Revista: Turydes Revista Turismo y Desarrollo

---

RESORT ACTIVITY OF SCANDINAVIAN RESIDENTIAL TOURISTS

---

1. Introduction
Currently, resorts are aware that it is not enough simply to attract a lot of tourists. This can even be detrimental. The most profitable tourists need to be captured and retained – that is, those who help us to achieve the objectives we have set ourselves as resorts. A frequent objective is that the tourist should generate wealth in different ways at the resort, meaning that a combination of the profitable tourist and the most active tourist is sought.
This concern led us to compare tourist types in terms of their motivation, nationality, socio-demographic background, etc., in our search for the ‘more active’ group on which to focus our attention.
This study aims to shed light on this issue by concentrating on a specific kind of tourist: the residential tourist.
Our main objective is to analyse the in-resort behaviour of the Scandinavian residential tourist. We will base this study on three initial hypotheses:

As outlined, we shall be studying the in-resort behaviour of the Scandinavian residential tourist from two distinct perspectives: quantitative (more active than …) and qualitative (activity type), as we consider that both of these are relevant and complement one another.
To confirm these hypotheses, we selected the Andalusian coast for the focus of our study. Andalusia and its coast are a leading, well-developed destination, in particular for residential guests. The 21,781,273 tourists the region received in 2011 confirm its position as a leading destination. Of these 25% said they used an apartment as accommodation, whether rented, owned or belonging to friends or family members, thereby emphasizing the significance of this type of tourist among the tourist influx received. Moreover, 7% own a second home in Andalusia (Andalusian Regional Government, 2012).
To analyse the activity level of Scandinavian residential tourists, we compared them with the prototypical Andalusian residential tourist, the British tourist. The British tourist is the reference tourist for the destination examined, firstly because they have been establishing themselves on the Andalusian coast, especially the Costa del Sol, for decades, and secondly because it is the main nationality represented there.
To achieve our stated aims, we have used a multiple-correlation analysis in a sample of 350 tourists, as this technique allows us to locate categories of two or more qualitative variables within a small space. Being a factorial technique, it enables us to represent the results visually on coordinate axes, which makes the results much easier to interpret. Given that the main aim of our research was to analyse the in-resort activity of residential tourists, we proceeded to analyse the different variables included in the analysis, with the determinant variable being in-resort activity, resulting from a re-grading of the original variables representing the intensity level of residential tourists’ in-resort activity.

2. Theoretical background
Due to changes in consumption patterns and tourist behaviour (Pizzan, A. et al., 2005) and the importance of providing best touristic products at destination is necessary continuing the study of tourist profiles.
In addition, in international tourism settings consumer behaviour research requires special attention for understanding the different attitudes, perceptions and practices of people of different nationalities and cultures at destination (Yoon-Jung, O. et al., 2004). The better planners and destination stakeholders understand the tourist profiles and behaviour, the better they are able to develop products and services offering that differentiation needed.
So, in this study there are two key concepts crucial to our survey: residential tourism and in-resort activities.
Firstly, we need to define what is meant by residential tourism and to describe its principal behavioural characteristics.
Then there are the in-resort activities themselves and the profiles underpinning them. We are aware that the various types of behaviour will not indicate homogeneous demand.

2.1 Residential tourism
It has not yet been resolved whether residential stays constitute tourism, and therefore it is difficult to find a widely accepted definition of the phenomenon.
The issue of whether this is a tourist activity or not has led to two trains of thought – on the one hand, those writers who regard residential stays as just another way of holidaying, covered in some sense by the term, and, on the other, those who do not perceive any aspect of tourism in residential stays.1
Tress (2002) defines residential tourism as the recreational use of second homes by owners or by friends or tourists renting them and does not consider the permanent use of accommodation as a tourist activity but classifies all groups of users of second homes travelling from their permanent to secondary places of residence as tourists.
This definition published in Tress’s study (Development of Second-home Tourism in Denmark) contains the same considerations as the definition given below in this study, by regarding this as a tourist activity and using length of stay as a factor distinguishing between tourist and non-tourist activity.
In the same vein, Raya (1999) sees residential tourism as just another way of holidaying. In reaching this viewpoint he examines the similarities between this notion and the WTO’s definition. Raya makes the following points:

