated by

previous literature. However, only a limited amount of literature has been dedicated to the

relative importance of these factors. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore

empirically the relative importance of the six influencing factors on the cruise customers’

decision-making process. A real-life tasks approach was applied to simultaneously assess the

relative importance of these factors. An experimental design was employed for this study with a

quantitative research approach.

Limitations

This study used an online questionnaire to collect the data. The online questionnaire

presented a limitation in reaching some group ages, especially the elderly. This study did not

accept respondents younger than 18 years old and did not qualify respondents who had never

cruised. Respondents were restricted from taking the survey more than one time.

The study focused on collecting the final data from U.S. respondents only by using the

Page 13: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

4

Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform (Berinsky, Huber & Lenz, 2012). Hence, having

only one source for data collection resulted in a limited pool of U.S. cruise customers. Another

limitation was that the age of MTurk respondents is younger than the average age of the general

public and tends to be more ideologically liberal (Berinsky et al., 2012). The survey was made

available only in the English language.

Delimitations

This study was delimited by location and time for the data collection. Data for the pilot

test was collected during the first two weeks of January 2017. The pilot test was distributed on a

social media platform, Facebook. The data for the final survey was collected in the last two

weeks of January 2017. The final survey was made available through MTurk.

Assumptions

Assumptions made for this study were that the respondents would carefully read the

survey and answer the questions objectively and honestly. It was assumed that a Web-based

survey methodology incorporating MTurk would provide a good representation of U.S.

respondents. The researcher assumed that the survey had been designed appropriately to answer

and support the research question.

Significance of the Study

This study is important in providing information about the relative importance of six

influencing factors on cruise customers’ decision-making process. In the United States, between

2008 and 2014, cruise vacations comprised 22% of the general leisure travel market (CLIA,

Page 14: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

5

2016b). Previous studies have focused on investigating the individual importance of the cruise

vacation attributes as the influencing factors on the cruise customers’ choice. The main focus of

previous research has been to understand how the attributes influence the cruise choice and

compare their individual importance.

The purpose of this study was to investigate empirically the relative importance of six

influential factors of a cruise vacation. The findings of this study may contribute to the cruise

industry literature by providing an understanding of the relative importance of six influential

factors on cruise decision-making process. Simultaneously, the findings of this study will help

cruise lines to have a better understanding of the influencing factors for cruise customers’

choices. Moreover, cruise lines may pay attention to the influencing factors in order to strategize

their promotions and to possibly invest in developing the most important attributes in order to

increase their market share.

Page 15: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

6

CHAPTER II:

LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this study was to explore empirically the relative importance of the

influencing factors on the cruise customers’ decision-making process. To properly design the

research question of this study, the current research available on the cruise decision-making

process and the importance of the influencing factors on the cruise selection was examined.

Cruise Customers’ Decision-Making Process

Decision-making models for cruise customers evolved from theoretical models of the

tourism field (Petrick et al., 2007). A wide variety of literature is available for customer decision-

making theories in the tourism field (see Sirakaya & Woodside (2005) for a review). Previous

studies have combined and merged multiple tourism theories to explain or predict the complex

process of customers’ decision-making process (Sirakaya & Woodside, 2005).

Each tourism theoretical model examines a different perspective of the tourist’s decision-

making process. The interesting model of Wahab, Crampon, and Rothfield (1976) acknowledged

the tourist as a rational decision maker. It was considered important for the tourist to analyze the

costs and benefits very carefully before purchasing. The Schmoll (1977) model supported the

tourist who is a rational decision maker, and it recognized that various factors influence tourist’s

decision.

According to Gursoy and McCleary (2004), the internal and external factors moderate the

tourist’s decision-making process. Additional research proposed that the tourist’s decision-

making process was influenced by other factors such as culture (Caneen, 2003), destination

Page 16: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

7

(Gursoy & McCleary, 2004), travel frequency (Morgan, 1991), marital roles (Mottiar & Quinn,

2004), advertising (Johnson & Messmer, 1991), social influences (Huan & Beaman, 2003) and

local agents (Rompf, DiPietro, & Ricci, 2005).

Woodside and Lysonski (1989) model proposed that the tourist’s decision-making

process was a categorization process, influenced by the product’s information. Sirakaya and

Woodside (2005) recognized that in the final choice, the tourist was influenced by the interaction

of four categories of variables: internal, external, the nature of the trip and the experience of the

trip.

One of the common models used for understanding the tourist’s destination choice was

the “choice sets” model (Um & Crompton, 1990). The choice set model was presented by

Howard (1963) and described travelers’ final choice as a gradually reduced set of choices among

limited numbers of potential choices. The destination choice model from Crompton (1992)

analyzes the decision-making process with three consecutive stages. These stages are the initial

set, late consideration set and final set for selecting the destination (Crompton, 1992).

The choice set model was simple and applicable model with practical advantages. This

model has been widely used in many fields. In addition, the choice set model can be measured by

survey methods to “identify the percentage of a target market in each choice set and assess their

success in transforming people in each set into visitors to their destination” (Crompton, 1992,p.

431). A limitation for the choice set model related to its deterministic nature (Ben-Akiva &

Boccara, 1995). However, compared to theoretical behavioral models, the choice set theoretical

model offers advantages in segmenting the target market with a closer approach towards the

potential destinations at the final selection stage.

In support of this, the Nicosia (1966) model postulated that the decision-making process

Page 17: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

8

means eliminating the alternatives until the last choice. Continuing in support of this model,

Sirakaya and Woodside (2005) confirmed that the tourist’s selection process is a consequent

reduction of the choices among the variety of touristic destinations. The selection of an

alternative touristic destination over another is dependent on the individual decision path and

various influencing factors in humans’ decisions (Bettman, Luce, & Payne, 1998). Sirakaya and

Woodside (2005) concluded that decision about touristic destinations are influenced by both

internal variables (psychological variables) and external variables (non-psychological variables).

Examples of the external variables are time, pull factors and marketing mix.

A different approach to decision-making models are the behavior approaches theories for

vacation destinations, focusing on the factors that influenced the decision (Haahti, 1984; Shih,

1986). Influencing factors on the decision-making process were categorized as pull and push

factors (Sirakaya, McLellan, & Uysal, 1996). Pull factors referred to man-made, social-cultural,

and natural attractions, while push factors referred to cognitive processes. A Sirakaya et al.

(1996) study investigated three main attributes as pull factors for destination choice model:

attractiveness, total cost of the trip and available time.

Another theoretical model that focused on the attributes of the touristic product, similar to

pull factors, was the information integration theory (Anderson, 1991). According to this model,

tourists perceive the value of the touristic product based on its performance and importance. The

information integration theory was successfully implemented to examine the importance of a

variety of attributes for tourist’s destination choice (Hsu, Tsai, & Wu, 2009), hotels (Lockyer,

2005) and cruise vacations (Xie, Kerstetter, & Mattila, 2012).

Petrick et al. (2007) suggested that the choice set model was a good fit for cruise vacation

research. However, the influence of the attributes’ variety in cruise vacations plays an important

Page 18: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

9

role (Xie et al., 2012). The fast-paced development of the cruise industry has greatly increased

the variety of attributes in the cruise packages and the categories of each attribute (CLIA, 2015).

Hence, this may result in a more complex decision-making process for cruise vacations

compared to destination choice (Dellaert, Ettema, & Lindh, 1998). The attributes of the cruise

vacation packages influence the cruise customers’ decision as a pull factor depending on the

subjective importance to the customer (Xie et al., 2012). The information integration theory

model (Anderson, 1991) guided this study to explore the importance of the cruise vacation

attributes as influencing factors at the last stage of the decision-making process (Crompton,

1992).

Factors Influencing Cruise Customers’ Decision

Previous literature appointed a number of influential factors for tourists that were

important towards selecting a vacation, such as: culture (Caneen, 2003), destination (Gursoy &

McCleary, 2004), travel frequency (Morgan, 1991), marital roles (Mottiar & Quinn, 2004),

advertising (Johnson & Messmer, 1991), social influences (Huan & Beaman, 2003) and local

agents (Rompf, DiPietro, & Ricci, 2005), and price (Chiam, Soutar, & Yeo, 2009). Similarly,

cruise customers evaluate several attributes in their final selection of the cruise vacation package.

Petrick et al. (2007) argued that cruise customers would spend 5.7 months from the initial idea

until booking a cruise vacation. They would dedicate on average less than one week towards

finalizing their cruise vacation. According to CLIA (2017), cruise customers plan a cruise trip

four to eighteen month before departure.

Several studies below (see Table 1) have examined the importance of the cruise

vacation’s attributes in the cruise customers’ decision-making process.

Page 19: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

10

Table 1: Cruise attributes as influencing factors

Cruise attributes Source

Price

(Ackerman, 2015; Adams, 2014; Ahmed, Johnson, Pei Ling,

Wai Fang, & Kah Hui, 2002; CLIA, 2016c; De La Vina & Ford,

2001; Juan & Chen, 2012)

Itinerary (Ackerman, 2015; Adams, 2014; Ahmed et al., 2002; CLIA,

2016a; Murray, 2003; Petrick et al., 2007),

Cruise duration (Adams, 2014; De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Juan & Chen, 2012)

Distance from cruise port (location of embarkation

and disembarkation) (Ackerman, 2015; Ahmed et al., 2002; CLIA, 2016b)

Cruise experiences (CLIA, 2016d; CLIA, 2017; De La Vina & Ford, 2001)

Onboard activities (CLIA, 2016; Murray, 2003; Xie et al., 2012)

Entertainment attributes (Murray, 2003; Xie et al., 2012)

Recreation and sport attributes, supplementary

attributes, fitness and health attributes, children

attributes

(CLIA, 2017; Xie et al., 2012)

Crew attributes (Murray, 2003; Xie et al. 2012)

Country of registry and country of domicile, season Ahmed et al., (2002)

Travel agent Chiam et al. (2009)

Brand reputation (Ackerman, 2015; Ahmed et al. 2002; Chiam et al., 2009; CLIA,

2016d)

Service standards Adams (2014)

Cuisine/ food/dinning (Ackerman, 2015; Murray, 2003)

Safety, promotions CLIA (2016d)

Accessibility of accommodations for disabilities,

class of ship, experiencing local cultures, getting

away from it all, relaxation, sightseeing

(Archaeological, Historical and Nature), spending

time with friends and family, trying new

experiences and water activities in port

Ackerman (2015)

Experiencing new destinations De La Vina & Ford (2001)

Environmental friendliness of cruise line (Ackerman, 2015; Adams, 2014; Han & Hwang, 2016)

Property/Ship (Ackerman, 2015; CLIA, 2017)

Cabins/design Murray (2003)

Respectively previous studies analyzed a limited number of cruise vacation attributes as

influencing factors on the cruise customers’ decision-making process. For instance, a Xie et al.

(2012) study focused on several cruise vacation attributes, such as onboard activities,

entertainment, recreation and sport, supplementary activities, fitness and health, children and

crew. An Ahmed et al., (2002) study presented a diversity of perspectives of cruise customers

Page 20: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

11

that considered the importance of the following influencing factors: ports of embarkation and

disembarkation, itinerary, destinations, price, country of registry and country of domicile, brand,

season and onboard amenities.

An Adams (2014) study found that the important influencing factors for the cruise

customers’ selection were price, ship quality, duration of cruise, itinerary, and brand image. The

study conducted by Holloway, Humphreys, and Davidson (2009) identified important

influencing factors for cruise customers’ final decision to be: price, destination and cruise

duration. In accord with a Holloway et al. (2009) study, a De La Vina and Ford (2001) study

showed that cruise experience, cruise cost, the duration of the cruise, and experiencing new

destinations were significantly important for cruise customers’ decision. In addition, a Juan and

Chen (2012) study concluded that for Taiwanese cruise customers, price was the most important

attribute followed by the duration of the cruise vacation.

A recent study from Ackerman (2015), investigated the importance of nineteen influential

factors for cruise customers when booking a cruise vacation. The list of factors covered a wide

spectrum of attributes for a cruise vacation such as: accessibility of accommodations for

disabilities, activities on board, class of ship, cost of the cruise, cruise line, cuisine,

environmental friendliness of cruise line, experiencing local cultures, getting away from it all,

itinerary, length of cruise, location of embarkation and disembarkation, relaxation, shopping,

sightseeing (archaeological, historical), sightseeing (nature), spending time with friends and

family, trying new experiences and water activities in port (diving, snorkeling, beaches). Among

other attributes, the environmental friendliness of a cruise line joined the list of the influential

factors when booking a cruise vacation. Results of the Ackerman (2015) study showed that the

itinerary was the most important attribute followed by the price and cuisine for cruise customers

Page 21: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

12

when booking a cruise.

In addition to the academic research, cruise industry organizations have also researched

to understand the influencing factors of cruise customers and to reflect these in their offerings.

The most influential organization that operates in the cruise industry is the Cruise Line

International Association (CLIA) (CLIA, n.d.). “Established in 1975, CLIA was the world’s

largest cruise industry trade association, providing a unified voice and leading authority of the

global cruise community” (CLIA, n.d.). From cruise industry statistics generated by CLIA

(2016b), key influencing factors identified as “very important” for booking a cruise vacation

shows the following results: the overall experience 70%, the cost 60%, cruise itinerary 55%,

safety, promotions 50%, on-board amenities 55%, port of embarkation 40%, cruise brand/loyalty

25% and ship 20% (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The Key Decision-making Factors Driving the Behavior of Cruise Customers (CLIA,

2016b).

The results of CLIA (2017) reported that cruise customers evaluate the following as

Page 22: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

13

important factors: destination 68%, overall experience 22%, property/ship 10%, costs 24% and

amenities 8%. From the travel agent cruise outlook (CLIA, 2016b), the cruise amenities’ levels

of importance were presented in detail from the most important to the least important amenities:

stateroom amenities/comfort and culinary/dining options, stateroom categories, entertainment

options, children/youth programs, enrichment/educational activities, recreation/sports activities

and spa/fitness facilities.

