An approach to the use of GPS in tourism surveys to define itineraries

TNS Demoscopia Julián Camarillo 42 – 28037 Madrid

[email protected] – www.tnsglobal.es 1

An approach to the use of GPS in tourism surveys to define

itineraries

Aranda Palmero, Eva

TNS Demoscopia, Account Manager

[email protected], +(34) 91 432 87 44

Castellanos Quintana, Vicente

TNS Demoscopia, Account Manager

[email protected] +(34) 91 432 87 43

Abstract:

INRouTe has defined a list of 20 topics for which will design general guidelines

during the period 2012/2015. Three of these topics have been selected as a

priority, being “Tourism itineraries” one of them. The main objective of this paper is

to give some ideas on how GPS, combined with tourism surveys, could help define

tourism itineraries and analyse the role of tourism itineraries in the development of

regional tourism.

How can GPS devices help to know existing tourism itineraries? To what extent can

be used to create new itineraries adapted to different tourist profiles?. How could

contribute the knowledge of the itinerary to identify the “real” purpose of the visit?

Do tourists define their own itineraries? Are these itineraries known by tourism

authorities? These are some of the questions we’ll answer through this paper.

Our analysis and findings will be based on our experience using this combined

methodology, an area of activity to which TNS Demoscopia has devoted many

efforts during last three years and has used in National Parks. To support our

findings we’ll also offer a special data analysis from the results obtained in our

research.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Introduction

The analysis of a tourism itinerary can be made in different levels. Phileas Fogg

made a very long itinerary in his eighty days trip around the world. Tourists visiting

a country can also make long itineraries visiting several regions. We also consider

itineraries the route around a single city visiting its main historical places. What

does all this different itineraries have in common? Let’s use the Oxford dictionary

word definition:

Itinerary: a planned route or journey. A travel document recording a route or

journey. Late Middle English: from late Latin itinerarium, neuter of itinerarius 'of a

journey or roads', from Latin iter, itiner- 'journey, road'.

There are two key words in the definition: route / journey and planned.

From the point of view of tourism policy makers, the design of itineraries would be

to define a planned route for the tourists visiting their destination. The development

of itineraries can be a crucial point in order to increase the quantity and quality of

tourism. Finding itineraries adapted to their likes and circumstances can be one of

the key points for tourists to enjoy a destination, and to return. For tourism policy

makers, the design of itineraries makes possible showing all the interesting places,

avoiding concentrating tourism in just one point preventing the risk of overcrowding

or dangerous environmental impacts.

At national level, policy makers can design different itineraries, that would include

visiting different places in different regions, like (in the case of Spain) “the route of

the Spanish language”, “the Way of Saint James” or “the silver route”, but it is at

the subnational/regional level where the design of itineraries can be more

productive.

Regional tourist administrations design itineraries that allow the visitor to know

better the destination, understanding “destination” as the region itself. Once the

tourist is there the objective has to be making the visit as profitable as possible,

showing the entire region’s attractiveness that would make the tourist to be

satisfied, stay in it, and (in the best scenario) return one day.

All regions know perfectly which are their main tourist attractions and can design

their own itineraries, but probably there is still something to learn in that sense.

Adapt the itinerary to the tourist expectations and possibilities are crucial to be



successful. Common sense is the best ally when designing the itineraries, but our

experience has shown that using statistical data is also very useful.

Our proposal would be including statistical information in the design of tourist

itineraries. In concrete, we propose the use of tourism surveys combined with GPS

information. As we will expose through this paper, knowing what really the tourist

do (exact route they make), together with their socio demographic characteristics,

expectations, activities and satisfaction, can be used to design or re-design tourism

itineraries.

During the last three years there has been an area of activity in TNS Demoscopia,

as a methodological framework first and as a real experience afterwards, focused in

including Geographic Location Technology in the measurement of touristic flows.

The practical implementation has been in two Natural Parks in Spain: “Parque

Regional de la Sierra de Gredos” and “Parque Natural de la Tinença de Benifassà”.