_______________________
1 Although this conceptual discussion is very interesting and fruitful, it lies beyond the scope of our study. For our purposes we only require a clear definition of residential tourism as a working concept to define the type of tourist being analysed. Therefore, and to avoid making this section overly long, we restrict ourselves to the notions that are most commonly used. The table below contains a brief overview of the concepts.
2 The term ‘usual environment’ is used to avoid labelling people who travel daily between their home and place of work as tourists.
3 When the limit of twelve consecutive months has been exceeded, the tourist acquires the status of resident for statistical purposes.
Later (2005) García produced a more detailed study of the issues surrounding this definition and concluded by saying that stays in dwellings for periods of less than six months consecutively are considered to be tourist visits, irrespective of whether the stay takes place annually, and that continuous stays in accommodation for the greater part of the year qualify if the destination of travel is not repeated.
Table 1: Current thinking about residential tourism

Source: taken from The Residential Tourist: an approach to the decision-making process (Pérez, 2009)
In light of the remarks above, in this study we shall consider the residential tourist, in a generic sense, as a person characterized by his or her use of a dwelling as a type of accommodation. It is regarded as just another type of tourism, provided that the tourist spends less than 6 consecutive months at the destination.

 

In addition to establishing the precise nature of the residential tourist, it is necessary to determine which features distinguish him or her from other types of tourist. There are a number of approaches which emphasize his or her characteristics from  a variety of viewpoints, such as the decision to buy (Stewart & Stynes, 1994); offer (Raya, 1999); motivation (Chaplin, 1999; Larsen, 2001); choice (Colom, 1999); planning (Nick Gallent & Tewdwr-Jones, 2004);  impacts (Müller, 2002; Torres 2003); background (Tress, 2002); connection with the resort (Torres, 2003); demand (Coenen & van Eekeren, 2003); sales channels (Tonda, 2003); mobility (Haldrup & Larsen, 2004); ideological aspects (Mantecón, 2005); resources (Mazón y Aledo, 1996, 2004, 2005 Mazón 1987, 1997, 2001 & 2006); aims (Marjavarara, 2007); changes (Müller, 2004); demand (Sievänen, Pouta & Neuvonen, 2007); environmental impact (Hiiltunen, 2007); emotional aspects (Flemsaeter, 2009) and time in resort (Alarcón, González & Pérez 2010).
___________________
4 In at least one or more senses encompassed by the term

These studies indicate an older tourist with a more direct connection with the resort, requiring specific services to cover his or her different needs. These are normally tourists who have previously visited the place and see it as a way of escaping from their routine.

2.2 In-resort activities
The activities pursued by tourists in resorts have been the focus of attention for some time now, with researchers examining aspects like opportunities for relaxation, shopping or entertainment at the resort (Chub and Chubb, 1981; Bentley et al. 2001; Moscardo, G. 2004; Yoon-hung, O. et al. 2004; Littrell, M. et al. 2005; Needhan et al. 2005; Brey et al. 2007); types of activity offered as adventure, romantic, every-day, cultural, health-related and recreational activities, meeting local people, etc. (Meyer, 1977; Raaij et al. 1984; Pizan, A. et al. 2008). Other studies are based on an analysis of tourist movements as a form of addressing the kinds of activities pursued (Dietvorst, 1995; Shaw et al. 2000; Lew et al. 2006; McKercher et al. 2008; Shoval et al. 2011).
Indeed, as we saw in the previous point, the residential tourist has his own distinct behavioural profile. This leads us to think that he will also be different in terms of the in-resort activities undertaken.
Although we have not found any direct studies of the residential tourist’s in-resort activity, we do have indirect references to what he or she does there and these have helped us to plan our work.
Thus we can say, indirectly, that the residential tourist is more active than other tourist category emerging from the studies of Meyer (1977), Fred van Raalj (1984) and Haldrup (2004).
Meyer (1977) distinguishes between more passive and more active activities, concluding that on longer holidays tourists seek more significant and more dynamic content. In his study Meyer investigates the activities pursued on holidays. Based on a sample analysis, he distinguishes seven types of tourist according to the types of activity they prefer: (1) the Adventure tourist (29%); (2) the Experiential tourist (15 %); (3) the Conformist tourist (13%); (4) the Cultural tourist (12%); (5) the Health tourist (12%); (6) the Social tourist who travels in a group and seeks contact with other people (10%); (7) and the tourist with High Purchase Power (10%).  Most of the groups established in the study are active (1, 2, 4 and 6), one is passive (5) and the remainder (3 and 7) refer to personal and social conduct.
This author comes to the conclusion that on longer holidays people take part in more physical and cognitive activities, whereas rest and relaxation are less dominant.
According to Meyer, Fred van Raalj (1984) suggests the theory that, as soon as the basic needs of rest and relaxation have been met, other demands of a higher order, such as social contact, new experiences and personal achievement, acquire importance, so number of activities developed at destination change.
On the other hand, Haldrup examines how and why residential tourists pursue their activities. He uses a double-method strategy aimed at capturing the mobility aspects of residential tourism.
Haldrup (2004) works with family diaries. The material used in the research comes from two types of record, spatial and temporal. The first type consists of recorded detail of the use of space and time provided individually by 42 families in one week. The diaries include plans for the days ahead and thoughts about what was actually achieved on the basis of such plans, and examine discussions among family members of different ages, gender and interests.
He concludes by recognising the importance of the types of movement exhibited by such tourists as a linchpin in their relationship with the resort, and by emphasising differences in the perception of landscapes and places visited and the thoughts of the different members of the family group taking part in the trip.
Furthermore, Pizam discovered that cultural dimensions had an effect on the subjects’ choice of active or passive tourist activities based on a study conducted among 1.429 university students from eleven different universities located in the countries of Gabon, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy (Sicily), Korea (South), Romania, Slovakia, Spain, South Africa and the USA (Florida). He used two anonymous questionnaires that were administered in two different sessions over a period of two weeks.
To acomplish this, Pizam developed a variable reduction procedure (factor analysis) for the preferred tourist activities and discovered that  the cultural dimensions of uncertainty avoidance (UA), masculinity/femininity (MF) and individualism/collectivism (IC) have an ef- fect on tourists’ choice of active vs. passive tourist activities.
Accordingly, residential tourists seem to differ in variety of activities done at destination.