Another online platform used as resource for travelers was Concierge.com. According to

this platform, the most important factors for cruise customers were considered to be the

following: itineraries, crew/service, cabins/design, food/dining, and activities/excursions

(Murray, 2003). In addition, Cruise Critics (2013) was another online platform dedicated to

cruise travelers, which among other booking services offered forums for discussions. When

asked about the deciding factors for a cruise offer in 2013, followers of this platform mentioned

itinerary, price, availability of their schedule, port of embarkation, distance to cruise port (if

includes airfare), duration of cruise vacation, ship and quality of cruise cabin (Cruise Critics,

2013).

Recent studies focused on analyzing the environmental friendliness of a cruise company

as an influencing factor on cruise selection (Ackerman, 2015; Adams, 2014; Han & Hwang,

2016). An Adams (2014) study showed that two out of three cruise customers prefer cruise lines

that are corporate, social and environmentally responsible. However, for cruise customers the

environmental friendliness of a cruise line had less importance on cruise selection when

compared to the price and itinerary (Ackerman, 2015). Klein (2011) argued that cruise

customers’ demand for more pro-environment practices in cruise industry is increasing.

Tourism literature suggested that online reviews play a key role on the decision-making

Page 23: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

14

process of intangible products (Park et al., 2007). Jobber (2004) suggested that consumer reviews

have a significant and valuable influence on the decision-making process of the tourism

customer. Chipkin (2011) anecdotally mentioned that “Cruises are also seeing an impact from

review sites.” CLIA (2016b) statistics showed that online reviews and online sources of

information were significantly important to cruise customers, and had a higher importance for

first time cruisers. However, this researcher could not find academic literature that empirically

tested the importance of online reviews on cruise customers’ decision-making process.

Cruise Vacation Price

One of the most crucial influencing factors on tourists’ decision-making process was

identified to be the price (Decrop and Snelders, 2005; Heung, Qu, & Chu, 2001; Holloway et al.,

2009; Moutinho, 1987). The high price of the purchase of tourism products was associated with

social implications, generating insecurity for tourists’ decision (Swarbrooke and Horner, 1999;

Teare, 1993). For instance, the results of a Lockyer (2005) study showed that hotel guests

evaluate price as the most important influencing factor when booking a hotel, although they had

rated cleanness as the most important factor.

In addition to the intangible nature of tourism, a tourist having no prior experience of the

product made price a key influencing role for tourists’ judgement, higher than the quality of a

product or service (Rao and Monroe, 1989). Therefore, purchase behaviors in the tourism field

are associated with the highly influential effect of the price as a very important attribute

(Kalyanaram & Winer, 1995). Results of a Chiam et al. (2009) study showed that price was the

most important attribute considered by a tourist before purchasing a product. Therefore, Han et

al. (2001) suggested that price should be considered as a significant tool to be used by tourism

Page 24: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

15

managers in order to increase the volume of their customers.

The continuous competition in the cruise market and the shift of cruise customers’

demographics towards a younger age group of cruiser customers are factors which have

influenced the importance of cruise vacation pricing (CLIA, 2005). Results from studies by

Adams (2014) and Juan and Chen (2012) have shown that price was the most important attribute

influencing the cruise customers’ decision. Results from a study by Ackerman (2015) showed

price as the second most important factor considered when booking a cruise vacation. Other

studies (Ahmed et al., 2002; CLIA, 2016c; De La Vina & Ford, 2001) also identified price as

important attribute that influences the decision process of cruise customers.

A Petrick (2005) study investigated the price segmentation of cruise customers into three

categories: less sensitive, moderately sensitive and highly sensitive to price. Sun, Jiao, and Tian

(2011) suggested that price sensitivity influences cruise customers’ decision-making process, as

all the cruise customers are managed and priced individually (Biehn, 2006).

Cruise Itinerary

The influence of destination image in tourists’ destination choice was investigated from

previous literature (Bigne, Sanchez, & Sanchez, 2001). Several published studies in tourism

referred to destinations as a very important attribute for tourists’ decision (Ahmed et al., 2002;

Decrop & Snelders, 2005; Holloway et al., 2009; Moutinho, 1987; Van Raaij, 1986). However,

Rodrigue and Notteboom (2013) argued that what the cruise industry sells to cruise customers is

the itinerary, not the destination (Sun et al., 2011). The cruise itinerary provides important

information about the destination, ports of call and duration of stay in each port. Design of

itineraries was related to the seasonality of a destination (Ji and Mazzarella, 2007). A Marti

Page 25: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

16

(1992) study recognized two factors that determine the influence of itinerary on a cruise selection

process: cruise customers want to visit a region they have not visited before or want to revisit a

region they really enjoyed from previous trips.

Itineraries were identified as an influencing factor on cruise customers’ decisions from

several studies (Ackerman, 2015; Adams, 2014; Ahmed et al., 2002; CLIA, 2016a; Murray,

2003). The Ackerman (2015) study results presented the itinerary as the most important attribute

selected by cruise customers. A Petrick et al. (2007) study showed that itineraries were the

second influencing factor on cruise customers’ decisions. CLIA (2016) reported that 55% of

cruise customers selected itineraries as a very important attribute. CLIA (2017) reported that

68% of non-cruisers and cruisers considered destination area as the most important factor

influencing their cruise decision.

Statistic Brain (2015) reported cruise customers’ itineraries preferences as follows:

Caribbean 43%, Alaska 25%, Bahamas 25%, Hawaii 15%, Mediterranean / Greek Islands /

Turkey 14%, Bermuda 11%, Europe 9%, Panama Canal 8% and Mexico (West Coast) 8%.

According to CLIA (2015) statistics, the top seven itineraries were located in Caribbean 36%,

Mediterranean 20%, Europe without Mediterranean 11%, Australia/New Zeaand/ Pacific 6%,

Asia 6%, South America 3% and all other destinations 15%. CLIA (2017) reported the

Caribbean/Bermuda/East Coast of Mexico as the most popular destination area for cruise

itineraries 39%, followed by Alaska and the Pacific Northwest 26%.

Duration of Cruise Vacation

Trip length or length of stay was identified as important for tourist’s decision by several

studies (Decrop and Snelders, 2005; Holloway et al., 2009). Tourists are influenced by their time

Page 26: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

17

availability, the number of people in the party, the package time and availability, attraction to the

destination, levels of price and familiarity to decide about the length of their vacation (Gokovali,

Bahar, & Kozak, 2007). According to Decrop and Snelders (2004), length of stay plays a key

role in tourists’ decision-making process.

Cruise studies have also paid attention to the importance of cruise vacation duration for

cruise customers (Adams, 2014; De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Juan & Chen, 2012). Over 80% of

cruise vacation duration varies between 2 to 8 days (Sun et al., 2011). On the other hand,

Statistic Brain (2015) presented as the average duration for cruise vacation as 7.2 days.

Generally, cruise vacation duration depends on the age of cruise customers (De La Viña & Ford,

2001) and their occupations. Cruise customers of a younger age seemed to prefer shorter cruise

vacation compared their elder cruise customers CLIA (2017). In addition, CLIA (2017) statistics

showed that a cruise of six to eight days is the most preferred option across different age groups.

A different segmentation from CLIA (2017) was the duration of cruise vacation based on

ethnicities: African American and Asian American prefer cruise vacations for three to five days,

and other ethnicities for six to eight days. A direct relationship was found between higher income

and longer cruise vacation duration (CLIA, 2017).

However, cruise lines have designed short duration cruise offerings to cover all the cruise

customer segments (Brida & Zapata, 2009). For instance, Carnival categorizes their offers as 2-5

days, 6-9 days and 10+ days. Royal Caribbean offerings vary from 3-5 nights, 6-8 nights, 9-11

nights and more than 12 nights. Disney Cruise lines offers 1- 4 nights, 5-7 nights, 8-13 nights

and more than 14 nights. The luxury segment of cruise industry like SilverSea seems to offer

cruise vacations in the length of 1-2 nights, 3-5 nights, 6-8 nights, 9-11 nights and 12+ nights.

The breakdown of cruise vacation duration was found to be different for online travel agencies.

Page 27: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

18

Distance from Cruise Port

Ports are places of embarkation and debarkation of cruise passengers (McCalla, 1998).

Results from a Marti (1992) study revealed that cruise customers would prefer more of an “open

jaw” for their port of embarkation and debarkation as they could use this benefit to visit another

city. However, the cruise offers with the same embarkation and debarkation port were appealing

due to low costs associated with round trip fares.

Interestingly, 70% of global embarkations are placed in North America (CLIA, 2005).

Florida only served as port of embarkation for 69% of the cruise lines based on CLIA (2005)

statistics. The main ports in Florida were in Port Canaveral, Fort Lauderdale and Miami.

However, after September 11 many cruise lines changed their ports of embarkation (Toh, Rivers,

& Ling, 2005). Cruise lines moved to new ports of embarkation located in strategic geographic

positions for cruise customers in order to avoid the flying distances. New embarkation points

become important such as California, Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Alaska,

Washington State, Portland, and Maine (Toh et al., 2005).

However, even a decade later distance from the cruise port remained a very important

attribute for cruise customers (CLIA, 2015). The tourism demand model proposed by Witt and

Witt (1995) suggested that tourists associate the long distance between their travel destination

and residency with increase of total costs for vacation. Based on Ankomah, Crompton, and

Baker (1996) study findings the cognitive distance underestimates the destination at the final set,

controversially from inert sets. CLIA (2016b) statistics revealed that 73% of travel agents have

declared that cruise customers search for itineraries close to home. Lastly, CLIA (2017) statistics

suggested that 80% of cruise customers would prefer to have embarkation ports within driving

Page 28: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

19

distance in terms of convenience and driving costs. The future trend for U.S. cruise customers

was closer cruises mainly in the Western Hemisphere (CLIA, 2017).

Environmental Friendliness of Cruise Line

The increased pace of the cruise industry has not solely been associated with positive

outcomes, as lately the negative impacts on the environment, climate change and depletion of

natural resources by the cruise industry have been more stringently evaluated (Caric, 2012;

Klein, 2011; Wong, 2004). The Environmental Protection Agency (2008) reported several

concerns from governmental agencies and environmental organizations about cruise tourism

impacts on the environment. Oceana (2003) reported the average amount of pollution for a cruise

in a day as 25,000 gallons of sewage from toilets, 143,000 gallons of sewage from sinks, galleys

and showers, 7 tons of garbage and solid waste, 15 gallons of toxic chemicals, and 7,000 gallons

of oily bilge water. A recent article at the guardian newspaper revealed the environmental

concerns raised for the cruise industry (Shearman, 2017). Cruise lines’ environmental efforts

seem to be even lower than road transportation industry. The impacts of cruise pollution to cruise

customers, locals and oceans urges for more environmentally friendly technologies and policies

in the cruise industry.

Friends of the Earth organization (FoE), an environmental organization, closely

monitored the polluting activity of cruise lines (FoE, 2012). In addition, FoE developed the

curved grading scale of a cruise ship report card for cruise lines, the results of which are made

available to the public. The aim of the FoE report is to increase awareness about the

environmental impacts of the cruise industry and help cruise customers to choose cruise lines

with a superior profile as regards environmental friendliness. As a result, the environmental

Page 29: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

20

friendliness of a company now becomes a feature for competition in the market since cruise

customers increasingly demand more pro-environmental practices (Klein, 2011). CLIA has

published 2016 Environment Sustainability Report and 2016 Cruise Industry Environment

Infographic showing interest about sustainability of the cruise industry.

An Adams (2014) study confirmed that out of three cruise customers, two prefer cruise

lines that are corporately social and environmentally responsible. Cruise lines nowadays tend

towards implementing environmental friendly practices such as zero solid waste discharge, green

technology and waste management, and recycling policies (Baker & Stockton, 2013). For

instance, Royal Caribbean and Carnival both intends to decrease their greenhouse-gas emissions

by up to 35% from 2016 to 2021 and give $2.5 million to fund research on mangroves and coral-

reef restoration in order to help the sustainability of cruise tourism and improve the

environmental impact (Zissu, 2016).

Limited literature was found about the actual importance of the environmental

friendliness of a cruise line when a tourist is booking a cruise vacation. Based on an Ackerman

(2015) study, environmental friendliness was considered to be a less important attribute

compared to price and itinerary. Results of the Ackerman (2015) study showed that only 0.40%

of respondents considered environmental friendliness as unimportant when booking a cruise

vacation, 2.60% considered it as of little importance, 8.60% found it moderately important,

29.2% as important, 41.60% as important and 17.60% as very important.

Cruise Online Reviews

Another influencing factor before making a decision to choose a destination was found to

be the information from online reviews (Gursoy and McCleary, 2004). Online reviews have a

Page 30: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

21

higher influence in the decision-making process of intangible products or products that have not

been experienced before the purchase (Park et al., 2007). Although the literature did not identify

online reviews of cruises to be an influencing factor on cruise customers’ decisions, other

literature on the tourism field supported the high influence of online reviews on the decision-

making process of intangible products (Park et al., 2007). Jobber (2004) suggested that consumer

reviews have a significant and valuable influence in the decision-making process for customers.

For instance, in the lodging industry, a TripAdvisor survey (2013) showed that 77% of hotel

guests check the online reviews before deciding on a purchase. A Burton and Khammash (2010)

study supported the hypothesis that hotel guests consider reading online reviews prior to

deciding about their accommodation, as they are aiming to reduce the risk in their decision

thereby.

The latest technological developments show that tourists search for information before

making a decision to choose a destination (Gursoy and McCleary, 2004). CLIA (2016b) reported

that 40% of new cruise customers consider the online channels and social media to be very

important source channels. According to CLIA (2017), among other sources cruise customers

rely on multiple websites to do their research regarding cruise vacation offers. Travel

information websites including review websites had a special importance to non-cruisers.

According to CLIA (2017) statistics, the cruise customers that had experienced a cruise before

are influenced by the cruise line website 50%, travel information websites 30%, destination

websites 30% and social networks 25%.

The importance of online reviews and online sources of information proved to be

significant for the first time cruise customers, who were reported to account for 23% of total

cruise customers (CLIA, 2016b). Cruise companies use online review websites as citations to

Page 31: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

22

increase their competitiveness in the market. However, to the best of this researcher’s

knowledge, research into the most used channels for searching or booking a cruise vacation has

not been conducted before. In addition, this researcher did not find information related to the

frequency of tourists’ use of online reviews for decision-making about cruise vacations and their

importance.

