Market Segmentation by Motivations to Travel

Market Segmentation by Motivations to Travel:British Tourists Visiting TurkeyLuisa AndreuMetin KozakNilgun AvciNurten CifterABSTRACT.Knowledge about tourist motivations would enable tourism destination planners to better satisfy consumer needs.Recent studies evidence the heterogeneous nature of tourist motiva-tions,and highlight the importance of motivations(e.g.,Bansal&Eiselt,2004).The context-de-pendency of motivations to specific destinations and tourist market emphasizes the need of further research.The purpose of this study is two-fold.First,to explore the primary reasons influencing British tourists’decision making while taking a summer holiday in two resorts(Fethiye and Marmaris),located in Mugla(Turkey),and second,to identify customer segments,depending on their socio-demographic characteristics and holiday-taking patterns.On the basis of multi-step cluster analysis,five segments were found:fuzzy tourists,recreational-type,active,escape seekers and relax-quiet tourists. Managerial implications and further research are also discussed.[Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:1-800-HAWORTH.E-mail address: <docdelivery@>Website:<>©2005by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]KEYWORDS.Tourist motivations, segmentation, British tourists, TurkeyINTRODUCTIONTourist destinations are accepted to be a key component of the tourism system.Each desti-nation offers a variety of products and services to attract visitors.However,each visitor also has the opportunity and freedom to choose from a set of destinations(Crompton,1992). Destination choice,image and satisfaction have all been the subject of considerable tourism research(e.g.,Bigné,Sánchez,&Sánchez,2001).Numerous attempts have been made to profile tourist motivations and link them to destination choice(e.g.,Bansal&Eiselt,2004; Goodall,1988;Mayo&Jarvis,1981).Each visi-tor may have different motivations and prefer-ences for different destinations(Kozak,2002). Tourism destination planning will have,there-fore,to start with an investigation of tourist be-haviour(Bansal&Eiselt,2004).Specifically, Kozak(2002)asserts that it is imperative that empirical examination of tourist motivation beLuisa Andreu is Assistant Professor,Department of Marketing,Faculty of Business and Economy Studies, University of Valencia,Avda.de los naranjos s/n,46022Valencia,Spain(E-mail:Luisa.Andreu@uv.es).Metin Kozak is Associate Professor of Marketing,School of Tourism and Hotel Management,Mugla University,48000, Mugla,Turkey(E-mail:M.Kozak@).Nilgun Avci is a PhD Candidate,School of Tourism and Hotel Management,Ege University,Cesme,Izmir,Turkey(E-mail:navci@.tr).Nurten Cifter is a Lecturer,Vocational School of Tourism,Mugla University,Fethiye,Mugla,Turkey(E-mail:cnurten@. tr).Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 19(1) 2005Available online at /web/JTTM©2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J073v19n01_011undertaken,since this will help to identify markets in which tourist motivations and des-tination features and resources match. Consumer behaviour literature emphasizes that the concepts needs and motivations are interre-lated(e.g.,Goodall,1988;Witt&Wright,1992). The existence of the former brings the latter.In other words,people may intend to take a trip to fulfil their physiological(food,climate and health) and psychological(adventure and relaxation)needs (Mayo&Jarvis,1981).Therefore,the prime reasons encouraging individuals to take a va-cation or participate in a tourist activity can be regarded as motivations.However,as far as Maslow’s motivation theory is concerned,it is unlikely to expect someone to travel solely for the purpose of fulfilling their physiological and safety needs such as eating,sleeping and having a more secure environment.In addition,making good friendships and prestige could be other rea-sons for travelling to another country.According to Mayo and Jarvis(1981),people have different reasons for taking a vacation either in the same country or abroad,e.g.,to see a different place, enjoy good weather,sea and beaches,escape from routine,have fun,satisfy educational,cul-tural or family needs and so on.Previous research on tourist motivations evi-dence that the evaluation of destination attri-butes can differ from one destination to another depending upon the type of destinations and tourist motivations.In an empirical study,natu-ral beauty,infrastructure,tourist facilities and climate were all found to be prime elements of the destination attractiveness(Gearing,Swart,& Var,1974).In other research,factors affecting tourist destination choices were listed as physical (infrastructure,superstructure,scenery,beaches, climate,historical sights),socio-psychological attractions(attitudes of the local people, cultural events,nightlife and entertainment, novelty of the destination,accessibility,food, peace and quiet and so forth),political and so-cial environment,cost and availability of time (Sirakaya,McLellan,&Uysal,1996).The aim of this study is to contribute