3. Purpose of the study
However, we have not encountered any empirical studies of the intensity and variety of in-resort activities specific to the residential tourist – hence our interest in this topic. These four studies Meyer (1977), Fred van Raalj (1984), Haldrup (2004) and Pizam (2008) have helped us to form our working hypothesis, since, having read them, we may suspect that the residential tourist is both active in resort and may have a number of different activity profiles.
Therefore, in this paper we shall focus on an analysis of the following point: in-resort dynamism, distinguishing between the number and variety of activities undertaken.
In-resort dynamism is examined by residential tourists’ actual involvement in three different categories of activities classified as  “high-activity” equivalent to “active” in Pizam study, and “moderate-activity” or “low-activity levels” equivalent to “passive” in Pizam study.

4. Method
4.1.Objective:
As stated in the introduction, the aim of this study is to analyse the in-resort behaviour of the Scandinavian residential tourist.
To achieve this we propose three initial hypotheses:

4.2 Justification of the techniques and variables used:
We have based our study on the region of Andalusia (Spain), by comparing Scandinavian and British tourists.
Andalusia is highly representative for studies of tourism and, more specifically, of residential tourism, and indeed in 2011 it was visited by nearly 17 million (16.9 million) people, an increase of 3.4 % compared with the year before.
Table 2: Tourist arrivals by autonomous community00.622103.075.687 3,9 100,0

Source: taken from the Balance de Andalucía, 2011
Moreover, of all the visits to the country made in 2011 more than 30% of tourists chose an apartment as their preferred accommodation, indicating the significance of this kind of accommodation for the tourist industry.
Table 3: Tourist arrivals classified by accommodation type

Source: Frontur, IET 2011
In Andalusia specifically, 19.09 % of overnight stays that year were in non-hotel accommodation such as camping sites, apartments and rural dwellings (Balance de Andalucía, 2011).
As a destination, Spain attracts most tourists from Great Britain, with a consolidated market of around 25 % of all visits made during 2011, whereas the Nordic countries together provide only 7 % of the total number of visits, making it an emerging European area in this respect.
Table 4:  Tourist arrivals according to country of residence

Source: Frontur, IET 2011.
For the sake of representativeness the data were collected in different geographic points of the community. Mijas, Torremolinos, Marbella and Malaga airport have been the most significant information points, considering the airport as a gateway of the nationalities surveyed, since around 70% of all visits to the community use this transportation, (Balance de Andalucía, 2011).

          The collection methods employed are personal interviews based on a questionary since it is the best option to obtain information from individuals who speak a different language from that of the interviewer. To do so we used a validated survey in a previous work, (Pérez, J. 2009).
The final sample size consists of a total of 350 surveys, conducted in British tourists, 70% of the total sample, and Nordic tourists, 30% of the total sample. The technique used for sampling is the proportional stratified random analysis.