Summary of Literature

The cruise tourism sector is growing at a fast pace (Duffy, 2013). The cruise industry is

expected to experience a ten percent growth from the previous year, forecasting 2016 to be the

best year for the cruise industry (CLIA, 2016b). Given the importance and the growth of the

cruise industry, research studies have focused on investigating cruise customers’ decision-

making process (Petrick et al., 2007). Previous literature found that a variety of cruise vacation

attributes (see Table 1 for references) had an important influence on cruise customers while they

were choosing their cruise vacation.

In addition, recent literature focused on understanding the perception that cruise

customers held regarding the importance of the environmental friendliness of a cruise line, and

the power of this attribute as an influencing factor (Ackerman, 2015; Adams, 2014; Han &

Hwang, 2016). The increased demand for pro-environmental practices brought a special attention

to the environmental friendliness of cruise lines (Klein, 2011). Limited literature had been

dedicated to the importance of online reviews when choosing a cruise vacation. Although

significant literature supported the increased importance of online reviews on guests’ decision-

making process in lodging industry (Burton & Khammash, 2010).

This study focused on evaluating the relative importance of six influential factors on

Page 32: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

23

cruise customers’ choice of cruise vacation based on the academic literature and cruise industry’s

publications: cruise vacation price (Ackerman, 2015; Adams, 2014; Ahmed, Johnson, Pei Ling,

Wai Fang, & Kah Hui, 2002; CLIA, 2016c; De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Juan & Chen, 2012),

cruise duration (Adams, 2014; De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Juan & Chen, 2012), distance from

cruise port (Ackerman, 2015; Ahmed et al., 2002; CLIA, 2016a), cruise itineraries (Ackerman,

2015; Adams, 2014; Ahmed et al., 2002; CLIA, 2016b; Murray, 2003; Petrick et al., 2007),

environmental friendliness of the cruise line (Ackerman, 2015; Adams, 2014; Han & Hwang,

2016), and cruise online reviews (Burton & Khammash, 2010; Jobber, 2004).

Research Question

Previous studies have investigated the importance of several attributes in cruise vacation

offers towards cruise customers’ selection (see Table 1). This researcher focused only on six

attributes, judging their importance by the amount of support in the academic literature and

cruise industry sources: cruise vacation price, cruise duration, distance from cruise port,

itineraries, environmental friendliness of cruise line and cruise online reviews. Commonly, the

measurement used was Likert scales to measure the importance levels of the influencing factors.

Likert scales are limited to exploring the importance of the attributes in relation to each other,

especially since several separate attributes compose a cruise vacation (Xie et al., 2012).

However, in real life situations there are trade-offs between alternative options. The attributes of

the product were evaluated at the same time based on the relative importance cruise customers

assigned to each attribute. In that regard, the attributes serve as influencing factors towards the

final decision of selecting a cruise offer.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the relative importance of six chosen

Page 33: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

24

attributes as influencing factors in the decision-making process for cruise customers by a

simultaneous assessment and with a real-life tasks approach. Supported by literature review, the

research question that guided the study was as follows:

What is the relative importance of cruise vacation price, duration of cruise

vacation, distance from cruise port, cruise itineraries, cruise online reviews and

environmental friendliness of cruise lines on cruise customers’ choice?

To the best of this researcher’s knowledge, no previous study had explored the relative

importance of these six attributes on cruise customers’ decision-making process.

Page 34: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

25

CHAPTER III:

METHODS

This study examined empirically the relative importance of the six influencing factors on

the cruise customers’ decision-making process. In order to measure the relative importance of the

six influencing factors, an experimental study was designed with quantitative approach.

Research Design

A self-administered web survey was used in this research study in order to explore the

relative importance of six influencing factors on U.S. cruise customers’ decision-making process.

An experimental design was employed to answer the research questions through a quantitative

research approach. The web survey was developed on the QuestionPro.com platform, which is a

professional online-survey provider. The survey included six sections in total (Refer to the

Annex I) and was designed based on the information obtained from the literature review.

The consent section was the first section of the survey and aimed to inform respondents

about the content of the research study and asked for their agreement to participate in the

research study. A qualifying question about cruise vacation experience opened the second

section of the survey. Respondents who never experienced cruise vacations were not qualified

for the research study. Only respondents who had experienced a cruise vacation at least one time

were qualified to continue the survey. The second section continued with questions about

respondents’ cruise background, including cruise vacation frequency, cruise line and cruise type

preferences, mostly preferred destination and itineraries. In addition, the second section of the

survey investigated the importance of cruise factors adopted from the Ackerman (2015) study. In

addition, online reviews were added to the list of factors as supported by the literature review of

Page 35: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

26

this research study. The importance levels by which to measure the various cruise factors were

rated based on a five-point Likert-scale used in Qualtrics.com. Answers were: not at all

important (1), slightly important, moderately important, very important, and extremely important

(5).

In the third section of the survey respondents were presented with several options of

cruise vacation and tasked with selecting the one that was the most appealing to them. The model

was designed using the Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) analysis. CBC analysis was chosen as an

appropriate statistical test to answer the research question due to its advantages of presenting the

choice questions in limited combinations of choices. Similarly to real life decisions, respondents

have to trade-off between choices (profiles) considering all attributes presented for each of them

for each time (Orme, 2010). Detailed information about the establishment of the cruise vacation

attributes and their levels in the CBC model is provided below under the section “Choice-Based

Conjoint (CBC) Analysis.” After the CBC model, respondents were asked if they found the

model to be realistic. In addition, respondents were asked to rank the attributes from first to sixth

place; first meaning the most important influencing factor when booking a cruise and six being

the least important one. The purpose of the ranking scale was to compare the results of the self-

reported instrument against the CBC model results.

Due to limited literature regarding the influence of online cruise reviews and cruise line

environmental friendliness, the fourth section of the survey was dedicated to further investigate

both attributes. According to Burton and Khammash (2010), guest reviews of lodging industry

are very important since they tend to reduce the risk of buying a product with a status of

insecurity, and, therefore, influence the hotel guests’ decision. As the cruise industry is often

considered a fleet of floating hotels, an increase in the importance of online review has been

Page 36: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

27

noticed. Chipkin (2011) anecdotally reported the increasing trend of online reviews’ impact on

the cruise industry. Respondents were asked about online resources on which they rely to search

or book a cruise vacation and about the frequency of checking cruise online reviews before

booking a cruise vacation.

In order to prepare respondents for the shift to environmental friendliness, the second part

of the fourth section in the survey started with the question “Do you think the cruise industry is

environmentally friendly?” Afterwards, a five-point Likert-scale asked respondents to assign an

importance for environmental friendly factors when choosing a cruise line, which was an item

adopted from the Ackerman (2015) study. Five-point Likert-scale values were based on

Qualtrics.com importance scale (not at all important (1), slightly important, moderately

important, very important, extremely important (5)). An attention check question was placed

randomly among the environmental friendly factors. If respondents failed the attention check,

they would be terminated from the survey.

To understand respondents’ environmental friendly behaviors, two scales were utilized:

an environmental concerns (EC) scale (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.895) and the individual

environmentally friendly tourism behavior (EFTB) scale (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.895). Both

scales were adopted to match the cruise vacations context from Song, Lee, Kang, and Boo (2012)

study. This researcher decided to use a reversed 5-point Likert-scale compared with the original

study of Song et al. (2012) study in order to avoid any confusion for respondents with previous

Likert-scale tendency (from the most negative value to the most positive one). The 5-point

Likert-scale used for the EC and EFTB scale was (strongly disagree (1), disagree, neutral, agree,

strongly agree (5).

The fifth section of the survey was dedicated to determining the demographics of U.S.

Page 37: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

28

cruise customers. The questions about the demographics of respondents were about gender, age,

marital status, annual income range, ethnicity, educational background, employment status and

the current state of residence. The last section of the survey presented a thank you note for the

respondents that participated in the study and included a unique code for rewarding the

respondents in the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform.

Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis

Since 1970s conjoint analysis has been widely used in market research studies to develop

a quantitative understanding of customers’ preferences for new products (Huber, 1987). A part of

the multivariate statistical analysis technique family, conjoint analysis is often referred to as

“trade-off analysis.”

Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) analysis was commonly used for brand value studies or

pricing among conjoint analysis types. Similar to the traditional conjoint analysis, CBC analysis

compares products of the same brand, other variants and different product types in a realistic

approach to purchase decisions (DeSarbo, Ramaswamy, & Cohen, 1995). Conjoint present the

choice of respondents and not their rating or ranking (DeSarbo et al., 1995). Decompositional

design of a CBC analysis measures customers’ preferences depending on their reaction towards

changes in attribute levels of a product (Orme, 2010). Additionally, CBC analysis collected data

in the form of a simple task for respondents (DeSarbo et al., 1995). Multiple factors influence

cruise customers’ choice on cruise vacation packages. Each cruise vacation offer was composed

of several levels. Therefore, in order to measure the relative importance of influencing factors as

a simultaneous assessment and real-life tasks approach, CBC analysis was an appropriate

statistical analysis. As Nicosia (1966) supported, travelers’ decision making process was defined

Page 38: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

29

as a process of alternative eliminations to the last alternative.

Establishing the Attributes and the Level of Attributes

The main elements for designing a CBC analysis study were the selection of attributes

and levels, task design, experimental design and statistical analysis (Johnson et al., 2013). The

selection of attributes should reflect what customers are interested and that companies were able

to offer (Murphy, Cowan, Henchion, & O’reilly, 2000). According to Suh and Gartner (2004)

study, the number of attributes used in conjoint profile was very important. Too many attributes

resulted in confusion and denial for respondents. Smith (1995) supports that using three

attributes is a minimum for conjoint profiles and that beyond more than five or six made the data

too challenging to manage. For these reasons the CBC model of this study analyzed only six

attributes with the respective levels for each (see Table 2).

Establishment of the attributes for this research study was made based on the literature

review: cruise vacation price (Ackerman, 2015; Adams, 2014; Ahmed, Johnson, Pei Ling, Wai

Fang, & Kah Hui, 2002; CLIA, 2016c; De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Juan & Chen, 2012), cruise

duration (Adams, 2014; De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Juan & Chen, 2012), distance from cruise

port (Ackerman, 2015; Ahmed et al., 2002; CLIA, 2016a), itineraries (Ackerman, 2015; Adams,

2014; Ahmed et al., 2002; CLIA, 2016b; Murray, 2003; Petrick et al., 2007), environmental

friendliness of the cruise line (Ackerman, 2015; Adams, 2014; Han & Hwang, 2016), and cruise

online reviews (Burton & Khammash, 2010; Jobber, 2004). The conjoint section of this study

was developed using QuestionPro.com software. CBC design is a randomized method, so each

attribute level occurred equally as other attributes. Each attribute used in the CBC model was

composed of five levels, with the exception of cruise itineraries which had seven levels (see

Page 39: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

30

Table 2).

Table 2: Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) Model Attributes

Attributes Levels

Cruise vacation price

$0-50

$50-100

$100-150

$150-200

More than $200

Duration of cruise vacation

1-2 days

3-5 days

6-9 days

10-14 days

15 days+

Cruise itinerary

Caribbean

Mediterranean

Europe without Mediterranean

Australia/New Zealand/Pacific

Asia

Alaska

South America

Distance from cruise port

Less than 10 hours driving

More than 10 hours driving

Less than 3 hours flight

3 to 7 hours flight

More than 7 hours flight

Cruise online reviews

1- Terrible

2- Poor

3- Average

4- Very Good

5- Excellent

Environmental friendliness of cruise line

A - Excellent

B - Satisfactory

C - Needs Work

D - Poor

F - Unacceptable

Levels of cruise price attribute were based on categories of Expedia, American Discount

Cruises, Priceline, Cruise Critic, Cruise.com, Travelocity and Direct Line Cruises. Each level of

cruise vacation price presented a daily average per person price, and did not include taxes, fees,

or additional port expenses. Categories were $0-50, $50-100, $100-150, $150-200, and more

than $200. A similar procedure was followed to determine the levels of the cruise duration

attribute. In order to have consistency with price and cruise duration, the cruise days attribute

Page 40: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

31

was used as a measurement. Therefore, cruise duration levels were designed based on Cruise

Critic’s categories as follows: 1-2 days, 3-5 days, 6-9 days, 10-14 days and 15 days+. Cruise

itinerary levels were based on CLIA (2015) report. The most popular geographical areas for

cruise itineraries were measured by percentage of cruise available bed days. Caribbean was the

queen with the highest percentage 36%, followed by Mediterranean 20%, Europe without

Mediterranean 11%, Australia/New Zealand/ Pacific 6%, Asia 6%, Alaska 5%, South America

3%, and all other 15%. This researcher did not include “all other” as a level for cruise itineraries

attribute, due to presenting an ambiguous level for respondents’ choice.

Levels for distance from cruise port attribute were based on two sources in order to

provide a realistic measure. Firstly, driving hours until the cruise port were considered based on

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Regulations. The driving hours were

classified in two subcategories: less than ten hours driving (maximum driving hours for

passenger-carrying drivers to be safe) and more than 10 hours driving. Secondly, the flying hours

until the cruise port were considered. Given that the study was designed for U.S. cruise

customers and the longest flight within the United States was seven hours. This researcher

considered three subcategories as levels to present a better segmentation for the distance

attribute: less than three hours’ flight, three to seven hours’ flight, and more than 7 hours’ flight.

In terms of levels for cruise online reviews, the study utilized the online rating used by

online rating platforms such as Trip Advisor, Expedia, Priceline and Cruise Critics. The levels

used for cruise online reviews were one for terrible, two for poor, three for average, four for very

good and five for excellent. The environmental friendliness levels of a cruise levels were based

on the curved grading scale of cruise ship report card published by Friends of the Earth

Organization. Concretely, the levels of environmental friendliness were respectively A for

Page 41: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

32

excellent, B for satisfactory, C for needs work, D for poor and F for unacceptable. The design of

the CBC analysis was with limited combination of choices experiment displaying one level for

each attribute in the model. The model had randomized designs and each respondent was

assigned various versions of choice sets from the total of choices created. Levels of attributes

were randomly combined to form the profile of the hypothetical cruise vacation. In the scenarios,

respondents were asked to suppose that they wanted to go for a cruise vacation. Respondents

were asked to choose between two different cruise vacations or “none of them” option (see

Figure 2).

