Is the Australian domestic holiday a thing of the past? Understanding baby boomer,Generation X and Generation Y perceptions and attitude to domestic and international holidays

Abstract

This study adopts a generational perspective to understand the shift in domestic and international travel motivations of Australians. In consideration of the largest and most dominant travel consumers at present, the Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y cohorts, the study reveals significant differences between the cohorts’ value perceptions, attitude and intention associated with domestic holidays. However, the findings revealed no significant differences between the cohorts in Australians’ value perceptions and attitude towards international holidays. The study offers important insights for destination marketers seeking ways to address changes in tourism demand from a generational perspective, particularly those seeking to target the Australian tourism market.

Keywords

Australian tourism Baby Boomer domestic tourism Generation X Generation Y travel behaviour

Introduction

Generational differences in consumer travel demands are affecting travel consumption (Gardiner et al., 2013; Glover and Prideaux, 2008; Patterson and Pegg, 2009). Thus, understanding generational differences in travel beliefs, attitudes and intentions is critical to ensure destinations are attractive to each new generation of travellers. Since the end of World War II, major generational changes have occurred in the tourism industry. For instance, during the post-war period in Australia, holidays were mostly car oriented, focused on seaside and other destinations within driving distance from the person’s principal place of residence (Andreck et al., 2012). The advent of long-range aircraft, increased airline routes and ports and the affordability of travel has made international travel attainable to more people around the world, not just a luxury of the wealthy elite. Today, travellers easily and more frequently visit exotic and remote places that were difficult to access in the past. The breadth of destination choice has led to considerable competition within the tourism marketplace (Crouch, 2011). The Internet has made people more aware of world events and destinations and provides a convenient and easy-to-use platform to research and book travel. These technology advancements have eroded geographic boundaries, thus affording tourists the opportunity to seek out and travel to remote foreign locations with ease. As a consequence, the consumption of tourism has been highly revolutionized (Minghetti and Buhalis, 2010). Yet not all destinations have triumphed from increased outbound travel. In countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and Japan, domestic travel has declined (Voigt et al., 2010). Consequently, some tourism economies, such as Australia, are now in deficit, with more residents travelling overseas than international visitors visiting the country.

In response, destination-marketing organizations, like Tourism Australia, have adopted a generational viewpoint to understand this trend (Australian Government, 2008). Academic researchers have also adopted a generational perspective to explain changes in travel demand (Cleaver and Muller, 2002; Gardiner et al., 2013, 2014; Glover and Prideaux, 2008). Generational cohort analysis assigns group membership based on year of birth, proposing that the unique life experience of each cohort shapes its members’ lifelong beliefs, values and attitudes (Arsenault, 2004; Wuest et al., 2008). That is, growing up and experiencing each life stage within a particular historical and social milieu results in a ‘generation gap’ between members of different generational cohorts (Oppewal et al., 2010). Such a deeper and wider understanding of consumer behaviour is considered important for managing and planning the changing tourism market described above.

In seeking to contribute insight with respect to contemporary tourist behaviour, this study draws upon value-expectancy theory to reveal similarities and differences between Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y travellers. The objective is to uncover generational differences in holiday value expectations, attitudes and intentions. Specifically, this study explores generational views on domestic and international holidays by Australians to reveal the reasons for generational shifts in travel demand in this population. As the Australian tourism industry has experienced a significant decline in domestic travel (by Australians) over the past decade, the research context of this study is particularly appropriate.

The article begins by establishing the background and context of the study. The literature on generational cohort analysis and value-expectancy theory is then reviewed to provide a foundation for understanding similarities and differences in the travel behaviour of generational cohorts. Subsequent sections present the methodology and the results of data collection. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of the findings and associated implications for policy and management, prior to outlining the research limitations and directions for future research in this important area.

Study background and context

Most studies on tourist behaviour tend to focus on inbound international visitors because these visitors bring export income into an economy. Yet domestic tourism provides the foundation for the tourism industry in most countries, representing approximately 70% of total world demand for commercial tourist accommodation (Hall, 2007). Although domestic tourists far outnumber international tourists both globally and within most countries, domestic travel is understudied, principally the result of a lack of government investment in domestic tourism marketing and research. Governments perceive domestic tourism as merely distributing wealth from one location to another within the home country, instead of bringing money into the national economy as international tourism does (Weaver and Lawton, 2006). However, domestic travel has the advantage of preventing money from leaking out of the national economy. Further, domestic tourism is important for regional economic development because domestic tourists tend to travel beyond the main cities typically frequented by international travellers (Hall, 2007). For these reasons, understanding consumers’ differences in perceptions, attitudes and intentions with respect to domestic and international holidays is particularly important to countries seeking to promote domestic travel among their residents.

The setting of this research is the Australian leisure travel market. Similar to the tourism situation in other countries (Hall, 2007), domestic tourism is the mainstay of the Australian tourism industry – worth AU$48.3 billion to Australia’s economy and generates over 71 million overnight trips and 161 million day trips annually (Australian Government, 2012a). Nonetheless, Australians are travelling and spending less on domestic travel than in the past. Figure 1 shows the downturn in domestic trips by Australians between 2001 and 2011. Domestic day trips declined by 3.6% and overnight trips declined by 6.6% over this period (Australian Government, 2012b). Furthermore, the portion tourism contributed to household consumption has decreased from 14.3% to 12.3% between 1998 and 2005 (Australian Government, 2007). New Zealand and the United Kingdom have seen similar declines in domestic travel (Australian Government, 2007). Domestic visitation recovered slightly from 2010 onwards, with domestic overnight trips by Australian residents growing by 2.7% between 2011 and 2013, from 4.17 million to 4.29 million trips (Australian Government, 2014). Yet domestic tourism activity, as a percentage of Australia’s gross domestic product and expenditure share, has fallen relative to the rest of the Australian economy, evoking concern that the tradition of an annual domestic holiday will be lost by younger Australians (Australian Government, 2009). This decline in domestic travel has occurred during a period (2003/04–2009/10) when both household consumption and net wealth in Australia have increased (Australian Government, 2010, 2011a).