This sample size proportion is explained by residential tourism consumer behaviour. Taking the sample analysed as the 100% of population and studying the monthly private accommodation demanded during the year 2012, a proportional sample is obtained. While Nordics demanded figures close to 30% of all total nights demanded in Spain, British where close to 70%, (INE, 2012). The results will be described bellow.
To achieve our stated objectives, we have used a multiple-correlation analysis, as we are dealing with a database consisting mainly of qualitative variables. Correlation analysis is a technique that enables us to represent categories of two or more qualitative variables in a small space. This technique presents material by grouping categories on the basis of the similarities shown by the related variables. An examination of the similarity between categories produces a summary of them in a small area. As a factorial technique, it enables us to represent the results graphically on coordinate axes, which makes the results much easier to interpret.
Given that the main aim is to analyse the in-resort activity of residential tourists, we initially need to select the different variables to be included in the analysis. These will be in-resort activities, but we also need to adapt and combine them with other variables such as socio-demographic or behavioural factors in order to determine the profiles involved.
To study in-resort activities we asked each person surveyed to assign a number from 1 to 5 (1 meaning ‘I never do this’ and 5 ‘I do this all the time’) to their degree of participation in different activities such as: golf, water sports, sunbathing, mountaineering, hydrotherapy, relaxation, other (cultural …). This choice of activities is based on the range available on the Costa del Sol.
Our first hypothesis mentions activity level and so we now need to define what we mean by an active tourist. To do this, following Pizam, A. (2008), where tourism activities where classified as, on one hand, “passive” based on the usage of physical energy, previous organization and planning, non-risky and with known and anticipated outcomes (cultural activities, visiting friends, sunbathing, etc.) and, on the other hand, “active” based on the requirement of sporting skills and the spending of an inordinate amount of physical energy (Hunting, fishing, rafting, sailing, wilderness hiking and other outdoor recreational activities), we consider a residential tourist with a high level of activity as one who, in resort or otherwise, performs one non-static activity very often or many non-static activities less often.
Consequently, we have proceeded to recodify the aforementioned activity variables referring to the degree of intensity of participation in different in-resort activities.
 In order to work with this variable, we have recodify it as follows: “high-activity” equivalent to “active” in Pizam study, and “moderate-activity” or “low-activity levels” equivalent to “passive” in Pizam study. The low-activity category includes all those cases in which the total frequency of all activities cited falls within the range of 7 to 16 inclusive. Moderate activity covers those instances whose degree of participation in all the included activities falls within the range of 17 to 25, and residential visitors whose accumulated total is over 25 are considered to be tourists with a high level of in-resort activity. Thus we obtain a new variable with three categories, each of which is defined by an equal interval.
According to Pardo (2005) a contingency table analysis was made trough corrected residuals (Haberman, 1973) to measure the significance of the effects of nationality and activity level. From this analysis we found that association between Nationality and activity level fitted well (chi cuadrado de Pearson: 30,368 and p=0,000).

After the study of corrected residuals an association was seen between Nordics and high activity at destination and British and down activity at destination with significance.
Table 5: Typified Residuals

Source: Own production
Lastly, in addition to the aforementioned variable, the correlation analysis includes other variables of a demographic or behavioural nature, such as: marital status (five response categories), age (six response categories), children (two response categories), time in resort (whereby we tried to determine the total amount of time spent by the residential tourist in resort, whether on a single visit or on several visits in recent years), nationality (graded into two categories), reason for purchase (variable which tries to encapsulate the reasons which led to the purchase of a second home in the resort, involving six response categories), level of Spanish (with 5 categories) and size of the group travelled with (with six categories).
We then carried out a multiple-correlation analysis with the variables described above, obtaining as an initial result a general chart which we used as the point of departure for our study. Although on this initial chart the Scandinavian residential tourist appears to be the most active residential tourist, it did not allow us to determine whether any specific profile of the Scandinavian residential tourist resides within the moderate- to low-activity residential visitor. Therefore, we planned a study based on different levels of in-resort activity, using the same analytical technique. These analyses used the same variables as those above, except for level of activity which was used to divide the sample into the three segments being analysed (residential tourists with low, moderate and high levels of in-resort activity).