Figure 2: Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) Analysis Model Presented to Respondents of the Study

Sample Size

The size of the sample is a considerably debated topic in the literature. The size of the

pilot test for this research study was 50 respondents, larger than 30 respondents as suggested by

Johanson and Brooks (2009). For the final data collection, the sample size was calculated based

on the rule of thumb from Johnson, the author of CBC System (Orme, 1998). The minimum size

of this CBC analysis sample was determined by the following formula:

n*t*a ≥500

c

Page 42: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

33

for which n - the number of respondents, t- the number of tasks, a - number of

alternatives per task (not including the none alternative), and c - the number of analysis cells.

In this research study t was equal to five, meaning five tasks per each respondent; a was

equal to two, meaning each respondent would had to choose between two alternatives (not

including the none alternative); c was equal to seven as the largest number of level. The final

sample size was calculated to be equal or bigger than 350 respondents. However, this researcher

decided to collect 454 responses. The tolerance value of 104 responses was to assure that after

cleaning the incomplete data or data that looked suspicious, the study would still have far more

than the minimum for running the conjoint model.

The data collected for this study is primary data. The sample size satisfied the suggestion

of Suh and Gartner (2004) to have more than 400 respondents for better performance of the

conjoint model. Target respondents for this study were tourists 18 years old or greater,

respondents from the United States population, who had cruised before.

Data Collection

A sample of 50 respondents for the pilot test was collected through the Facebook

platform. In the same way as the pilot test, the sampling technique used for the final data

collection was convenience sampling. The final survey was distributed via Amazon’s

Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform and aimed to reach a minimum of 450 responses based on

the size required by conjoint analysis. The MTurk platform has been widely used for behavioral

science research (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012). Web-based surveys are widely preferred by

researchers due to their ease of use (Solomon, 2001). Some of the advantages for using MTurk

consist of a stable pool of participants; diverse participants in terms of age, ethnicities, and

Page 43: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

34

economic backgrounds, and origin; and flexible with conduction time of survey (Mason and

Suri, 2012). MTurk respondents were presented as representative of the U.S. population

(Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012), which was the sample of this study.

Responses collected from MTurk were anonymous and voluntary. After successfully

completing the survey, respondents received a personalized code from QuestionPro in order to

get their reward at MTurk. The final survey was offered in MTurk in three different batches

during January 2017. The purpose of separating the data collection in three parts was to capture a

diversified group of respondents and ensure maximum variation of data. The first batch was

made available on the middle of the week to only 52 respondents. The second batch was made

available on weekends to 200 respondents, and the third batch was made available to 202

respondents on the beginning of the weekdays. Out of 730 respondents who started the survey,

34 of them were not qualified to continue the study, 242 respondents were terminated due to

their failure of attention check questions, four were deleted due to incomplete data and the

remaining 450 were suitable responses. Afterward, the data from the suitable responses were

coded properly and inputted into SPSS for further analysis. The Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC)

analysis results were generated from the QuestionPro.com platform.

Validity and Reliability

Conjoint Choice-Based (CBC) analysis’ reliability and validity was challenging to be

evaluated due to using a readily available simulation data (Zhu, 2007). Data generated by

computer are a competitive alternative in terms of easiness and economic value, but it is difficult

to measure the validity and reliability as it is not respondents’ real choice (Zhu, 2007). The CBC

model for this study was designed in QuestionPro platform. The profiles of conjoint were

Page 44: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

35

designed based on the cruise industry’s data, which are very similar to real purchased profiles of

cruise vacation offers. The number of levels was the same for five of the attributes aiming to

avoid artificially bias in the results (Verlegh, Schifferstein, & Wittink, 2002). As for itineraries,

it was the only attribute with seven levels due to CLIA’s (2015) report. “None of them” option in

the CBC model contributes to support the reliability of CBC model. In addition, the pilot test can

improve the validity of the CBC model as respondents were asked about the clarity of the

instrument (Van & Hundley, 2002). In addition, a realism check question was placed after the

conjoint models to check the validity of the model (Meißner & Decker, 2009). The results of

part-worth utilities, including negative coefficients support the theoretical validity of the CBC

model.

The Environmental Concerns (EC) and Environmentally Friendly Tourism Behaviors

(EFTB) scales were adopted from the Song et al. (2012) study with a proven validity and

reliability (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.895). The environmental friendly factors items were adopted as

part of sustainability scale from an Ackerman (2015) study. Ackerman (2015) checked the

reliability and validity of environmental friendly factors with students of the Chaplin School of

Hospitality and Tourism Management in Florida International University and experts from

Guido Bauer and Bradley Cox of Green Globe.

Pilot Test

The purpose of the pilot test was to assess the reliability of the survey and to collect

feedback from respondents before finalizing the survey for the final data collection. Fifty

responses were collected from the pilot test in a short time. The sample technique used for the

pilot test was a convenience sampling. After data cleaning, which included deleting incomplete

Page 45: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

36

responses and responses that failed the manipulation check question, only thirty six responses

were valid. In regard to the gender of pilot test respondents, 58.33% were male and 41.67% were

female. The majority of respondents, 52.78%, were 25 to 44 years old and 97.23% had a 4 year

college degree, Master’s Degree or Doctorate Degree. Only 52.78% of respondents were

residents of Florida and 61.11% were employed for wages. The biggest ethnicity groups were

White/Caucasian 66.67% of respondents, followed by 16.67% Asian and the rest of percentage

was spread to other ethnicities. Married with children were 38.89% and single 25.00% were two

main categories for marital status for respondents. In a total of 77.78%, respondents selected

under $20,000 to $109,999 for annual household income range, and 22.22% selected more than

$150,000 for annual household income range. Suggestions that were received from pilot test

were discussed with the thesis committee members. One of the suggestions from pilot test was

add “no opinion” alternative on the realism check of the conjoint model. The rest of the

suggestions were related to reword two questions. The researcher reflected these changes on the

final survey.

Data Analysis

The data received from respondents was cleaned and coded properly for each question.

Incomplete data was deleted. Qualified data was inputted into SPSS and Question.Pro.com. The

data analysis was organized into 2 parts: descriptive analyzed with Statistical Packages for Social

Sciences (SPSS, version 21) and CBC conjoint analysis analyzed with QuestionPro.com ( 2016

version). Demographics were tabulated using frequency tables, means, and percentages. From

the conjoint model the utility part-worth scores were analyzed, best and worst profiles were

generated. Reliability of the scale adapted from Song et al. (2012) was measured using

Page 46: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

37

Cronbach’s α. After confirming the dimensions, attributes’ summated scores were calculated.

Page 47: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

38

CHAPTER IV:

FINDINGS

The aim of this study was to investigate the relative importance of six influencing factors

on US cruise customers’ decision-making process. Previous studies have focused on evaluating

the importance of influencing factors on the cruise decision making process. However, there is

limited research regarding relative importance of the influencing factors in the selection of cruise

vacations. This researcher was unable to find previous literature on the six influencing factors

chosen for the research. Therefore, this study aims to contribute to literature to understand the

cruise sections for cruise customers based on the relative importance of the influencing factors.

The researcher used a structured survey including demographics section, cruise customers’

behaviors section, conjoint scenarios section and an exploratory section about online reviews and

environmental friendliness. Each respondent had to choose five times between two scenarios

presented and a “none of them” option. This chapter summarizes all the findings of the study.

Demographic Characteristics

Respondents on this study were MTurk workers in Human Intelligence Task, who were

18 years of age or older living in the United States and had experienced cruise vacations before.

The demographic questions included gender, age, marital status, annual household income range,

ethnicity, education, employment and state of residence. The sample consisted mainly of female

respondents 61.33%, followed by 38.00% male respondents and 0.67% of respondents who

preferred to not answer about their gender. The age category of 25 to 44 years old received

Page 48: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

39

63.78% of respondents. In a total of 50.44%, respondents’ status was married with children

30.22% and single 20.22%. Most of respondents 44.22% had a 4 years College Degree, and

overall 71.11% of respondents were employed for wages. For the average annual household

income, the category of $50,000 to $59,999 received the highest percentage 13.11%.

Table 3: Sociodemographic Profile of the Respondents

Demographics % Demographics %

Gender Income

Male 38.00 Under $20,000 8.00

Female 61.33 $20,000 to $29,999 12.00

Prefer not to answer 0.67 $30,000 to $39,999 10.22

Age $40,000 to $49,999 8.44

18 to 24 years 10.44 $50,000 to $59,999 13.11

25 to 34 years 43.11 $60,000 to $69,999 11.78

35 to 44 years 20.67 $70,000 to $79,999 9.78

45 to 54 years 13.78 $80,000 to $89,999 6.00

55 to 64 years 8.44 $90,000 to $99,999 5.56

Age 65 or older 3.56 $100,000 to $109,999 4.00

Marital Status $110,000 + 10.21

Single 20.22 Prefer not to answer 0.89

In a relationship (not living together) 12.00 Ethnicity

Living with partner 15.56 White/ Caucasian 76.00

Married without children 13.33 American 1.78

Married with children 30.22 Hispanic 4.00

Divorced 6.44 Asian 8.44

Widowed 2.00 African American 8.22

Prefer not to answer 0.22 Pacific Islander 0.22

Employment Status Prefer not to answer 1.33

Employed for wages 71.11 Education

Self-employed 7.11 High school/GED 7.56

Out of work and looking for work 3.11 Some college 17.56

Out of work but not currently looking for work 0.89 2 years College Degree 12.67

A homemaker 5.33 4 years College Degree 44.22

A student 4.89 Master’s Degree 14.67

Military 0.44 Doctorate Degree 2.67

Retired 4.89 Prefer not to answer 0.67

Unable to work 2.22

Ethnicity of 76.00% of respondents was White/Caucasian. Respondents in this study

were resident in 49 states in United States, mainly in Florida 10.00%, California 7.78%, New

Jersey 5.78% and Oklahoma 5.78%. (Figure 3).

Page 49: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

40

Figure 3: Residency States of Respondents.

Respondents’ Cruise Behavior

In order to understand respondents’ cruise behavior, respondents were asked about cruise

vacation frequency, type of cruise vacation preferences, cruise lines and destinations preferences,

and the relative importance of a variety of twenty cruise factors. From the final results, only

37.78% of respondents were first time cruisers. Most of the respondents (43.33%) had cruised

two to four times and 18.88% of respondents had cruised more than five times. In the last five

years, 68.67% of respondents had cruised in a frequency of less than once per year, followed by

23.11% of respondents who had cruised once a year. In a total of 8.22%, respondents had cruised

more often than once per year. The majority of respondents 85.56% stated that they like resort

style cruises (e.g. Norwegian, Royal Caribbean, Princess cruises, Disney Cruise Line, Holland

America Line, Celebrity X Cruises, etc). Only 12.22% of respondents selected Luxury/Specialty

cruise type (e.g. Seabourn, Silversea, Windstar cruises, Regent, Oceania Cruises, Paul Gauguin,

Cunard Line, Crystal Cruises, Azamara Club Cruises etc.), and only 4.22% seemed to like river

Page 50: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

41

cruise lines (e.g. Viking cruises, Uniworld River Cruises, Tauck River Cruises, Avalon

Waterways, AmaWaterways etc).

Table 4: Respondents’ Cruise Experiences

Cruise experience variables Count %

Frequency of cruise vacations

1 time 170 37.78

2 – 4 times 195 43.33

5 – 9 times 56 12.44

10 – 14 times 17 3.78

15 – 19 times 5 1.11

20 – 24 times 5 1.11

25 – 29 times 2 0.45

30 – 34 times 0 0.00

35 + times 0 0.00

Frequency of cruise vacations last 5 years

Not every year 309 68.67

Once a year 104 23.11

Twice a year 28 6.22

More than twice a year 9 2.00

Type of cruise vacation

Resort Style 376 85.56

Luxury/Specialty 55 12.22

River cruise lines 19 4.22

Preferred cruise lines

Carnival Cruises 237 22.68

Celebrity Cruises 63 6.03

Costa Cruises 19 1.82

Cunard 19 1.82

Disney Cruise Line 166 15.89

Holland America Line 48 4.59

MSC Cruises 6 0.57

Norwegian Cruise Line 150 14.35

P&O Cruises 3 0.29

Princess Cruises 102 9.76

Royal Caribbean International 200 19.14

Other – Please Specify 5 0.48

No preference 27 2.58

Previous Cruise Destinations Caribbean 374 54.92

Mediterranean 64 9.40

Europe without Mediterranean 47 6.90

Australia/New Zealand/Pacific 36 5.29

Asia 14 2.06

Alaska 78 11.45

South America 44 6.46

Other 24 3.52

The most commonly preferred cruise line selected was Carnival Cruise from 22.68% of

Page 51: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

42

respondents, followed by Disney Cruise Line with 15.89% of respondents and Norwegian Cruise

Line with 14.35% of respondents. The least preferred cruise line was P&O Cruises with 0.29%.

Interestingly, 2.58% of respondents selected to not have any preference on cruise line. The rest

of preference percentage about cruise lines was spread to different cruise lines. The Caribbean

was revealed to be the most visited destination on the past as was selected by 54.92% of

respondents, followed by Alaska with 11.45% of respondents. The least visited destination for

respondents of this study was Asia with 2.06% of respondents. Only 3.52% of respondents

visited other destinations such as Mexico, Canada, Cross Atlantic, Mississippi, the California

coast, Bermuda and Jamaica (see Table 4).