Figure 1.

Domestic and international trips by Australians. Source: Australian Government (2012b; 2012c).

Tourism Australia suggests that the primary reasons for the decline in domestic travel in Australia are that Australians are travelling less frequently and for shorter periods, allocating a smaller portion of household consumption to tourism activity and increasing travel overseas (Australian Government, 2010). Outbound travel by Australians has grown dramatically over the past decade, increasing from 3.2 million outbound trips in 2001 to 6.8 million outbound trips in 2011 (Australian Government, 2012c). Figure 1 contrasts the growth in international travel by Australians with the decline in domestic travel over this period.

Given the observed shift in Australian travel consumption between domestic and international travel, this study aims to explore generational views on domestic and international holidays to provide insight as to whether generational differences are a contributing factor. The study has particular reference to the Australian tourism industry. However, the findings are relevant to other countries that are experiencing similar declines in domestic tourism, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and Japan (Voigt et al., 2010). As a result, the findings inform the development of marketing strategy across broader international markets and have implications for domestic and international tourism.

Generational cohort analysis and travel

This study concentrates on the Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964), Generation X (born 1965 to 1976) and Generation Y (born 1977 to 1994). These cohorts were selected for this study because they represent the largest adult consumer groups at present, ranging in age from 20 to 68 years. These cohorts and their time frames are also the most frequently cited in the generational literature (e.g. Norum, 2003; Wuest et al., 2008).

Some pioneering research has investigated the travel behaviour of particular cohorts. Examples include studies of Generation Y’s preferences regarding online travel retailers (Nusair et al., 2011), perceptions of green restaurants (Janga et al., 2011), tourism experience authenticity (Chhabra, 2010), future travel demands (Trembath, 2008) and interest in backpacker travel (Sparks et al., 2005). Benckendorff et al. (2010) also recently published a book on ‘Tourism and Generation Y’. However, whilst these investigations provide some initial insights into Generation Y travel decision-making, many are based on student samples and do not reflect the full age or demographic range of the Generation Y cohort. The literature seems to contain no single-generation studies of Generation X tourism, and the broader consumer behaviour literature also reflects light attention to Generation X consumers. Indeed this group is often referred to as the ‘lost generation’ (Heaney, 2007: 198).

In contrast, the generational tourism literature contains extensive research and commentary on Baby Boomers (Lehto et al., 2008), not only describing these consumers but also exploring their propensity to travel (Severt et al., 2009). Studies also characterize the market potential of the Baby Boomer segment, including the possibility of developing ecotourism/adventure experiences (Cleaver et al., 2000; Muller and Cleaver, 2000). Results from these studies drive tourism product development (Prideaux et al., 2001) as well as the need to reposition destinations (Prideaux, 2007) and tourist experiences (Lehto et al., 2008) to meet Baby Boomers’ consumer demands. Baby Boomers have been the focus of most generational travel research principally because of the cohort’s size, economic influence and potential impact on the future of the tourism industry, as its members retire from the paid workforce over the next decade.

From a cross-generational perspective, several studies demonstrate differences in the travel preferences and behaviour across cohorts. For example, a cross-generational study found differences between Generation X, Baby Boomer and other older generational cohorts in preferences for tourist experiences such as national parks, accommodations and shopping (Pennington-Gray et al., 2003). Other investigations found differences between Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y travellers in the source of information and preferred activities and destination attributes (Australian Government, 2011b) and their travel decision-making (Gardiner et al., 2013). However, other tourism studies could not find differences between the generational cohorts. For example, across all cohorts, word of mouth was the most useful communication tactic (Fall, 2004). Similarly, both Baby Boomer and Generation X cohort members increased their use of online information search behaviour between 1995 and 2000 (Beldona, 2005). Another study explored motivations and inhibitors related to conference attendance across Generation X and Baby Boomer cohorts (Severt et al., 2009).

As the above studies demonstrate, evidence of cross-generational differences remains inconclusive. Nevertheless, looking at travel consumption through a generational lens is widely accepted, supporting further investigation of cross-generational similarities and differences in beliefs about travel consumption. With this in mind, this study aims to extend the generational tourism literature to include previously under-researched Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y consumers’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding travel. To do this, this study draws on the well-established consumer behaviour theory of value expectations to unpack similarities and differences between the generations.

Conceptual framework and research questions

The value-expectancy theory underpins the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) and theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1988), which have been used extensively in the tourism literature to explain tourist behaviour (e.g. Lam and Hsu, 2006; Sparks and Wen Pan, 2009). Value expectancy posits that behaviour is a function of one’s expectations and the value of the goal that they seek from consumption. Thus, consumers form expectations about what they might experience on their trip before departing as they dream and fantasize about their holiday. As shown in Figure 2, these expectations affect their attitude towards the experience and intention to purchase it (Ajzen, 1991). Travel is perceived to offer opportunities to arouse positive feelings or affective states, such as happiness, excitement and tranquillity, thus, can offer emotional value (EV) (Sheth et al., 1991; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001). The opportunity to engage in new and unfamiliar experiences on a trip may also afford novelty value (NV) (Assaker et al., 2010; Lee and Crompton, 1992; Sheth et al., 1991). Consumers also evaluate the cost and expected performance or benefit of the trip, thus considering its value for money and quality (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Zeithaml, 1988). Consideration of generational differences in these value perceptions, as well as attitudes and intentions with respect to domestic and international leisure holidays, is the focus of this study, thereby addressing the following research questions:

RQ1: How do Australian generations differ in their beliefs, attitude and intention towards domestic holidays?

RQ2: How do Australian generations differ in their beliefs, attitude and intention towards international holidays?

RQ3: How does each Australian generation compare domestic and international holidays?

Figure 2.

Motivational factors that influence the perceived value, attitude and intention to travel.

An online survey of Australian Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y consumers was undertaken to address these research questions.

Method

This study measures six constructs presented in Figure 2 – emotional value (EV), novelty value (NV), value for money or price value (PV), quality value (QV), attitude towards travel (AT) and intention to travel (IN) – to answer the three research questions. The following sections present the scale used to measure each construct. Discussion of the format of the online questionnaire, the sample frame and the approach to data analysis then follows.

Survey instrument

Questionnaire items used to measure the six constructs were adapted from existing scales. Each item was tested in both a domestic and an international context, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. The PERVAL scale (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001) was adapted to a tourism context to measure EV, PV and QV in this study. Since the PERVAL scale measures value beliefs about durable goods, it does not include NV, which is a feature of a tourism product. Accordingly, items were adapted from the scale of tourism NV (Assaker et al., 2010). Items to measure AT and IN were adapted from scales in previous tourism studies (Sparks and Wen Pan, 2009; Williams and Soutar, 2009). All items were measured using a 7-point Likert level of agreement scale, consistent with the recommendations of Malhotra (2010).

Table 1.

Domestic travel survey items and factor analysis for the full study.

Construct	FL	AVE	Cronbach’s α
EV		84.83%	0.95
Taking a holiday in Australia is enjoyable.	0.94
Taking a holiday in Australia is exciting.	0.96
Taking a holiday in Australia makes me feel good.	0.97
Taking a holiday in Australia gives me pleasure.	0.96
Taking a holiday in Australia gives me a sense of accomplishment.	0.76
NV		74.47%	0.91
Taking a holiday in Australia is something different.	0.85
Taking a holiday in Australia is unique.	0.82
Taking a holiday in Australia increases my knowledge.	0.90
Taking a holiday in Australia offers variety.	0.89
Taking a holiday in Australia is something I can talk about when I get home.	0.85
PV		90.14%	0.96
Holidays in Australia are reasonably priced.	0.95
Holidays in Australia offer value for money.	0.97
Holidays in Australia are a good experience for the price.	0.94
Holidays in Australia are economical.	0.95
QV		84.76%	0.94
Holidays in Australia offer consistent quality.	0.88
Holidays in Australia are well done.	0.95
Holidays in Australia offer an acceptable standard of quality.	0.92
Holidays in Australia are well organized.	0.93
AT		93.32%	0.96
Holidays in Australia are good.	0.96
I like holidays in Australia.	0.98
I have a favourable attitude towards holidays in Australia.	0.96
IN		79.16%	0.87
I would recommend a holiday in Australia to others.	0.80
I intend to go on a holiday in Australia in the near future.	0.94
I am likely to go on a holiday in Australia in the next 12 months.	0.92

EV: emotional value; FL: factor loading; AVE: average variance explained; NV: novelty value; QV: quality value; PV: price value; AT: attitude; IN: intention.

Table 2.

International travel survey items and factor analysis for the full study.

Construct	FL	AVE	Alpha
EV		88.27%	0.97
Taking an international holiday is enjoyable.	0.95
Taking an international holiday is exciting.	0.96
Taking an international holiday makes me feel good.	0.97
Taking an international holiday gives me pleasure.	0.97
Taking an international holiday gives me a sense of accomplishment.	0.84
NV		77.80%	0.93
Taking an international holiday is something different.	0.89
Taking an international holiday is unique.	0.79
Taking an international holiday increases my knowledge.	0.91
Taking an international holiday offers variety.	0.93
Taking an international holiday is something I can talk about when I get home.	0.89
PV		84.14%	0.94
International holidays are reasonably priced.	0.93
International holidays offer value for money.	0.96
International holidays are a good experience for the price.	0.89
International holidays are economical.	0.89
QV		80.98%	0.92
International holidays offer consistent quality.	0.84
International holidays are well done.	0.94
International holidays offer an acceptable standard of quality.	0.91
International holidays are well organized.	0.91
AT		93.89%	0.97
International holidays are good.	0.97
I like international holidays.	0.98
I have a favourable attitude towards international holidays.	0.96
IN		78.22%	0.86
I would recommend an international holiday to others.	0.81
I intend to go on an international holiday in the near future.	0.93
I am likely to go on an international holiday in the next 12 months.	0.90

FL: factor loading; AVE: average variance explained; alpha: Cronbach’s alpha; EV: emotional value; NV: novelty value; QV: quality value; PV: price value; AT: attitude; IN: intention.

A pilot study (N = 50) was conducted to purify the scale measures. The pilot study data show that each factor is a unidimensional and reliable measure of that construct, resulting in factor loadings of 0.81 or greater, average variance explained of 0.57 or greater and Cronbach’s α values of 0.89 or greater. These results are above acceptable limits (Malhotra, 2010). Further, feedback solicited from study participants suggested that item wording presented no clarity problems. For these reasons, no changes were made to the scales following the pilot study.

Sampling and data analysis

This study adopts an age-stratified quota sample for each generational cohort to ensure that the early, middle and late aged members of each cohort were represented. A stratified sample method ensured that all subgroups, or strata, of the population are adequately represented (Bouma, 2000). As a result, each year of birth represented at least 3.1% and not more than 10.7% of the total sample of each cohort, as shown in Appendix 1. A 50/50 gender split was also incorporated into the quota sampling criteria.

Through a third-party professional marketing listing company, 14,300 potential participants who were born between 1946 and 1994 in Australia and were currently living in Australia were sent an email invitation to participate in the study. A total of 964 respondents commenced the survey before the quota limits were achieved and the survey was closed, yielding 727 fully completed questionnaires. Cases with missing data appeared random and were removed from analysis (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). In addition, 95 cases who indicated they were not born and/or currently living in Australia were removed from the analysis. Statistical Program for Social Sciences software was employed for data analysis, providing descriptive statistics, factor analysis to test the reliability and validity of the constructs, comparison of means using analyses of variance (with Scheffe’s post hoc comparisons) and t-tests to investigate differences between cohort groups.

Results

Respondents’ profile

Table 3 presents the demographic profile for each generational sample. As would be expected, demographic differences were evident across the cohorts. For example, given the age of each cohort, it is not unexpected that Generation X (49.6%) had the highest proportion of full-time employed respondents, Generation Y (34.0%) had the highest proportion of part-time/casual employed respondents and the Baby Boomers had the highest proportion of retired respondents (27.4%). Similarly, the sample profile reflects the typical life stage of each cohort. Almost half of Generation Y were single with no children at home (48.4%), Generation X were married/de facto with children at home (53.7%) and Baby Boomers were married/de facto with no children at home (44.7%). Overall, the Generations X and Y samples were better educated than the Baby Boomer sample, as 32.2% of Generation X and 35.9% Generation Y had a university degree compared with 17.6% of Baby Boomer respondents. This result reflects access to tertiary education afforded by the younger generations. Annual household income varied across all three cohorts, with most respondents in the middle income range. However, it is important to note that, whilst differences between the cohorts occur in the mix of employment and family status, education levels and annual household incomes, no single category dominates the sample for each cohort. That is, the samples are suitably diverse.

Table 3.

Profile for the generational cohort samples.

Variable	Category	% of Baby Boomer sample	% of Generation X sample	% of Generation Y sample
Employment status	Full-time employed	27.1	49.6	36.6
	Part-time/casual employed	20.4	16.5	34.0
	Not employed	14.8	24.0	15.7
	Retired	27.4	1.7	0.7
	Self-employed	10.3	8.3	2.0
	Other	0	0	11.1
Family status	Single (no children at home)	12.3	25.6	48.4
	Single (with children at home)	2.5	5.0	6.5
	Married/de facto (no children at home)	44.7	14.9	17.0
	Married/de facto (with children at home)	22.9	53.7	17.6
	Divorced/widowed (no children at home)	11.2	0.8	2.0
	Divorced/widowed (with children at home)	5.3	0	1.3
	Other	1.1	0	7.2
Education level	High school or below or other	44.7	24.8	39.9
	Certificate, diploma or trade qualification	37.7	43.0	24.2
	University degree	17.6	32.2	35.9
Annual household income	Less than $25,000	15.9	14.0	18.3
	$25,001–$50,000	32.4	14.9	15.7
	$50,001–$75,000	21.8	24.8	23.5
	$75,001–$100,000	13.7	19.8	19.0
	More than $100,000	16.2	26.4	23.5

Factor analysis

Factor analysis (N = 632) was conducted to ensure the items in each scale were reliable and valid measures of the underlying construct. Overall, the factor loadings ranged from 0.76 to 0.98, the average variance explained ranged from 0.73 to 0.94 and the reliability of constructs ranged from 0.87 to 0.97. These results are within acceptable ranges (Malhotra, 2010). Tables 1 and 2 present the factor analysis results for full study data.

RQ1 and RQ2: Generational views on domestic and international holidays

Respondents were assigned to one of the three cohorts based on their year of birth to compare cross-generational value perceptions, attitude and intention. Of the 632 respondents, there were 358 Baby Boomer, 121 Generation X and 153 Generation Y members. These weightings reflect the quotas imposed on the sample. Tables 4 and 5 report the results of this analysis. The findings show that all three cohorts have positive value perceptions, attitudes and intentions towards domestic and international holidays, with means of 4.45 or greater on items relating to domestic holidays and 4.33 or greater on items relating to international holidays on a 7-point scale.

Table 4.

Generational comparisons of perceived value, attitude and intention towards domestic travel.

	Mean^a (SD)	Test statistic	Significant differences at 0.05 level
EV
Baby Boomer	6.18 (1.03)	F(2, 629) = 22.24, p = <0.01	Baby Boomer and Generation X cohorts have significantly more positive emotional perceptions of domestic travel than Generation Y cohort.
Generation X	5.98 (.99)
Generation Y	5.47 (1.33)
NV
Baby Boomer	5.71 (1.19)	F(2, 629) = 9.63, p = <0.01	Baby Boomer and Generation X cohorts have significantly novelty value perceptions of domestic travel than Generation Y cohort.
Generation X	5.65 (1.01)
Generation Y	5.22 (1.23)
PV
Baby Boomer	4.45 (1.71)	F(2, 629) = 6.42, p = 0.02	Generation X and Generation Y cohorts significantly exceed Baby Boomer cohort’s value for money perceptions of domestic travel.
Generation X	4.86 (1.33)
Generation Y	4.92 (1.26)
QV
Baby Boomer	5.03 (1.32)	F(2, 629) = 0.16, p = 0.85	No significant difference between the generational cohorts.
Generation X	5.11 (1.15)
Generation Y	5.06 (1.12)
AT
Baby Boomer	6.06 (1.10)	F(2, 629) = 17.37, p = <0.01	Baby Boomer and Generation X cohort have significantly more positive attitude towards domestic travel than Generation Y cohort.
Generation X	5.88 (1.10)
Generation Y	5.41 (1.28)
IN
Baby Boomer	5.81 (1.33)	F(2, 629) = 7.61, p = <0.01	Baby Boomer and Generation X cohort have significantly greater intention to take a domestic trip than Generation Y cohort.
Generation X	5.71 (1.26)
Generation Y	5.30 (1.39)

EV: emotional value; NV: novelty value; QV: quality value; PV: price value; AT: attitude; IN: intention.