5. Results
We eventually ended up working with four location charts. One of them is a general representation, providing us with an overview and enabling us to identify levels of activity by nationality. Hence it helps us to address the first hypothesis.
The other three charts allow us to analyse the residential tourists concealed behind highly active, moderately active and relatively inactive tourists in greater detail. These charts indicate, firstly, that there is no homogeneous behavioural profile according to nationality and, secondly, that we can identify and describe these differentiated profiles.
The chart providing a general overview (Figure 1) identifies four differentiated segments of in-resort behaviour. Three groups (marked groups A, B and C) indicate a continuum ranging from the most dynamic to the least dynamic tourist. A segment D containing ‘natives’ (Spanish family members) can also be identified. This visitor, whom we have labelled a ‘native’, is characterized by a young and independent profile.

This first graphic already marks out the Scandinavian tourist as a more active tourist (situated in group A) than the British tourist (group B). It also has a bearing on our second working hypothesis: prevalence of a specific form of behaviour during his or her stay.
Thus, in general, the Scandinavian visits the resort for shorter stays, as a lifestyle change. Additionally, the Scandinavian tourist has a better command of the Spanish language and is younger (on average) than the British tourist.
For his part, the British tourist is associated with a more static profile, longer stays, is older and/or travels with children.
In this general chart we may highlight a central area (group C) containing the moderately active visitor. This is a more heterogeneous segment where we encounter both British and Scandinavian visitors and, similarly, more disparity in the other variables analysed.
For the reasons given in our section on methods, to obtain a deeper insight we made three analyses differentiated on the basis of in-resort activity, in order to determine in greater detail which profiles and types of behaviour are concealed behind each activity level.
If we take a closer look at the less active tourist (Figure 2) we notice again the difference in profiles. That is, this tourist again shows differences according to nationality. But this detailed analysis now allows us to identify more specific profiles within each nationality.
Thus, the less active tourist encompasses the single, older Scandinavian who comes as part of a group for leisure purposes or who stays locally for short periods. Moreover, he or she has an excellent command of Spanish.
However, we can identify two profiles for the British tourist: older people, in couples or alone, and middle-aged British people with children.
Irrespective of origin, we find that this group contains individuals who stay for long periods (over a year) without children.
Separate analysis of the moderate in-resort activity group reveals that there is a variable common to both nationalities: the moderately active tourist prefers short stays (from less than a month up to three months), but the profiles of these tourists again indicate differences according to nationality.
Middle-aged British people travelling with children become residential tourists as a means of changing their type of accommodation and because of the good offers made in this area.
On the other hand, the Scandinavian tourist is older, travels in groups without children, buys his or her home for the independence it offers and as an investment, and has a lower level of language skills.
Lastly, study of the location chart depicting tourists with high levels of in-resort activity indicates that some characteristics are shared by the nationalities being analysed. These are the absence of children on short stays and travelling alone but, once again, we find different profiles according to nationality.
The British tourist is older (56 – 65) and travels as a couple. Those whose most recent stays total more than a year seek to use their second home as a way of getting to know the local area and people.
After the Norwegians, who are the most active, there are two groups. The first of these contains middle-aged Scandinavians (36 – 45) with a family (married/divorced with children) coming for short stays (less than a month), seeking a change of accommodation type and with an excellent command of Spanish; the second contains more elderly tourists (66 – 75) with a poor grasp of Spanish and coming for moderate to long stays (3 to 6 and 6 to 12 months).
On the other hand, study of high-activity charts makes it clear that the ‘native’ tourist has his or her own specific type of behaviour which is influenced less by origin (Scandinavian or British). Thus the tourist we have labelled as ‘native’ is young, single and travels alone. Moreover, we can say that this ‘native’ tourist is more active if (s)he is of Scandinavian origin, since this group more closely resembles the British in the analysis of the low-activity tourist and the Scandinavian when we analyse the tourist with a high level of in-resort activity.
It is very interesting to complete this chart analysis by noting how the variables move in the different charts. This comparison enables us to identify the variables which best explain in-resort activity (both those which impede this activity and those which encourage it) and, on the other hand, those that are less closely connected with in-resort activity (and explain it less).
We have found the second group (not apparently connected or not providing much explanation of in-resort activity) to include:

By comparison with Meyer, in-resort activity does not appear to be clearly associated with periods of less than a year spent in resorts, although we do note that long-stay tourists (over a year) may conceal more inactive profiles. This is very clearly the case for the Scandinavian tourist, since among the long-stay British we find both inactive and highly active examples. The difference in this case is due to age.
Therefore, time spent in resort plays very different roles according to nationality. The most inactive profile can be found among long-stay Scandinavians, whereas for the British activity this depends not only on length of stay but also on age, with older long-stay people without children being the most active and only ceasing to exhibit this level of activity when (s)he reaches 66 years of age.