The results of importance measured on a Likert Scale (anchored at 1 not at all important

to 5 extremely important) for twenty cruise attributes are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Importance of Factors for Booking a Cruise

Factors Mean SD

Cruise vacation price 4.43 0.78

Relaxation 4.26 0.83

Getting away from it all 4.23 0.89

Spending time with friends and family 4.01 1.04

Duration of cruise vacation 3.97 0.83

Trying new experiences 3.96 0.96

Cuisine 3.89 0.91

Itinerary 3.80 1.03

Online reviews 3.78 0.99

Sightseeing (Nature) 3.71 1.03

Activities on board 3.68 1.01

Sightseeing (Archaeological, Historical) 3.67 1.07

Cruise line 3.64 1.02

Experiencing local cultures 3.61 1.07

Class of ship 3.48 1.02

Distance from cruise port 3.37 1.12

Water activities in port (diving, snorkeling, beaches) 3.28 1.25

Environmental friendliness of cruise line 3.20 1.22

Shopping 2.77 1.27

Accessibility of accommodations for disabilities 2.26 1.40

*(1- Not at all important to 5- Extremely important)

Page 52: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

43

Results showed that based on the statistical means per question, cruise vacation price

(M= 4.43, SD=0.78) was the most important factor and accessibility of accommodations for

disabilities (M= 2.26, SD=1.4) was the least important factor considered by cruise customers

when booking a cruise vacation. Among other variables, the duration of the cruise vacation

(M=3.97, SD=0.83) was placed as fifth, itinerary (M=3.80, SD=1.03) as eighth, online reviews

(M=3.78, SD= 0.99) as ninth, distance from cruise port (M=3.37, SD=1.12) as sixteenth and

environmental friendliness of cruise line (M=3.20, SD=1.22) as eighteenth.

Each attribute from Table 5 was analyzed as an influential factor to a tourist when

booking a cruise vacation. The results showed that fourteen attributes had the highest percentage

of selection as very important when booking a cruise vacation. These attributes are activities on

board 40.22%, environmental friendliness of the cruise line 26.44%, online reviews 40.00%,

class of ship 35.56%, cruise line 33.11%, cuisine 41.11%, opportunity of experiencing local

culture 32.67%, itinerary 38.44%, duration of a cruise 45.11%, distance from cruise port 31.33%,

sightseeing (Archaeological, Historical) 30.22%, sightseeing (Nature) 37.56%, trying new

experiences 40.44%, and water activities in port (diving, snorkeling, beaches) 29.11%. Only four

influencing factors had the highest percentage of selection as extremely important: cruise

vacation price 57.78%, getting away from it all 47.33%, relaxation 46.22%, and spending time

with friends and family 38.67%.

Differently, shopping in cruise vacations had the highest percentage of selection as

slightly important 28.44% when booking a cruise vacation. Lastly, accessibility of

accommodations for disabilities had the highest percentage of selection 44.00% as not at all

important. On the other hand, the lowest percentage of selection for eighteen attributes was

found for not at all important. Shopping 11.56% and accessibility of accommodations for

Page 53: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

44

disabilities attributes 9.78% had the lowest percentage of selection as extremely important for

cruise customers. However, CLIA (2017) reported that cruise customers shop during their cruise

vacation. The findings of this section confirmed the importance of the influencing factors for

cruise customers.

Table 6: Respondent Scores for Importance of Cruise Attributes When Booking a Cruise

Vacation

Not at all

important

Slightly

important

Moderately

Important

Very

important

Extremely

Important

Activities on board 2.00% 12.00% 24.00% 40.22% 21.78%

Environmental friendliness of cruise line 9.56% 21.11% 26.00% 26.44% 16.89%

Online reviews 2.44% 7.78% 24.22% 40.00% 25.56%

Class of ship 3.56% 12.22% 32.67% 35.56% 16.00%

Cruise vacation price 0.89% 1.78% 8.89% 30.67% 57.78%

Cruise line 2.22% 10.44% 31.11% 33.11% 23.11%

Cuisine 0.44% 6.89% 23.56% 41.11% 28.00%

Experiencing local cultures 2.89% 13.33% 27.33% 32.67% 23.78%

Getting away from it all 1.33% 3.33% 13.33% 34.67% 47.33%

Itinerary 2.89% 8.44% 22.22% 38.44% 28.00%

Duration of cruise vacation 0.89% 2.44% 23.33% 45.11% 28.22%

Distance from cruise port 5.78% 16.89% 29.11% 31.33% 16.89%

Relaxation 0.44% 3.33% 12.44% 37.56% 46.22%

Shopping 18.00% 28.44% 23.33% 18.67% 11.56%

Sightseeing (Archaeological, Historical) 1.78% 14.00% 26.67% 30.22% 27.33%

Sightseeing (Nature) 2.67% 10.00% 25.56% 37.56% 24.22%

Spending time with friends and family 2.89% 6.67% 15.56% 36.22% 38.67%

Trying new experiences 1.78% 6.00% 19.33% 40.44% 32.44%

Water activities in port (diving, snorkeling, beaches) 10.00% 17.11% 26.00% 29.11% 17.78%

Accessibility of accommodations for disabilities 44.00% 19.11% 13.11% 14.00% 9.78%

Conjoint Analysis Results

The conjoint results indicate that among six influencing factors for cruise vacation

packages, cruise online reviews plays the most important role in cruise customers’ selection. The

relative importance of cruise online reviews attribute is 32.06%, followed very closely by the

attribute of the environmental friendliness of the cruise line attribute 31.95%. The other four

attributes included in this study have a significant difference with the first two factors, but not

between themselves. Concretely, the duration of cruise vacation had a relative importance of

Page 54: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

45

12.18%, followed by distance from cruise port 11.10%, cruise itinerary 8.67% and cruise

vacation price 4.03% (see Table 7).

Table 7: Relative Importance of Influencing Factors

Cruise influencing factors Relative importance (%)

Cruise online reviews 32.06%

Environmental friendliness of cruise line 31.95%

Duration of cruise vacation 12.18%

Distance from cruise port 11.10%

Cruise itinerary 8.67%

Cruise vacation price 4.03%

Out of six attributes, the online cruise reviews attributes is the most important. When

cruise online reviews are presented in the cruise vacation offers, the positive utilities from

“average (three)” to “excellent (five)” increased chances of cruise customers selecting the cruise

vacation offer. Any value of cruise online reviews less than “average (three)” decreased chances

of selecting a particular cruise vacation offer. The results showed a similar situation for the

attribute of the environmental friendliness of the cruise line. If environmental friendliness of

cruise line was presented in the cruise vacation offers, the positive utilities “A – Excellent”, “B –

Satisfactory” and “C - Needs Work” increased chances of cruise customers selecting the cruise

vacation offer. The opposite was found for environmental friendliness of cruise line with values

“D – Poor” and “F – Unacceptable”. This shows that cruise customers value the importance of

the environmental friendliness of cruise line and are more attracted by offers that contain a

positive value of this attribute. In terms of the duration of the cruise vacation, the positive

utilities values were found to be from six to fifteen or more days. Cruise customers considered

the short duration from one to six cruise days as a disqualifying factor for their selection of a

cruise vacation offer. Distance from cruise port received negative utilities for more than 10

hours’ driving and more than 7 hours’ flight. The preference of respondents were revealed by

Page 55: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

46

positive utilities given to less than 10 hours driving or less than seven hours flight. From distance

from cruise port’ utilities, less than 3 hours flight received the highest positive value. Cruise

offers that were contained in this distance had increased chances to be selected compared to

other categories of distance. Itineraries that received a positive value from respondents were the

Caribbean, Europe without Mediterranean, Australia/New Zealand/Pacific and Alaska.

Table 8: Relative Utilities (Levels (Part-Worth))

Cruise Influencing Factors Levels Levels (Part-Worths)

Cruise vacation price

$0-50

$50-100

$100-150

$150-200

More than $200

+0.03

+0.09

+0.05

0.00

-0.16

Cruise itinerary

Caribbean

Mediterranean

Europe without Mediterranean

Australia/New Zealand/Pacific

Asia

Alaska

South America

+0.14

-0.04

+0.04

+0.19

-0.35

+0.11

-0.08

Duration of cruise vacation

1-2 days

3-5 days

6-9 days

10-14 days

15 days+

-0.47

-0.14

+0.12

+0.29

+0.20

Cruise online reviews

1-Terrible

2-Poor

3-Average

4-Very Good

5-Excellent

-1.04

-0.75

+0.08

+0.75

+0.97

Distance from cruise port

Less than 10 hours driving

More than 10 hours driving

Less than 3 hours flight

3 to 7 hours flight

More than 7 hours flight

+0.11

-0.36

+0.33

+0.02

-0.10

Environmental friendliness of cruise line

A - Excellent

B - Satisfactory

C - Needs Work

D - Poor

F - Unacceptable

+0.93

+0.47

+0.02

-0.35

-1.07

On the other hand, itineraries with negative utilities values were Mediterranean, Asia and

South America. Interestingly, the price performed as the least important attribute in the conjoint

Page 56: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

47

model. Cruise customers evaluated price to be the most important factor at self-reported

measurement questions. However, in conjoint model when price is embodied with other

attributes, it was considered as the least important attribute. Positive utilities from $0 to $150 per

day per person increased chances of cruise customers selecting the cruise vacation offer. A

neutral value of 0 utility was found for price of $150 to $200 per day per person. In this case

price did not play any role in selecting a cruise vacation offer. However this did not hold true

when the price increased to more than $200 per day per person, which seemed to have negative

utilities on deciding about cruise vacations (see Table 7).

From these most positive and negative values of utilities was generated the best and the

worst cruise vacation profile (see Table 9 and Table 10).

Table 9: Best Cruise Vacation Profile for U.S. Cruise Customers

Cruise Influencing Factors Best Profile

Cruise Vacation Price $ 50-100

Cruise Itinerary Australia/New Zealand/Pacific

Duration of cruise vacation 10-14 days

Cruise Online reviews 5- Excellent

Distance from cruise port Less than 3 hours flight

Environmental Friendliness of cruise line A - Excellent

Table 10: Worst Cruise Vacation Profile for U.S. Cruise Customers

Cruise Influencing Factors Worst Profile

Cruise Vacation Price More than $ 200

Cruise Itinerary Asia

Duration of cruise vacation 1-2 days

Cruise Online reviews 1-Terrible

Distance from cruise port More than 10 hours driving

Environmental Friendliness of cruise line F - Unacceptable

After finishing the scenarios of the CBC model, respondents were asked if they found the

model realistic. In a total of 54.77%, respondents selected yes; 35.92% selected no and 9.31%

had no opinion. The next task asked respondents to rank the influencing factors from one as the

Page 57: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

48

most important to six the least important (see Table 9). Results revealed price as the most

important factor, followed by duration of cruise vacation, cruise itinerary, distance from cruise

port, cruise online reviews and the environmental friendliness of the cruise line (see Table 11).

The results from ranking the influencing factors are almost identical with the order of variables

from the self-reported measurement (see Table 5). The only difference is that on the ranking

online reviews and distance from cruise port have switched places. The consistency of results

supported the reliability of respondents’ answers.

Table 11: Respondents’ Rank of Six Influencing Factors When Deciding About Cruise

Vacations

Cruise Influencing Factors* 1 2 3 4 5 6

Cruise vacation price 31.26% 11.31% 8.20% 10.86% 16.19% 22.17%

Cruise itinerary 0.86% 14.41% 22.39% 19.51% 21.29% 11.53%

Duration of cruise vacation 7.54% 21.73% 18.40% 21.51% 20.84% 9.98%

Cruise online reviews 3.53% 11.75% 14.63% 20.84% 24.83% 14.41%

Distance from cruise port 8.20% 11.75% 18.63% 23.06% 22.39% 15.96%

Environmental friendliness of cruise line 15.52% 10.20% 10.64% 14.41% 22.39% 26.83%

*(1-the most important and 6- the least important)

Further Findings about Online Reviews and Environmental Friendliness in Cruise

Industry

The results of this section contributed to support the importance of cruise online reviews,

despite the limited literature that was found. To the best of researcher’s knowledge, this study

has examined empirically the gap in literature about importance of cruise online reviews. In

addition, the results of this section revealed findings about the importance of environmental

friendliness of the cruise line.

Cruise Online Reviews

In a total of 43.11%, respondents selected always as their frequency of checking cruise

online reviews before booking a cruise vacation, 22.00% selected most of the time, 20.67%

Page 58: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

49

selected some time, 11.11% selected about half of the time and only 3.11% selected never. In

addition, respondents selected search for cruise vacation packages in multiple channels: 23.40%

selected cruise line website, 21.86% TripAdvisor, 18.45% Expedia, 15.05% Priceline, 9.07%

Orbitz, 6.49% Cruise critics and 3.51% none of them. Other channels to search for cruise

vacation packages such as Groupon, local travel agent, Travelocity, News Stories,

vacationstogo.com, AAA, Google, Travel zoo, Kayak, Cruise Compete, Cruise Sheet and

Trivago were selected by 2.16% of respondents.

Most of the channels used by respondents provide online rankings and ratings. However,

when it comes to booking a cruise vacation 40.62% of respondents selected direct booking to

Cruise Line (e.g. Cruise Line Website or Phone Call) followed by 30.46% Online Travel

Agency (e.g. Expedia, Orbitz etc), 17.54% Travel Agent, 6.15% Flash Sales (e.g. Groupon,

Living Social, Jetsetter etc) and 4.46% Cruise Line's Social Media Account. Only 0.77% of

respondents selected other channels for booking the cruise vacation and they referred to USAA

and booking through friends.

Environmental Friendliness of Cruise Line

The results showed that respondents were divided in almost three equal groups when

asked about the environmental friendliness of the cruise line. In a total of 30.89%, respondents

considered the cruise industry to be environmental friendly, 34.89% considered the cruise

industry to not be environmental friendly and 34.22% of respondents had no opinion about it. In

addition, when asked about environmentally friendly factors when booking a cruise line,

respondents answered as demonstrated in Table 12.

Page 59: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

50

Table 12: Respondent Scores for the Level of Importance with the Following Statements of

Cruise Environmental Friendly Factors

Not at all

important

Slightly

important

Moderately

Important

Very

important

Extremely

Important

Green and Sustainable Certifications (Green

Globe, STEP, etc.)

17.78% 29.33% 28.89% 15.78% 8.22%

Access to alternative modes of transportation

in ports (bicycle rentals, public transportation)

16.44% 21.78% 30.89% 21.33% 9.56%

Use of renewable materials and finishes in

cabins and public spaces

17.56% 24.44% 26.67% 22.00% 9.33%

Room card reader for passengers to insert their

cruise cards when entering a cabin

7.56% 13.56% 27.33% 30.22% 21.33%

Refillable toiletry dispensers in the cabin

bathroom

10.89% 12.00% 29.78% 30.44% 16.89%

Composting of food waste 17.56% 16.67% 23.56% 26.89% 15.33%

Use of renewable energy sources (wind or

solar power)

14.67% 18.67% 27.56% 23.78% 15.33%

Preferences for products that are

environmentally responsible (biodegradable,

organic, nontoxic, etc.)

14.00% 18.67% 26.67% 23.33% 17.33%

Green and Sustainable Certifications (Green Globe, STEP, etc.) statement was selected as

slightly important for the highest percentage of respondents 29.33%. The highest percentage of

respondents selected as moderately important four cruise environmental factors: alternative

modes of transportation in ports 30.89%, use of renewable materials 26.67%, use of renewable

energy sources 27.56%, and a preference for products that are environmentally responsible

26.67%. In addition, a higher percentage of respondents selected as very important the following

factors: room card reader for passengers 30.22%, refillable toiletry dispensers in the cabin

bathroom 30.44% and composting of food waste 26.89%. Interestingly, the lowest percentage of

respondents selected the first, second, third and sixth statement as extremely important, and as

not at all important for the fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth statement represented in Table 12.

The results of importance measured in a Likert Scale (for one meaning not at all important to

five meaning extremely important) for eight cruise environmental factors are presented in Table

13. Results showed that based on the mean Green and Sustainable Certifications (M= 2.67,

Page 60: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

51

SD=1.18) was the least important factor for cruise customers, and Room card reader for

passengers to insert their cruise cards when entering a cabin (M= 3.44, SD=1.18) was the most

important cruise environmental factor for respondents. Other factors received different means in

between (see Table 13).

Table 13: Importance of Environmental Friendly Factors When Choosing a Cruise Line

Factors Mean SD

Room card reader for passengers to insert their cruise cards when entering a cabin 3.44 1.18

Refillable toiletry dispensers in the cabin bathroom 3.30 1.20

Preferences for products that are environmentally responsible (biodegradable, organic,

nontoxic, etc.)

3.11 1.29

Composting of food waste 3.06 1.32

Use of renewable energy sources (wind or solar power) 3.06 1.27

Access to alternative modes of transportation in ports (bicycle rentals, public transportation) 2.86 1.21

Use of renewable materials and finishes in cabins and public spaces 2.81 1.23

Green and Sustainable Certifications (Green Globe, STEP, etc.) 2.67 1.18

*(1- not at all important to 5- extremely important)

Environmental concerns (EC) scale. In addition, to the environmental factors when

choosing a cruise line, this study adopted the environmental concerns (EC) scale for cruise

customers. The reliability test for this study confirmed all the variables of EC scale (Cronbach's

Alpha =0.868). Means and standard deviations for each item of the scale are presented in Table

14. Respondents selected an agreement level of 3.11 in a scale of one for strongly disagree and

five for strongly agree regarding the following statement “Non-recyclable products should be

taxed to reduce waste generated in cruise vacations.” Hence, 14.00% of respondents strongly

disagreed with the statement, 18.67% of respondents disagreed, 26.67% of respondents chose

neutral, 23.33% of respondents agreed and 17.33% of respondents strongly agreed. As for the

statement “Cruise companies should be required to use recycled materials in their operation.”

respondents selected an agreement level of 3.38, which was the highest mean compared to other

items of EC scale. Explicitly 8.22% of respondents strongly disagreed with the statement,

Page 61: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

52

13.11% of respondents disagreed, 25.78% of respondents chose neutral, 38.44% of respondents

agreed and 14.44% of respondents strongly agreed with the statement.

In a total of 13.33%, respondents strongly disagreed with the statement “Commercial

advertising should be required to mention the environmental disadvantages of cruise vacations.”,

22.00% of respondents disagreed, and 31.33% of respondents chose neutral, 24.22% of

respondents agreed and 9.11% of respondents strongly agreed. The overall agreement level was

2.94, the lowest compared to other items of EC scale.

In regard to the statement “Products or activities that pollute the environment during

cruise vacations should be taxed.” the level of agreement was 3.27. Concretely, 8.44% of

respondents strongly disagreed about this statement, 16.89% of respondents disagreed, and

26.44% of respondents chose neutral, 36.00% of respondents agreed and 12.22% of respondents

strongly agreed.

Table 14: Environmental Concerns (EC) Scale

Factors Mean SD

Non-recyclable products should be taxed to reduce waste generated in cruise vacations. 3.11 1.10

Cruise companies should be required to use recycled materials in their operation. 3.38 1.13

Commercial advertising should be required to mention the environmental disadvantages of

cruise vacations.

2.94 1.17

Products or activities that pollute the environment during cruise vacations should be taxed. 3.27 1.13

*(1- Strongly disagree to 5- Strongly agree)

Environmentally friendly tourism behaviors (EFTB) scale. In order to understand the

environmental friendly tourism behaviors of cruise customers, the scale was utilized from the

Song et al. (2012) study. The reliability test for this study confirmed all the variables of the

EFTB scale (Cronbach's Alpha =0.865). Means and standard deviations for each item of the

scale are presented in Table 15.

First item of EFTB scale: “I try to purchase environmentally friendly tourism products and

Page 62: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

53

services if possible.” the agreement level received a mean of 3.28 in a scale of one for strongly

disagree and five for strongly agree, with the highest agreement level compared to other items of

EFTB scale. Overall, 8.22% of respondents strongly disagreed about this statement, 18.00% of

respondents disagreed, 22.00% of respondents chose neutral, 40.67% of respondents agreed and

11.11% of respondents strongly agreed.

The second item of the EFTB scale received an agreement level of 3.32 for the following

statement “I think about how tourists’ behaviors could impact natural environments.”

Concretely, 9.11% of respondents strongly disagreed with the statement, 17.78% of respondents

disagreed, and 19.56% of respondents chose neutral, 39.11% of respondents agreed and 14.44%

of respondents strongly agreed.

The third item of EFTB scale: “I try to minimize my tourism behaviors to influence natural

environments.” received a an agreement level of 3.27, where 8.00% of respondents strongly

disagreed, 17.11% of respondents disagreed, and 23.33% of respondents chose neutral, 37.33%

of respondents agreed and 14.22% of respondents strongly agreed.

As for the last item of EFTB scale: “I prefer nature-based or eco-tourism.”, 10.22% of

respondents strongly disagreed, 14.00% of respondents disagreed, and 37.33% of respondents

chose neutral, 27.56% of respondents agreed and 10.89% of respondents strongly agreed. The

agreement level about this item was 3.15, with the lowest agreement level compared to other

items of EFTB scale.

Table 15: Environmentally Friendly Tourism Behaviors (EFTB) Scale

Factors Mean SD

I try to purchase environmentally friendly tourism products and services if possible. 3.28 1.13

I think about how tourists’ behaviors could impact natural environments. 3.32 1.19

I try to minimize my tourism behaviors to influence natural environments. 3.33 1.15

I prefer nature-based or eco-tourism. 3.15 1.11

*(1- Strongly disagree to 5- Strongly agree)

Page 63: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

54

CHAPTER V:

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study lead to the following discussions and conclusions. The purpose

of this study was to examine the relative importance of six influencing factors in cruise

customers’ decision-making process.

Study results from self-reported measurements showed that price was the most influential

factor on a cruise vacation choice, followed by duration of cruise vacation, cruise itinerary,

distance from cruise port, cruise online reviews and environmental friendliness of cruise line (see

Table 5). In the ranking the same results were found despite the distance from cruise port, which

was selected as the fourth important attribute followed by cruise online reviews in the fifth place

(see Table 11). In contrast to these results (see Table 7), the Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC)

analysis showed that when the relative importance of the influencing factors was measured the

most important factor was cruise online reviews, followed by the environmental friendliness of

the cruise line, the duration of cruise vacation, distance from cruise port, cruise itinerary and

cruise vacation price.

Results from Table 7 conflicted the results from Table 5 and Table 11. Pignone et al.

(2012) results were found to be conflicting between conjoint results and ranking and rating

results. An argument was that CBC may provide distinct information for a variety of attributes

compared to simpler explicit methods like ranking and rating. The hypothetical models of CBC

analysis may have produced different results from the real-world (Chin & Gopal, 1993). It can be

argued that cruise customers made a conscious decision in self-reported measurements and an

Page 64: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

55

unconscious decision in CBC analysis while choosing among trade-offs offered (Boyle, Holmes,

Teisl, & Roe, 2001). According to Zeithaml (1988) the importance about product attributes in the

conjoint model may change from real-life as customers tend to base the final purchasing decision

on the price. Consequently, the results from tables reflected different importance considerations

of cruise customers.

Cruise online reviews were selected as the fourth or fifth important influential factor

when comparing the six factors on cruise customers’ decision-making process on the self-

reported measurement. However, in the conjoint model, cruise online reviews were the most

important influencing factor for cruise customers on their cruise selection. Respondents seemed

to pay much attention to online reviews when choosing among cruise vacation offers. It can be

suggested that this factor should be considered seriously in developing cruise vacation packages.

To the best of researcher’s knowledge, cruise online reviews have not been empirically tested

before. Therefore, the findings of the present study about cruise online reviews serve as a

contribution to the body of knowledge.

The results of the conjoint model gave insights regarding the fact that the environmental

friendliness factor of the cruise line was the second important influencing factor when selecting a

cruise line. The cruise vacation offers that contained a positive value for environmental

friendliness of their cruise line had a higher chance to be selected by a cruise client. Previous

studies have concluded that environment-friendly and ethical products were valued by customers

(Moisander, 2007; Thøgersen and Ölander, 2003). Natural and organic labels were found to be

very attractive to consumers (Jervis, Lopetcharat, & Drake, 2012). Rokka and Uusitalo (2008)

study showed that majority of consumer segment preferred environmentally labelled packaging

in their choice. It can be argued that in the same way, the respondents of this study have

Page 65: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

56

evaluated the attribute of environmental friendliness in the cruise vacation choice.

Results of this study showed that cruise customers considered as moderately important

the environmental factors when asked in ranking and rating scale. Cruise customers’ tendency

was to agree or to have a neutral attitude towards environmental concerns scale and the

environmentally friendly tourism behaviors scale. It can be argued that although cruise

customers’ might not be the typical “green customer”, environmental friendliness of the cruise

line actually plays an important. Perhaps environmental friendliness contributes to rethink the

impact of the final decision towards the environment (Andersen, & Skjoett-Larsen, 2009). The

additional information provided about environmental friendliness levels in conjoint model may

have contributed to the different results from ranking and rating scales. According to Krause

(1993) consumers are more concerned about environmental pollution and depletion of natural

resources. The empirical results of the environmental friendliness of the cruise line contribute to

the body of knowledge. The results of this study have suggested that the cruise industry should

encourage environmentally friendly practices, policies and technologies, and promote them as

part of their cruise vacation offerings. Papagdopoulos et al. (2009) supported that 92% of

consumers preferred companies which were sensitive to environmental issues.

In summary, the growth of cruise tourism has a significant economic impact at global

level by $117 billion profits (CLIA, 2015; CLIA, 2017). The number of cruise customers

estimated for 2017 is expected to increase to 25.3 million passengers (CLIA, 2017). The share of

cruise vacation in the tourism market has been estimated 22% between 2008 and 2014 (CLIA,

2016b). Along with fast-paced growth of the cruise industry, the competition between the cruise

line companies has increased (CLIA, 2015). The goal of cruise lines is to prevail in the market

by diversifying their offerings. Thus, researchers focused in understanding the cruise customers’

Page 66: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

57

decision-making process and the factors influencing their decision (Petrick, Li & Park, 2007).

Previous research has explored the influence of cruise vacation attributes and compare their

individual importance.

This study brings a real-life tasks approach in exploring the relative importance of six

influencing factors on cruise customers’ decision-making process. Evaluating empirically the

relative share of each influencing factor on cruise customers’ decision-making process can be

helpful for cruise lines to focus their marketing efforts properly. According to Gursoy and

McCleary (2004), understanding tourists’ decision making process and what influences it

contributes fundamentally to the effectiveness of marketing strategies.

U.S. Cruise Customers’ Profile

The sample for this study presented close results for cruise customer profile with Cruise

Line International Association data and was in line with previous studies. Although CLIA

collects data worldwide for their reports, the majority of their data comes from the North

American cruise industry. Bearing this in mind, the sample of this was study was comparable

with CLIA’s recent report. The average age of cruise customers has seen a decreasing trend over

the years (CLIA, 2015). According to Hobson (1993), cruise customers’ average age was 43 in

1991, a drop of 15 years from the average age of cruise customers in 1985. In addition, a CLIA

(2017) report noted that today contemporary cruise customers are represented by younger

millennials and generation X. In 2016, generation X were individuals of age 40 to 55 years old

and millennials were individual of age 25 to 40 years old (Oblinger, 2003).

The findings of this study are in line with the decreasing trend of cruise customers’ age.

The spread of cruise customers’ age for this study was concentrated at the category of 25 to 34

Page 67: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

58

years old with 43.11%, followed by the category of 35 to 44 years old with 20.67%, and 13.78%

by 45 to 55 years old. Older than 55 years old were only 12.00% of respondents. A Teye and

Leclerc (1998) study showed that cruise customers were well educated. Along the same lines, the

findings of this study revealed that 44.22% of cruise customers held a 4 year college degree and

the rest had some type of postsecondary degree. Similar findings were reported by Ackerman

(2015) with 30% of cruise customers holding a Bachelor’s Degree. Only 7.56% of respondents in

this study had high school/GED and that is the same percentage as the Ackerman (2015) study.

This study found that 73.33% of cruise customers had a household income less than

$79,999, and 71.11% of respondents declared that they are employed for wages. For the same

category of income, Hobson (1993) presented 70% and Teye and Leclerc (1998) found 55% of

cruise passengers. For a household income of less than $60,000, CLIA (2017) and Ackerman

(2015) estimated 35% of cruise travelers. A significant percentage of 10.21% of cruise customers

selected a household income in the category of more than $110,000 in this study. Ackerman

(2015) estimated 28% of cruise travelers for the same category and CLIA (2017) worldwide

estimated 45% of cruise customers. The changes in cruise customers’ income can vary

depending on the data collection. However, previous information reflected that cruise customers

can be categorized into two different groups by their household income: less than $80,000 and

more than $110,000.

