Measuring Tourism Consumer Behaviour Using ESCAPE: a Multimedia Interview Engine for Stated Choice and Preference Experiments

  • M. D. Klabbers
  • H. J. P. Timmermans


In the few research cases that are available, conjoint or stated choice and preference (scap) experiments have proved to offer suitable models for tourism marketers [1—8]. These models give insight in the effect of particular characteristics of the tourism product on its desirability, utility, or market share. The experiments that feed these models involve hypothetical situations for which respondents have to state their preference and choice. These situations are constructed by varying the product’s characteristics systematically according to an experimental design. However, these models, as well as the vast majority of models, have always been oriented on abstract dimensions, while the tourism consumer market is mainly visually oriented.

This paper, therefore, offers a tool to indulge visual elements in these conjoint experiments. It describes a multimedia engine that supports researchers in developing multimedia conjoint experiments and helps respondents to fill in these questionnaires more easily. The engine is called Escape (Engine for Stated Choice and Preference Experiments) and is developed by the author dedicated to evaluate the effect of multimedia on conjoint or scap modelling. However, this engine also supports more ‘normal’ conjoint experiments, In addition this paper describes in what way this engine differs from other multimedia conjoint programs.


Consumer Behaviour Attribute Level Conjoint Analysis Preference Experiment Tourism Product 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Louviere, J. J., Timmermans, H. J. P.: Stated Preference and Choice Models Applied to Recreation Research: A Review, Leisure Sciences, vol. 12, pp. 9–32 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Louviere, J. L., Hensher, D. A.: Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 10, pp. 348–361 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Lieber, S. R., Fesenmaier, D. R.: Physical and Social Conditions Affecting Recreation Site Preferences, Environment an Planning A, vol. 17, pp. 1613–1625 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Timmermans, H. J. P.: Hybrid and Non-Hybrid Evaluation Models for Predicting Outdoor Recreation Behavior: A Test of Predictive Ability, Leisure Scienses, vol. 9, pp. 67–76 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Haider, W., Ewing, G. O.: A Model of Tourist Choices of Hypothetical Caribbean Destinations, Leisure Sciences, vol. 12, pp. 33–47 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Louviere, J. L., Timmermans, H. J. P.: Testing the External Validity of Hierarchical Conjoint Analysis Models of Recreational Destination Choice, Leisure Sciences, vol. 14, pp. 179–194 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Delleart, B. G. C.: Conjoint Choice Models for Urban Tourism Planning and Marketing, in Urban Planning. Eindhoven: University of Technology (1995), pp. 130.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Stemerding, M. P. Modeling Constraints-Based Choices for Leisure Mobility Planning, Development and Test of a Constraints-Based Conjoint Choice Model for The Ex-Ante Evaluation of Leisure Mobility Policies, in Urban Planning. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology (1996), pp. 275.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Moutinho, L., Rita, P., Curry, B.: Expert Systems inTourism Marketing. London: Routledge (1996).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S. R.:Discrete Choice Analysis, 2 ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press (1985).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Ettema, D. Activity Based Travel Demand Modeling, in Urban Planning. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology (1996), pp. 296.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Louviere, J. J., Schroeder, H, Louviere, C. H., Woodworth, G.: Do the Parameters of Choice Models Depend on Differences in Stimulus Presentation: Visual versus Verbal Presentations-, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. XIV, pp. 79–82 (1987).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Anderson, N. H.: Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York: Academic Press (1981).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Thurstone, L. L.: A Law of Comparative Judgment, Psychological Review, vol. 34, pp. 273–286 (1927).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Louviere, J. J. Analyzing Decision Making, metric conjoint analysis, vol. 67. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications (1988).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Green, P. E., Srinivasan, V.: Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 5, pp. 103–123 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Bojamic, D. C., Calantone, R. J.: A Contribution Approach to Price Bundling in Tourism, Anals of Tourism Research, vol. 17, pp. 528–540 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Kemperman, A. D. A. M., Borgers, A., Timmermans, H. J. P.: Consumer Choice of Theme Parks: A Conjoint Choice Model of Seasonality Effects and Variety Seeking Behavior, Leisure Sciences (1998 (Submitted)).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Oppewal, H.: Conjoint Experiments and Retail Planning: Modelling Consumer Choice of Shopping Centre and Retailer Reactive Behaviour, in Urban Planning. Eindhoven: Eindhoven Universtiy of Technology (1995), pp. 254.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Vriens, M.: Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: Developments in Stimulus Representaton and Segmentation Methods, in SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management). Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen (1995), pp. 257.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Steenkamp, J. E. B. M.: De Constructie van Profielensets voor het schatten van hoofdeffecten en interacties bij conjunct meten, (1985).Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Bateson, J. E. G., Reibstein, D., Boulding, W.: Conjoint Analysis Reliability and Validity: A Framework for Future Research, pp. 451–481 (1987).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Carmone Jr., F. J., Schaffer, C. M.: Conjoint Designer, Conjoint Analyzer, Simgraf, Conjoint Linmap, Conjoint Segmenter, Bridger; Consurv; Adaptive Conjoint Analysis System, Choice Based Conjoint System, Conjoint Value Analysis System, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 32, pp. 113–120 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Oppewal, H.: A Review of Choice-Based Conjoint Software: CBC and MINT, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 2 (1995).Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Oppewal, H.: Software Review: A Review Of Conjoint Software, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 2, pp. 55–61 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Haider, W., Anderson, D. A., Daniel, T. C, Louviere, J. J., Orland, B., Williams, M.: Combining Calibrated Digital Imagery and Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Remote Tourism in Northern Ontario, Conference on Forestry and the Environment: Economic Perspectives II, Banff, Alberta, Canada, Paper Oct 12–15, 1994 1994.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Johnson, R. M.: Adaptive Conjoint Analysis, presented at Conjoint Analysis and Computer Interviewing, Ketchum (1985).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Huber, J., Zwerina, K.: The Importance of Utility Balance in Efficient Choice Designs, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. XXXIII, pp. 307–317 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wein 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. D. Klabbers
    • 1
  • H. J. P. Timmermans
    • 1
  1. 1.Urban Planning Group, Faculty of Architecture, Building and PlanningEindhoven University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations