International Journal of Tourism Research, Int. J. Tourism Res.

, 16: 315–324 (2014)

Published online 11 July 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.1959

Developing a Pet Owners’ Tourism Constraints Scale – The Constraints to

Take Dogs to Tourism Activities
ANNIE HUILING CHEN1*, NORMAN PENG1 and KUANG-PENG HUNG2
1
University of Westminster, London, UK
2
Ming Chuan University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

ABSTRACT

The objectives of this research were to develop a scale for constraints on bringing dogs along on tourism activities and to examine the
influence of these constraints on owners’ intentions to take dogs along on tourism activities. The responses of 518 Taiwanese dog owners
were examined through exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. The findings revealed three dimensions of pet-related
tourism constraint (i.e. pets’ specific constraints, pets’ interpersonal constraints and pets’ structural constraints). This measurement scale was
found to be both valid and reliable. In addition, the constraints were found to negatively influence owners’ intentions to take pets along on
tourism activities. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 24 September 2012; Revised 24 March 2013; Accepted 4 June 2013

key words canine; Taiwan; dog; tourism constraints; scale development

INTRODUCTION A potentially intriguing research question derived from the

The purpose of this research was to formulate a comprehen-
sive, reliable and validated scale to measure pets’ influences
on Taiwanese owners’ tourism activity participation intentions
through qualitative and quantitative methods. The ability of
this scale to reflect pet owners’ tourism intentions was exam-
ined. As of 2007, pet-related products (including services)
was a US$141 billion industry, which is more than 10 times
the value of the industry in 1997 (Ridgway et al., 2008). In
addition, an increasing number of owners purchase luxury goods
for their pets, such as designer clothes and pet beds that cost
$700–$800 (Cavanaugh et al., 2008; Ridgway et al., 2008).
This behaviour occurs, perhaps, because the majority of owners
consider their pets as children (Albert and Bulcroft, 1988; Belk,
1996; Serpell, 2003). This phenomenon also has an influence
on owners’ tourism participation behaviour. According to
surveys of American and British pet owners, more than
40% of pet owners have taken their pets on vacation with
them, and many others have considered this possibility
(K9 Magazine, 2012; tripadvisor, 2012). These survey findings
demonstrate that animal companions influence many owners’
tourism choices (Carr, 2009; Chen et al., 2011).
Given that participating in tourism activities is popular for
many individuals (Urry, 2002; Schlich et al., 2004; Masson
and Petiot, 2009; Tourism Bureau, 2009), growing research
and business opportunities exist for tourism scholars and
the tourism industry (Shore et al., 2005; Cavanaugh et al.,
2008; Ridgway et al., 2008; Carr, 2009). However, relevant
research is scarce. According to Carr (2009, p. 409), ‘there
is also a need for more research into the presence of
domesticated animals in the tourism and leisure experience….’
*Correspondence to: Annie Huiling Chen, University of Westminster,
London, UK.
E-mail: annie_huiling@hotmail.com
1
All monetary figures in this paper are in USD.
above discussion is as follows: ‘Why do owners not take their
pets along on tourism activities even when they are interested
in doing so?’ The current study focused on domestic tourism
activities in which individuals participate for themselves rather
than for their pets and that are outside their normal routine
(Cohen, 1979; Woodside et al., 2005). To explore this
question, the theory of tourism constraint was adopted in this
study to examine the difficulties that keep individuals from
participating in a given activity (Nyaupane et al., 2004).
Because of this research context, owners’ perceptions of pet
constraints rather than human participants’ constraints were
explored. Definitions proposed by Hung and Petrick (2010),
Jackson (2000) and Nadirova and Jackson (2000) were
modified to define pet-related tourism constraints as factors
that inhibit owners from (i) starting to take pets along when
participating in tourism activities and (ii) continuing to take
pets along when participating in tourism activities. Some
examples of pets’ tourism constraints are pet’s lack of agility,
other participants’ resentments and destinations’ restrictions
(Gillespie et al., 2002; Miller and Howell, 2008; Carr and
Cohen, 2009; Hultsman, 2012).
This research had two objectives. The first objective was to
identify pet-related constraints that prohibit owners from taking
dogs to tourist attractions. The second objective was to develop
a scale to measure these pet constraints in the context of domes-
tic tourism. The findings from this study contribute to the
advancement of tourism research by formulating a new scale
and also have implications for management of tourism facilities.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Definition of pets and dog’s importance in modern families
In this research, the word ‘pets’ refers to animals that have
been domesticated and that are cared for by their owners,

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

316 A. H. Chen, N. Peng and K-p. Hung

as well as those with which the owners have emotional bonds participating in leisure activities. However, this work does
(Serpell, 2003). Among the range of animals that can be not directly or comprehensively address pet-related tourism
classified as pets, dogs are particularly significant to humans constraints, although it notes that there are likely to be more
(Cavanaugh et al., 2008). In 2008, approximately 69 million constraints for pet owners than for the general population
dogs in the USA and 8 million dogs in the UK were classi- (Tourist Bureau, 2009).
fied as pets. Dogs are owned by 30% and 25% of American Gillespie et al. (2002) and Hultsman (2012) both used
and British households respectively (Lancendorfer et al., qualitative methods to examine participation in serious
2008; Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association, 2009a, 2009b). leisure with dogs. Their research yielded several findings
Zasloff (1996) suggested that dogs serve as an ideal model on how animal companions influence their owners’ leisure
for studying animal companionship. Based on market participation behaviour. One such finding was that both
research reports, 40% of the owners have taken their pets owners and pets have to undergo some training activities.
along on tourism activities, and some other owners have con- In addition, factors such as dogs’ agility, other participants’
sidered this option (K9 Magazine, 2012; tripadvisor, 2012).2 attitudes and owners’ motivation were emphasized by the
interviewees in these two studies. Although the findings of
these studies have significantly narrowed the gaps in the
Previous studies on taking pets along on
literature, opportunities exist for further study. Gillespie
leisure/tourism activities
et al.’s (2002) and Hultsman’s (2012) studies focused on
Before owners can take their dogs along tourism activities,
participation in sporting activities and used relatively small
they must first consider dog-related tourism constraints, such
sample sizes (60 and 50 pairs of couples respectively). It
as their dogs’ physical abilities, their dogs’ influences on
would be beneficial to the tourism literature to develop a
other people, and the extra time and money involved
more generalizable and quantitative pet constraint scale that
(Carr,2009; Chen et al., 2011). Among the studies that have
can be used in the future by scholars interested in this topic.
examined pet owners’ leisure/tourism activity participation
Carr and Cohen’s (2009) study examined the issue of
behaviour and pet-related leisure/tourism constraints, those
accommodation provision for dogs when owners go on
by Carr and Cohen (2009), Chen et al. (2011), Gillespie
vacation. In particular, owners’ desires and potential challenges
et al. (2002), Greenebaum (2004), Hultsman (2012) and
were explored. The results of this study are important for the
Miller and Howell (2008) are significant.
tourism and hospitality literature because the study not only
Greenebaum (2004) examined the decision processes and
explored pet owners’ perspectives but also had implications
behaviours of owners who took their pets with them to
for practitioners. Moreover, these authors highlighted several
participate in leisure activities designed for dogs. Her results
pet-associated constraints (e.g. extra cost and preparation time)
suggest that owners must evaluate their pet’s preferences and
by studying 311 Australian dog owners. This research made
abilities, the venue environment and the characteristics of
several contributions to the literature, but additional areas can
other participants (human and dogs). With a research
be further developed. First, the links between owners’
objective similar to Greenebaum’s (2004) but in a different
intentions to take dogs along on tourism activities and dogs’
context, Miller and Howell’s (2008) examined how other
tourism constraints were not explored. Accordingly, it is
participants react to dogs’ participation in leisure activities.
uncertain whether the challenges identified by Carr and Cohen
In particular, they examined some participants’ resentments.
have a statistically significant influence on pet owners’
Some such resentments are related to previous experience
behavioural intentions. Second, no scale was proposed as a
(e.g. being chased/bitten by dogs), and some are caused
result of this research, which makes it difficult for other
by irresponsible owners who fail to clean up their dogs’ wastes.
scholars to adapt the findings to other scenarios.
Although insightful, these two studies lack general applicabil-
Given the studies reviewed above and the literature
ity because the sample sizes were small, and the activities were
provided by pet-related governmental and nonprofit associa-
relatively routine and close to the participants’ residences.
tions (e.g. the American Veterinary Medical Association,
Chen et al.’s (2011) research may have the most direct
2009; Chuang, 2008), animal companions’ tourism con-
implications for this work. Applying the theory of planned
straints appear to affect owners who participate in tourism
behaviour, Chen et al. confirmed that owners’ attitudes, sub-
activities with their pets. However, the details of these influ-
jective norms and perceived behavioural control influence
ences remain descriptive, and pet-related tourism constraints
their intentions to take pets along when participating in
have not been systematically and quantitatively measured.
leisure activities. In addition, attachment to a pet was identi-
To explore and evaluate this question in depth, the remaining
fied as a new variable that can influence owners’ attitudes
review focuses on studies that examined constraints in leisure
regarding whether to take pets along when undertaking
and tourism contexts.
leisure activities. The results also raised questions related to
owners’ self-perceived abilities to take care of their pets
Leisure and tourism constraints – definitions, development
during the journey to a tourist destination and how social
and conceptual models
influences affect owners’ intentions to take pets along when
Since the 1960s, scholars of leisure activities have noticed
that leisure participation is affected by associated constraints
2
Not all pets are dogs; however, the term ‘pets’ is used in this paper because (Buchanan and Allen, 1985). It has been proposed that
dogs are the most common pets in modern households and because of
Zasloff’s suggestion that dogs serve as an ideal model for studying animal constraints are positively associated with nonparticipation.
companionship. In other words, when a constraint is presented, individuals

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 315–324 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