The findings of this study showed close percentage values for first time cruisers at

37.78% and for two to four times cruisers at 43.33%, supporting the increasing trend of first time

cruisers. CLIA (2016b) showed that 20% of the cruisers were first time cruisers. A resort style

cruise was the most preferred cruise type 85.56% for cruise customers according to the findings

of the study. CLIA (2017) reflected the rivers cruise as a new increasing trend, and this study

Page 68: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

59

reflected river cruise preferences by 4.22%.

Carnival Cruises 22.68% and Royal Caribbean International were most commonly

preferred from respondents in the study. The Ackerman (2015) study also presented these two

cruise lines as preferred with Royal Caribbean International in third place and Carnival Cruises

on fourth place. Compared to the Ackerman (2015) study, Disney Cruise 15.89% and Norwegian

Cruise 14.35% are ranked better from respondents as preferred cruise lines. The marketing

strategies of these companies maybe have influenced cruise customers’ preferences.

The results of this study have showed that the most visited destinations were the

Caribbean 54.92%, Alaska 11.45% and the Mediterranean 9.40%. The same destinations were

reported from CLIA (2017) as the most visited vacation destinations: Caribbean 40%,

Alaska/Pacific Northwest 25% and Mediterranean 22%. Cruise customers considered these

destinations with high interest.

This study showed that 76% of cruise customers were White/Caucasian. About the same

percentage of cruise customers with ethnicity of White/Caucasian was presented from CLIA

(2017). But, CLIA (2017) results showed that different ethnicities each showed preference for

different types of cruises. Future studies may examine the importance of these six influential

factors when cruise customers’ ethnicities are factored in.

Implications and Limitations

The findings of this study provide several implications into cruise customers’ importance

about influencing factors when deciding on a cruise vacation. The research provides insides in

understanding the influential factors at the last stage of cruise customers’ decision-making

process. In this regard, cruise industry can pay more attention in promoting the attributes of a

Page 69: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

60

cruise offer as influential factors. Additionally, the findings of this study contribute to the general

knowledge about cruise customers’ decision-making process.

Literature has shown many more attributes that are considered important for cruise

customers, however, this study was limited to only six of them. Due to usage of QuestionPro

platform to design CBC, a limited support was offered for validity and reliability of CBC

analysis. Self-selection bias from collecting the data from MTurk platform can be a limitation for

the external validity of the sample (Berinsky et al., 2012). In addition, this study did not have a

good representation from respondents of age 55 years old or more (only 12%), therefore, the

findings cannot be generalized for that age category.

Future Suggestions for Research

Tourist decision-making models bring insights to tourism operators in designing their

offers effectively (Petrick et al., 2007). However, these models should be updated with recent

influential attributes that will post-date this study. For instance, technological developments

should be reflected in these models and online reviews should be part of the influential factors

weighing on cruise customers’ decision-making process. Additionally, new trends such as the

environmental friendliness of cruise line should be reflected in future decision-making models.

Based on the results of the study, it can be argued a typical cruise customer might be unware of

the cruise industry negative impacts on the environment. Therefore, cruise customers’ awareness

level and perceived impact of the cruise industry should be explored and compared with other

forms of tourism.

Future research can investigate other factors that influence cruise vacation which were

not part of this study. Empirical values of influential factors can contribute to a better

Page 70: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

61

understanding of the cruise industry regarding their importance. Future studies can look at the

empirical market share changes of cruise lines based on the change of influential factors’ levels.

Page 71: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

62

REFERENCES

Ackerman, L. M. (2015). Consumer perceptions of sustainability in the cruise industry.

(Unpublished master’s thesis). Florida International University, Miami, Florida.

Adams, S. A. (2014). Role of corporate social and environmental responsibility in cruise

consumers’ behavior decision making. Proceedings from CTO/CREST Symposium. Third

Innovators in Coastal Tourism. Grenada, CR: ICCAS.

Ahmed, Z. U., Johnson, J. P., Pei Ling, C., Wai Fang, T., & Kah Hui, A. (2002). Country-of-

origin and brand effects on consumers' evaluations of cruise lines. International

Marketing Review, 19(3), 279-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651330210430703

Andersen, M., & Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in global supply

chains. Supply chain management: an international journal, 14(2), 75-86.

Anderson, N. H. (1991). Contributions to integration theory (vols. 1, 2, 3). Hilsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Ankomah, P. K., Crompton, J. L., & Baker, D. (1996). Influence of cognitive distance in

vacation choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(1), 138-150.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00054-2

B Murray. (2003). Radisson seven seas triumphs, winning Conde Nast Traveler’s award 2013.

Retrieved from http://cruiselines.us/cruiseline_radisson_news_10102003.html

Baker, D. M. A., & Stockton, S. (2013). Caribbean cruise tourism: Issues, challenges and

sustainability. Studies of Organizational Management and Sustainability, 1(2), 79-97.

Ballini, F., & Bozzo, R. (2015). Air pollution from ships in ports: The socio-economic benefit of

Page 72: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

63

cold-ironing technology. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 17(3),

92–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.10.007

Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes.

Journal of consumer research, 25(3), 187-217. https://doi.org/10.1086/209535

Ben-Akiva, M., & Boccara, B. (1995). Discrete choice models with latent choice sets.

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(1), 9-24.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-8116(95)00002-J

Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for

experimental research: Amazon. com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351-

368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057

Biehn, N. (2006). A cruise ship is not a floating hotel. Journal of Revenue and Pricing

Management, 5(2), 135-142. DOI:10.1057/palgrave.rpm.5160034

Bigne, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after

purchase behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tourism management, 22(6), 607-616.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00035-8

Brida, J. G., & Zapata, S. (2009). Cruise tourism: Economic, socio-cultural and environmental

impacts. International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, 1(3), 205-226.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJLTM.2010.029585

Boyle, K. J., Holmes, T. P., Teisl, M. F., & Roe, B. (2001). A comparison of conjoint analysis

response formats. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(2), 441-454.

Burton, J., & Khammash, M. (2010). Why do people read reviews posted on consumer-opinion

portals? Journal of Marketing Management, 26(3-4), 230-255.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02672570903566268

Page 73: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

64

Caneen, J. M. (2003). Cultural determinants of tourist intention to return. Tourism Analysis, 8(2),

237-242. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354203774076805

Caric, H. (2012). Cruise Tourism Environmental Risks. In Papathanassis, A., Lukovic, & T.,

Vogel M. (Eds.), Cruise Tourism and Society (pp. 47-67). Dubrovnik, CR: Springer

Berlin Heidelberg.

Chiam, M., Soutar, G., & Yeo, A. (2009). Online and off‐line travel packages preferences: a

conjoint analysis. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(1), 31-40.

Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. (1993, January). An examination of the relative importance of four

belief constructs on the GSS adoption decision: a comparison of four methods. Paper

presented at the System Sciences: Twenty-Sixth Hawaii International Conference,

Wailea. HI: IEEE 10.1109/HICSS.1993.284232

Chipkin, H. (2011, August 11). Consumer Trends 2014: The growing influence of

TripAdvisor. Travel Weekly. Retrieved from http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-

News/Online-Travel/The-growing-influence-of-TripAdvisor

Coulter, K. S. (2001). Decreasing price sensitivity involving physical product inventory: A yield

management application. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(5), 301-317.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005846

Crompton, J. L. (1992). Structure of destination choice sets. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(3),

420-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(92)90128-C

Cruise Critics. (2013, July). Deciding factors. Retrieved from

http://boards.cruisecritic.co.uk/showthread.php?s=10cc95772edc7551e636e46f0c40a9da

Page 74: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

65

&t=1889927&page=2

Cruise Line International Association. (n.d.). About the industry. Retrieved from

https://www.cruising.org/.

Cruise Line International Association. (2005). The overview spring 2005. Retrieved from

http://www.cruising.org/press/overview/ Spring2005.pdf.

Cruise Line International Association. (2015a). One voice: Advancing our industry together.

Retrieved from http://www.cruising.org/docs/default-source/market-

research/clia_2015_annualreport_web.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

Cruise Line International Association. (2015b). 2015 Cruise industry outlook. Retrieved from

http://www.cruising.org/docs/default-source/research/2015-cruise-industry-

outlook.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

Cruise Line International Association. (2016a). 2016 Travel agent cruise industry outlook.

Retrieved from http://www.cruising.org/docs/default-

source/outlook/cruiseoutlook_feb_2016_final.pdf?sfvrsn=8.

Cruise Line International Association. (2016b). 2016 Travel agent cruise industry outlook.

Retrieved from http://www.cruising.org/docs/default-source/research/travel-agent-cruise-

outlook-42616.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

Cruise Line International Association. (2016c). 2016 Travel agent cruise industry outlook.

Retrieved from http://www.cruising.org/docs/default-source/research/2016-q3-travel-

agent-cruise-industry-outlook-report.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

Cruise Line International Association. (2016d). 2016 Cruise industry outlook. Retrieved from

http://www.cruising.org/docs/default-source/research/2016_clia_sotci.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Cruise Line International Association. (2017). 2017 State of the industry. Retrieved from

Page 75: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

66

https://www.cruising.org/about-the-industry/research/2017-state-of-the-industry

Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2004). Planning the summer vacation: An adaptable process. Annals

of Tourism Research, 31(4), 1008-1030. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.03.004

De La Vina, L., & Ford, J. (2001). Logistic regression analysis of cruise vacation market

potential: Demographic and trip attribute perception factors. Journal of Travel Research,

39(4), 406-410.

Dellaert, B. G., Ettema, D. F., & Lindh, C. (1998). Multi-faceted tourist travel decisions: A

constraint-based conceptual framework to describe tourists' sequential choices of travel

components. Tourism Management, 19(4), 313-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-

5177(98)00037-5

DeSarbo, W. S., Ramaswamy, V., & Cohen, S. H. (1995). Market segmentation with choice-

based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 6(2), 137-147.

Duffy, R. (2013). A trip too far: ecotourism, politics, and exploitation. London: Earthscan.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2008). Cruise ship discharge assessment report.

Washington, D.C.: EPA.

Friends of the Earth (FoE). (2012). Cruise ship environmental report card. Berkeley, USA:

Friends of the Earth.

Gokovali, U., Bahar, O., & Kozak, M. (2007). Determinants of length of stay: A practical use of

survival analysis. Tourism Management, 28(3), 736-746.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.05.004

Gursoy, D., and K.W. McCleary (2004). An integrative model of tourists’ information search

behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(2), 353-373.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2003.12.004

Page 76: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

67

Han, H., & Hwang, J. (2016). Cruise travelers’ environmentally responsible decision-making:

An integrative framework of goal-directed behavior and norm activation process.

International Journal of Hospitality Management, 53(1), 94-105.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.12.005

Han, H., & Kim, Y. (2010). An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation:

Developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. International Journal

of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 659-668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.01.001

Heung, V. C., Qu, H., & Chu, R. (2001). The relationship between vacation factors and socio-

demographic and travelling characteristics: The case of Japanese leisure travelers.

Tourism Management, 22(3), 259-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(00)00057-1

Hobson, J. P. (1993). Analysis of the US cruise line industry. Tourism management, 14(6), 453-

462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(93)90098-6

Holloway, J. C., Humphreys, C., & Davidson, R. (2009). The business of tourism (8th ed).

England, UK: Pearson Education.

Hsu, T. K., Tsai, Y. F., & Wu, H. H. (2009). The preference analysis for tourist choice of

destination: A case study of Taiwan. Tourism management, 30(2), 288-297.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2008.07.011

Huan, T. C. T., & Beaman, J. (2003). Contexts and dynamics of social interaction and

information search in decision making for discretionary travel. Tourism Analysis, 8(2),

177-182. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354203774076698

Huber, J. (1987). Conjoint analysis: How we got here and where we are. Proceedings from

Sawtooth Conf. Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis and Computer Interviewing.

Page 77: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

68

Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.

Jervis, S. M., Lopetcharat, K., & Drake, M. A. (2012). Application of ethnography and conjoint

analysis to determine key consumer attributes for latte-style coffee beverage. Journal of

Sensory Studies, 27(1), 48-58.

Ji, L., & Mazzarella, J. (2007). Application of modified nested and dynamic class allocation

models for cruise line revenue management. Journal of Revenue & Pricing Management,

6(1), 19-32.

Jobber, D. (2004). Principles and practice of marketing. London, UK: McGraw Hill.

Johanson, G. A., & Brooks, G. P. (2009). Initial scale development: Sample size for pilot studies.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 394 – 400.

Johnson, F. R., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., Mühlbacher, A., Regier, D. A., ... &

Bridges, J. F. (2013). Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments:

Report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task

force. Value in Health, 16(1), 3-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223

Johnson, R. R., & Messmer, D. J. (1991). The effect of advertising on hierarchical stages in

vacation destination choice. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(6), 18-24.

Juan, P. J., & Chen, H. M. (2012). Taiwanese cruise tourist behavior during different phases of

experience. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(5), 485-494.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.882

Kalyanaram, G., & Winer, R. S. (1995). Empirical generalizations from reference price research.

Marketing Science, 14(3), 161-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.14.3.G161

Klein, R. A. (2011). Responsible cruise tourism: Issues of cruise tourism and sustainability.

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 18(01), 107-116.

Page 78: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

69

http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.18.1.107

Krause, D. (1993). Environmental consciousness: An empirical study. Environment and

Behavior, 25(1), 126-142.

Lockyer, T. (2005). The perceived importance of price as one hotel selection dimension. Tourism

Management, 26(4), 529-537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.03.009

Marti, B. E. (1992). Passenger perceptions of cruise itineraries: A Royal Viking Line case study.

Marine Policy, 16(5), 360-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0308-597X(92)90004-9

Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1-23. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6

McCalla, R. J. (1998). An investigation into site and situation: Cruise ship ports. Tijdschrift Voor

Economische en Sociale Geografie, 89(1), 44-55. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9663.00005

Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism. International journal of

consumer studies, 31(4), 404-409.

Morgan, M. S. (1991). Traveler's choice: The effects of advertising and prior stay. The Cornell

Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 32(4), 41-49.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-8804(91)90098-C

Mottiar, Z., & Quinn, D. (2004). Couple dynamics in household tourism decision making:

Women as the gatekeepers? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 149-160.

https://doi.org/10.1177/135676670401000205

Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of Marketing, 21(10),

3-44.

