Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com

A Behavioral Assessment of Tourism Transportation Options for Reducing Energy Consumption and
Greenhouse Gases
Joe Kelly, Wolfgang Haider and Peter W. Williams
Journal of Travel Research 2007; 45; 297
DOI: 10.1177/0047287506292700
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/45/3/297

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/45/3/297

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

A Behavioral Assessment of Tourism

Transportation Options for Reducing Energy
Consumption and Greenhouse Gases
JOE KELLY, WOLFGANG HAIDER, AND PETER W. WILLIAMS

This article outlines an approach for examining touristdestination travel mode choices and forecasting the resulting
environmental impact of those selections. Using the tourism
destination of Whistler, British Columbia, as a case study, the
article initially describes a discrete-choice experiment
(DCE) used to estimate tourist mode-choice behavior under
different transportation-planning scenarios. It then incorporates the DCE findings into a technical, bottom-up energyuse model to create behaviorally shaped estimates of energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The findings
suggest that innovative transportation-management strategies can encourage tourists to use public-transit modes
rather than private or rental vehicles to access tourism destinations. The modal shifts caused by these initiatives can
significantly affect the energy consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions associated with land-based visitor travel. The
findings contribute to the growing theoretical and applied
strategies needed to inform the creation of more sustainable
forms of tourism-destination development.
Keywords:

destination planning; energy modeling;

energy management; stated choice methods

The global tourism industry requires substantial amounts

of energy to transport travelers to and from host destinations.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other air contaminants associated with such energy consumption contribute to diminished
air quality, reduced environmental health, and compromised
visitor experiences at and en route to tourism destinations
(Hunter and Green 1995; Holden 2000; Gossling 2002).
Several planning options exist to reduce these visitor-related
transportation impacts (e.g., Hoyer 2000; Holding 2001;
Becken, Simmons, and Frampton 2003). Most strategies
encourage tourists to use more energy-efficient transportation
modes for their travel. However, no published research has
assessed travel-market responses to these options or examined
the impact of these preferred travel-mode choices on energy
consumption or GHG emissions.
This article helps address this gap by describing an
approach for examining tourist travel-mode choices and forecasting the resulting environmental impact of those selections.
It uses a three-phased method to explore the relationships
between the travel-mode choices of tourists and the impact of
those decisions on energy consumption and GHG emissions.
The first phase creates a bottom-up model that estimates the
relative effects of various transportation-planning options on

energy use and GHG emissions in tourism destinations. The

second phase conducts a discrete-choice experiment (DCE)
to estimate tourist travel-mode choices under different transportation scenarios. In the final phase, the findings from the
choice experiment are linked with the bottom-up modeling
procedure to derive more behaviorally realistic estimates of
energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with each
of the scenarios.
To illustrate the utility of the preceding approach, the
methods are applied to a case study in Whistler, British
Columbia. Whistler is a four-season destination located about
120 kilometers from Vancouver. It attracts an estimated 2
million visitors annually to its mountains for various leisure
pursuits. Because of the strategic importance of the areas
high-quality natural resources to the destinations competitiveness, Whistler stakeholders have committed to implementing a
range of transportation strategies designed to make it more
sustainable (RMOW 2004). This study examines summervisitor responses to various transportation options associated
with travel to Whistler and models the direct energy consumption and associated GHG emissions resulting from these travel
choices. The study focuses on one specific component of the
travel to Whistlertrips between Vancouver and Whistler,
which currently are dominated by private and rental cars. Day
users from as close as Vancouver as well as overnight visitors
from far and wide all must travel this corridor.
In combination, the articles theoretical and methodological frames as well as applied case study illustrate a behavJoe Kelly (PhD, resource and environmental management) is
director of strategic services at InterVISTAS Consulting Inc. in
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. This research was conducted
as part of his doctoral studies in the School of Resource and
Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University in British
Columbia, Canada. Wolfgang Haider (PhD, geography) is an associate professor at the School of Resource and Environmental
Management at Simon Fraser University. He is interested in surveybased research and behavioral modeling in tourism and recreation.
Peter Williams (PhD, natural resource management) is director of
Simon Fraser Universitys Centre for Tourism Policy and Research
and a professor in the School of Resource and Environmental
Management. His research focuses on the development of planning
and management strategies that foster more sustainable forms of
tourism development. The authors thank Don Anderson (StatDesign)
for providing the experimental design plan for this study.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45, February 2007, 297-309
DOI: 10.1177/0047287506292700
2007 Sage Publications

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

298

FEBRUARY 2007

iorally driven approach for examining levels of energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with varying destination transportation-management options associated with
resort destinations. They also provide insights into market
responses to proposed strategies for addressing one of the
greatest challenges to sustainable tourism-destination developmenttransportation management.

TOURIST DESTINATION TRAVEL

In spatial terms, tourism systems consist of touristgenerating and destination regions (Davidson and Maitland
1997). Travel between these regions is facilitated through
various private and public transportation options including automobiles, buses, aircrafts, trains, boats, and bicycles
(Thrasher, Hickey, and Hudome 2000). Although transportation systems seldom are developed solely for tourism purposes, facilities and services can be created or significantly
altered to meet tourist needs.
The tourism industry requires energy in its production
of services and experiences. While substantial amounts of
energy are needed to provide amenities and supporting facilities at the destinations visited, it is widely recognized that
the largest share of tourism energy consumption is associated with travel between the visitors home and the destination (Gossling 2000; Becken, Simmons, and Frampton
2003). In some cases, as much as 90% of the estimated
energy consumption by tourists is spent on traveling to and
from host regions (Gossling 2002). Air travel in particular
accounts for a major share of tourism-related energy use,
especially in the case of long-distance and intercontinental travel to developing countries and island destinations
to which the vast majority of tourists arrive by airplane
(Gossling 2000; Becken 2002). Travel is a fundamental prerequisite of tourism, yet it is the component that in many
cases challenges the concept of sustainability the most.
The potential environmental effects associated with
energy consumption and emissions caused by tourist travel
can be significant at local and global scales (Gossling 2000;
Becken, Simmons, and Frampton 2003). In heavily visited
destinations, air pollution and ozone-related smog is often
caused by unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides
released from motorized vehicles (Andereck 1995). Smog
reduces physical appeal by damaging vegetation species and
lessening the quality of scenic and visual resources within
the destination as well as in major connecting transportation corridors. Globally, carbon dioxide generated by visitor
travel contributes to global warming. Aircraft emissions are
a particularly important contributor, given the vast amounts
of aviation fuel consumed on travel to and from tourism destinations (Gossling 2000; Becken 2002).
Several transportation-management options exist to curtail
tourist transportation energy requirements and emissions
(Miller and Wright 1999; Holding 2001; Roof et al. 2002;
Becken, Simmons, and Frampton 2003). Most of these alternatives center on reducing the need for personal automobile
travel by offering more attractive mass-transit options.
Specific strategies include providing dedicated multiple occupancy lanes, more affordable and frequent mass-transit travel,
attractive express bus and train capabilities, and more convenient intermodal access and transfer points. Such options are
especially applicable in tourism settings in which creating

hassle-free transportation options can enhance the overall

attractiveness of the visitors overall experience. Welldesigned public transportation services and infrastructure also
can allow tourists to experience their trip in a more tactile and
engaging fashion (Thrasher, Hickey, and Hudome 2000).
Although destination planners and managers may not be
able to implement many of these strategies directly, most
can at least be encouraged through strategic partnerships
with regional and provincial governments, local airport
authorities, and regional transit-service providers. While
these initiatives can reduce the energy and GHGs associated
with ground transportation options, they have little influence
on the vast emissions associated with air travel. Managing
the energy impacts associated with air travel is considered
beyond the control of destination planners and managers,
and therefore, is not included in this study.