are less likely to participate in a given activity (Hung and
Petrick, 2010). In the past, constraints were considered to
be issues inhibiting the continued use of a leisure, tourism
or recreational service (Backman and Crompton, 1989).
Later studies broadened the definition of leisure constraints
and articulated the definition in greater detail. Moreover,
the proposed models have been examined using advanced
statistical tools (e.g. Jackson and Scott, 1999; Jackson,
2000; Nyaupane et al., 2004; Alexandris et al., 2007; Son
et al., 2008; White et al., 2008; Funk et al., 2009; Wilhelm
Stanis et al., 2009).
For scholars of leisure and tourism constraints, Crawford
and Godbey’s (1987) work is essential because it was one
of the first studies to integrate previous research and because
it proposed three types of constraints – intrapersonal, inter-
personal and structural constraints – that were widely used
by later scholars. In recent years, Gilbert and Hudson
(2000), Hung and Petrick (2010), Nyaupane and Andereck
(2008), Nyaupane et al. (2004) and White et al. (2008) have
all applied this typology. These studies further developed the
constraints and made them more robust. Reviewing Carr and
Cohen (2009), Chen et al. (2011), Gillespie et al. (2002),
Greenebaum (2004), Hultsman (2012) and Miller and
Howell’s (2008) studies on taking pets along on tourism
and leisure activities indicates that it is sensible to apply this
typology to this research context. The following are the
details of these constraints and the highlights of the findings
of the studies mentioned above.
According to Crawford and Godbey (1987), intrapersonal
constraints are mainly psychological attributes such as fear
and anxiety. Later studies have addressed both psychological
and physical attributes. For instance, in a study on skiing
(Gilbert and Hudson, 2000, p. 914), concerns such as ‘Don’t
fancy the physical challenge’ were included. In researching
the participation of individuals in rafting, canoeing and
horseback riding, Nyaupane et al. (2004, p. 545) identified
similar concerns in the participants (e.g. ‘This activity is
too physically demanding’). Because companion animals
are not able to verbally express their attitudes and because
their preferences can be based on owners’ perceptions, intra-
personal constraints require modification during fieldwork.
The focus is likely to be on owners’ perception of their pets’
physical fitness, preferences and characters. This practice can
be observed in Gillespie et al. (2002) and Hultsman’s (2012)
research exploring how dogs’ agility and physical fitness
may affect their owners’ participation in serious leisure.
As for interpersonal constraints, although additional items
have been proposed and empirically supported, research has
still focused mainly on how family and friends’ interest or
lack of interest influence individuals’ leisure participation
(Crawford and Godbey, 1987; Nyaupane and Andereck,
2008; White et al., 2008). Statements similar to ‘My friends
and family prefer other things’ were routinely included
(Gilbert and Hudson, 2000; Nyaupane et al., 2004; White
et al., 2008, p. 350). Similar constraints can be observed in
the context of taking dogs along on leisure activities. In
Gillespie et al.’s (2002), Hultsman’s (2012) and Miller and
Howell’s (2008) studies, they found that other participants
can be resentful towards dogs’ presence at leisure destinations.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The Constraints to Take Dogs to Tourism Activities 317
These people’s opposition can create pressure for dog owners
when they want to take their dogs along on leisure activities.
In other words, when examining this aspect of pet constraint,
it is common to focus more on other participants’ views about
animal companions participating in tourism activities than on
the pet owners’ views.
Structural constraints are external factors (e.g. time, money
and transportation) that prohibit or discourage individuals from
participating in a given leisure activity (Crawford and Godbey,
1987). In reviewing the literature, it becomes apparent that
time, money and transportation remain central to structural
constraints. Nevertheless, compared with interpersonal and
intrapersonal constraints, examination of structural constraints
involves a greater need for scholars to modify measurement
items and rephrase questions to fit specific contexts (Nyaupane
et al., 2004; Alexandris et al., 2007; White et al., 2008; Huang
and Hsu, 2009; Hung and Petrick, 2010).
This need is understandable because, although time,
money and transportation are relevant to most leisure and
tourism activities, specific time, money and transportation
requirements differ for different activities (e.g. going to
Hong Kong, skiing, horseback riding or visiting national
parks). These differences are reflected in the approach taken
in Carr and Cohen’s (2009) study of dog owners who try to
find accommodations that allow dogs. The researchers found
that restrictions imposed by accommodation managers and
extra accommodation and transportation costs can deter
owners from making a reservation or make them give up
the idea of bringing their dogs along. In other words, when
examining the structural aspect of pet constraints, it is impor-
tant to focus on the extra-structural constraints associated
with the animal companions.
Although the body of knowledge of leisure constraints has
been expanded as described above, scenarios in which
dependents are involved have yet to be fully explored.
According to scholars (Aylesworth et al., 1999; Fodness and
Murray, 1999; March and Woodside, 2005; Chen et al.,
2011), consideration criteria and participation behaviour can
differ significantly between travellers who include dependents
in their tourism activities and those who do not. For this reason,
and because modern individuals have more opportunities to
participate in tourism activities and many have considered
taking their pets along on tourism activities, there is a greater
need to study how animal companions influence their owners’
tourism behaviour. The following section presents the steps
that have been taken to identify pet-related tourism constraints
and presents a scale to measure these influences.
RESEARCH METHODS
Research design and activity selection
This research had two objectives. The first objective was to
identify pet-related constraints that prohibit owners from
taking dogs to tourist attractions. The second objective was
to develop a scale to measure these pet constraints in the con-
text of domestic tourism. When constructing a measurement
scale, reliability and validity are critical. As in the studies of
Hung and Petrick (2010), Hung and Petrick (2012) and
Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 315–324 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
318 A. H. Chen, N. Peng and K-p. Hung

Huang and Hsu (2009), the steps suggested by Churchill
(1999) were adopted in this study (Table 1). Through these
steps, which involve qualitative and quantitative research,
concerns regarding the reliability, criterion validity, and
convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement
scale constructed are addressed (Hung and Petrick, 2010).
To generate a pool of items to begin the investigation, the
authors specified the domain of construction and organized
existing measurement scales according to the literature on
animal companionship and leisure constraints. At this stage,
the measurement scale had 35 items and defined the ranges
of activities considered in this research. After examining
Goeldner and Ritchie’s (2006) list of 39 common tourist
attractions, popular tourism activities of Taiwanese individuals
in 2008 (Tourist Bureau, 2009) and the steps that Chen et al.
(2011) took to narrow down their list of attractions, the authors
decided to focus on the following tourism activities: (i) nature
attractions (e.g. the Sun Moon Lake); (ii) cultural attractions
(e.g. TamSui Bali); (iii) recreation (e.g. Sizihwan Bay sightsee-
ing); (iv) events (e.g. LuGangMaZu); and (v) participating in
other tourism activities that last for 4 hours or more (e.g. walking
the YangMingShan trail). Because Taiwan is approximately
395 km long and travelling from northern Taiwan (Taipei)
to southern Taiwan (Kaohsiung) by high-speed rail takes
approximately 90 minutes (pets allowed), this study
included one-day tours and multi-day trips. Chen et al.
(2011) found that these attractions were often considered
by Taiwanese dog owners when they want to take dogs to
tourism attractions.
This study focuses on Taiwanese dog owners for the
following reasons. As in the USA and the UK, dogs are the
most common (13.41%) pets in Taiwanese households
(Animal Protection Information, 2009). On average, Taiwanese
owners spend approximately $7800 on dog-related products
and services throughout their dogs’ lifetimes (Liao, 2004). In
addition, following the 1998 legislation aimed at protecting
the welfare of animals, pets’ values and importance to owners
started to be formally recognized by Taiwanese society and
businesses, including tourism operators (Animal Protection
Information, 2009). This legislation covers the principles of
animal rights, the protection of animal welfare and ethical
animal research guidelines.
In addition to animal companions’ importance to their
owners and to society, Taiwanese people are becoming more
enthusiastic about participating in tourism and recreation
activities. Economic prosperity and the reduction of the work
week from six to five days in 2001 have been the driving forces
behind this development (Roy, 2003; Lee et al., 2004).
Approximately 93.4% of Taiwanese citizens undertook at least
one domestic tourism trip in 2008 (Tourist Bureau, 2009). The
average Taiwanese individual travels for tourism and recrea-
tion purposes nearly five times per year (Tourist Bureau,
2009). Considering the developments listed above, the pet-
related tourism constraints faced by Taiwanese dog owners
can have implications for dog owners and tourism practitioners
in other markets.
Research process
Upon completion of the preliminary research steps described
above, the authors cross-checked their list of items with one
another, reviewed the list with four tourism academics who
are dog owners, interviewed eight practitioners (veterinarians,
pet-product shop owners and tourism practitioners) and
presented the resulting list to the study’s focus group
participants. The academics and practitioners were interviewed
using the purposive sampling method. Their expertise
provided valuable insight into improving the practicality of
the study’s questions.
The focus group consisted of 20 dog owners (participants
A through T) who reported that they had participated in and
enjoyed one of the previously mentioned five activities by
themselves at least once in the past two years. There were