The fact of having undertaken the research in Natural Parks has given us the

opportunity of enshrining the work into the European Charter for Sustainable

Tourism in Protected Areas. The Charter is a practical management tool which

helps protected areas to continuously improve the sustainable development and the

management of tourism taking account of the needs of the environment, the local

population and the local tourism businesses.

In the following lines we will, therefore, give practical details on our work, and

show some interesting results, some of them completely linked to the design of

tourism itineraries.

Combining GPS tracks with tourism surveys

This new methodological proposal combines two sources of data: opinion, obtained

by questionnaires, and behaviour data - waypoints registers got form GPS devices.

The goal of the research has been analysing and understanding visitor’s behaviour

inside the natural areas, in relation with the global tourism phenomenon in each

one of the regions where they are placed.

The fieldwork consisted on the following phases:

Recruitment of participants: the first step was to recruit those individuals who were

to act as informants in the study. For this purpose, the interviewer was located in

the main entrances of the National Parks and after explaining the objectives of the



research, offered the visitor the possibility of participating in the research by

carrying a GPS device during their entire visit. Once we got the agreement, we

made the recruitment using a computerized questionnaire, and gave the GPS to

one of the persons of the visitors group.

Record of the track (trip): The GPS was programmed to record the entire track. As

we will explain later, the GPS device was a datalogger, which doesn’t have any

screen or utility that the visitor could use, thus, for the interviewee was like

carrying “a small stone” in the pocket as they can’t do anything with it. Every five

seconds, the GPS records the coordinate where the transporter is located and

storages it in a data file.

Interview at the end of the visit: The interviewer was waiting for the informants at

the exit of the park (which in these cases was the same point that the entrance).

The interviewer downloaded the track into the computer, the track was processed

and an ad-hoc questionnaire was made. We say an ad-hoc questionnaire because it

was adapted to the exact route the visitor had made.

The questionnaire: Most of the questions were referred to the exact points the

interviewee had visited. These “exact points” could be:

- Points of Interest (POIs): The Natural Parks have some Points of

interests identified, like a lake, a fountain, a mountain shelter... So, if the

visitor had passed closed to than point of interest, (depending or the

concrete point), a battery of three or four questions were asked about it. Of

course, if he/she hadn’t passed through it, no questions about it were asked.

- Stops: We considered it very interesting to ask about those places where

people stops during the visit but are not predefined as points of interest.

May be there is a nice landscape, or a great place to sit down and take a

rest, or a shady place to have lunch. So, in the questionnaire we asked

about the three main stops the visitor had made, asking about the purpose

and the perceived satisfaction about it. In the following points of this paper

we will explain how we defined these stops.

Apart from that information, the questionnaire recorded also information about the

trip, expenses and general satisfaction with several issues of the park.



Of course, it was completely unnecessary to ask about places visited, tracks

followed, number and duration of stops, or total length of their visit, for example;

all that information had been automatically recorded by the GPS device and we

could consequently use an easier and shorter questionnaire.

Data analysis: The analysis of the data was made combining information form the

questionnaire and from the GPS. We could check that the geographical perspective

had a lot to explain, revealing itself as an extremely meaningful variable to take

into consideration.

Visitor’s profile and purpose of the visit

Itineraries have to be adapted to tourist profile. There should be a wide offer of

itineraries for different tourist profiles. But, what’s a tourist profile?

As a starting point, we would say that socio demographic characteristics are a key

point. Families travelling with children will have a completely different behaviour

than a young couple or a big group of seniors, but there are many other factors,

more to do with expectations or desires are very important to define the tourist

profile.

Some people might want to relax, go to the beach and just to the beach, lying

down on the sand without any desire of knowing what the surroundings could offer,

or might want to go an exclusive wellness or to stay in a seaside resort with many

leisure activities also for children within. Some other tourists would want to

discover the destination, visiting a city or a region, going to museums and exploring

the art and culture, or even the natural areas. There is also a group of tourists

whose main objective is to enjoy, tasting the destination’s gastronomy, going

shopping, playing sports, going to great events or enjoying nightlife.

For many years, tourism statistics have compile information on the purpose of the

visit that is one of the main factors to identify a tourist profile. The way tourism

statistics measure the purpose of the visit has shown to be very poor in order to

analyse what the tourist really want to do, what his/her profile is.

All the examples given above would be “Holiday purpose” and the profile of a

tourist who wants to relax is completely different from the one who wants to

discover or to enjoy.



During the last years, tourism authorities are going deeper into the analysis of

tourist profiles and lifestyles, giving more and more importance to the activities

done by the tourist in the destination in order to define tourism typologies and

products. The inclusion of activities in the analysis gives great information to have a

better identification of the tourist profile, but there would be another interesting

variable to include in the analysis: itineraries and the points visited.

Points visited are completely linked with the activities carried out during the visit.

And it’s here where the use of GPS tracks can do its bit.

Defining Itineraries in Natural Areas

The initial hypothesis, that we will try to clarify through the following pages is, that

a relationship between the tourist profile and the itinerary carried out in the Natural

Park exists. We will try to verify this hypothesis from a special ad-hoc analysis (for

this paper) out of the two mentioned surveys in Natural Parks.

Two types of information are normally recorded, when collecting information about

itineraries through the use of GPS devices: tracks and stops.

We take reference of the movement, but we also take reference of the stops or

pauses. As in the music, where the silences also make melody, in the itineraries,

the pauses/stops also define a track.

Unnoticed information record on movements/tracks provides us data, among

others, of the distance, average speed, slope, height (maximum or minimum, and

accumulated), etc.

On the other hand, recording information on stops or pauses give us

information on the number, length, time elapsed in between, etc. The definition of

the stops is one of the most important aspects in the design/definition of the

parameters of the study.

Derived from the information about the movements, there is another important

data that is collected: the Points of Interests (POIs) visited. The terminology of

geographically referenced studies uses the term 'Point of interest', for those

coordinates that corresponds to a location that has special relevance, from the

perspective of the final user of the information. A point of interest could

consequently be an artistic or archaeological site, a place of concentration of

people, a crossroad, or as it is in the case of the present research, places of special

landscape value; viewpoints, lagoons, etc.



Consequently the most frequently used variables in the measurement of itineraries,

indeed applied in this analysis of the routes in natural parks, are as follows:

a) Distance covered, defined as the sum of the separations, in meters,

between the set of points in the path of the route (GPS can be programmed

to register information every x seconds, depending on the type of transport

media i.e.).

b) Stops during the itinerary, defined as period of a minimum defined time,

where the distance between points doesn’t exceed the error margin for the

GPS.

c) Points of interest: Coordinates (X,Y1) that situates a point in which what

we want to locate is georeferenced. These POIs are perfectly defined and

have to be used as an additional variable in the analysis.

In addition to these, we used other variables that might be specific to the scope of

this survey considering nature tourism or tourism in national parks.

The specific variables used in the study of the itineraries in natural parks areas,

given the particularity of the itineraries are as follows:

a) Height; in example we consider the initial/final height, the cumulate height,

or the average height between the beginning and the end of the journey.

b) Inclination; This variable offer an idea of the steep of the track, registering

the increase in high in between two points, it is normally expressed in

percentage.

Derived from the previous variables we also obtained other composed variables

such as;

a) The average speed, a function of the distance travelled by the time spent.

b) The accumulated: heights, distance, slope, etc.

Information about tourism profile is got form a standard questionnaire, that

records information about socio demographic characteristics, purpose of the visit,

1 In Natural Areas surveys a Z axis/coordinate should be also consider.



means of transport, activities, perceived satisfaction on different issues, and tourist

expenses.

Data on purpose of the visit was recorded using two questions, first one was the

standard one of this issue, with the categories defined by Eurostat, and second one

tried to be more specific and adapted to the park. With the first question (standard

one) we could see that 95,5% of the tourists were there for “holidays / leisure”

purposes, which doesn’t give very rich information..