TOURIST TRANSPORTION-MODE CHOICE

Despite major advances in behavioral research in the
tourism field, there has been little research concerning the
transportation-modechoice behavior of tourists. Most studies involving visitor choice behavior have typically analyzed
perceptions or images of recreational alternatives, preferences
for tourism-management options, or destination-choice behavior (Louviere and Timmermans 1990; Crouch and Louviere
2000). While mode-choice behavior has been examined in
many urban transportation settings (Bhat 1997; de Palma and
Rochat 2000; Asensio 2002; Ben-Akiva and Morikawa 2002;
Horne, Jaccard, and Tiedemann 2005), only a few studies
have focused on long-distance travel to tourism destinations
(e.g., Nerhagen 2003). Such research provides destination
planners with useful insights about consumer responses to
potential transportation-management strategies.
A travelers selection of transportation mode is influenced
by a complex array of variables. These include (1) attributes
of the travel modes available to the tourist, (2) features of the
destination visited, (3) characteristics of the individual traveler, and (4) characteristics of the trip. The following sections
discuss how these factors interact with tourist transportationmode selection.

Mode Attributes
The mode-choice behavior of travelers can be influenced
by characteristics of the transportation options available.
These mode-specific variables include travel time, cost, frequency, convenience, flexibility, comfort, and safety (Miller
and Wright 1999; Nerhagen 2003). Tourists consider tradeoffs
between these variables either explicitly or implicitly when
choosing between alternative modes. They become informed
about these features through a variety of means, including
social interactions, marketing communications, and past
experiences (Woodside and Dubelaar 2002). Clearly, some
factors will be more important to tourists than others.

Destination Attributes
Past studies indicated that destination features influence
tourist choice behavior (e.g., Seddighi and Theocharous
2002). From a transportation perspective, mode-choice tendencies are influenced by form of development within the

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 299

FIGURE 1
TOURISM TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
ASSESSMENT PROCESS

pursue. They also may be more inclined to choose a central

accommodation instead of a remote one.

METHOD
Phase 1
Bottom-up energy model used to
estimate the energy impacts of
various transportation scenarios

Phase 2
Discrete choice experiment (DCE)
used to estimate tourist mode choice
behaviour under those scenarios

Phase 3
Mode share estimates from DCE
used to add greater behavioural
realism to bottom-up energy model

destination (e.g., dispersed vs. compact development);

design of transportation infrastructure (e.g., no-vehicle
zones, parking capacity constraints, walking and biking
trails); parking-fee levels at day lots and at commercial
accommodations; and availability of public transit in the
destination (Thrasher, Hickey, and Hudome 2000). In many
cases, it is probably the tourists perception or image of
these features more than factual information that influences
their transportation-mode choice. This is especially the case
for first-time visitors to the destination.

Individual Characteristics
Previous research suggests that tourist choice behavior
varies systematically with the individual characteristics of
travelers (Woodside and Lysonski 1989; Seddighi and
Theocharous 2002; Woodside and Dubelaar 2002). These
traits include sociodemographic variables (e.g., gender, age,
income, and education), situational factors (e.g., place of
residence), general travel motivations, and personal values
and attitudes (Woodside and Dubelaar 2002). Some tourist
segments (e.g., high-income travelers) may systematically
prefer to use private transportation to access the destination,
while other segments (e.g., budget-minded tourists) may
favor public transport. In addition, the previous destinationtravel experience of visitors can be a determinant of future
mode choice. For instance, past auto-based visitors to destinations are usually more inclined to use their autos for
future trips, whereas public-transport users are more likely
to use transit again in the future (Nerhagen 2003).

Trip Characteristics
Many complex interactions exist between the choices that
travelers make before and during their trip (Woodside and
Dubelaar 2002). A tourists choice of transportation mode
may be influenced by travel decisions related to travel party
size and composition, length of stay, location of accommodation, activities pursued during the visit, as well as whether or
not other destinations are visited during the trip. For instance,
visitors who intend to pursue gear-intensive activities (e.g.,
mountain biking or skiing) may be more inclined to use private transportation than travelers without much equipment.
Conversely, trip behavior can be affected by a tourists selection of transportation mode. For example, visitors who travel
to the destination by public transit as opposed to private or
rental vehicle may be more constrained in the activities they

In the study, a three-phased method is used to assess the

impacts of tourist mode-choice behavior on energy and GHG
emissions (figure 1). The first phase used a technical,
bottom-up modeling procedure to estimate the impacts of various transportation-management strategies on energy consumption and GHG emissions (Robinson 1982; Gardner and
Robinson 1993). While bottom-up models provide useful
means of identifying the technical energy requirements and
GHG emissions associated with various transportation modes,
they normally do not incorporate behavioral considerations
associated with actual travel decisions (Wilson and Swisher
1993). As such, they fail to capture the influence of multiple
tangible and intangible factors on the choices travelers make.
This issue was addressed by incorporating more behaviorally
realistic estimates of visitor mode choice into the bottom-up
models technical procedures for estimating energy consumption and GHG emissions. Accordingly, the second phase
implemented a DCE to estimate tourist mode-choice behavior
under different transportation-planning scenarios. Although
DCEs are used widely in urban transportation contexts to
investigate mode-choice problems (see, for example, Bunch et
al. 1993; Ewing and Sarigollu 1998; Horne, Jaccard, and
Tiedemann 2005), they rarely have been applied to tourist
travel behavior. This phase of the research focused specifically
on the use of a DCE to examine transportation-mode choice
for land-based visitor travel between Vancouver and Whistler.
In the final phase, the mode-share estimates derived from the
DCE were used to add greater behavioral realism to the structuring of the technical bottom-up model. A description of these
methods and how they were applied in the Whistler case study
follows.