to the analysis of tourist motivation taking into account the Brit-ish tourists market visiting Turkey as a tourist destination.Records in the last three decades indicate that the number of foreign arrivals in Turkey remained stable at about one million until the beginning of the1980s.Political change stim-ulated the development of mass tourism be-ginning in the mid-1980s,with the Mediterra-nean and Aegean coasts becoming popular tourist resorts.The UK is the number one country accounting for the majority of foreign tourist arrivals in the Aegean part of the coun-try.With both natural and cultural attractions, Mugla and its popular tourist resorts Fethiye, Marmaris and Bodrum are also geographically involved in this area.Specifically,the main objectives of this research are to(1)explore the primary reasons influencing British tour-ists’decision making to choose Mugla as a tourist destination,and(2)identify customer segments,depending on their socio-demographic characteristics and holiday-taking patterns.LITERATURE REVIEWThe tourism system is built up with its three elements:origin,destination and link-age.Origin refers to the place where potential tourism demand lives.As the central element of the tourism system,the destination is the place to which tourists are attracted.Linkage provides methods for attracting tourists to the destination and includes transport sys-tems,distribution and communication chan-nels(Laws,1991).Contributions to the work of classifying major elements of destinations include the following.In an attempt to measure the tourist attractiveness of destinations,Var, Beck,and Loftus(1977)noted that it is a func-tion of natural,social and historical factors, recreation and shopping opportunities,acces-sibility and accommodation performing above minimum tourist quality l and Morrison(1992)state that a destination is com-posed of attractions,facilities,infrastructure, transport and hospitality.Similarly,Laws(1995) classifies elements that contribute to the at-tractiveness of a tourist destination under two main headings.Primary features include cli-mate,ecology,culture and traditional architec-ture.Secondary destination features are those developments introduced particularly for tour-ist groups such as hotels,catering,transport and entertainment.All these features together con-tribute to the attractiveness of a tourist destina-tion.2JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETINGTogether with the above-mentioned destina-tion elements,the understanding of the con-sumer is relevant in the tourism system and,in particular,tourist motivations and related con-cepts(i.e.,personality,push and pull factors,and the herding effect).A number of approaches have been posited for the purpose of making a contribution to the understanding of tourist mo-tivations.Choosing international travellers as a sample,Plog(1974)examined the relationship between personality and motivation.Personality is subdivided into two mainstreams:allocentric (active)and psychocentric(passive).According to Plog,the types of motivations relate to the type of personality a person has.The allocentric personality is expected to prefer vacations pri-marily in novel and non-touristy places and to meet local people.This group is the study area of the complexity theory(Mayo&Jarvis,1981). The psychocentric personality is expected to pre-fer touristy and familiar places.Having sun,fun and relaxation are the main motivators of this group.This group is also regarded as a part of the consistency theory(Mayo&Jarvis,1981). Presenting a different view,Dann(1977) suggested two discrete reasons to explain why people travel to other places.The first is ano-mie,which is the feeling of isolation from the routine of daily life to become socially interac-tive.The second is ego-enhancement(or self-recognition),which is the need to be recog-nized and have a status which is attained as a result of travel experiences.In other words, within the context of the first motivation,peo-ple are likely to vacation primarily to satisfy their social needs.Among these needs are the needs to meet local people,mix with other fellow tourists,and spend time with people whom they care about.The objective of the second motivation is to satisfy personality needs. For example,some may like to visit places their friends have been to,or places that they have never been to before.The third approach to the evaluation of tour-ist motivations,introduced by Pearce(1993), was derived from Maslow’s motivation theory and is referred to as travel career.Pearce de-fines the tourist motivation as“discretionary, episodic,future oriented,dynamic,socially in-fluenced and evolving”(p.114).The elements of this motivation theory are relaxation,stimu-lation,relationships,self-esteem and develop-ment,and fulfillment.According to Pearce,as motivation is a dynamic element,people are likely to change their motivation from one stage to another over time.Nevertheless,this ap-proach has been widely criticized by tourism researchers.Interestingly,Pearce himself later disputed his approach by stating that people would simultaneously have more than one mo-tivation for travelling to one destination.More-over,given that motivation is defined as being sensitive,the sequential rank of motivations could change from one age to another and from one income group to another.In a further analysis of tourist motivations,a category of push and pull factors is presented. Tourism literature emphasizes the importance of both push and pull factors in shaping tourist mo-tivations and in choosing vacation destinations (Crompton,1979).Push factors are origin-re-lated and refer to the intangible or intrinsic de-sires of the individual traveller,e.g.,the desire for escape,rest and relaxation,adventure,health or prestige.Pull factors are related mainly to the attractiveness of a given destination and tangible characteristics such as beaches,accommodation and recreation facilities,and cultural and histori-cal resources(Andreu,Bigné,&Cooper,2000; Uysal&Hagan,1993).As stated earlier,pull motivators indicate the extent to which each des-tination is attractive to its potential customers. Therefore,the destination choice process is re-lated to the tourists’assessments of destination attributes and their perceived utility values.As far as push motivations are concerned, each travel benefit group has different vacation activity preferences in their destination choice (Moscardo,Morrison,Pearce,Land,&O’Leary, 1996).For example,the escape-relaxation group prefers destinations where nightlife,entertain-ment and water-sports are provided.On the con-trary,the social status group rates golf,tennis, fishing,nightlife and entertainment,shopping and gambling.In order to represent those in each category,motivations for travelling to each destination may vary from one person to an-other,or from one market segment to another; from one destination to another,as well as from one decision-making process to the next(Uysal& Hagan,1993).For example,a person might be visiting a destination in the summer season just to relax,but another in the winter season to seek adventure.Andreu et al.3Many empirical investigations have consid-ered motivations as an element of market seg-mentation research in tourism(e.g.,Bieger& Laesser,2002;Ryan&Glendon,1998).The findings of prior empirical studies indicated that those from different backgrounds or from different clusters are diverse in terms of their motivations to travel to a destination.For ex-ample,a difference has been noticed between more and less experienced travellers,e.g.,the former have lower novelty motives(Crompton, 1979).Conversely,those with more experi-ences had higher motivation scores(Ryan& Glendon,1998).In another study,Hill,Mac-Donald,and Uysal(1990)recorded differences of motivations among individuals from differ-ent life cycle stages.Having taken the gender issue into consideration,it is pointed out that females had stronger motivations than males (Ryan,1995).An interesting concept related to motivations is the herding effect,or habit persistence(e.g., Banerjee&Fudenberg,2004).The“herding ef-fect,”or“herding,”is a common term used in the economics literature and it describes one of the commonly seen behaviours of consumers–“follow the crowd”or“word-of-mouth effect.”Based on the microeconomic theory,herd behaviour is the term used to describe situations in which the in-dividuals of any particular group react coher-ently(i.e.,flocking of birds,stock market bub-bles,and behaviour in political demonstrations). Banerjee(1992)presents a game theoretic model in which different players are faced sequentially with the same choice.When making their choices, players look at decisions taken by previous play-ers.Some decision rules that are chosen by opti-mizing individuals will be characterized by herd behaviour;i.e.,people will be doing what others are doing rather than using their own informa-tion(Banerjee,1992).With reference to destina-tion marketing,habit persistency is one of the factors that may affect tourists’motivation to travel and destination selection.When consum-ers choose to buy consumer goods(tourism des-tination choice in this case),they will imitate what others are doing.Many researchers have found that tourism demand is largely affected by the word-of-mouth(herding)effect(Song&Witt, 2000).Personalised stimuli–previous experiences and word of mouth communication–were the most important sources of information for se-lecting a destination(Andreu,Bigné,&Cooper, 2000).From a general perspective,there are ex-amples of studies undertaken to reveal dif-ferences in motivations.For example,the significance of Kozak’s(2002)research to the body of knowledge was the examination of differences in the set of tourist motivations between nationalities and between destinations. The research provided significant findings sup-porting this view.German tourists were more likely to have culture and nature-oriented moti-vations.British tourists liked to have fun and mix with other fellow tourists.Tourists visiting Turkey had stronger cultural and physical moti-vations than those in Mallorca.On the other hand,the importance of“relaxation and plea-sure”did not differ from one nationality or from one summer destination to another.These sets of motivations possessing the highest mean scores could be the prime reasons for those participat-ing in summer tourism activities,regardless of the types of destinations and tourists from differ-ent nationalities.Further differences were also recorded in respect of factors affecting tourists’choice of destinations.Thus,tourist motivations are not homogeneous.Several researchers have recognized the heterogeneous nature of tourist motivations by proposing tourist typologies based on the personality and the tourism activity to be participated in.The context-dependency of mo-tivations to specific destinations and tourist mar-ket emphasizes the need for further research.RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Questionnaire DesignA questionnaire in two sections was struc-tured for the purpose of measuring British tour-ists’motivations for travelling to the southwest part of Turkey as a summer holiday destination. The questionnaire was designed based on Kozak’s study(2002),after making some minor revisions in light of the results of a pilot study conducted in May2001.The first part involved basic de-mographic and background data on the respon-dents and their vacations in Turkey.This section comprised nine questions in total.The second part involved17major motivation elements in-ducing tourists to take an overseas vacation to a4JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETINGparticular destination.Respondents were asked to state the extent of their agreement with each reason in terms of its importance in their deci-sion to choose to holiday in Turkey on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from not impor-tant at all(1)to extremely important(7).This section presented statements such as“I came to Turkey to get close to nature”or“I came to Tur-key to meet the local people.”The“important–not important”scale has also been used by other researchers(Hill,McDonald,&Uysal,1990; Kozak,2002).The reason for using a Likert-type scale and employing a number of multiple push motivation variables was that motivation is multi-dimensional and tourists want to have more than one experience at a destination(Pyo, Mihalik,&Uysal,1989).Data CollectionA personal survey was used to collect the data in this study.The survey was carried out in the summer of2001(July-August)among British tourists visiting Fethiye and Marmaris, located in the southwestern part of Turkey. They are both popular resorts among British tourists.In fact the number of British visitors to these areas has doubled in the last few years, from4.44%in1992to8.77%in2000.Nearly one in eight British citizens chooses Turkey for their holidays.The researchers contacted the managers of incoming travel agencies op-erating in the region and requested to deliver the questionnaires on arrival while tourists were on the bus through the destination from Dala-man,where the local airport is based.Each destination is almost an hour’s distance by drive from the airport.Those who consented were given a self-administered questionnaire, which was collected upon completion.In total, 301usable questionnaires were collected from tourists over the course of two weeks.Of those returned,41questionnaires were eliminated. These questionnaires were incomplete or had an excessive amount of missing able surveys for the analysis totalled260after data editing.Data AnalysisThe collected data were analyzed by employ-ing the Statistical Package for the Social Sci-ences(SPSS12.0)computer program.As far as scale-based motivation items are concerned,fac-tor analysis was performed to identify the extent to which questions seem to be capturing the same variables and the degree to which they could be reduced to a smaller set of factor attri-butes.A Cronbach alpha test was used to deter-mine the internal consistency of each factor vari-able of the measurement instrument.The results obtained from this test indicate a high level of in-ternal consistency.Three of the final commun-alities are higher than.60,indicating a strong correlation between the indicators and the asso-ciated factors.Cluster analysis was employed to identify customer segments,depending on their socio-demographic characteristics and holiday-taking patterns.Analyses of variance(ANOVA) were used to determine if differences existed among identified motivation factors across tour-ists from one segment to another.STUDY FINDINGS Motivation ratings were used to derive the tourist typology.First of all,the motivation items were factor analyzed to assess their psy-chometric properties(a=0.8).Principal com-ponent factors with an eigenvalue of one or greater were rotated by the Varimax analysis. Variables with loadings equal to or greater than.50were included in a given factor to decrease the probability of misclassification. Barlett’s test of sphericity and the calculation of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO)statistics