Table 1. Procedure for developing instrument measures

Procedure for developing
better measures suggested
by Churchill (1999)
Specify domain of construct
Generate sample of item
Collect data
Purify measure
Collect data
Assess reliability
Assess validity
Develop norms
Techniques used in this study
Techniques recommended by Techniques used by Hung and (Churchill, 1999; Hung and
Churchill (1999) Petrick (2010) Petrick, 2010)
Literature search Literature search Literature search
Literature search Literature search Literature search
Experience survey In-depth interview Focus group
Insight-stimulating examples Panels of experts Panels of experts
Critical incidents
Focus group
Pilot study Pilot study
Coefficient alpha Coefficient alpha Coefficient alpha
Factor analysis Factor analysis Factor analysis
Coefficient alpha Composite reliability Composite reliability
Split-half reliability
Multitrait-multimethod matrix Face validity Face validity
Convergent validity Criterion validity
Criterion validity Discriminant validity Convergent validity
Discriminant validity
Average and other statistics Means Means
summarizing distribution Standard deviations Standard deviations
of scores

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 315–324 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

four groups, each with five participants. Each focus group
worked for approximately 60 to 90 minutes, and the
transcripts gathered were analysed using an interpretive
approach (Shankar et al., 2001; Hackley, 2003).
The feedback of the experts and focus group participants
indicated that quantitative research would benefit from the
identification of owners with similar interests and evaluation
patterns. Consistent with the study by Zasloff (1996), this
study’s participants reported that one of the key reasons for
having a dog is the ability to interact with it, and they
indicated that, in general, they had some interest in taking their
pets along on tourism activities before evaluating their suitabil-
ity for doing so. Furthermore, the participants confirmed that
they would be interested in taking their dogs to the destinations
and including them in the above-mentioned activities,
provided that these destinations and activities (or those of a
very similar nature) did not create significant constraints for
them personally. Finally, the participants noted that the items
addressed in this study were relevant to the five activities
selected for consideration in this research.
Sampling method and data analysis
For the items and classifications to be used, the conceptuali-
zations of Crawford et al. (1991) and Nyaupane et al. (2004)
(i.e. interpersonal, intrapersonal and structural constraints)
were modified for the following three categories: pets’
specific constraints, pets’ interpersonal constraints and pets’
structural constraints. These modifications were made
because the pet owners who participated in this study had
previously participated in one of the tourism activities
considered (or an activity of a very similar nature) without
including their pets. Therefore, instead of focusing on their
intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural constraints, the
owners had to evaluate their animal companion’s abilities
(i.e. their pets’ specific constraints), other participants’
perceptions and reactions towards pets (i.e. their pets’
interpersonal constraints) and the extra resources that might
be required to travel with pets (i.e. their pets’ structural
constraints). During this stage, questions with overlapping
meanings were merged, questions that were not representative
or that were redundant were dropped, and questions with
unclear meanings were rephrased. Following this process,
20 items remained (Table 2).
The third and fourth steps were to collect survey data for the
purpose of refining the measurement scale. While the third
stage used a student sample, the fourth stage included a more
diverse sample of dog owners (Hung and Petrick, 2010,
2012; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). Exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were applied to
these two data sets to extend the applicability of the results of
this study (Hatcher, 1994). A total of 117 university students
who had a dog in their household and who declared that they
would be interested in taking their dog to tourism attractions
were sampled to participate in the pre-test. The data collected
were analysed using EFA with a varimax rotation to determine
the dimensions of the scale. After eliminating items with factor
loadings lower than 0.4, items that were cross-loaded on more
than one factor and factors with a low alpha coefficient (0.7),
14 items remained (Table 3).
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The Constraints to Take Dogs to Tourism Activities 319
Table 2. Pet-related tourism constraints derived from qualitative
research
Pet-related tourism constraints
Pet’s specific constraints (PSpC)
PSpc1: My pet lacks of self-control (e.g. over-excited and aggressive)
PSpc2: My pet is not suitable for this activity
PSpc3: My pet does not like to go out
PSpc4: My pet gets tired and bored easily
PSpc5: This activity is too dangerous for my pet
PSpc6: This activity is too physically demanding for my pets
PSpc7: Pet in general is not suitable for this activity
Pet’s interpersonal constraints (PIC)
PIC1: Because some of the participants do not like animals, I feel
uncomfortable when participating in this activity with my pet
PIC 2: No other participants in the activity take their pets
PIC 3: My pet can be unfriendly to other human/animal participants
PIC 4: I have no companion to go with my pet and me
PIC5: My pet cannot get along with strangers
Pet’s structural constraints (PStC)
PStC1: Taking pets to a tourism activity involves greater costs
PStC2: I do not know anyone or any companies who can provide me
information about how to take my pet to participate in this activity
PStC3: This destination is not fitting for my pet (e.g., unclean
environment)
PSsC4: Taking my pet to this activity is time consuming
PStC5: I cannot participate in this activity because I have to take
care of my pet at the same time
PStC6: There are no such areas/destinations near me
PStC7: At this destination, there is no facility for my pet to use
PStC8: Taking my pet to this activity is inconvenient
Note: Items in italic were eliminated after the qualitative research.
The results of the EFA indicate that pet-related tourism
constraints can be categorized according to the three factors
derived from earlier qualitative research. The first category,
termed ‘pet’s specific constraints’, consisted of four items
and had a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.82. The second
category, termed ‘pet’s interpersonal constraints’, consisted
of four items and had a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.71.
The last category, termed ‘pet’s structural constraints’,
consisted of six items and had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88.
Because of the low factor loading (0.4), one item from the
pet’s interpersonal constraints category (i.e. ‘I have no
companion to go with my pet and me’) was eliminated.
The panel of experts validated these 13 items.
Before proceeding to step five, which was to collect data
for the CFA, the criteria for selecting the study’s participants
were outlined on the basis of the feedback from the
experts and the focus group participants. To ensure that the
wording, format and layout of the survey were appropriate,
30 undergraduate and postgraduate students who fulfilled the
above requirements completed the survey. Minor changes to
the survey were made on the basis of the feedback from these
30 students. After the final change was made, the survey was
conducted through on-site interviews. The respondents were
contacted at a number of pre-selected locations, such as
pet shops and veterinary clinics because the respondents
in these locations were highly likely to have a pet (Aaker
et al., 2003; Veal, 2005; Dickinson and Robbins, 2008;
Tkaczynski et al., 2010).
Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 315–324 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
320 A. H. Chen, N. Peng and K-p. Hung