^aLikert scale of Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (7).

Table 5.

Generational comparisons of perceived value, attitude and intention towards international travel.

	Mean^a (SD)	Test statistic	Significant differences at 0.05 level
EV
Baby Boomer	5.36 (1.58)	F(2, 629) = 0.60, p = 0.55	No significant difference between the generational cohorts.
Generation X	5.52 (1.30)
Generation Y	5.38 (1.45)
NV
Baby Boomer	5.37 (1.39)	F(2, 629) = 1.12, p = 0.33	No significant difference between the generational cohorts.
Generation X	5.56 (1.26)
Generation Y	5.33 (1.38)
PV
Baby Boomer	4.44 (1.49)	F(2, 629) = 0.06, p = 0.94	No significant difference between the generational cohorts.
Generation X	4.44 (1.22)
Generation Y	4.39 (1.33)
QV
Baby Boomer	4.33 (1.25)	F(2, 629) = 0.49, p = 0.61	No significant difference between the generational cohorts.
Generation X	4.39 (1.06)
Generation Y	4.45 (1.17)
AT
Baby Boomer	5.33 (1.58)	F(2, 629) = 0.56, p = 0.58	No significant difference between the generational cohorts.
Generation X	5.50 (1.31)
Generation Y	5.38 (1.49)
IN
Baby Boomer	4.56 (1.83)	F(2, 629) = 4.91, p = 0.01	Generation Y cohort has significantly greater intention to take an international trip than Baby Boomer cohort.
Generation X	4.77 (1.45)
Generation Y	5.07 (1.55)

EV: emotional value; NV: novelty value; QV: quality value; PV: price value; AT: attitude; IN: intention.

^aLikert scale of Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (7).

With respect to RQ1, the domestic data show several significant differences between the cohorts. These differences were significant for EV, F(2, 629) = 22.24, p = <0.01, NV, F(2, 629) = 9.63, p = <0.01 and value for money, F(2, 629) = 6.42, p = 0.02, associated with domestic holidays. However, we found no significant difference between the cohorts in terms of the perceived quality (performance) value of a domestic trip, F(2, 629) = 0.16, p = 0.85. The Baby Boomer (M _EV = 6.18, SD = 1.03; M _NV = 5.71, SD = 1.19) and Generation X (M _EV = 5.98, SD = 0.99; M _NV = 5.65, SD = 1.01) cohorts perceived domestic holidays as offering significantly more EV and NV than did the Generation Y cohort (M _EV = 5.47, SD = 1.33; M _NV = 5.22, SD = 1.23).

The Generation X (M = 4.86, SD = 1.33) and Generation Y (M = 4.92, SD = 1.26) cohorts report significantly better value for money associations with domestic holidays compared to the Baby Boomer (M = 4.45, SD = 1.71) cohort. The Baby Boomer (M _AT = 6.06, SD = 1.10; M _IN = 5.81, SD = 1.10) and Generation X (M _AT = 5.88, SD = 1.10; M _IN = 5.71, SD = 1.26) cohorts have a significantly more positive attitude, F(2, 629) = 17.37, p = <0.01, and intention, F(2, 629) = 7.61, p = <0.01, towards domestic holidays than does the Generation Y cohort (M _AT = 5.41, SD = 1.28; M _IN = 5.30, SD = 1.39).

In contrast, analysis with respect to RQ2, which addresses international holidays, shows no significant differences between the cohorts n their value perceptions (EV: F(2, 629) = 0.60, p = 0.55; NV: F(2, 629) = 1.12, p = 0.33; value for money: F(2, 629) = 0.06, p = 0.94; quality: F(2, 629) = 0.49, p = 0.61) or attitude (F(2, 629) = 0.56, p = 0.58) towards international holidays. However, the Generation Y cohort (M _IN = 4.56, SD = 1.83) has a significantly greater IN overseas than the Baby Boomer cohort (M _IN = 4.56, SD = 1.83, F(2, 629) = 4.91, p = 0.01).

In summary, the results reveal some significant differences between the generational cohorts in perceptions of value associated with domestic holidays as well as differences in their attitude towards, and intention to have, this experience. However, we found no significant differences between the cohorts in their value perceptions or attitude towards international holidays. The Baby Boomer and Generation X cohorts have a more positive attitude and intention towards domestic holidays than does the Generation Y cohort, but the Generation Y cohort has a significantly greater intention to take an international trip than does the Baby Boomer cohort. Thus, this study reports some differences in the factors that motivate travel between the generational cohort groupings.

RQ3: Each generation’s views on domestic versus international holidays

RQ3 sought to explore each generational cohort’s comparison of domestic versus international holidays for each generational cohort. Accordingly, a pairwise t-test was conducted for each construct. In doing so, each cohort’s response to domestic and international holidays was paired and then tested against the others to compare each cohort’s views on holiday type. The results, presented in Table 6, show that all cohorts believe that domestic holidays offer better quality than international holidays (Baby Boomers: t = 8.37, df = 357, p = <0.01; Generation X: t = 5.60, df = 121, p = <0.01; Generation Y: t = 6.05, df = 153, p = <0.01). Both the Baby Boomers (t = 9.16, df = 357, p = <0.01) and Generation X (t = 4.10, df = 121, p = <0.01) favour domestic holidays over international holidays with respect to delivering EV. The Generation Y cohort reported no significant difference in EV between domestic and international holidays (t = 0.72, df = 153, p = <0.01).

Table 6.

Each generation’s views on domestic versus international travel.

Construct	Test statistic	Comparison of domestic and international travel (significance difference at 0.05 level)
EV
Baby Boomer	t = 9.16, df = 357, p = <.01	Favours domestic holidays.
GenerationX	t = 4.10, df = 121, p = <0.01	Favours domestic holidays.
Generation Y	t = 0.72, df = 153, p = 0.48	No significant difference.
NV
Baby Boomer	t = 4.00, df = 357, p = <0.01	Favours domestic holidays.
Generation X	t = 1.03, df = 121, p = 0.31	No significant difference.
Generation Y	t = −0.90, df = 153, p = 0.37	No significant difference.
PV
Baby Boomer	t = 0.18, df = 357, p = 0.86	No significant difference.
Generation X	t = 2.70, df = 121, p = <0.01	Favours domestic holidays.
Generation Y	t = 4.18, df = 153, p = <0.01	Favours domestic holidays.
QV
Baby Boomer	t = 8.37, df = 357, p = <0.01	Favours domestic holidays.
Generation X	t = 5.60, df = 121, p = <0.01	Favours domestic holidays.
Generation Y	t = 6.05, df = 153, p = <0.01	Favours domestic holidays.
AT
Baby Boomer	t = 7.65, df = 357, p = <0.01	Favours domestic holidays.
Generation X	t = 2.92, df = 121, p = <0.01	Favours domestic holidays.
Generation Y	t = 0.23, df = 153, p = 0.82	No significant difference.
IN
Baby Boomer	t = 11.50, df = 357, p = <0.01	Favours domestic holidays.
Generation X	t = 5.98, df = 121, p = <0.01	Favours domestic holidays.
Generation Y	t = 1.70, df = 153, p = 0.09	No significant difference.

EV: emotional value; NV: novelty value; QV: quality value; PV: price value; AT: attitude; IN: intention.

Furthermore, Baby Boomers (t = 4.00, df = 357, p = <0.01) are more likely to associate novelty with domestic holidays than international holidays. Comparison of domestic and international holidays revealed no significant difference in NV perceptions for Generation X (t = 1.03, df = 121, p = 0.31) and Generation Y (t = −0.90, df = 153, p = 0.37). The Generation X (t = 2.70, df = 121, p = <0.01) and Generation Y (t = 4.18, df = 153, p = <0.01) cohorts believe that domestic holidays offer better value for money than international holidays. The Baby Boomer cohort, however, does not perceive any significant difference in value for money between these holiday types (t = 0.18, df = 357, p = 0.86). Both Baby Boomers (attitude: t = 7.65, df = 357, p = <0.01; intention: t = 11.50, df = 357, p = <0.01) and Generation X (attitude: t = 2.92, df = 121, p = <0.01; intention: t = 5.98, df = 121, p = <0.01) have a significantly more positive attitude and intention to holiday domestically than internationally. Analysis revealed no significant difference in attitude or intention for domestic and international holidays for Generation Y (attitude: t = 0.23, df = 153, p = 0.82; intention: t = 1.70, df = 153, p = 0.09).

In summary, the results show that Baby Boomers and Generation X favour domestic holidays, with both of these cohorts reporting a more positive EV perception, attitude (AT) and intention (IN) towards domestic holidays compared to international holidays. Baby Boomers also thought domestic holidays provided more NV, and Generation X and Generation Y thought domestic holidays provided better value for money (PV) than international holidays. All three cohorts believed that domestic holidays offered better quality (QV) than international holidays. The Generation Y cohort was neutral on EV, NV, attitude and intention when comparing domestic and international holidays. Likewise, the Generation X cohort did not perceive any difference in NV between domestic and international holidays. Thus, whilst some generational differences appeared between the two holiday types, these differences tended to favour domestic holidays and did not favour international holidays in any instance.

Discussion

This study sought to enrich theoretical understanding of travel behaviour through adopting a generational perspective to explore value expectations towards travel. As a result, generational differences in value perceptions of domestic and international holidays that motivate Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y Australian consumers were uncovered. Prior value-based research in tourism (e.g. Assaker et al., 2010; Sparks and Wen Pan, 2009) and, more broadly, consumer behaviour (e.g. Sweeney and Soutar, 2001) considers consumers as a homogenous group. This study extends this literature by highlighting the importance of accounting for generational heterogeneity, which manifests itself in variations in value expectations and, by extension, attitude and intention to travel between cohorts.

The findings also build on tourism studies that have employed a generational lens to investigate changes in travel demand (e.g. Cleaver and Muller, 2002; Glover and Prideaux, 2008; Patterson and Pegg, 2009). That is, this study’s contribution resides in the integration and extension of established concepts in travel consumption with generational theory and, as a result, a more comprehensive understanding of similarities and differences between generational cohorts in perceived value, attitudes and intention associated with travel is realized. Advancing this knowledge is fundamental to embracing generational changes in consumer demand for travel, thus providing opportunities for tourism academics and practitioners to better account for these changes in developing tourism marketing research and strategy.

The findings also contribute to the understanding of domestic holidays by revealing generational differences in travel beliefs, attitudes and intentions with respect to domestic holidays in Australia. The results show that Australian Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y consumers have positive associations with domestic holidays and are more predisposed to take a domestic trip rather than an international trip. In light of these results, the decline in domestic visitation suggests that Australian destinations are not competing effectively with international destinations and other consumer options, most notably tangible products (Australian Government, 2007). The study’s findings challenge a generic approach to understanding the Australian consumer travel marketplace and domestic tourism more specifically. Therefore, we propose that to rejuvenate domestic travel, marketers must consider generational cohort membership as a way to understand travel motivations.

These findings have a number of managerial implications. The Australian tourism industry should capitalize on the strong emotional and novelty value perceptions associated with domestic holidays among the Baby Boomer and Generation X cohorts. Further, the industry should work to build stronger associations between domestic holidays and achieving positive emotional and novelty outcomes for Generation Y consumers. Additionally, the study results indicate opportunities to better leverage the perceived value for money of a domestic trip over an international trip among Generation X and Generation Y, as well as, to improve value for money associations for domestic holidays among Baby Boomer consumers.

The uniformity of value perceptions among cohorts in relation to international holidays suggests that destinations need to be less mindful of generational cohort membership in their international marketing strategy compared with their domestic marketing strategy. Consistent with the conceptual basis of generational cohort analysis, this finding suggests that generational differences in value perceptions associated with domestic holidays may be linked with memories of domestic trips in the cohort’s formative years. Thus, tapping into the nostalgia of each generational cohort and exploring how the cohort perceives value may also lead to further insights into the generational mindset and result in more effective marketing strategies. The findings of this study indicate that the future for domestic tourism in Australia holds promise and adopting a generational perspective to unleash this potential may prove advantageous.

Limitations and future research

The main limitation of this study relates to sampling, as data were collected solely from the Australian population. Australia has distinctive geography, social trends and market forces that may have influenced how findings of this study can be generalized to other countries. However, similar trends in domestic travel are being experienced in other nations, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and Japan (Voigt et al., 2010), suggesting that the findings of this study may have application to destinations other than Australia. Future research employing the conceptual framework of this study could further extend generational value-expectancy theory, whilst also providing practical insights into tourism marketing, particularly for destinations that principally target the domestic market. Further generational research in other countries is warranted. Most notably, replication of this study in those countries, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and Japan that are also experiencing a downturn in domestic tourism, could extend understanding of generational effects on travel behaviour and, accordingly, revitalize interest in domestic travel within these countries. As highlighted by generational research, recognizing the unique psychographic and social milieu of particular countries and cultures, particularly during the formative years, is important to understand each generation’s mindset (Gardiner et al., 2013). Therefore, it is vital to appreciate generational differences in each country-specific market. Of particular interest is grasping generational influences of Western versus Eastern cultures on travel behaviour. For instance, employing generational theory, it is suggested that the formative years of Chinese Generation Y may be dramatically different to their Australian counterparts (e.g. one child policy, growing up in the communist system, Chinese cultural values etc.) and these differences will influence their future travel behaviour. Future research on the generational effect in particular markets is imperative to understand their underlying motives for travel.

Another limitation of this study was the generational cohorts selected for the sample. The results may not apply to generational cohorts that are older than the Baby Boomer cohort or younger than the Generation Y cohort. Research to gain a contemporary understanding of the over-65 and under-18 travel markets could be important because older consumers have accumulated wealth and so have a high capacity to travel and younger consumers will drive travel demand in the future.

In addition to extending the sampling frame, future studies could focus on conceptualizing generational perceptions of value, thereby revealing underlying reasons for generational differences in value perceptions, attitudes and intentions. For example, research is needed into how Generation Y consumers conceptualize value for money and how Baby Boomers conceptualize emotional and novel travel experiences, given the demonstrated importance of these factors in this study. Initial exploratory research using qualitative methods, such as personal narratives, might yield these insights, allowing for better understanding of the underlying nature of these constructs than quantitative approaches (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2005; Malhotra, 2010). Similarly, consideration of generational views on geographic proximity (or distance) may be insightful. This study investigated perceptions of domestic and international travel, however, given the size and location of Australia, perhaps considering long-haul versus short-haul holidays in addition to domestic versus international may extend understanding of generational views on various types of trips. Overall, greater awareness of generational value beliefs and travel behaviour are more generally warranted to ensure the tourism industry’s cognizance of societal trends and the changing demographic profile of consumers – an understanding particularly important to tourist destinations seeking to appeal to the evolving mindset of each generation of consumers.

In summary, this survey research found that Australian Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y consumers have different views of domestic holidays, but not of international holidays, and that Baby Boomer and Generation X consumers prefer domestic holidays. Generational cohorts in fact hold different views about types of holidays, and the understanding provided by this study should be incorporated into tourism planning and marketing.

Footnotes

Appendix 1 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Queensland Government Smart Future PhD Scholarship Program, Griffith Institute for Tourism and Tourism Australia for their financial support of this project. We would also like to thank Dr Chad Perry for his academic advice in preparing this manuscript.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ajzen

(1988) Attitudes, Personality, and Behaviour. Chicago: The Dorsey Press.

Ajzen

(1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.

Ajzen

Fishbein

(1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Andreck

McGehee

Lee

. (2012). Experience expectations of prospective volunteer tourists. Journal of Travel Research 51(2): 130–141.

Arsenault

(2004) Validating generational differences – a legitimate diversity and leadership issue. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25(2): 124–141.

Assaker

Esposito Vinzi

O’Connor

(2010). Examining the effect of novelty seeking, satisfaction, and destination image on tourists’ return pattern: a two factor, non-linear latent growth model. Tourism Management 32(4): 890–901.

Australian Government (2007) Changing Consumer Behaviour: Impact on the Australian Domestic Tourism Market. Canberra: Author.

Australian Government (2008) Through the Looking Glass: The Future of Domestic Tourism in Australia. Canberra: Author.

Australian Government. (2009). The Jackson Report. Retrieved from http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/tmc/jackson-report-july09.pdf. Accessed 27 June 2011.

10.

Australian Government (2010a) Household economic wellbeing. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0∼2010∼Chapter∼Household%20wealth%20%285.3.3%29. Accessed 11 November 2014.

11.

Australian Government (2010b) The Jackson Report: On Behalf of the Steering Committee. Canberra: Author.

12.

Australian Government (2011a) Domesticate study: 2011 key insights for domestic travel. Available at: www.tourism.australia.com/en-au/downloads/Domesticate_Study_2011.pdf. Accessed 11 October 2012.

13.

Australian Government (2011b) Household expenditure on goods and services – overview. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6530.0Main%20Features22009-10?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6530.0&issue=2009-10&num=&view=. Accessed 11 April 2014.

14.

Australian Government (2012a) Tourism industry facts and figures at a glance. Available at: www.ret.gov.au/tra. Accessed 11 April 2014.