On the other hand, we find the most enlightening variables to include age and the presence of children.
Age is one of the most interesting variables, as it explains types of behaviour directly and independently, but it also helps to provide a better description of profiles together with other variables.
We start by looking at the variable which indicates most clearly that the Scandinavian is a more active tourist than the British tourist, as this variable shows different forms of behaviour according to nationality, identifying a larger age bracket for the active Scandinavian. Three age brackets are associated with highly active Scandinavians (35 – 45, 46 – 55 and 66 – 75). The fact that the active group of tourists extends as far as 75 years of age also demonstrates that age does not restrict activity among Scandinavians.
Analysis of the age variable among the British should be done by taking the presence of children (the most enlightening variable within the British profile) into account. Thus although the older tourist (66 – 77) is identified as less active, other age groups less inclined to activity include the middle aged (35 – 45) and the most inactive British person tends to fall within the 56 – 55 age bracket. This lack of continuity in the age variable (up or down) is explained by the presence of children, as the British person between 56 and 65 years of age does not have dependent children.
It appears then that children are an obstruction to in-resort activity among the British, as they tend to accompany tourists with low or moderate levels of activity and are only absent among active people.
In contrast, children are an incentive for Scandinavian people to pursue in-resort activities. When this variable appears, the level of activity goes up.
Lastly, group size is a variable which clarifies and explains other variables, involving the presence of children or families, couples travelling alone, or groups of friends without children.

6. Conclusions and Discussions
The study allows us to confirm the first of our hypotheses. The survey clearly shows that the residential Scandinavian tourist is more active in resort than his or her British counterpart.
An analysis of the results shows that the second hypothesis of the study is also confirmed, as types of behaviour and profiles indicate large differences between nationalities, when examined both together and individually (low, moderate, high activity).
Thus for the Scandinavian tourist children are not a barrier to pursuing many activities in resort. It is quite the opposite for the British, as the most active people of this nationality travel without children and the oldest declare themselves to be inactive.
In sum, we may distinguish six groups of residential tourist. Two are Scandinavian, three British and one labelled ‘native’.
Among the Scandinavians we find the most active group to be families with children and the least active those on long stays (more than a year, adding together the total number of days of visits in recent years).
However, among the British we find families with children and the oldest people on long stays to be the least active, and older couples travelling without children as the most active.
Lastly, the ‘native’ tourist has his or her own particular profile. Thus the tourist we have labelled as ‘native’ is young, single and travels alone. As for level of activity, this is irrelevant, although the Scandinavian ‘native’ is shown to be more active than the ‘British’ one.
There exist distinct groups prevalent in specific categories of activity intensity. Scandinavians seem to be effective predictors for residential tourists´ activity level preferences. Also, age, marital status, size of group, children, time in resort and level of language are significant factors influencing the preferences for certain activities items.
 These results provide marketing managers with a tool for differentiating between residential tourists of different nationalities based on their preference to engage in high activity or moderate activity “active” and low activity  “passive”.
Tourism destination featuring specific activities can use the profiles developed in this research to promote tourism products that will encourage residential tourists to integrate and practice more activities at destination.
For example, a residential tourism destination that wants to market its active (dynamic) products should promote these products to Scandinavian families with children since this culture have been found to be among the most active oriented.  Organisations trying to sell these products to British oldest people on long stays will be much less efficient; since the resources spent on promotion and advertising will be wasted in “passive” oriented tourists. On the other hand, those municipalities promoting rest to British on long stays will be successful, since they have a greater preference for “passive” activities.
A number of future research directions can also be outlined from this paper. First, this analysis is based on limited evidence and only compares two different cultures. Clearly there is an opportunity to pursue qualitative styles of research to explore the range and types of motives for the level of activity developed at destination. Such research could also explore the relationships between activities and other aspect of the travel experience.
Furthermore, other limitation of this study is that the questions here are not focused one the same trip and the results presented cannot be generalised into one specific trip.