Table 3. Coefficients of initial measurement scale from exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 117)
Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7) Coefficient α Factor loading
Pet’s specific constraints (PSpC) 0.82
PSpc1: My pet lacks of self-control during the trip (e.g. over-excited and aggressive) 0.64
PSpc2: My pet is not suitable for this activity 0.78
PSpc3: My pet does not like to go out 0.85
PSpc4: My pet gets tired easily 0.88
Pet’s interpersonal constraints (PIC) 0.71
PIC1: Because some of the participants do not like animals, I feel uncomfortable 0.64
when participating in this activity with my pet
PIC 2: No other participants in the activity take their pets 0.75
PIC 3: My pet can be unfriendly to other human/animal participants 0.73
PIC 4: I have no companion to go with my pet and me 0.49
Pet’s structural constraints (PStC) 0.88
PStC1: Taking pets to a tourism activity involves greater costs 0.64
(e.g. dining, accommodation and transportation)
PStC2: I do not know anyone or any companies who can provide me information 0.72
about how to take my pet to participate in this activity
PStC3: This destination is not fitting for my pet (e.g. unclean environment) 0.72
PSsC4: Taking my pet to this activity is time consuming 0.81
PStC5: I cannot participate in this activity because I have to take care of my pet at the same time 0.83
PStC6: There are no such areas/destinations near me 0.84

Note: Item in italic was eliminated after EFA.

After approximately three months of data collection, Table 4. Characteristics of the participants (N = 518)
518 effective surveys were returned. The sample area %
included Taiwan’s five largest cities: Taipei City, New Taipei
City, Taichung City, Tainan City and Kaohsiung City. These Area of residence Taipei City 22
New Taipei City 29
five cities are home to 52.7% of the domesticated dogs in
Taichung City 19
Taiwan (Animal Protection Information, 2009). The respon- Tainan City 12
dents reported participating in this study’s chosen activities Kaohsiung City 18
3.5 times on average during the year prior to the survey. The Gender Male 45.5
characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table 4. Female 54.5
Occupation Service sector 45.3
An assessment of normality showed that the data can be
Manufacture sector 23.1
considered normally distributed (Curran et al., 1996). Public sector 9.3
Students 6.6
Other 15.7
Relationship with pets Primary caretaker 44.8
FINDINGS
Secondary caretaker 38.5
Occasional caretaker 16.7
The measurement scale developed in the previous stages and Previous experience of Had at least one experience 66.2
the results gathered from the survey participants were taking pets to tourism Had no previous experience 33.8
examined using EFA and CFA (IBM, NY, USA) with the activities
Age (years) 18–20 4.6
use of SPSS AMOS 20. These analyses were conducted to vali-
21–30 46.5
date the measurement. To support the convergent validity, the 31–40 27.8
average variance extracted (AVE) for all dimensions should 41–50 5.6
exceed 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The CFA results in- 51–60 1.9
dicated that all factor loadings were greater than 0.5 and that 61 or above 0.4
they were statistically significant ( p < 0.001). In addition, the
results suggested that discriminant validity is based on the
comparison of squared pairwise correlations between con- Table 5. Correlations between constructs following confirmatory
structs and the AVE value for each construct. The square root factor analysis
of each construct (in bold print) should be greater than their
PSpC PIC PStC
correlations with the other constructs (Table 5). Therefore,
a
discriminant validity was achieved. PSpC 0.774
The composite reliability of the scale’s constructs was PIC 0.474** 0.712a
PStC 0.241** 0.518** 0.771a
also examined with CFA to ensure that the constructs were
internally consistent (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). According Note: PSpC, pet’s specific constraints; PIC, pet’s interpersonal constraints;
to Bagozzi and Kimmel (1995), a factor is deemed to be PStC, pet’s structural constraints.
a
Bold numbers on the diagonal parentheses are the square root of each
reliable if its composite reliability is greater than 0.6. All of construct’s average variance extracted value.
the constructs in this study had composite reliabilities greater **p < 0.01.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 315–324 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