15.

Australian Government (2012b) Domestic travel by Australians. Available at: www.tra.gov.au/statistics/domestic-travel-by-australians. Accessed 11 April 2014.

16.

Australian Government (2012c) International travel by Australians. Available at: www.tra.gov.au/statistics/Australians-travelling-overseas. Accessed 11 April 2014.

17.

Australian Government (2014) Overnight trips in Australia by residents. Available at: http://www.tra.gov.au/statistics/domestic-travel-by-australians.html. Accessed 6 June 2014.

18.

Benckendorff

Moscardo

Pendergast

(eds) (2010) Tourism and Generation Y. Cambridge: Cabi.

19.

Beldona

(2005) Cohort analsysi of online travel information search behavior: 1995–2000. Journal of Travel Research 44(2): 135–142.

20.

Bouma

(2000) The Research Process. 4 ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

21.

Chhabra

(2010) Back to the past: a sub-segment of Generation Y’s perceptions of authenticity. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(6): 793–809.

22.

Churchill

GAJ

Iacobucci

(2005) Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations (9 ed.). Mason: Thomson South-Western.

23.

Cleaver

Green

Muller

(2000) Using consumer behavior research to understand Baby Boomer tourist. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 24(2): 274–287.

24.

Cleaver

Muller

(2002) The socially aware Baby Boomer: gaining a lifestyle-based understanding of the new wave of ecotourists. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 10(3): 173–190.

25.

Crouch

(2011) Destination competitiveness: an analysis of determinant attributes. Journal of Travel Research 50(1): 27–45.

26.

Fall

(2004) Developing innovative public relations strategies: using Grunig’s nested segmentation model and Yankelovich’s generational influences model to distinguish pleasure traveler publics. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 11(1): 5–29.

27.

Gardiner

Grace

King

(2014) The generation effect the future of domestic tourism in Australia. Journal of Travel Research 53(6): 705–720.

28.

Gardiner

King

Grace

(2013) Travel decision making an empirical examination of generational values, attitudes, and intentions. Journal of Travel Research 52(3): 310–324.

29.

Glover

Prideaux

(2008) Using population projections to identify aspects of future tourism demand. Advances in Hospitality and Leisure 4: 185–209.

30.

Hall

(2007) Introduction to Tourism in Australia: Development, Issues and Change. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education.

31.

Heaney

(2007) Generations X and Y’ s internet banking usage in Australia. Journal of Financial Services Marketing 11(3): 196–210.

32.

Janga

Kim

Bonn

(2011) Generation Y consumers’ selection attributes and behavioral intentions concerning green restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30: 803–811.

33.

Lam

Hsu

CHC

(2006) Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destination. Tourism Management 27: 589–599.

34.

Lee

Crompton

(1992) Measuring novelty seeking in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 19: 732–751.

35.

Lehto

Jang

Achana

. (2008) Exploring tourism experience sought: a cohort comparison of Baby Boomers and the Silent generation Journal of Vacation Marketing 14(3): 237–252.

36.

Malhotra

(2010) Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 6 ed. Upper Sandle River: Pearson.

37.

Minghetti

Buhalis

(2010) Digital divide in tourism. Journal of Travel Research 49(3): 267–281.

38.

Muller

Cleaver

(2000) Targeting the CANZUS Baby Boomer explorer and adventurer segments. Journal of Vacation Marketing 6(2): 154–169.

39.

Norum

(2003) Examination of generational differences in household apparel expenditures. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 32(1): 52–75.

40.

Nusair

Parsa

Cobanoglu

(2011) Building a model of commitment for Generation Y: an empirical study on e-travel retailers. Tourism Management 32: 833–843.

41.

Oppewal

Huybers

Crouch

(2010) How Do Australian Choose Holiday Destinations and Experiences? Modelling Consumer Choice. Gold Coast: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.

42.

Patterson

Pegg

(2009) Marketing the leisure experience to Baby Boomers and older tourists. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 18(2): 254–272.

43.

Pennington-Gray

Fridgen

Stynes

(2003) Cohort segmentation: an application to tourism. Leisure Science 25: 341–361.

44.

Prideaux

(2007) Potential impacts of generational change on destinations. Advances in Hospitality and Leisure 3: 39–54.

45.

Prideaux

Wei

Ruys

(2001) The senior drive tour market in Australia. Journal of Vacation Marketing 7(3): 209–219.

46.

Severt

Fjeistul

Breiter

(2009) A comparison of motivators and inhibitors for association meeting attendance for three generational cohorts. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 10(2): 105–119.

47.

Sheth

Newman

Gross

(1991) Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research 22: 159–170.

48.

Sparks

Roberts

Deery

. (2005) Good Living Tourism: Lifestyle Aspects of Food and Wine Tourism. Gold Coast: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.

49.

Sparks

Wen Pan

(2009) Chinese outbound tourists: understanding their attitudes, constraints and use of information sources. Tourism Management 30: 483–494.

50.

Sweeney

Soutar

(2001) Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing 77: 203–220.

51.

Tabachnick

Fidell

(2007) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5 ed. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

52.

Trembath

(2008) Destination Salience: A Model of Consideration and Choice for Australian Holiday Travel. Gold Coast: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.

53.

Voigt

Laing

Waray

. (2010) Health Tourism in Australia: Supply, Demand and Opportunities. Gold Coast: Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.

54.

Weaver

Lawton

(2006) Tourism Management, 3 ed. Milton: John Wiley & Sons.

55.

Williams

Soutar

(2009) Value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in an adventure tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research 36(3): 413–438.

56.

Wuest

Welkey

Mogab

. (2008) Exploring consumer shopping preferences: three generations. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 100(1): 31–37.

57.

Zeithaml

(1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of Marketing 52(3): 2–22.