Phase 1: Developing Energy Use Model

The bottom-up energy-use model is based on a systematic
framework built around the primary dimensions and associated drivers of tourism energy consumption (Gossling 2000;
Becken, Frampton, and Simmons 2001; Becken 2002;
Becken and Simmons 2002; Gossling et al. 2002; Becken,
Simmons, and Frampton 2003). Included in this framework is
energy consumption for visitor travel to and from the destination. The model uses standardized and comparable measures
of energy consumption expressed in terms of gigajoules (GJ)
and GHG emissions measured as carbon dioxide equivalents
(CO2e) to assess the impacts of transportation.
The model involved a multistep procedure for estimating
energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with
visitor travel. The first step established vehicular travel flows
expressed in person kilometers traveled (PKT) for private
automobile, rental automobile, express bus, and train option.
This was determined using the following calculation:
PKTi =

n

(Visitorsj Return Distance Modal Splitij)

(1)

j=1

where Visitorsj is the number of visitors in market segment j; Return Distance is the two-way distance between
Vancouver and Whistler; and Modal Splitij is the proportion

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

300

FEBRUARY 2007
FIGURE 2
TWO-STAGE NESTED TRANSPORTATION-MODE CHOICE

Private
Transportation

Private
Automobile

Public
Transportation

Rental
Automobile

Express Bus

of visitors in market segment j traveling by mode i. It was

assumed that all visitors arrive in Whistler by ground transportation, either directly from their place of origin or via the
Vancouver International Airport.
The second step involved calculating the vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT) for each mode of transportation. This
was estimated by dividing PKT by the average occupancy
rate of the mode. The occupancy rates for visitor travel were
taken from existing government reports (MOTH 2001;
RMOW 2003). The third step involved estimating energy
consumption for each mode by multiplying VKT by the fuel
efficiency of the mode. The fuel efficiency for automobiles
(0.1235 liters per VKT) was assumed to equal the national
average given in Natural Resources Canadas National
Energy Use Database. The fuel efficiencies for buses (0.328
liters per VKT) and trains (3.19 liters per VKT) were provided directly by primary suppliers of bus and rail transportation services in British Columbia. Since fuel efficiency
typically is reported in liters per VKT, a conversion factor is
necessary to convert liters of fuel to GJ of energy. The conversion factors for gasoline (0.03466 GJ per liter) and diesel
fuel (0.03868 GJ per liter) were attained from the Voluntary
Challenge and Registry (2003). In the final step, GHG emissions were calculated by multiplying energy consumption by
established emission factors (Environment Canada 2002).

Phase 2: Modeling Transportation-Mode

Choice Behavior
In the second phase of the research, a DCE collected
tourist-behavior information to supplement the technically
based estimates generated by the bottom-up model. DCEs
provide a useful means of collecting individual preference
data to measure variations in choice behavior under varying scenarios (Louviere, Hensher, and Swait 2000). Most
transportation-choice applications of DCEs use the Multinomial Logit (MNL) model to analyze the data collected (e.g.,
Horne, Jaccard, and Tiedemann 2005). While the MNL model
is convenient to compute with maximum-likelihood procedures, it assumes that the choice between any two alternatives is independent of the attributes examined and the
availability of any other options. This independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) property may lead to misleading
results, especially in cases in which the probability of choosing one alternative over another depends on the characteristics

Would Not Go

Train

of other alternatives. Consequently, the Nested Multinomial

Logit (NMNL) model is suggested instead of the standard
MNL model to circumvent the problems associated with
the IIA property (Ben-Akiva and Lerman 1985; Louviere,
Hensher, and Swait 2000). The NMNL model is based on a
hierarchy of choices in which each level of the hierarchy
corresponds to a choice among subsets of alternatives
(McFadden 1981).
In this research, a two-stage NMNL model was used
to examine transportation-mode choice for visitor travel
between Vancouver and Whistler (figure 2). In the first
stage, the choice alternatives were private transportation and
public transportation. A base case of would not go was
included at this level. If private transportation was chosen in
the first stage, a subsequent choice between private and
rental automobile followed. If public transportation was
selected, a choice occurred between express bus and train.
Unlike previous transportation applications (e.g., Train
1980; Thobani 1984; de Palma and Rochat 2000; Tiwari and
Kawakami 2001; Asensio 2002), this study used the NMNL
method to examine travel-mode choice based on stated
rather than revealed preference data.
In the NMNL model structure, the probability of choosing an alternative is equal to the conditional probability of
choosing that alternative given the first-stage choice times
the marginal probability of the first-stage choice. For
example, the probability of choosing the express bus option
is equal to the conditional probability of choosing bus over
train, given that public transportation has been chosen, times
the marginal probability of using public transportation. In
general terms, the probability calculation is expressed as:
P(j) = P(j|i) P(i),

(2)

where j refers to the alternatives available at the second

stage and i to the alternatives at the first stage. The choice
probabilities at each stage take the form of logit models.
Analytical procedures for estimating the choice probabilities, as suggested by Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985) and
Louviere, Hensher, and Swait (2000), were used.
A limitation of the NMNL modeling approach is that it
does not account for systematic variation in preferences
among individuals. Such preference heterogeneity means
that choice probabilities will differ systematically among
individuals even though the choice alternatives are identical.

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 301

FIGURE 3
FORMAT OF TRANSPORTATION CHOICE TASK FOR AN OVERNIGHT VISITOR

Which mode of transportation would you most likely use to travel between Vancouver and
Whistler if the options below were the only ones available?
Imagine that you are taking an overnight trip to Whistler in the summer which is similar to your trip in May 2003
(same travel party, length of stay, activities undertaken, etc).Check one mode below.

AUTOMOBILE
2 hrstravel time

$15 one-way fuel costs

$15/night parking fee at Whistler
$60/day rental fee + insurance
(if renting)

EXPRESS BUS

TRAIN

2 hrs 30 min travel/wait

time Leaves every1 hour

2 hrs travel/wait time

Leaves every 2 hours

$25/person one-way fare

$50/person one-way fare

Departs from Vancouver

Airportwith downtown
stops

Departs from North Vancouver

with connecting shuttles from
airport and downtown

Arrives at Whistler Village

Arrives at Creekside (5 km
south of Village) with connecting
shuttles to Village

Express
bus

Train

Private
Rented
automobile automobile

This issue was addressed by expanding the choice model to

include attributes relating to the individual. This approach
extended the traditional NMNL model to a systematic heterogeneous specification introducing the effect of individual
characteristics in the choice probability. Several individualspecific characteristics were considered for inclusion in the
final choice models. These included sociodemographic variables (e.g., gender, age, income, and education), situational
factors (e.g., place of residence), trip characteristics (e.g.,
travel party size, length of stay, location of accommodation,
and activities pursued during the visit), and tourist-destination motivations. Only individual-specific attributes significant at the 90% confidence level were retained in the final
model.

Choice Sets and Attributes Selection

Survey respondents were shown four choice sets associated with travel between Whistler and Vancouver (figure 3).
Each choice set contained four potential modes of transportation: private automobile, rental automobile, express bus,
and train. Respondents also were given the option of not
going on the trip. Each respondent was asked to choose the
mode he or she most likely would use for travel purposes.
Each transportation mode was described in terms of its key
attributes (e.g., travel time, frequency, costs, and departure and
arrival points; table 1). In addition to these mode-specific variables, the study also included one destination-related attribute
(i.e., parking fees at Whistler). These attributes were defined

WOULD
NOT GO

Would
not go

a priori as being salient determinants of modal choice and

relevant for a tourist. The levels for each attribute were chosen to reflect differences that mattered to tourists and to
allow for the simulation of current and potential transportation conditions. Each attribute and its levels were determined through a selection process involving a review of
existing literature and stakeholder feedback (Bhat 1997; de
Palma and Rochat 2000; Asensio 2002; Ben-Akiva and
Morikawa 2002; Nerhagen 2003; Horne, Jaccard, and
Tiedemann 2005).