7. References
Alarcón, P. y otros (2009). Residential Tourism in the South of Spain: An Approach Towards Consumption. Encontros Científicos, Tourism & Management Studies, Nº 6, 36-48.
Cohen, E. (1974). Who is a tourist? A Conceptual Clarification. Sociological Review, 22, 527-555.
Coenen, M. et al. (2003). A Study of the demand for Domestic Tourism by Swedish Households using a Two-staged Budgeting Model, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 3:2, 114-133.
Colom Andrés, M. (1999). Una aproximación a los condicionantes de la elección de vivienda secundaria. Estudios de Economía Aplicada [An Approach to the Reasons for Choosing a Second Home], Nº 11, 23-39.
 Chaplin, D. (1999). Consuming work/procedure leisure: the Consumption Patterns of Second Home Environments. Leisure Studies, N 18, 41-45.
Gallent, N. et al. (2004). Second homes: a new framework for policy. Town Planning Review, 75(3), 287—308.
García Andreu, H. (2005). Un acercamiento al concepto de turismo residencial. Turismo residencial y cambio social nuevas perspectivas teóricas y empíricas [An Approach to the Notion of Residential Tourism. Residential Tourism and Social Change, New Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives]. Alicante: Editorial Agua Clara.
García Gómez, D. (1983). Ecología, medio ambiente y segunda residencia. Urbanismo y medio rural: Valencia [Ecology, environment and the Second Home. Town Planning and the Rural Environment: Valencia]. Diputación Provincial de Valencia.
Gartner, W. C., & Girard, T. C. (1993). Second Home Second View – Host Community Perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 685–700.
Haldrup, M. (2004). Laid-Back Mobilities: Second Home Holidays in Time and Space. Tourism Geographies, Nº6, 434-454.
Flemsaeter, F. (2009). Geography, Law and the Emotions of Property. Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Haberman, S. (1973).  The Analysis of Residuals in Cross-Classified Tables. Biometrixs, vol. 29, nº 1, pp 205-220.
IET (2011). Movimientos turísticos en fronteras [Tourist Movements at Borders ] (Frontur). Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio de España. Instituto de Estudios Turísticos.
Jaakson, R. (1986). Second-home Domestic Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, Nº 13, 367-391.
Johnston, S. (2006). The Ontological Foundation of the TALC, In: R. W. Butler (Ed.), The Tourism Area Life Cycle Vol. 2: Conceptual and Theoretical Issues, pp. 7–28 (Clevedon: Channel View).
Junta de Andalucía (2012). Balance del año turístico de Andalucía 2011 [Evaluationof the 2011 holiday season, Andalusia]. Junta de Andalucía.
Larsen, J. (2001). Tourist Motilities and the Travel Glance: Experiences of Being on the Move. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 1, 80–98.
Littrell, M. (2004). Senior travellers: Tourism activities and shopping behaviours. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 2004, nº 10, pp348.
Mantecón, A. (2005). La construcción social de la experiencia turística: el caso de los anfitriones [Social Structure of the Tourist Experience: the Hosts’ Perspective], en Mazón, T. y Aledo, A. (Eds.) Turismo residencial y cambio social. Nuevas perspectivas teóricas y empíricas [Residential Tourism and Social Change, New Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives]. Aguaclara. Alicante, 391-410
Marjavaara, R. (2007). The Displacement myth: Second Home Tourism as Scapegoat for Rural Decline, Tourism Geographies, 9, 296–317.
Mazón, T. (1987). La urbanización de la playa de San Juan: un espacio turistico-residencial [Urbanisation of Playa de San Juan: A ResidentialHoliday Facility]. Alicante: Instituto Alicantino de Estudios Juan Gil-Albert de la Diputación Provincial.
Mazón, T. y otros (1996). El turismo inmobiliario en la provincial de Alicante: análisis y propuestas [Real-estate Tourism in Alicante Province: Analysis and Proposals]. Diputación de Alicante.
Mazón, T. (1997). El turismo inmobiliario en la provincial de Alicante [Real-estate Tourism in Alicante Province]. Patronato Provincial de Turismo Costa Blanca.
Mazón, T. (2001). El modelo hotelero y el extrahotelero: la confusion entre promociones inmobiliarias y turismo [The Hotel and Extra-hotel Model: Confusion Between Real-Estate Promotions and Tourism]. Revista Alquibla.
Mazón, T. y otros (2004). La masificación del turismo residencial: el modelo de Torrevieja, Álvarez Sousa, Antón [The Spread of Residential Tourism: the Torrevieja, Álvarez Sousa, Antón model]. Tourismo, ocio y deporte, 275-286. Universidad de La Coruña.
Mazón, T. y Aledo, A. (2005). El dilema de turismo residencial: ¿Turismo o desarrollo inmobiliario? Turismo residencial y cambio social nuevas perspectivas teóricas y empíricas [The Dilemma of Residential Tourism: Tourism or Real-estate Development? Residential Tourism and Social Change, New Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives]. Alicante: Editorial Agua Clara.
Mazón, T. (2006). Inquiring into residential tourism: The Costa Blanca case. Tourism and Hospitality planning, Nº2, 89-97.
Mervi J. Hiltunrn (2007). Environmental Impacts of Rural Second Home Tourism- Case Lake District in Finland, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7:3, 243-265.
Moscardo, G. (2004). Shopping as a destination attraction: An empirical examination of the role of shopping in tourists ‘destination choice and experience. Journal of Vacation Marketing, Nº 10, pp 294.
Müller, D. (2002). Reinventing the countryside: German Second-home Owners in Southern Sweden. Current issues in tourism, Nº5, 426-446.
Müller, D. K. et al. (2004). The future of second home tourism. C. M. Hall and D. K. Muller (eds.). Tourism Mobility and Second Homes: Between Elite Landscapes and Common Ground, Clevedon, Channer View, 273-278.
Pardo, A., & Ruiz, M. A. (2005). Análisis de datos con SPSS 13 Base. Madrid: McGrawHill.
Pérez, J. (2009). El Comportamiento del Turista Residencial: Un Acercamiento al Proceso de Decision [The Behaviour of the Residential Tourist: An Approach to the Decision-making Process]. Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Turismo, Comercio y Deporte.
Pizam, A. et al. (2008). The Relationship Between Cultural Characteristics and Preference for Active vs. Passive Tourist Activities. Journal of hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 2008, 12:4, 5-25.
Raya, P. y otros (1999). Turismo residencial en Andalucía [Residential tourism in Andalusia]. Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Turismo y Deporte.
Ros Tonda, J. (2003). Aproximación al turismo residencial español [Approach to Spanish Residential Tourism]. Estudios Turísticos, volume 155-156, 71-85.
Salvà, P. (2002). Foreign Immigration and Tourism Development in Spain`s Balearic Islands. Hall, C. M. y Williams, A. M. (eds.). Tourism and Migration. New Relationships Between Production and Consumption, 119-134.
Sievanen, T. et al. (2007). Recreational Home Users-potential Clients for Countryside tourism? Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism. Vol. 7, Nº 3, 223-242.
Stewart, S. I. et al. (1994). Toward a Dynamic Model of Complex Choices: The Seasonal Home Location Decision. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. Vol. 3, Nº 3.
Taubmann, W. (1973). Freizeitwohnsitze in Danemark – Regionale Aspekte eines skandinavischenn Problems. In K. Ruppert, & F. Schaffer (Eds), Geographische Aspekte der Freizeitwohnsitze, WGI-Berichte zur Regionalforschung, 11, 84–124
Torres Bernier. Enrique. (2002). Los aspectos turísticos de la demanda residencial. Jornadas sobre turismo residencial como producto turístico [Tourism Aspects of Housing Demand. Conferences on Residential Tourism as a Tourist Product]. FI- TUR. 2002, Madrid.
Torres Bernier, E. (2003). El turismo residenciado y sus efectos en los destinos turísticos [Residential Tourism and its Effects on Tourist Resorts]. Estudios Turísticos, volumen 155-156, 54-70.
Tress, G. (2002). Development of Second-home Tourism in Denmark Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Nº2, 109-122.
Yoon-Jung, J. et al (2004). Predictors of tourists´shopping behaviour: Examination of socio.demographic characterisitcs and trip typologies. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 2004, nº 10, pp 208.

Recibido: 03/10/2014 Aceptado: 10/11/2014 Publicado: Diciembre de 2014

---

Nota Importante a Leer:

Los comentarios al artículo son responsabilidad exclusiva del remitente.

Si necesita algún tipo de información referente al articulo póngase en contacto con el email suministrado por el autor del articulo al principio del mismo.

Un comentario no es mas que un simple medio para comunicar su opinion a futuros lectores.

El autor del articulo no esta obligado a responder o leer comentarios referentes al articulo.

Al escribir un comentario, debe tener en cuenta que recibirá notificaciones cada vez que alguien escriba un nuevo comentario en este articulo.

Eumed.net se reserva el derecho de eliminar aquellos comentarios que tengan lenguaje inadecuado o agresivo.

Si usted considera que algún comentario de esta página es inadecuado o agresivo, por favor,pulse aqui.