Meißner, M., & Decker, R. (2009). “An empirical comparison of CBC and AHP for measuring

consumer preferences”. In: International Symposium of Analytical Hierarchy Process:

Page 79: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

70

Bielefeld, Germany.

Murphy, M., Cowan, C., Henchion, M., & O’reilly, S. (2000). Irish consumer preferences for

honey: A conjoint approach. British Food Journal, 102(8), 585-598.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700010348424

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers gen-xers millennials. EDUCAUSE review, 500(4), 37-47.

Oceana (2003). Needless cruise pollution: Passengers want sewage dumping stopped.

Washington, DC: Author. Available at:

http://na.oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/polling_report1.pdf

Orme, B. K. (2010). Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design &

pricing research. Pennsylvania, USA: Research Publishers.

Papadopoulos, I., Karagouni, G., Trigkas, M., & Platogianni, E., (2009). Green marketing. The

case of timber certification, coming from sustainable forests management, promotion."

In: Annual International EuroMed Conference Proceeding 2. The research Business

Institute, Salermo, Italy.

Petrick, J. F. (2005). Segmenting cruise passengers with price sensitivity. Tourism Management,

26(5), 753-762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.03.015

Petrick, J. F., Li, X., & Park, S. Y. (2007). Cruise passengers' decision-making processes.

Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23(1), 1-14.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v23n01_01

Pignone, M. P., Brenner, A. T., Hawley, S., Sheridan, S. L., Lewis, C. L., Jonas, D. E., &

Howard, K. (2012). Conjoint analysis versus rating and ranking for values elicitation and

clarification in colorectal cancer screening. Journal of general internal medicine, 27(1),

45-50.

Page 80: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

71

Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers'

perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research,

26(3), 351-357.

Rodrigue, J. P., & Notteboom, T. (2013). The geography of cruises: Itineraries, not destinations.

Applied Geography, 38(1), 31-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.11.011

Rokka, J., & Uusitalo, L. (2008). Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices–

do consumers care? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 516-525.

Rompf, P., Dipietro, R. B., & Ricci, P. (2005). Locals' involvement in travelers' informational

search & venue decision strategies while at destination. Journal of Travel & Tourism

Marketing, 18(3), 11-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v18n03_02

Schmoll, G. A. (1977). Tourism promotion: Marketing background, promotion techniques and

promotion planning methods. London, UK: Tourism International Press.

Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R. W., & Uysal, M. (1996). Modeling vacation destination decisions: A

behavioral approach. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 5(1-2), 57-75.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J073v05n01_05

Shearman S. (2017, March 9). Cruise holidays: who is leading the fleet for sustainable sea

travel? The guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-

business/2017/mar/09/sustainable-sea-travel-cruise-holidays-shipping-air-pollution-

renewables-biofuels#top

Sirakaya, E., & Woodside, A. G. (2005). Building and testing theories of decision making by

travelers. Tourism Management, 26(6), 815-832.

Page 81: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

72

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.05.004

Smith, S. (1995). Tourism analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.

Solomon, D. J. (2001). Conducting web-based surveys. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from

http://ericae.net/edo/ed458291.htm

Song, H. J., Lee, C. K., Kang, S. K., & Boo, S. J. (2012). The Effect of environmentally friendly

perceptions on festival visitors’ decision-making process using an extended model of

goal-directed behavior. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1417-1428.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.01.004

Statistic Brain: Cruise ship industry statistics (2015, September 3). Retrieved from

http://www.statisticbrain.com/cruise-ship-industry-statistics/

Suh, Y. K., & Gartner, W. C. (2004). Preferences and trip expenditures—A conjoint analysis of

visitors to Seoul, Korea. Tourism Management, 25(1), 127-137.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00056-6

Sun, X., Jiao, Y., & Tian, P. (2011). Marketing research and revenue optimization for the cruise

industry: A concise review. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(3),

746-755. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.11.007

Swarbrooke, J., & Horner, S. (1999). Consumer behaviour in tourism. (3rd ed.). Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Sweeting, J. E., & Wayne, S. L. (2006). A shifting tide: environmental challenges and cruise

industry responses. Dowling, R. K. (Eds.), Cruise Ship Tourism (327-349). Oxfordshire,

UK: CABI.

Teare, R. (1993). An exploration of the consumer decision process for hospitality services. In

Page 82: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

73

Teare, R.; Moutinho, L.; Morgan, N. (Eds.), An exploration of the consumer decision

process for hospitality services (233-248). London, UK: Cassell Educational.

Teye, V. B., & Leclerc, D. (1998). Product and service delivery satisfaction among North

American cruise passengers. Tourism Management, 19(2), 153-160.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(97)00107-6

Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour.

Journal of environmental psychology, 23(3), 225-236.

Toh, R. S., Rivers, M. J., & Ling, T. W. (2005). Room occupancies: cruise lines out-do the

hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24(1), 121-135.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2004.05.005

Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice. Annals of

Tourism Research, 17(3), 432-448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(90)90008-F

Van Raaij, W. F. (1986). Consumer research on tourism mental and behavioral constructs.

Annals of Tourism Research, 13(1), 1-9.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(86)90054-X

Van Teijlingen, E., & Hundley, V. (2002). The importance of pilot studies. Nursing

standard, 16(40), 33-36.

Verlegh, P. W., Schifferstein, H. N., & Wittink, D. R. (2002). Range and number-of-levels

effects in derived and stated measures of attribute importance. Marketing Letters, 13(1),

41-52.

Wahab, S., Crampon, L. J., & Rothfield, L. M. (1976). Tourism marketing. London, UK:

Tourism International Press.

Witt, S. F., & Witt, C. A. (1995). Forecasting tourism demand: A review of empirical research.

International Journal of Forecasting, 11(3), 447-475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-

Page 83: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

74

2070(95)00591-7

Woodside, A. G., & Lysonski, S. (1989). A general model of traveler destination choice. Journal

of Travel Research, 27(4), 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728758902700402

Wong, P.P. (2004). Environmental impacts of tourism. In A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. M.

Williams (Eds.), In a companion to tourism (450-461). Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Publishing.

Xie, H. J., Kerstetter, D. L., & Mattila, A. S. (2012). The attributes of a cruise ship that influence

the decision making of cruisers and potential cruisers. International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 31(1), 152-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.03.007

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model

and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of marketing 52(3), 2-22.

Zissu, A. (2016). Going Green. Travel and Leisure, 46(4), 85-94.

Zhu, Q. (2007). Consumer preferences for internet services: A Choice-Based conjoint study.

Retrieved from https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/zhu_qianqiu_200705_phd.pdf

Page 84: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

75

APPENDICES

Page 85: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

76

Appendix A: Survey Instrument

Consent Section

Cruise Background Section

Did you ever go on a cruise vacation?

Yes

No (End of survey)

How many times have you been on a cruise vacation?

1 time

2 – 4 times

5 – 9 times

10 – 14 times

15 – 19 times

20 – 24 times

25 – 29 times

30 – 34 times

35 + times

How often did you go on a cruise vacation in the last 5 years?

Not every year

Once a year

Twice a year

More than twice a year

In general, which type of cruise vacation do you mainly prefer?

Resort Style (e.g. Norwegian, Royal Caribbean, Princess cruises, Disney Cruise Line, Holland America Line,

Celebrity X Cruises, ect)

Luxury/Specialty (e.g. Seabourn, Silversea, Windstar cruises, Regent, Oceania Cruises, Paul Gauguin, Cunard

Line, Crystal Cruises, Azamara Club Cruises etc.)

River cruise lines (e.g. Viking cruises, Uniworld River Cruises, Tauck River Cruises, Avalon Waterways,

AmaWaterways etc)

How important is a particular ship in the selection of your cruise vacation?

Not at all important

Slightly important

Moderately Important

Very important

Extremely Important

Which cruise line would you prefer for your cruise vacations? (Please select all that apply)

Carnival Cruises

Celebrity Cruises

Costa Cruises

Cunard

Disney Cruise Line

Holland America Line

Page 86: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

77

MSC Cruises

Norwegian Cruise Line

P&O Cruises

Princess Cruises

Royal Caribbean

International

Other – Please Specify

No preference

Which destination did you chose for your cruise vacations?

Caribbean

Mediterranean

Europe without

Mediterranean

Australia/New

Zealand/Pacific

Asia

Alaska

South America

Another

How important are the following factors for you when booking a cruise?

Not at all

important (1)

Slightly

important

Moderately

Important

Very important Extremely

Important (5)

Activities on board

Environmental

friendliness of cruise

line

Online reviews

Class of ship

Cruise vacation price

Cruise line

Cuisine

Experiencing local

cultures

Getting away from it all

Itinerary

Duration of cruise

vacation

Distance from cruise

port

Relaxation

Shopping

Sightseeing

(Archaeological,

Historical)

Sightseeing (Nature)

Page 87: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

78

Spending time with

friends and family

Trying new experiences

Water activities in port

(diving, snorkeling,

beaches)

Accessibility of

accommodations for

disabilities

Choice-Based Conjoint (CBC) Scenarios Section

Instructions

Suppose that you want go for a cruise vacation. On the following section, you will be presented with different

cruise vacations offers. You will have to choose among two offers presented in the same time. In case you don’t

like any from two offer, you can chose the option none of them.

Note: the price presented is an average daily price for one person, and it does not include Taxes, cruise fees, and

port expenses.

Distance from cruise

port

Cruise

online

reviews

Duration of

cruise

vacation

Cruise

vacation

price

Environmenta

l friendliness

of cruise line

Cruise

Itinerary

Less than 10 hours

driving

1- Terrible 1-2 days 0-50$ A - Excellent Caribbean

More than 10 hours

driving

2- Poor 3-5 days 50-100$ B - Satisfactory Mediterranean

Less than 3 hours flight 3- Average 6-9 days 100-150$ C - Needs

Work

Europe without

Mediterranean

3 to 7 hours flight 4- Very

Good

10-14 days 150-200$ D - Poor Australia/New

Zealand/Pacific

More than 7 hours flight 5- Excellent 15 days+ More than

200$

F -

Unacceptable

Asia

Alaska

South America

Do you believe that the scenario you have seen is realistic?

Yes

No

Please rank the following factors based on their importance on your decision about cruise vacations in the

importance order from most important to least important?

cruise vacation price,

duration of cruise

vacation,

distance from cruise

port,

cruise itineraries,

cruise online reviews,

environmental

friendliness of cruise

Page 88: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

79

line

Further Investigation of Online Reviews and Environmental Friendliness in Cruise Industry

When you search for cruise vacation packages, which of the following websites do you use the most?

(Check all that apply)

Cruise Line Website

Cruise critics

Priceline

TripAdvisor

Orbitz

Expedia

Other (please specify)

How often do you check cruise online reviews before you book a cruise vacation?

Never

Sometimes

About half of the time

Most of the time

Always

Which of the followings do you typically use when you book a cruise vacation? Please, check all that apply.

Direct booking to Cruise

Line (e.g. Cruise Line

Website or Phone Call)

Travel Agent

Online Travel Agency

(e.g. Expedia, Orbitz

etc)

Cruise Line's Social

Media Account

Flash Sales (e.g.

Groupon, Living Social,

Jetsetter etc)

Other (please specify)

Do you think the cruise industry is environmentally friendly?

Yes

No

No Opinion

How important are the following environmental friendly factors when choosing a cruise line?

Not at all

important (1)

Slightly

important

Moderately

Important

Very

important

Extremely

Important (5)

Green and Sustainable

Certifications (Green

Globe, STEP, etc.)

Access to alternative

modes of transportation

in ports (bicycle rentals,

public transportation)

Use of renewable

materials and finishes in

Page 89: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

80

cabins and public spaces

Room card reader for

passengers to insert their

cruise cards when

entering a cabin to

Refillable toiletry

dispensers in the cabin

bathroom

Composting of food

waste

Use of renewable energy

sources (wind or solar

power)

Preferences for products

that are environmentally

responsible

(biodegradable, organic,

nontoxic, etc.)

Attention check

question: Please select

Very important

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements :

Strongly

Disagree (1)

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree (5)

Non-recyclable products

should be taxed to

reduce waste generated

in cruise vacations.

Cruise companies should

be required to use

recycled materials in

their operation.

Commercial advertising

should be required to

mention the

environmental

disadvantages of cruise

vacations.

Products or activities

that pollute the

environment during

cruise vacations should

be taxed.

Attention check

question: Please select

Neutral.

I try to purchase

environmentally friendly

tourism products and

services if possible.

I think about how

tourists’ behaviors could

impact natural

environments.

Page 90: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

81

I try to minimize my

tourism behaviors to

influence natural

environments.

I prefer nature-based or

eco-tourism.

Demographics Section

Please indicate your gender

Male

Female

Prefer not to answer

What is your age?

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65 and over

What is your marital status?

Single

In a relationship (not

living together)

Living with partner

Married without children

Married with children

Divorced

Widowed

Prefer not to answer

What is your annual household income range?

Under $20,000

$20,000 - $29,999

$30,000 - $39,999

$40,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $59,999

$60,000 - $69,999

$70,000 - $79,999

$80,000 - $89,999

$90,000 - $99,999

100,000 – 109,999

110,000 – 119,999

120,000 – 129,999

130,000 – 139,999

140,000 – 149,999

Page 91: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

82

150,000 +

Prefer not to answer

Please specify your ethnicity.

White/ Caucasian

American

Hispanic

Asian

African American

Pacific Islander

Prefer not to answer

What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed?

High school /GED

Some college

2 year College Degree

4 year College Degree

Master’s Degree

Doctorate Degree

Prefer not to answer

Which occupational category best describes your employment?

Employed for wages

Self-employed

Out of work and looking

for work

Out of work but not

currently looking for

work

A homemaker

A student

Military

Retired

Unable to work

In which state do you currently reside?

List of 51 States in United States based on Qualtrics.com

Comments/Suggestions:

Thank You Section

Thank you very much for your participation in my thesis study! As a token of appreciation you will receive 35

cents to your Mechanical Turk account. Please copy the code below and paste it on the Mechanical Turk

webpage. Note that every code is unique, please do not share it with anybody else. Duplicated codes will not be

accepted.

Page 92: Evaluating the Relative Importance of Influencing Factors ...

83

Appendix B: IRB Approval Letter