Experimental Design
Experimental-design techniques were used to generate
the combination of attribute levels explored in each choice
set (Louviere, Hensher, and Swait 2000). A full factorial
design involving all possible combinations of attributes and
levels would have allowed all main and interaction effects to
be estimated. However, the impracticality of such an
approach meant that the transportation profiles in the choice
sets were generated by using an orthogonal fractional factorial design that contained only a small subset of all possible
combinations of attributes and levels. A Resolution III main
effects design plan required 54 unique choice sets
(Montgomery 2001), which were split into 18 versions of
three choice sets each; each respondent evaluated one of
these versions. These designs allowed efficient estimation of
all main effects but meant that most interaction effects
between attributes could not be estimated.

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

302

FEBRUARY 2007
TABLE 1
TRANSPORTATION ATTRIBUTES AND LEVELS

Attributes

Levels
Automobile

Travel time

1.
2.
3.

1.5 hours from downtown Vancouver

2 hours from downtown Vancouver
2.5 hours from downtown
Vancouver
$10
$15
$30
$40/day + insurance
$60/day + insurance
$80/day + insurance
Free
$5/day (if day visitor) or $15/night
(if overnight visitor)
$10/day (if day visitor) or $30/night
(if overnight visitor)

nested choice model, all categorical attributes (e.g., arrival

and departure points) were effects coded, and all numerical
attributes were linear and quadratic coded (Louviere,
Hensher, and Swait 2000). In the final model, all quadratic
terms were dropped because they were not significant at the
90% confidence level.

Data Collection Procedures

a. Not an attribute, but displayed for context.

A Web-based questionnaire was used to collect data for the

DCE application. The final survey instrument contained questions involving the choice experiment as well as several questions relating to previous trip characteristics, tourist motivation
for visiting destination resorts, and sociodemographic characteristics. The survey instrument was developed based on information gleaned from existing literature as well as input gained
from destination planners and managers in Whistler.
Survey respondents consisted of visitors to Whistler who
were personally recruited on site in the late summer and
early fall of 2004. These individuals were intercepted on a
daily basis at strategic locations in Whistler. Proportionally
more visitors were intercepted on Saturday and Sunday than
on other days to replicate typical visitation patterns. To
ensure randomness, every third group was approached, and
if the group was larger than one person, the individual
whose birthday occurred next was selected. Only individuals older than the age of 19 were included.
A total of 2,016 visitors were recruited using this
method. These individuals completed a one-page questionnaire that was used for screening purposes and to ensure the
sample was representative of the overall population of summer visitors. Additionally, individuals were asked for an
e-mail address at which they could be contacted for a more
comprehensive online survey after their visit was finished.
All recruited individuals received a token gift in appreciation of their participation.
The follow-up online survey used for the more comprehensive assessment of travel behavior was pretested twice with
individuals from the recruited sample. Both tests informed
subsequent refinements to the online survey instrument. The
final Web survey was sent to recruited individuals in an e-mail
produced using a Microsoft Word mail merge to Microsoft
Outlook. Overall, 1,825 e-mails (91%) were delivered to
respondents. To encourage completion of the survey, respondents were given the option to enter a draw for various prizes.
Of the 1,825 surveys delivered to recruited visitors, 876
completed surveys were returned for an overall response
rate of 48%. This compares favorably with response rates
reported in other Web-based survey research (Cho and
LaRose 1999). Consistent with other Web surveys, the
response time for this survey was very quick (Schaefer and
Dillman 1998; McCabe et al. 2002). More than half (56%)
of the total responses obtained were received within the first
3 days of sending out the questionnaire Web link.

Data Analysis

Phase 3: Adding Behavioral Realism

to the Energy Use Model

Using the LIMDEP 8.0 software package (Greene 2002),

maximum-likelihood procedures were used to estimate the
parameters of the NMNL choice model. The model then was
used to explain and predict choice behavior in response to
differences in combinations of attribute levels. In the final

The results of the DCE were used to estimate the effects

of various transportation alternatives on energy consumption
and GHG emissions determined in the technically focused
energy-use model. This process involved two steps. First, the
discrete-choice models were used to predict modal shares that

One-way
fuel costs
Rental fee
Parking fee

1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.

Express Bus
Travel/wait time
One-way fare
Frequency
Departure pointa
Arrival point

1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
1.
2.

10% faster than automobile

Same as automobile
25% slower than automobile
$25
$50
$75
Every 2 hours
Every 1 hour
Every 30 minutes
Vancouver airport with
downtown stops
Whistler Village
Directly at accommodation
Train

Travel/wait time
One-way fare
Frequency
Departure point

1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.

Arrival point

1.
2.

10% faster than automobile

Same as automobile
25% slower than automobile
$25
$50
$75
Every 2 hours
Every 1 hour
Every 30 minutes
Vancouver airport with downtown
stops
Downtown Vancouver with free
shuttle from airport
North Vancouver with free shuttle
from airport or downtown
Whistler Village
Creekside (5 km south of Village)
with free shuttle to Village

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 303

TABLE 2
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SCENARIOS EXAMINED
Attributes

BAU Scenario

Pro-Bus Scenario

Pro-Train Scenario

Automobile
Travel time
One-way fuel costs
Rental fee
Parking fee

2 hours from downtown Vancouver

$15
$60/day + insurance
Free for day visitors and $15/night
for overnight visitors

Same as BAU
Same as BAU
Same as BAU
$10/day for day visitors
and $30/night for
overnight visitors

Same as BAU
Same as BAU
Same as BAU
$10/day for day visitors and
$30/night for
overnight visitors

Express Bus
Travel/wait time
One-way fare
Frequency
Arrival point

25% slower than automobile

$25
Every 2 hours
Whistler Village

10% faster than automobile

Same as BAU
Every 30 minutes
Directly at accommodation

Same
Same
Same
Same

as
as
as
as

BAU
BAU
BAU
BAU

Train
Travel/wait time
One-way fare
Frequency
Departure point
Arrival point

25% slower than automobile

$50
Every 2 hours
North Vancouver with free shuttle
from airport or downtown
Creekside (5 km south of Village)
with free shuttle to Village

Same
Same
Same
Same

as
as
as
as

BAU
BAU
BAU
BAU

Same as BAU

10% faster than automobile

$25
Every 30 minutes
Downtown Vancouver with
free shuttle from airport
Whistler Village

Note: BAU = business as usual.

likely would occur under various transportation-planning

scenarios. These modal shares were used to generate more
behaviorally realistic estimates of PKT for private automobile, rental automobile, express bus, and train options. Second,
these estimates of PKT were used in the bottom-up model to
calculate energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with visitor travel. In particular, the estimated effects
of implementing various pro-bus and pro-train strategies
were compared with the impacts of continuing with a current
business-as-usual path (table 2).

increased as automobile travel time decreased. As expected,

travel time is an important factor in influencing a visitors
choice of transportation modes. The mode choice of day visitors seems to be even more sensitive to automobile travel
time than that of overnight visitors. Travel time is likely
more important to day visitors because it constitutes a much
larger portion of overall trip time.