than 0.8. These procedures led to acceptable model fit indices
(χ 2 = 261.417; df = 62; p < 0.001; root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.079; comparative fit index
(CFI) = 0.932; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.927; normed
fit index (NFI) = 0.913) (Table 6).
To assess the external validity of the measurement scale,
criterion validity was examined via correlation coefficients
(Kline, 2005). According to previous studies (Nyaupane
et al., 2004; White et al., 2008; Wilhelm Stanis et al., 2009),
participants with more constraints are less likely to participate
in a given activity. To test the influence of pet constraints on
owners’ intentions to bring their pets along when participating
in tourism activities, a structural model with a path from pet
constraints to intentions was tested in AMOS. The fit indices,
after considering owners’ intentions, suggested that the
model fit the data well (χ 2 = 310.726; df = 84; p < 0.001;
RMSEA = 0.072; CFI = 0.94; GFI = 0.924; NFI = 0.92).
While the contribution of pet constraints to owners’ intentions
to include pets when participating in tourism activities was ex-
amined with the resultant standardized coefficient, the variance
of the owners’ intentions explained by constraints was examined
by an R-squared analysis. The test results suggested that pet
constraints have a statistically significant negative effect on
owners’ intention (β = 1.69, t = 7.01, p < 0.001) and
explained 36.5% of the variance in the owners’ intentions to in-
clude pets when participating in tourism activities. A further in-
vestigation of the standardized coefficients was conducted to
determine which constraint factors contributed the most to the
construct. Pet’s interpersonal constraints contributed the most
to intentions (β = 0.503), followed by pet’s specific constraints
(β = 0.325) and pet’s structural constraints (β = 0.244).
After the above analysis was completed, owners who
went on overnight trips and owners who went on single-
day trips were considered separately. The results showed
Table 6. Performance of final measurement scale from confirmatory factor analysis (n = 518)
Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
Pet’s specific constraints (PSpC)
PSpc1: My pet lacks of self-control during the trip (e.g. over-excited and aggressive)
PSpc2: My pet is not suitable for this activity
PSpc3: My pet does not like to go out
PSpc4: My pet gets tired easily
Pet’s interpersonal constraints (PIC)
PIC1: Because some of the participants do not like animals, I feel
uncomfortable when participating in this activity with my pet
PIC2: No other participants in the activity take their pets
PIC3: My pet can be unfriendly to other human/animal participants
Pet’s structural constraints (PStC)
PStC1: Taking pets to a tourism activity involves greater costs
(e.g. dining, accommodation and transportation)
PStC2: I do not know anyone or any companies who can provide me information
about how to take my pet to participate in this activity
PStC3: This destination is not fitting for my pet (e.g. unclean environment)
PSsC4: Taking my pet to this activity is time consuming
PStC5: I cannot participate in this activity because I have to take care of my
pet at the same time
PStC6: There are no such areas/destinations near me
Note: SFL, standardized factor loadings; AVE, average variances extracted; CR; composite reliability.
a
All standardized factor loadings are statically significant, p < 0.001.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The Constraints to Take Dogs to Tourism Activities 321
that the three pet-related tourism constraints had negative
influences on both groups of owners. The next section
presents a discussion of this study’s findings in relation to
current literature and outlines the potential usefulness of this
study’s findings to practitioners.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Given that 40% of pet owners have taken their pets along on
tourism activities and that owners are willing to spend money
on their pets, business opportunities exist for tourism
practitioners (Cavanaugh et al., 2008; Ridgway et al.,
2008; K9 Magazine, 2012; tripadvisor, 2012). However,
there are pet-related tourism constraints (e.g. physical fitness,
other participants’ influences and the extra cost involved) that
owners need to overcome before and while engaging in these
tourism activities. Accordingly, the objectives of this study
were to explore pet-related constraints, formulate a reliable
and validated scale to measure pet constraints comprehen-
sively, examine the effect of pet constraints on owners’ tourism
intentions and identify implications to practitioners.
The first contribution of this study is it formulation of a
reliable and validated pet constraints scale based on Churchill’s
(1999) recommended steps. Through qualitative and quantita-
tive procedures, this scale covers a range of items that relate to
owners’ perceptions of their pets’ physical and mental abilities,
the influences of other participants, and the extra time and cost
involved. It should also be mentioned that this research
includes five different types of tourism activities. Previous
research that examines pets’ participation in leisure/tourism
activities mainly focused on one type of pet constraint (e.g.
agility) and/or one activity (e.g. walking in a park).
SFLa CR AVE
0.82 0.55
0.50
0.65
0.91
0.90
0.76 0.52
0.60
0.85
0.70
0.90 0.59
0.71
0.61
0.83
0.82
0.84
0.79
Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 315–324 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
322 A. H. Chen, N. Peng and K-p. Hung
The second contribution of this study is its examination of
the influence of pet constraints on owners’ intentions to
include pets when participating in tourism activities. Without
this examination, the scale’s implications for research and
practice would be limited. A negative relationship was found
between pet constraints and owners’ intentions. Considering that
intention is often an antecedent for behaviour (Ajzen, 1991),
greater pet constraints are associated with a lower likelihood
that owners will take their pets along when participating in
tourism activities. This phenomenon confirms and extends
the findings of previous studies on the theory of tourism
constraints (e.g. Gilbert and Hudson, 2000; Nyaupane
et al., 2004; Nyaupane and Andereck, 2008; White et al.,
2008; Hung and Petrick, 2010).
Among the three types of pet constraints considered, pets’
interpersonal constraints were found to have the most
significant impact on owners’ intentions, whereas pets’ specific
and structural constraints were found to have slightly less
impact. By taking the feedback gathered during the qualitative
stage of this study into account, one interpretation of this result
is that owners are concerned about whether their dogs will
disturb others and whether others like to participate in activities
with pets (e.g. family, friends and other participants).
Hultsman (2012) and Miller and Howell’s (2008) noted that
other participants’ views on participating in tourism activities
in locations where animal companions will be present can
be difficult to predict, manage and alter. Another interpreta-
tion of this outcome is that owners’ perceptions of pets’
specific and structural constraints are easier to overcome.
For instance, pets’ physical abilities have less influence if
owners avoid taking dogs to sporting activities, and pets’
structural constraints can be reduced if accommodation is
not needed (e.g. one-day trip).
Third, tourism practitioners and attraction managers can
provide better services to existing and potential visitors, if
doing so is in their interest, by alleviating the burdens of
travelling with animal companions. For example, based on
a destination’s objectives and available resources, an
attraction manager can use the scale developed in this study
to predict and monitor the number of owners who bring their
pets when visiting. This scale allows destination managers
and planners to find a balance between visitors with different
attitudes towards pets participating in tourism activities.
Furthermore, operators can provide useful information that
will be needed by pet owners, for example nearby pet-friendly
accommodations and transportation services, directions to and
instructions for designated areas and activities for pets and their
owners, and the locations of washrooms for visitors who travel
with their pets. Operators can also encourage participants’
friends and family members to bring their pets along as well
(e.g. by offering discounted group tickets to owners who bring
their pets). It should be noted that some constraints are easier to
overcome than others. For instance, if a pet is physically unfit
for a particular activity, then a destination manager’s efforts
to attract that pet’s owner to visit with his or her pet would have
little effect.
In addition to the above contributions, the findings of this
study also advance the existing research in this field in a num-
ber of ways. First, this study’s findings add to the existing
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
literature (e.g. Greenebaum, 2004; Carr, 2009; Chen et al.,
2011), postulating that when examining pets’ participation in
non-routine activities, pets’ constraints ought to be considered.
Furthermore, this research contributes to tourism research on
constraints by providing an updated approach to understanding
when an activity has multiple participants (Fodness and
Murray, 1999; March and Woodside, 2005). Until recently,
studies on tourism constraints have focused on the key
participants’ interpersonal, intrapersonal and structural con-
straints (e.g. Nyaupane et al., 2004; Son et al., 2008; White
et al., 2008; Wilhelm Stanis et al., 2009) while overlooking
the potential influence of their dependents. This study’s
approach may yield valuable insights for future tourism partic-
ipation studies involving scenarios with multiple participants.
Few previous tourism studies have combined qualitative
and quantitative methods when examining participant
behaviour (Hung and Petrick, 2010). In recent years, many
studies on this subject have used quantitative methods
(e.g. Alexandris et al., 2007; Son et al., 2008; Huang and
Hsu, 2009). According to Hung and Petrick (2010), the
limitation of using only quantitative methods is that the
items considered are often selected based on the researchers’
assumptions or previous studies’ procedures, without the
researchers thoroughly considering the uniqueness of their
research contexts. The results of this study, conducted
using both quantitative and qualitative methods, are
expected to contribute not only to the anthrozoology liter-
ature but also to the understanding of tourism constraints
and participation.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES
Despite the contributions mentioned above, this study has some
limitations. Because relevant research on this issue has been
scarce, this research focused on a simple context in which the
owner acts as the decision maker when considering whether
to take his or her dog along when participating in a tourism
activity and in which there are only two types of behaviour
(participation with pets and nonparticipation). Future research
should evaluate different contexts (e.g. family members jointly
deciding whether to include pets in tourism activities) and
changes in owners’ tourism choices when their pets cannot
participate in certain activities, as well as the frequency of these
changes. Second, consideration of five domestic activities gives
this study’s results additional generalizability. Nevertheless,
each activity’s separate constraints for pets and owners might
be overlooked. Future examination of these activities
separately, before confirming that the constraints are similar,
would improve the performance of the scale developed in this
study. Third, this research only considered variables that
negatively influence owners’ intentions. Future research
should consider formulation of a comprehensive model to
examine owners’ decisions to take or not take pets along
when participating in tourism activities. In particular, facili-
tating factors (e.g. motivation and negotiation strategies)
and inhibiting factors (e.g. pet-related tourism constraints)
should both be considered.
Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 315–324 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