indi-cated if data appeared to be suitable for the identification of orthogonal factor dimensions.A total of17items from the factor analysis re-sulted in five factor groupings and explained 61%of the total variance.The results are pre-sented in Table 1.The five items loading on the first fac-tor relate to the motivation of visiting and experiencing principal Turkish tourist attractions(natural as well as cultural-his-torical sites).Thus,this factor is referred to as“enjoy tourist attractions”(Cronbach’s a =0.75).The second factor,as the second strongest tourist motivations,is referred to as“the diversity of entertainment in a value for money destination”(Cronbach’s a=0.7)Andreu et al.5because the four items loading highly on it refer to holidays in a value for money desti-nation,which offers good shopping facili-ties,good nightlife and entertainment in a different culture.Three items loaded on the third factor(Cronbach’s a=0.7).Because these items relate to the motivation of know-ing new places and meeting new people,the factor is labelled as the“different socio-cul-tural environment.”The three items loading on the fourth factor involve the motivations of accessing easily to Turkey because the flight time is short,there are reduced air-fares and it is a well-advertised destination (Cronbach’s a=0.5).Therefore,it is termed as“the ease of access-communication.”Fi-nally,the three items loading on the fifth factor involve the motivation of getting away from the routine,having fun and good weather (Cronbach’s a=0.5).Thus,it is termed as “getting away from routine”which is the primary factor motivating British tourists to visit Turkey.The objective of this empirical study fo-cused on the identification of tourist seg-ments,depending on their reasons for choos-ing Turkey as a summer holiday destination. In order to achieve this,cluster analysis was used(Bigné,1990).The respondents were then classified into tourist groups based on their importance rating on the five factors described above.To form the tourist groups, motivation scores on the five factors were used in a multi-step cluster analysis(Hair, Anderson,Tatham,&Black,1995). First,the tourist clusters were formed on the basis of the five factor scores,using Ward’s method.A five-cluster solution resulted based on an examination of the agglomeration coef-ficient for hierarchical cluster analysis.Then, a K-means clustering procedure with the ini-6JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETINGTABLE 1. Exploratory Factor AnalysisFactors Item-loadings Mean*SD Eigenvalue% ofvarianceCum PctFactor 1: Enjoy Turkish tourist attractions 3.4 3.862323 ACTIVE To be active0.8 3.8 1.6NATURE To get close to nature0.7 2.6 1.6ADVENTUR To seek adventure0.7 3.8 1.7SPORTS To engage in sports0.7 2.8 1.7HISTORIC To visit historical and cultural sites0.6 3.9 1.7Factor 2: Diversity of entertainment in a value for money destination 5.2 2.11336 VFM It offers good value for money0.8 5.8 1.2SHOPPING It offers good shopping facilities0.8 4.9 1.5CULTURE It has a different culture0.7 4.9 1.4NIGHTLIFE It has good nightlife and entertainment0.6 5.1 1.5Factor 3: Different socio-cultural environment 4.6 1.71046 NEWPLACE To increase my knowledge of new places0.8 4.7 1.3LOCALPEO To meet local people0.7 4.4 1.4Factor 4: Ease of access-communication 3.7 1.4854 FLIGHT Flight time is short0.8 3.3 1.7AIRFARES To benefit from reduced air-fares0.7 3.3 1.8PUBLICIS It is a well-publicized tourist destination0.5 4.6 1.5Factor 5: Getting away from routine 5.9 1.2761 WEATHER To enjoy good weather0.7 6.50.7GETAWAY To get away from home0.6 5.2 1.8FUN To have fun0.6 6.1 1.3KMO = 0.72, Barlett 1,194.4093, p < 0.001. *The criteria were based on a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 (not important at all) to 7 (extremely important).tial seeds,provided by the hierarchical analy-sis solution,was performed to obtain the final clusters.To help identify large relative in-creases in the cluster homogeneity,change in the clustering coefficient for ten to two clusters was calculated(Hair,Anderson,Tatham,& Black,1995).Because the largest increases were observed in going from five to four clus-ters(13.7%),the five-cluster solution was se-lected.Initial seed points from hierarchical re-sults are shown in Table 2.The second step uses non-hierarchical tech-niques(i.e.,K-means algorithm)to adjust the results from the hierarchical procedures.In per-forming the cluster analysis,the initial seed points from the results in step1were ing these values as seed points,the pro-cedure defined five groups,and the final cluster centres are shown in Table3.Just as was found with the hierarchical method,the five-cluster variables showed differences between the clus-ters.The similarity of the results from the two methods confirms the hierarchical results.Typology of TouristsAs mentioned earlier,the cluster analyses revealed a five-cluster solution.Looking at the final cluster centres,the following group characterization can be concluded(see Ta-ble4):•The first and largest group of tourists,the“fuzzy”tourists,represents36.5%of alltourists.These tourists have a strong mo-tivation for enjoying tourist attractions.They are also interested in entertainmentand finding a different cultural environ-ment based on value for money and ac-cessible destination.Additionally,these tourists are very concerned with getting away from routine.In general,the high ratings in all the motivations justify the label of demanding,exigent or fuzzy tourists.•The next,“active”tourists(22.7%),gives ease of access and enjoying tourist attrac-tions importance ratings,which involve an active behaviour while taking holi-days.On the contrary,they assign very low ratings to getting away from routine.•The third group,the“recreational-type”tourists(19.2%),seem to be interested in the diversity of entertainment and cul-tural environment that Turkey offers.In a sense,these tourists assign very low rat-ings to finding a relaxed atmosphere.In-terestingly,they consider enjoying tourist attractions to be of below-average impor-tance.Thus,this group of tourists is re-lated to recreation seekers.•The fourth segment,“escape”tourists (15.8%),rate getting away and ease of access as very important motivations. The consideration of these motivations of above-average importance shows their need for evasion;thus,these tourists are labelled as escape seekers.Interestingly, this group views enjoying tourist attrac-tions or finding different cultural envi-ronments as least important.•The fifth and the smallest segment is re-ferred to as“relax-quiet”tourists(5.8%) and considers getting away to be of above-Andreu et al.7TABLE 2. Results of Cluster Analysis Using Hierarchical and Nonhierarchical Methods Cluster Initial Seed Points from Hierarchical ResultsN%F1F2F3F4F5 110239.20.5470.1940.2430.1640.56625521.20.298Ϫ0.6040.1740.619Ϫ1.13635420.8Ϫ0.2500.760Ϫ0.057Ϫ1.149Ϫ0.26043413.1Ϫ1.684Ϫ0.109Ϫ0.0780.6860.530515 5.8Ϫ0.097Ϫ1.597Ϫ1.908Ϫ0.8040.052F ratio--69.7936.1820.3455.7652.42 Significance--0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000average importance,but they assign verylow ratings to finding diversity of enter-tainment and cultural environment.Theyalso give low ratings to enjoying touristattractions and ease of access.The above five categories are related to previous approaches for understanding tour-ist motivations.For instance,based on the Plog(1974)category,the“fuzzy tourists”and “active tourists”represent more the allocentric tourists,and the“relax-quiet”is related to the psychocentric group.Taking into account the Dann(1977)approach,the“recreational-type”relates to the anomie motivations,and the “escape-tourists”are related to the ego-en-hancement motivations.The approach of push motivations(Crompton,1979)also explains the findings of this study.In fact,these five categories of tourists are based on the intan-gible or intrinsic desires of the individual traveller.Cluster ValidationTaking random initial seeds to set the clus-ter centres,a K-means clustering procedure was performed in order to validate the cluster solutions.Although some minor departures from our original solution exist,overall the two cluster solutions are strikingly similar. The socio-demographic characteristics of the clusters obtained,on the basis of the total sam-ple,are reported in Tables5and6.A series of chi-square tests were applied to investigate if there was any statistical difference between the socio-demographic and tourist behaviour variables of each group visiting Turkey.From their analysis,it can be concluded that there are differences(p<0.05)in the composition of the clusters in relation to gender(p<0.01), income(p<0.01),holiday(p<0.01),length of holiday(p<0.05),how far in advance the holiday was booked(p<0.01),and number of visits to Turkey(p<0.01).Non-significant8JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETINGTABLE3.Results of the Nonhierarchical Cluster Analysis with the Initial Seeds from the Hierarchical Analysis ResultsMotivationsCluster means*F-value Sig Cluster 1:FuzzyCluster 2:RecreationalCluster 3:ActiveCluster 4:EscapeCluster 5:RelaxEnjoy Turkish tourist attractions0.666Ϫ0.1850.258Ϫ1.677Ϫ0.034108.590.000 Entertainment in a VFM destination0.3510.418Ϫ0.5290.041Ϫ1.64727.320.000 Different socio-cultural environment0.1510.2940.049Ϫ0.088Ϫ1.88419.300.000 Ease of access0.290Ϫ1.4070.5760.503Ϫ0.78982.740.000 Getting away from routine0.572Ϫ0.119Ϫ1.1680.4340.17855.430.000 Cluster size (n)9550594115Percentage of respondents (%)36.519.222.715.8 5.8*The cluster descriptions are based on factor scores that have a mean of zero and standard deviation of one.TABLE 4. Interpretation of Five ClustersClusterF1F2F3F4F5 Enjoy touristattractionsDiversity ofentertainment in aVFMDifferent culturalenvironmentEase of access Getting awayfrom routine1 (n = 95)Fuzzy tourists Very high High High High Very high2 (n = 59)Active tourists High Low Med-high Very high Very low3 (n = 50)Recreation seekers Low High High Very low Low4 (n = 41)Escape seekers Very low Med-high Medium Very high Very high5 (n = 15)Relax seekers Low Very low Very low Very low High。