With the second question we went in depth to the main purpose of the leisure visit

to the park, and we got the following breakdown that will be used form now on in

the analysis.

a) General Visit to the Natural Park.

b) Participating in Specific Activity in the Natural Park.

c) Visit the area and then the Natural Park.

The main interest of this analysis is to obtain a statistically valid relationship

between the tourist profile and the itinerary followed during the visit to the national

park.

Tracks characteristics and purpose of the visit

From the point of view of the itineraries, we have identified significant differences in

some important variables such as length, distance, speed, or the maximum height

reached, according to the different purpose of the visit.

In terms of itinerary length, for example, we see that those who have as main

reason to visit the Natural park participating in a specific activity, mostly trekking,

develop longer itineraries than those others that visit the Park just as a part of a

greater province/region travel.

Main Purpose of the Visit

Itinerary Average Length

(in time)

Participating in Specific Activity in the Natural Park 4 Hrs. y 55 min.



General Visit to the Natural Park 3 Hrs. y 28 min.

Visit the area and then the Natural Park. 3 Hrs. y 3 min.

Total average 3 Hrs. y 39 min.

The track carried out for those who visit the natural Park with a specific goal, is

almost 40% higher than those who visit it with a more general purpose, (F=6.013 /

P=0.003).

Despite the fact that both variables correlate positively, (R = 0. 693), we have also

found a relationship between the main concrete purpose of the visit and the total

distance travelled during the visit.


Itinerary Average Length

(in Kilometers)

Participating in Specific Activity in the Natural Park 18.5

General Visit to the Natural Park 8.6

Visit the area and then the Natural Park 7,1

Total average 9,9

The difference found between groups (F=17,181 / P=0.000), it’s also affected by

the means of transport, because some of the itineraries registered include bicycles,

and this might interfere the total length of the itineraries; nevertheless we did not

found any itinerary done by bicycles that did not look for performing this as an

Participating in Specific Activity in the Natural Park.

Finally, considering the shape of the itinerary we have found statistically significant

differences regarding the cumulated ascent and descent according to the concrete

purpose of the visit to the natural park, as shown in the table below.


Cumulated Ascent

(meters)

Cumulated

Descent

(meters)

Participating in Specific Activity in

the Natural Park

9.116 9.428



Visit the area and then the Natural

Park

4.344 4.224

General Visit to the Park 3.440 3.697

Total average 4.966 4.974

Apart from the accumulated distances in time and length, visitors with an specific

goal in their visit to the park, will also do steeper itineraries than those visiting the

natural park in general or as a part of a general visit to the area/region as shown in

the following statistical indicators for both variables data [Ascent (F=16,289 /

P=0.000) Descent (F=17,544 / P=0.000)].

Stops and purpose of the visit

From the analysis of the stops, we have been looking for any possible relation

between main purpose of the visit and places where people stopped. In this sense

we found that those who visit the park with the intention of carrying out a specific

activity made a longer first stop, than those who visits the park as part of a larger

itinerary (F=4.40 / P= 0.014).


Average Length for the

First Stop

Participating in Specific Activity in the Natural Park 18 min 33 seg.

Visit the area and then the Natural Park 8 min. 35 seg.

General Visit to the Park 10 min. 37 seg.

Total 11 min. 32 seg.

There are no significant differences in the number of stops according to the

three main reasons of the visit, that’s to say; with significantly longer, in time

and distance, itineraries, those having a specific objective in visiting the park,

stopped in average at a longer distance from the other. It is not unreasonable to

think that those who make this type of visit do not stop until they reach its main

target point.



Apart from the duration of stops, another relevant issue is where they took place.

At this point we could find very different behaviors according to the different

reasons for the visit.

Points of Interest and purpose of the visit

In this survey study we have set 15 points of interest from the landscape or natural

point of view, and we asked the visitors about their opinion, only if they have

visited.

Let’s analyze, for example, the situation in the natural park of Castellón, were we

had defined among others the Les Ombries of Benifassà and the Iberian village

area.

The area of services identified as Les Ombries de Benifassà, is one strategic point of

the Park of la Tinença de Benifassà, from which people have access to overlooking

the nearby reservoir being the heart of the park. This point is a must-visit if you

want to have a general overview of the natural park however, from the point of

view of hiking routes/itineraries it is not the most interesting visit.

Among the visitors to the recreational area of Les Ombries de Benifassà only a

small percentage are participating in a specific activity in the Park. Les Ombries

being a more propitious stop when you are doing a general visit to the Park (P =

0.057).

Graphic 1.: Visitors to the POI “ Les Ombríes de Benifassá” by the Main Purpose of

the Visit.

0,0%

20,0%

40,0%

60,0%

80,0%

100,0%

General Visit tothe Natural

Park

Participating inan specific

Activity in theNatural Park

Visit the areaand then theNatural Park

69,4%

94,4%

64,3%

30,6%

5,6%

35,7% No

Yes



The Iberian village, on the other hand, is an archaeological ensemble of relative

important cultural value and also away from the circuit of regular routes/trekking

proposals.

When you look at the stop guidelines at this point, we note that those who have

stopped, although they are a very small percentage of visitors (2%), do so because

this was its original purpose of visit, this is a totally different scenario of the visit

from the case analyzed before.

Graphic 2: Visitors to the POI “Iberian Village” by the Main Purpose of the Visit.

In this case, although we do not see a clearly significant relationship, probably

explained by the weight of the category in the sample, we have identified clearly a

trend (P = 0. 79).

Itineraries and age of visitors

Last but not least let’s consider the relationship between the main purpose of the

visit and demographic profiles, helping to define specific touristic proposals for

specific touristic profiles, as shown in the map below extracted from the analysis of

length and itinerary slope by age group.

0,0%10,0%20,0%30,0%40,0%50,0%60,0%70,0%80,0%90,0%

100,0%

General Visit tothe Natural Park

Participating inan specific

Activity in theNatural Park

Visit the areaand then theNatural Park

100,0% 88,9%

100,0%

0,0%

11,1% 0,0%

No

Yes



Itineraries By Age Group

18 - 45

45 - 64

65 and over

Next steps

The methodology applied in both cases has led to the characterization of the

behavior of visitors according to age, sex, origin… and allows establishing patterns

of interest, mobility and stops by different socio-demographic profiles.

Technological change may involve the development of new perspectives in this

regard. It is possible to develop new media, questionnaire, etc. over the internet

that allow interactivity. It is possible to use mobile devices for this same task, in

this we are working currently, which limits the number of them to one and

facilitates their integration and communication with the data center.

Technology evolution last year concerning smart phones and tablets gives up real

chances to think that mobile and geo-location are the future to measure tourist

movements in tourist destinations.

In less than 10 years more than 80% of developed countries population will get a

smart phone or a tablet connected to internet and all of them with a GSP

connection.

For us, a new methodology is taken shape: a first step where we can measure

where and when tourist are travelling using mobile and geo-location data provided



directly by travelers and a second step where we measure more extended data

about travels implementing adapted questionnaires for these travels.

Now the challenge is taking advantage of new features provided by social media

and geo location applications for smart phones. People are already tracking their

location every time in their everyday life and also during their trips. So the

challenge is to capture and structure all these data, moreover in this period of

crisis.

The question is to offer real data about tourist activities in final destinations not in

high level administrative boundaries like regions.



Conclusions and Learning

Through this paper, out of the examples obtained from the survey carried out in

two natural parks using combined methodology GPS-traditional survey, we have

tried to explain how having geo-referenced information can help develop tourism

itineraries that could contribute to promote tourism in certain destinations.

Tourism policy makers know in advance many “logic” itineraries but there are some

other routes travelled around by tourist that are alternative to usual ones and,

having information about them can help to document and improve them.

For existing itineraries, information about the tourist profile, obtained from specific

surveys, can also be very relevant, in order to adapt the itineraries to the tourists

visiting a region.

Following previous analyses, we can conclude that a clear relationship between the

main purpose of the visit has been determined with the itinerary followed during

the visit or the places visited.

As per main consequence we can also determine that GPS technology can be used

to analyze at micro level Touristic behavior.

From a practical point of view the information extracted from this survey mainly

helped the parks managing team to:

Design a set of routes and plot them properly in the Park to avoid surprises.

Draw up a list of routes adapted to each visit profile: age, type of visitors

group, with or without overnight in the area, etc., indicating in each case the

best path and estimated duration given the physical conditions of the visitor.

Develop a series of specific recommendations of security "in relation to the

hardness and the path length and difficulties".

Improve both the path and the signaling, according to the user’s profile

(group type) to avoid surprises or taking unnecessary risks in case of

durations in excess.



Nevertheless from the survey methodology point of view there are still many points

to improve in terms of integrating the information of a group of routes in order to

standardize main routes, developing strategies to make participation easier and

more effective, and finally improving fieldwork economics; nowadays hot topic.

In terms of data collection performance, we have already develop software and

strategy to obtain quality information using smartphones potentially useful for any

kind of touristic itineraries.



REFERENCES

Asakura, Y, Iryyo, T (2006). Analysis of tourist behavior based on the tracking data

collected using a mobile communication instrument. Science Direct. Transportation

Research. Part A 41 (2007) 684-690.

Becken,S, Vuletich,S, Campbell,S (2006). Developing a GPS-supported tourist flow

model for New Zealand.

Becken,S, Simmons, D, Frampton, C (2003). Segmenting Tourists by their travel

pattern for insights into achieving energy efficiency. Journal of travel research. Vol

42. August 2003, 48-56.

Furutani, T (2005). A study on tourist navigation with the use of application service

provider of location positioning system – A case study in Kamakura. Proceedings of

the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. Vol 5, pp 1233- 1248.

Marchal, P, Flavigny, PO, Yuan, S (2008). Person – based GPS surveys in France:

“Lille Experiment” by ISL, and GPS Subset in the French National Travel Survey

(ENTD 2007-2008). Torino Meeting, 5 October 2007.

Marchal, P, Flavigny, PO, Yuan, S (2008). Use of GPS in travel surveys. Annecy

Conferenecie 26 May 2008.

Millonig, A, Gatner, G (2008). Monitoring Pedestrian Spatio-Temporal Behaviour.

Department of Geoinformation and Cartography, Vienna University of Technology.

Palmero, C. (1955). El problema de la comunicación telefónica durante el tendido y

su solución definitiva. Ministerio del Ejército, Madrid, AÑO XVI, Nº 191, DIC. 1955.

R., 83. Revista Ilustrada de las Armas y Servicios. Ref: (13629)

Salmones, N, Aranda, E. (2003). Tourism behaviour based on household survey:

the Spanish experience. Enzo Paci papers on measuring the economic significance

of Tourism. Volume: 3. World Tourism Organization.

Schönfelder, S, Axhausen, K.W., Antille, N, Bierlaire, M (2002). Exploring the

potentials of automatically collected GPS data for travel behaviour analysis – A

Swedish data source. Institu für Verkehrsplanung, Transporttechnik, Strassen – und

Eisenbahnbau (IVT), ETH Zürich.

Stopher, P, FitzGerald, C, Biddle, T (2006). Pilot testing a GPS for evaluating

TravelSmart®. Working paper ITLS-WP-06-16. University of Sydney.

Stopher, P.R, Kockelman, K, Greaves, S, Clifford, E (2008). Sample Size

Requirements for Multi-day Travel Surveys: Some Findings. 8th International

Conference on Survey Methods, Annecy, France.

Vyncke,P, (2002). Lifestyle segmentation, from attitudes, interests and opinions to

values, aesthetic styles, life visisons and media preferences. European Journal of

Communication. Vol 17(4); 445-463.

Business

An approach to the use of GPS in tourism surveys to define itineraries