CONCLUSIONS
This study has contributed in the following ways to answer-
ing the question of how animal companions influence their
owners’ tourism participation. First, this work investigated
pet-related constraints that prohibit owners from participat-
ing in tourism activities with their dogs. Second, this study
modified existing leisure constraints to develop a scale to
consider pets’ tourism constraints. Third, this work identified
13 items that can be used to examine pet-related constraints
when owners plan to include pets in tourism activities. These
items can be classified into three categories: pets’ specific
constraints, pets’ interpersonal constraints and pets’ structural
constraints. Finally, this study identified ways for tourism
operators (e.g. managers and planners) to use this study’s
findings to attract pet owners and provide better service to
this fast-growing market segment.
REFERENCES
tripadvisor. 2012. Traveling with pets for the dogs, according
to TripAdvisor survey. Available at http://www.tripadvisor.
com/PressCenter-i2275-c1-Press_Releases.html (accessed 12
September 2010).
Aaker DA, Kumar V, Day GS. 2003 Marketing Research (8th).
John Wiley: New York.
Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.
Albert A, Bulcroft K. 1988. Pets, families, and the life course.
Journal of Marriage and the Family 50(2): 543–552.
Alexandris K, Kouthouris C, Girgolas G. 2007. Investing the
relationships among motivation, negotiation, and Alpine skiing
participation. Journal of Leisure Research 39(4): 648–667.
American Veterinary Medical Association. 2009. Traveling
with your pet. Available at https://ebusiness.avma.org/
EBusiness50/files/productdownloads/traveling_brochure.pdf
(accessed 15 March 2011).
Animal Protection Information. 2009. Law forum. Available at
http://animal.coa.gov.tw/html/index.php?
main=10h&page=10_law_a00 (accessed 12 September 2010).
Aylesworth A, Chapman K, Dobscha S. 1999. Animal companions
and marketing: dogs are more than just a cell in the BCG matrix!
Advances in Consumer Research 26: 385–90.
Backman SJ, Crompton JL. 1989. Discriminating between
continuers and discontinuers of two public leisure services.
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 7(4): 56–71.
Bagozzi RP, Kimmel SK. 1995. A comparison of leading theories
for the prediction of goal directed behaviours. British Journal
of Social Psychology 34(4): 437–461.
Belk RW. 1996. Metaphoric relationships with pets. Society and
Animals 4(2): 121–146.
Buchanan T, Allen LR. 1985. Barriers to recreation participation in
later life cycle stages. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 19(3):
39–50.
Carr N. 2009. EDITORIAL. Animals in the tourism and leisure
experience. Current Issues in Tourism 12(5/6): 409–411.
Carr N, Cohen S. 2009. Holiday with the family pet: no dogs
allowed! Tourism and Hospitality Research 9(4): 290–304.
Cavanaugh LA, Leonard HA, Scammon DL. 2008. A tail of two
personalities: how canine companions shape relationships and
well-being. Journal of Business Research 61(5): 469–479.
Chen A-H, Hung K-P, Peng N. 2011. Planned leisure behaviour and
pet attachment. Annals of Tourism Research 38(4): 1657–1662.
Chuang Y-C. 2008. Important information when travelling and
transporting canine and feline. Available at: http://animal.coa.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The Constraints to Take Dogs to Tourism Activities 323
gov.tw/html/index.php?main=3h&page=03_care_a07 (accessed
15 March 2011).
Churchill GA. 1999. Marketing Research: Methodological Founda-
tions (2nd). Dryden: Fort Worth, TX.
Cohen E. 1979. A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Sociology
13(2): 179–201.
Crawford DW, Godbey G. 1987. Reconceptualizing barriers to
family leisure. Leisure Sciences 9(2): 119–127.
Crawford DW, Jackson EL, Godbey G. 1991. A hierarchical model
of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences 13(4): 309–320.
Curran, PJ, West, SG, Finch, JF. 1996. The robustness of test
statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory
factor analysis. Psychological Methods 1(1): 16–29.
Dickinson JE, Robbins D. 2008. Representations of tourism transport
problems in a rural destination. Tourism Management 29(6):
1110–1121.
Fodness D, Murray B. 1999. A model of tourist information search
behavior. Journal of Travel Research 37(3): 220–230.
Fornell C, Larcker D. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal
of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.
Funk DC, Alexandris K, Ping Y. 2009. To go or stay home and
watch: exploring the balance between motives and perceived
constraints for major events: a case study of the 2008 Beijing
Olympic Games. International Journal of Tourism Research
11(1): 41–53.
Gilbert D, Hudson S. 2000. Tourism demand constraints – a skiing
participation. Annals of Tourism Research 27(4): 906–925.
Gillespie DI, Leffler A, Lerner E. 2002. If it weren’t for my hobby, I’d
have a life: dog sports, serious leisure, and boundary negotiations.
Leisure Studies 21(3/4): 285–304.
Goeldner CR, Ritchie JRB. 2006. Tourism: Principles, Practices,
Philosophies (10th). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken,
New Jersey.
Greenebaum J. 2004. It’s a dog’s life: elevating status from pet to
“Fur Baby” at Yappy hour. Society and Animals 12(2): 117–135.
Hackley C. 2003. Doing Research Projects in Marketing, Manage-
ment and Consumer Research. Routledge: London.
Hatcher L. 1994. A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System
for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. SAS:
Cary, NC.
Huang S(S), Hsu CHC. 2009. Effects of travel motivation, past