Travel Costs

The first-stage choice model considered explanatory

variables related to automobile travel time, fuel costs, rental
fees, and parking fees, while the characteristics of the public
modes are expressed in the inclusive value.

As destination parking fees increased, so did the propensity for day and overnight visitors to choose public transportation. However, this relationship was only statistically
significant for overnight visitors. This finding suggests that
policy decisions concerning parking fees, which are within the
control of local decision makers, may be an important factor in
shaping future transportation choices. The insensitivity of day
visitors to parking fees of up to $10 per day indicates that their
overall trip experience would not be compromised by reasonable parking charges. In contrast, overnight visitors would be
affected by high overnight parking fees, most likely because
these would accumulate significantly during the span of a trip.
The likelihood of a visitor choosing private over public
transportation increased as fuel cost decreased. Again, this
relationship was only statistically significant for overnight
visitors, documenting that fuel cost is a key factor in influencing an overnight visitors choice of transportation modes.
Conversely, personal vehicle rental fees did not have a significant influence on modal choices, at least within the range
of levels tested.

Travel Time

Inclusive Values

The regression coefficients for automobile travel time indicated that the likelihood of choosing private transportation

Because the first-stage choice could be influenced by

variables at the second stage, an inclusive-value term was

FINDINGS
Modeling Tourist Mode-Choice Behavior
The results will be presented in two separate models for
overnight and day visitors, respectively (table 3). These
NMNL models separate the choice between private and
public modes of transportation first (level 1), and thereafter,
the choices between owned versus rented vehicle and bus
versus train (level 2).

Level 1: Private versus Public Transportation

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

304

FEBRUARY 2007
TABLE 3
TRANSPORTATION MODE CHOICE MODELS
Model 1: Overnight Visitors

Attribute

Coefficient

Standard Error

Model 2: Day Visitors

Coefficient

Standard Error

Level 1: Private vs. Public Transportation

Auto travel time
Parking fee
One-way fuel costs
Rental fee
Inclusive valueprivate
Inclusive valuepublic
Travel party size private
Income private
Interceptprivate
Interceptpublic
Observations
Log likelihood
Rho-square

0.110
0.356***
0.172***
0.059
0.387***
0.484***
0.090***
N.I.
2.327***
2.385***
1857
1161.8
0.43

0.071
0.067
0.067
0.066
0.031
0.099
0.035
0.203
0.176

0.415**
0.112
0.213
0.122
0.390***
0.491***
N.I.
3.18 x 106 *
2.513***
1.881***
467
290.4
0.43

0.167
0.134
0.133
0.134
0.101
0.115
2.49 x 106
0.382
0.318

Level 2: Bus vs. Train

Bus travel time
Bus fare
Bus frequency
Bus arrival pointWhistler Village
Bus arrival pointdirectly at accommodation
Train travel time
Train fare
Train frequency
Train departure pointVancouver airport
Train departure pointdowntown
Train departure pointNorth Vancouver
Train arrival pointWhistler Village
Train arrival pointCreekside
InterceptBus
Observations
Log likelihood
Rho-square

0.096**
0.789***
0.099***
0.167
0.167*
0.089**
0.835***
0.010
0.059
0.141
0.200
0.096
0.096
0.676***
543
298.6
0.21

0.041
0.132
0.028
0.102
0.042
0.128
0.027
0.144
0.143
0.102
0.105

0.294**
1.453***
0.148**
0.422
0.422*
0.310**
1.189***
0.019
0.133
0.160
0.027
0.204
0.204
0.529**
118
54.7
0.33

0.118
0.337
0.075
0.255
0.128
0.337
0.067
0.372
0.340
0.254
0.271

Level 2: Private vs. Rental Vehicle

Place of residence British Columbia
Place of residenceAlberta/Washington/Oregon
Place of residenceother Canada/United States
Place of residenceother international
Observations
Log likelihood
Rho-square

4.190***
3.307***
0.761***
1.060***
1290
298.5
0.67

0.319
0.322
0.151
0.196

2.702***
2.918***
0.074
0.189
364
145.3
0.42

0.298
0.726
0.222
0.276

Note: N.I. = not included.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

included in the first-stage choice model to capture the

effects of the second-stage variables (McFadden 1981). For
instance, while the tourist-place-of-residence variable was
not included explicitly in the first-stage choice model,
the inclusive value did incorporate its effects on the choice
between private and public transportation. In effect, the inclusive value takes information from the second-stage level and
includes it into the first-stage choice decision. The coefficients of the inclusive value lie between 0 and 1, which
indicates that the model is consistent with the utility maximization hypothesis (McFadden 1981). These values are
also significantly smaller than 1, which suggests that the

MNML model is an improvement over the ordinary MNL

model.

Individual Characteristics
To account for varying preferences among individuals,
the first-stage choice model examined how the individual
characteristics of respondents affected the models choice
estimates. Overall, overnight visitors in large travel parties
were more likely to choose private as opposed to public
transportation modes. Day visitors with large household
incomes were more likely to take private as opposed to

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 305

public transportation. Several other individual-specific variables were tested but not retained in the analysis because
they were not significant at the 90% confidence level. These
included sociodemographic variables (e.g., gender, age,
education), trip characteristics (e.g., location of accommodation, activities pursued during the visit), and tourist destination motivations.

Level 2: Bus versus Train

The second-stage choice model between express bus and
train options included variables for travel time, fare, frequency, and arrival and departure points.

Travel Time
The regression coefficients for travel time indicated that for
both overnight and day visitors, the likelihood of a visitor
choosing bus (or train) increased as its travel time decreased.
For both bus and train options, travel times to and from the
destination are important factors in influencing mode choice.
Additionally, day visitors were more sensitive than overnight
tourists to bus and train travel-time requirements.

Travel Cost
Transit fares were one of the most critical factors in influencing the choice between bus and train for both day and
overnight visitors. The regression coefficients indicated that
the likelihood of a visitors choosing bus (or train) increased as
its fare level decreased. This was particularly the case for day
visitors because fare levels typically constitute a much larger
share of the overall trip budget for this segment of travelers.

Frequency
The regression coefficients for frequency suggested that
the likelihood of a visitor choosing bus increased as the buss
frequency of service increased, especially for overnight visitors. However, no significant relationship appeared to exist
between train frequency and the selection of that mode by
either day or overnight visitors.

Arrival and Departure Point

There was a significant difference in transportationmode choice based on where buses arrived and disembarked
passengers in the destination. Specifically, visitors were significantly more apt to take the bus if it arrived directly at
their resort accommodation rather than at some central point
in the main village area.
Although the results suggested that more convenient
train-departure points may increase the likelihood of a
modal shift to train use among visitors, this relationship was
not statistically significant. Similarly, for both day and
overnight visitors, train arrival points in the destination were
not considered influential in shaping train travel choices.

Level 2: Private versus Rental Vehicle

The second-stage choice model between private and
rental automobile included separate intercept terms for
visitors from four different places of residence (British
Columbia; Alberta, Washington State, and Oregon; other
Canada and United States; and other international). Given
the different proportions of visitors arriving by airplane

from each of these source regions, it comes of no surprise

that visitors who live closer to Vancouver were significantly
more inclined to choose a private as opposed to a rental
automobile to travel to Whistler. Conversely, visitors from
further away were significantly more likely to choose a
rental rather than a private automobile for their travel.
Overall, the analysis suggests that potential shifts to public
modes of transportation may result from implementing various express bus- and train-management strategies especially
linked to travel time and fare (figure 4). The cumulative
impact of various transportation strategies is potentially large
when several strategies are combined in complementary ways
(e.g., increased parking fees and lower transit fares). The next
section examines the effects of these combined scenarios on
energy consumption and GHG emissions.

Modeling Energy Consumption

and GHG Emissions
A key benefit of conducting a DCE is that entire
transportation-management scenarios can be evaluated using
the results. By adjusting the attribute levels in the estimated
choice models, it is possible to estimate the modal shares that
would likely occur under various transportation scenarios. In
this way, the modal shares expected from implementing various pro-bus and pro-train strategies were compared with the
shares resulting from a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario.
The overall modal shares for each scenario were weighted by
place of residence and travel-party size for overnight visitors,
while the distribution of responses by place of residence and
income were used to weight the results for day visitors.
Table 4 compares several of these modal shares and also
includes the actual distribution of transportation modes used
by survey respondents. Since no train option exists currently, the two data sets cannot be compared directly. Under
the BAU scenario, about 77% of visitors chose to use private
or rental vehicles to travel between Vancouver and Whistler.
Another 21% selected public-transit options. While the
overall bus share under the BAU scenario is similar to the
actual proportion of 7%, the BAU scenario also contains a
13% share for train, if that option were available. Publictransportation modal shares under the BAU scenario varied
significantly with respect to certain characteristics of the
travelers and their trips. The analysis revealed that visitors
were more likely to use public transportation

if they stayed overnight in the destination;

if they were coming from distant regions;
as their trip party size decreased; and
as their household income level decreased.

As expected, the pro-bus scenario resulted in a substantial increase in bus-transit selection. However, the effects of
this shift were partially offset by a decrease in train use,
which suggests a degree of substitution between the two
public-transit modes. In total, approximately 40% of visitors
chose public transit in the pro-bus scenario. The modal shift
to greater bus-transportation use was more dramatic for day
as opposed to overnight visitors. It was also more significant
for nearby visitors than long-distance travelers.
The pro-train scenario resulted in a vast increase in traintransportation selection, but this effect was dampened by a
decrease in bus use. In total, about 38% of visitors chose
public transportation in this scenario, suggesting that pro-train

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

306

FEBRUARY 2007
FIGURE 4
EFFECTS OF SELECT ATTRIBUTES ON PUBLIC-TRANSPORT MODAL SHARES

One-Way Fuel Cost

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
90

120

150

% Public Transportation

% Public Transportation

Automobile Travel Time

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
$10

Minutes
Overnight Visitors

50%

Day Only Visitors

30%
20%
10%
0%
150

% Public Transportation

% Public Transportation

40%

30%
20%
10%

Day Only Visitors

30%
20%
10%
0%
150

Minutes
Day Only Visitors

% Public Transportation

% Public Transportation

$75
Day Only Visitors

One-Way Train Fare

40%

Overnight Visitors

$50
Overnight Visitors

50%

120

Day Only Visitors

40%

Train Travel Time

90

$30

50%

0%
$25

Minutes
Overnight Visitors

$25

One-Way Bus Fare

50%

120

$20

Overnight Visitors

Bus Travel Time

90

$15

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
$25

$50
Overnight Visitors

$75
Day Only Visitors

Note: Mode shares estimated by varying the level of a given attribute while keeping all other variables fixed at business-asusual levels.

options may be slightly less effective than comparable bus

strategies for encouraging visitors to use public transit.
According to data provided by Tourism Whistler, just
more than 1 million visitors traveled to Whistler in the 2003
summer season (May to October). Of these, an estimated
70% were overnight visitors and 30% were day-only visitors.

In getting between Vancouver and Whistler, overnight visitors traveled about 172 million PKT, and day visitors traveled
approximately 75 million PKT.
For each scenario, the PKT by each transportation mode
was calculated by multiplying the total PKT between
Vancouver and Whistler by the modal shares estimated by the

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 307

TABLE 4
ESTIMATED MODAL SHARES UNDER SELECT SCENARIOS
Actual

Total

Business-as-usual Scenario

Pro-Bus Scenario

Pro-Train Scenario

Overnight
Visitors

Day
Visitors

Overnight
Visitors

Day
Visitors

Total

Total

Overnight
Visitors

Day
Visitors

Total

Private vehicle
Rental vehicle
Express bus
Train
Would not go

70.7%
20.8%
7.0%

59.3%
14.8%
9.5%
14.3%
2.1%

63.3%
19.6%
5.7%
9.2%
2.3%

60.5%
16.2%
8.4%
12.8%
2.1%

48.7%
9.8%
30.4%
9.0%
2.1%

44.6%
12.0%
39.5%
2.1%
1.8%

47.5%
10.5%
33.1%
6.9%
2.0%

47.8%
9.5%
5.5%
35.1%
2.1%

51.0%
14.3%
2.3%
30.2%
2.2%

48.8%
11.0%
4.5%
33.7%
2.1%

Total

98.5%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

a. This column presents the actual distribution of transportation modes used by survey respondents. The total does not sum
to 100% because a small number of respondents used other modes to arrive in Whistler (e.g., limousine, float plane, helicopter). A train option was not available at the time respondents were recruited for the survey.

TABLE 5
ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION UNDER SELECT SCENARIOS
BAU Scenario

Pro-Bus Scenario

Pro-Train Scenario

Quantity (GJ)

Quantity (GJ)

% Change from BAU

Quantity (GJ)

% Change from BAU

Private vehicle
Rental vehicle
Express bus
Train

307,919
82,564
10,910
27,169

241,203
53,188
43,175
14,694

21.7%
35.6%
295.7%
45.9%

248,076
55,714
5,888
71,686

19.4%
32.5%
46.0%
163.8%

Total

428,563

352,260

17.8%

381,364

11.0%

Note: BAU = business as usual; GJ = gigajoules.

TABLE 6
ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS UNDER SELECT SCENARIOS
BAU Scenario

Pro-Bus Scenario

Pro-Train Scenario

Quantity (tCO2e)

Quantity (tCO2e)

% Change from BAU

Quantity (tCO2e)

% Change from BAU

Private vehicle
Rental vehicle
Express bus
Train

21,591
5,789
779
2,159

16,913
3,730
3,083
1,168

21.7%
35.6%
295.7%
45.9%

17,395
3,907
420
5,697

19.4%
32.5%
46.0%
163.8%

Total

30,319

24,893

17.9%

27,419

9.6%

Note: BAU = business as usual.

discrete-choice models. These estimates then were used to

predict energy consumption and GHG emissions. Under the
BAU scenario, visitor travel between Vancouver and Whistler
accounted for approximately 429,000 GJ of energy (table 5)
and 30,000 tCO2e in GHG emissions (table 6). In the pro-bus
scenario, visitor travel between Whistlers gateway community of Vancouver and the destination consumed about 18%
less energy and 18% fewer GHG emissions than in the BAU
scenario. The improvement over BAU was less dramatic in
the pro-train scenario, in which visitor travel accounted for
about 10% less energy and 11% fewer GHG emissions than
in the BAU scenario. Even though the two scenarios generated fairly similar shares of public-transportation use, the
reductions in energy use and GHG emissions are significantly
less in the pro-train scenario than in the pro-bus scenario
because buses are much more fuel efficient on a per VKT

basis than are trains. Even with higher passenger loads, trains
still require more fuel than buses to transport passengers.
However, these findings are based on an assumption of a
diesel train engine, which is typical in most North American
rail systems. Alternative technologies (e.g., electric trains)
could generate significantly lower energy impacts because of
improved fuel efficiency and/or cleaner fuels.

CONCLUSIONS
This article outlined a framework and associated method
for assessing the impacts of proposed transportationmanagement strategies on tourist travel behavior and the
related energy and GHG emissions. It explicitly linked a

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

308

FEBRUARY 2007

technical bottom-up model with behavioral information concerning tourists reactions to a range of options probed in a
DCE. While bottom-up models are well suited for estimating
the technical energy requirements and GHG emissions associated with various transportation modes, their utility is often
limited by a lack of behavioral realism. They typically make
exogenous assumptions based on past research or expert opinions to quantify the impact of proposed transportation strategies on travel-mode choice. Their main drawback is that the
lack of behavioral realism creates challenges for capturing
probable mode choices associated with transportation options.
This research addressed this issue by using a DCE to
predict transportation mode shares that likely would result
from implementing proposed management strategies. These
estimates were used to calibrate behavioral relationships in
the bottom-up model. A key advantage in using the DCE as
a means of quantifying these relationships is that purely
hypothetical transportation-management options can be
investigated. This is particularly relevant in many tourism
and transportation situations in which proposed policy and
planning options should be evaluated before any of the alternatives that often require huge financial investments are
implemented. However, an important potential limitation to
using a DCE to predict visitor travel behavior is that the
stated responses might not reflect actual decision-making
behavior. This shortcoming is usually overcome by adding
revealed preference data to the stated choice model.
However, given that the main purpose of the study was to
test demand changes in response to currently nonexistent
transportation scenarios, no such revealed preference data
exist. When studies have compared revealed and stated preference models in the past, they often have found that the
results are remarkably similar (e.g., Timmermans, Borgers,
and van der Waerden 1992). Nevertheless, relationships
between stated and revealed choices should be examined in
the context of tourism destinations and their stakeholders.
In summary, this research revealed that there is significant
market potential for innovative transportation-management
strategies aimed at mitigating the energy-related impacts of
visitor travel. The research suggested that some strategies are
available to encourage tourists to use public-transit modes
rather than private or rental vehicles in traveling from gateway
communities to destinations. These strategies include implementing dedicated transit lanes to decrease express bus-travel
times relative to private automobiles; high-speed train options;
more affordable transit rates; more frequent transit service;
more convenient transit-access points that are attractive to visitors and allow convenient connections to other travel modes;
and parking fees within the destination area. The modal shifts
resulting from these initiatives can significantly reduce the
energy use and GHG emissions associated with land-based
visitor travel. The shifts to greater public-transportation use
would be more dramatic for some market segments (e.g., day
visitors from nearby regions) than other groups (e.g., longdistance overnight travelers). In the case of Whistler, however,
real barriers may exist that limit the potential of certain publictransportation strategies. For instance, it is impossible given
the existing railway infrastructure to run a single train (without
transfers) from downtown Vancouver to Whistler.
While the aforementioned initiatives can reduce the energy
and air emissions associated with ground-transportation
options, they have little influence on the vast energy requirements and emissions associated with air travel. The magnitude

of energy consumed by visitor air travel would dwarf the

reductions realized by implementing the transportationmanagement strategies identified in this study. This is particularly true for international resorts such as Whistler that
attract large numbers of long-haul travelers from around the
globe. Therefore, other strategies will be necessary if destinations are to be environmentally sustainable for long
time periods. A potential strategy for addressing this issue
involves trading off carbon dioxide emissions from travel for
financial contributions to various carbon-offsetting activities.
Such initiatives include planting trees that take up carbon
dioxide or investing in the use of alternative energy sources
that do not create carbon dioxide emissions. Although carbon
offsetting may alleviate some impacts of tourist air travel, it
fails to tackle the challenge of reducing the use of fossil fuels
and subsequent polluting emissions. Ultimately, meeting this
challenge will depend on using low-emission aircrafts for
transporting visitors to and from destinations. However, carbon offsetting does provide a valuable transition strategy
until these technological solutions are readily available.
The approach presented in this article is intended as a
framework for guiding the development of future research
related to visitor travel behavior and associated energy use and
emissions. Six further research directions can be readily identified. First, more research is needed to assess visitor-travel
behavior to different types of tourism destinations. Such comparative studies would enable researchers to test the influence
of various destination characteristics (e.g., transportation infrastructure, geographic location, management structure, destination life-cycle phase) on visitor mode-choice behavior.
Second, future research should evaluate the preferences of
winter tourists, who may have vastly different mode-choice
tendencies than summer visitors. Third, future studies should
include a broader assessment of external factors (e.g., weather
conditions, vehicle safety and comfort issues, fuel efficiency
changes) that may influence transportation-mode choice. Even
though these factors are largely outside the control of local
decision makers, it is important to understand how they either
facilitate or constrain potential transportation-management
strategies. Fourth, further research is needed to identify and
quantify the effects of various technological scenarios on
transportation energy consumption and emissions. Alternative
scenarios should be developed that explore different technological assumptions about fuel efficiencies and fuel types.
Fifth, future studies should include the impacts of common air
contaminants (CACs) in addition to GHGs. The potential
effects of CACs (e.g., smog) associated with visitor travel can
have significant environmental effects on the regions where
they are released. Finally, future research should examine
tourist responses to carbon-offsetting programs and other possible strategies for addressing the vast energy impacts associated with visitor air travel to and from destinations.

REFERENCES
Andereck, K. L. (1995). Environmental Consequences of Tourism: A Review
of Recent Research. In Linking Tourism, the Environment, and
Sustainability: Topical Volume of Compiled Papers from a Special
Session of the Annual Meeting of the National Recreation and Park
Association, 1994, edited by S. F. McCool and A. E. Watson. General
Technical Report INT-GTR-323. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, pp. 7781.
Asensio, J. (2002). Transport Mode Choice by Commuters to Barcelonas
CBD. Urban Studies, 39 (10): 188195.

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009

JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 309

Becken, S. (2002). Analysing International Tourist Flows to Estimate
Energy Use Associated with Air Travel. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 10 (2): 11431.
Becken, S., C. Frampton, and D. Simmons (2001). Energy Consumption
Patterns in the Accommodation SectorThe New Zealand Case.
Ecological Economics, 39: 37186.
Becken, S., and D. Simmons (2002). Understanding Energy Consumption
Patterns of Tourist Attractions and Activities in New Zealand.
Tourism Management, 23: 34354.
Becken, S., D. Simmons, and C. Frampton (2003). Energy Use Associated
with Different Travel Choices. Tourism Management, 24: 26777.
Ben-Akiva, M., and S. R. Lerman (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory
and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ben-Akiva, M., and T. Morikawa (2002). Comparing Ridership Attraction
of Rail and Bus. Transport Policy, 9: 10716.
Bhat, C. R. (1997). Work Travel Mode Choice and Number of Non-Work
Commute Stops. Transportation Research Part B, 31 (1): 4154.
Bunch, D. S., M. Bradley, T. F. Golob, R. Kitamura, and G. P. Occhiuzzo
(1993). Demand for Clean-Fuel Vehicles in California: A DiscreteChoice Stated Preference Pilot Project. Transportation Research A,
27 (3): 23753.
Cho, H., and R. LaRose (1999). Privacy Issues in Internet Surveys. Social
Science Computer Review, 17 (4): 42134.
Crouch, G. I., and J. J. Louviere (2000). A Review of Choice Modeling
Research in Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure. Tourism Analysis, 5:
97104.
Davidson, R., and R. Maitland (1997). Tourism Destinations. London:
Hodder & Stoughton.
de Palma, A., and D. Rochat (2000). Mode Choices for Trips to Work in
Geneva: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Transport Geography, 8:
4351.
Environment Canada (2002). Canadas Greenhouse Gas Inventory
19902000. Ottawa: Greenhouse Gas Division, Environment Canada.
Ewing, G. O., and E. Sarigollu (1998). Car Fuel-Type Choice under Travel
Demand Management and Economic Incentives. Transportation
Research D, 3 (6): 42944.
Gardner, D. T., and J. B. Robinson (1993). To What End? A Conceptual
Framework for the Analysis of Energy Use. Energy Studies Review,
5 (1): 113.
Gossling, S. (2000). Sustainable Tourism Development in Developing
Countries: Some Aspects of Energy Use. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 8 (5): 41025.
(2002). Global Environmental Consequences of Tourism. Global
Environmental Change, 12: 283302.
Gossling, S., C. B. Hansson, O. Horstmeier, and S. Saggel (2002).
Ecological Footprint Analysis as a Tool to Assess Tourism
Sustainability. Ecological Economics, 43: 199211.
Greene, W. H. (2002). LIMDEP Version 8.0 Reference Guide. New York:
Econometric Software Inc.
Holden, A. (2000). Environment and Tourism. New York: Routledge.
Holding, D. M. (2001). The Sanfte Mobilitaet Project: Achieving Reduced
Car-Dependence in European Resort Areas. Tourism Management,
22: 41117.
Horne, M., M. Jaccard, and K. Tiedemann (2005). Improving Behavioral
Realism in Hybrid Energy-Economy Models Using Discrete Choice
Studies of Personal Transportation Decisions. Energy Economics,
27: 5977.
Hoyer, K. G. (2000). Sustainable Tourism or Sustainable Mobility? The
Norwegian Case. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 8 (2): 14760.
Hunter, C., and H. Green (1995). Tourism and the Environment: A
Sustainable Relationship? New York: Routledge.
Louviere, J. J., D. A. Hensher, and J. D. Swait (2000). Stated Choice
Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Louviere, J. J., and H. Timmermans (1990). Stated Preferences and

Choice Models Applied to Recreation Research: A Review. Leisure
Sciences, 12: 932.
McCabe, S. E., C. J. Boyd, M. P. Couper, S. Crawford, and H. dArcy
(2002). Mode Effects for Collecting Alcohol and Other Drug Use
Data: Web and U.S. Mail. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63: 75561.
McFadden, D. (1981). Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice. In
Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications,
edited by C. Manski and D. McFadden. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
pp. 198272.
Miller, C. A., and R. G. Wright (1999). An Assessment of Visitor
Satisfaction with Public Transportation Services at Denali National
Park and Preserve. Park Science, 19 (2): 1819.
Ministry of Transportation and Highways, MOTH (2001). Multi-Modal
Corridor Transportation Study Horseshoe Bay to Highway 97.
Prepared by Reid Crowther and Partners. Vancouver: MOTH.
Montgomery, D. C. (2001). Design and Analysis of Experiments. 5th ed.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Nerhagen, L. (2003). Travel Mode Choice: Effects of Previous Experience
on Choice Behaviour and Valuation. Tourism Economics, 9 (1):
530.
Resort Municipality of Whistler, RMOW (2003). 2002 Whistler Traffic
Monitoring Program. Prepared by Creative Transportation Solutions.
Whistler: RMOW.
(2004). The Comprehensive Sustainability Plan. Draft report.
Whistler: RMOW.
Robinson, J. B. (1982). Bottom-Up Methods and Low-Down Results:
Changes in the Estimation of Future Energy Demands. Energy, 7 (7):
62735.
Roof, C. J., B. Kim, G. G. Fleming, J. Burstein, and C. S. Lee (2002). Noise
and Air Quality Implications of Alternative Transportation Systems:
Zion and Acadia National Park Case Studies. Cambridge, MA: U.S.
Department of Transportation.
Schaefer, D. R., and D. A. Dillman (1998). Development of a Standard
E-Mail Methodology: Results of an Experiment. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 62: 37897.
Seddighi, H. R., and A. L. Theocharous (2002). A Model of Tourism
Destination Choice: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Tourism
Management, 23: 47587.
Thobani, M. (1984). A Nested Logit Model of Travel Mode to Work and
Auto Ownership. Journal of Urban Economics, 15: 287301.
Thrasher, S. A., T. R. Hickey, and R. J. Hudome (2000). Enhancing Transit
Circulation in Resort Areas: Operational and Design Strategies.
Transportation Research Record, 1735: 7983.
Timmermans, H., A. Borgers, and P. van der Waerden (1992). Choice
Experiments versus Revealed Choice Models: A Before-After Study
of Consumer Spatial Shopping Behavior. Professional Geographer,
44 (4): 40616.
Tiwari, P., and T. Kawakami (2001). Modes of Commuting in Mumbai: A
Discrete Choice Analysis. Review of Urban and Regional
Development Studies, 13 (1): 3445.
Train, K. (1980). A Structured Logit Model of Auto Ownership and Mode
Choice. Review of Economic Studies, 157 (2): 35770.
Voluntary Challenge and Registry (2003). Challenge Registry Guide to
Entity and Facility-based Reporting. Ottawa: Voluntary Challenge
and Registry.
Wilson, D., and J. Swisher (1993). Exploring the Gap: Top-Down versus
Bottom-Up Analyses of the Cost of Mitigating Global Warming.
Energy Policy, 21 (3): 24963.
Woodside, A. G., and C. Dubelaar (2002). A General Theory of Tourism
Consumption Systems: A Conceptual Framework and an Empirical
Exploration. Journal of Travel Research, 41: 12032.
Woodside, A. G., and S. Lysonski (1989). A General Model of Traveler
Destination Choice. Journal of Travel Research, 27 (4): 814.

Downloaded from http://jtr.sagepub.com by laillina m mardhiyati on April 21, 2009