experience, perceived constraint, and attitude on revisit inten-
tion. Journal of Travel Research 48(1): 29–44.
Hultsman WZ. 2012. Couple involvement in serious leisure:
examining participation in dog agility. Leisure Studies 31(2):
231–253.
Hung K, Petrick JF. 2010. Developing a measurement scale for con-
straints to cruising. Annals of Tourism Research 37(1): 206–228.
Hung K, Petrick JF. 2012. Why do you cruise? Exploring the
motivations for taking cruise holidays, and the construction
of a cruising motivation scale. Tourism Management 32(2):
386–393.
Jackson EL. 2000. Will research on leisure constraints still be
relevant in the twenty-first century? Journal of Leisure Research
32(1): 62–68.
Jackson EL, Scott D. 1999. Constraints to leisure. In Jackson EL,
Burton TL (eds). Leisure Studies. Venture Publishing, Inc.: State
College, PA; 299–321.
K9 Magazine. 2012. Pet friendly Britain: planning a pet friendly
holiday. Available at http://www.k9magazine.com/pet-friendly-
britain-planning-pet-friendly-holiday/ (accessed 10 October,
2012).
Kline RB. 2005. Principles and Practices of Structural Equation
Modeling (2nd). The Guilford Press: New York, NY.
Lancendorfer KM, Atkin JL, Reece BB. 2008. Animals in adver-
tising: love dogs? Love the ad! Journal of Business Research
61(5): 384–391.
Lee N-H, Koo T-Y, Wu G-S, Yu T-K. 2004. Construction of the
behavioral tendency model of tourist in Kinmen. Journal of
Management 24(1): 131–151.
Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 315–324 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
324 A. H. Chen, N. Peng and K-p. Hung
Liao DC. 2004. Pet market’s growth potential is enormous. Available at
http://www.newtaiwan.com.tw/bulletinview.jsp?bulletinid=13678
(access 12 September 2010).
March R, Woodside AG. 2005. Tourism Behaviour. CABI:
Oxfordshire, UK.
Masson S, Petiot R. 2009. Can the high speed rail reinforce tourism
attractiveness? The case of the high speed rail between
Perpignan (France) and Barcelona (Spain). Technovation 29(9):
611–617.
Miller R, Howell GVJ. 2008. Regulating consumption with bite:
building a contemporary framework for urban dog management.
Journal of Business Research 61(5): 525–531.
Nadirova A, Jackson EL. 2000. Alternative criterion variables
against which to assess the impact of constraints to leisure.
Journal of Leisure Research 32(1): 396–405
Nyaupane GP, Andereck KL. 2008. Understanding travel constraints:
application and extension of leisure constraints model. Journal of
Travel Research 46(4): 433–439.
Nyaupane GP, Morais DB, Graefe AR. 2004. Nature tourism
constraints: a cross-activity comparison. Annals of Tourism
Research 31(3): 540–555.
Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association. 2009a. Pet population
figures 09. Available at http://www.pfma.org.uk/overall/pet-
population-figures-.htm (accessed 12 September 2010).
Pet Food Manufacturers’ Association. 2009b. Ownership trends 08.
Available at http://www.pfma.org.uk/overall/pet-pop-08.htm
(accessed 12 September 2010).
Ridgway NM, Kukar-Kinney M, Monroe KB, Chamberlin E. 2008.
Does excessive buying for self relate to spending on pets?
Journal of Business Research 61(5): 392–396.
Roy D. 2003. Taiwan: A Political History. Cornell University Press:
New York.
Schlich R, Schonfelder S, Hanson S, Axhausen KW. 2004. Struc-
tures of leisure travel: temporal and spatial variability. Transport
Reviews 24(2): 219–237.
Serpell JA. 2003. Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection
– beyond the ‘cute response’. Society and Animals 11(1): 83–100.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Shankar A, Elliott R, Goulding C. 2001. Understanding consump-
tion: contributions from a narrative perspective. Journal of
Marketing Management 17(3/4): 429–453.
Shore ER, Douglas DK, Riley ML. 2005. What’s in it for the
companion animal? Pet attachment and college students’
behaviours toward pets. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare
Science 8(1): 1–11.
Son JS, Mowen AJ, Kerstetter DL. 2008. Testing alternative leisure
constraint negotiation models: an extension of Hubbard and
Mannell’s study. Leisure Sciences 30(3): 198–216.
Sweeney JC, Soutar, GN. 2001. Consumer perceived value: the
development of multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing 77(2):
203–222.
Tkaczynski A, Rundle-Thiele S, Beaumont N. 2010. Destination
segmentation: a recommended two-step approach. Journal of
Travel Research 49(2): 130–152.
Tourist Bureau. 2009. Republic of China 98 – An Investigation and
Report of Citizen’s Tourism Condition. Tourism Bureau. MOTC,
Planning Division: Taiwan.
Urry J. 2002. Tourist Gaze. Sage Publication Inc.: New York, NY.
Veal AJ. 2005. Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism – A
Practical Guide (3rd). Pearson Education: Essex, UK.
White KM, Thomas I, Johnston KL, Hyde MK. 2008. Predicting
attendance at peer-assisted study sessions for statistics: role
identity and the theory of planned behavior. The Journal of
Social Psychology 148(4): 473–491.
Wilhelm Stanis SA, Schneider IE, Russell KC. 2009. Leisure
time physical activity of park visitors: retesting constraint
models in adoption and maintenance stages. Leisure Sciences
31(4): 287–304.
Woodside AG, Caldwell M, Spurr R. 2005. Ecological systems
in lifestyle, leisure and travel behaviour. In March
R, Woodside AG (eds). Tourism Behaviour. CABI: Oxfordshire,
UK; 1–65.
Zasloff RL. 1996. Measuring attachment to companion animals: a
dog is not a cat is not a bird. Applied Animal Behaviour Science
47(1): 43–48.
Int. J. Tourism Res., 16: 315–324 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr