1. Final Defence

2. ? New Technology Traveler Internet Destination Destination Destination Destination Destination Destination Destination Destination Destination Destination Destination

3. INTERNET USE FOR TOURISM (IUT): A Case Survey on Students of Assumption University Thailand

11. Mathieson & Wall Model on Five-Stage Process of Travel-Buying Behavior Tourist Profile: Socioeconomic and behavioral characteristics Trip features Trip distance Trip pressure Trip cost Domestic pressure Party size Trip duration Confidence in travel intermediaries Perceived risk and uncertainty of travel Travel desire Information search Image of Destination (+ or -) Information search continued Assessment of travel alternatives Travel decisions Travel arrangements Travel experience and evaluation Travel Awareness Destination resources and characteristics Primary resources Tourist facilities and services Political and economic and social structure Geography and environment Infrastructure Internal accessibility

15. Theoretical framework Tourist Profile: Socioeconomic and behavioral characteristics Trip features Trip distance Trip pressure Trip cost Domestic pressure Party size Trip duration Confidence in travel intermediaries Perceived risk and uncertainty of travel Travel desire Information search Image of Destination (+ or -) Information search continued Assessment of travel alternatives Travel decisions Travel arrangements Travel experience and evaluation Travel Awareness Destination resources and characteristics occupation , education , net income and age are taken out. nationality , student’s identification number (ID) , Grade Point Average (GPA) , disposable money , total family income , living party , weekday internet use , weekend internet use , and push factors are added. IUT related Travel Awareness Key characteristics of the destination Travel desire IUT used on Information gathering IUT used on Travel decisions IUT used on Travel arrangements IUT as a long term consumer relationship tool Tourist Profile: Socioeconomic and behavioral characteristics IUT related Travel Awareness Trip features Destination resources and characteristics Trip distance Trip cost Party size Trip duration Confidence in IUT Key characteristics of the destination Primary resources Tourist facilities and services Political and economic and social structure Geography and environment Infrastructure Internal accessibility

18. Respondents and sampling procedures Research Instrument: self-administered questionnaire Target Population: 17,798 undergraduate AU students Sample Size: 381 Sampling Method : non-probability sampling Pre-test: 30 student travelers

20. CHAPTER 5: Result and Discussion

21. Summary of Descriptive Analysis 18.8 36.6 27.2 10.4 7.0 Below 3,000 Baht 3,000 – 10,000 Baht 10,001 – 20,000 Baht 20,001 – 50,000 Baht 50,000 Baht Disposable Money 7.8 46.5 35.0 10.7 Below 2 2.00 – 3.00 3.01 – 3.80 3.81 – 4.00 GPA 25.7 23.4 32.6 18.4 3.3 52.5 44.3 Undergraduate: Below 471 471 – 486 491 – 496 Above 496 Graduate: 471 – 486 491 – 496 Above 496 Education/Student ID 59.3 19.1 8.6 Thai Chinese Indian Nationality 43.9 56.1 Male Female Gender Percentage Findings Descriptive analysis

22. Summary of Descriptive Analysis (cont.) 12.3 44.6 28.7 8.6 5.7 Below 5,000 Baht 5,000 – 20,000 Baht 20,001 – 50,000 Baht 50,001 – 100,000 Baht More than 100,000 Baht Expenditure of Travel Per Year 15.1 39.2 20.6 6.8 18.3 Travel 1 time or less per year Travel 2 – 3 times per year Travel 4 – 5 times per year Travel 6 – 8 times per year Travel more than 8 times per year Frequency of Travel 29.8 41.8 Use 1 – 2 hours Use 2 – 5 hours Internet Usage 8.1 16.7 24.0 15.4 35.8 Live alone Live with 1 person Live with 2 persons Live with 3 persons Live with more than 4 persons Living Party 5.2 26.1 26.1 17.5 25.1 Below 20,000 Baht 20,000 – 50,000 Baht 50,001 – 100,000 Baht 100,001 – 150,000 Baht Above 150,000 Baht Total Family Income Per Month Percentage Findings Descriptive analysis

23. Summary of Descriptive Analysis (cont.) 43.9 29.8 Air Private car/van Main Transportation 29.5 Advertising and promotion online Awareness from Internet 46.0 44.9 38.6 Sun sea and sand Attractions Time and cost Pull Factors 44.9 43.6 32.9 Looking for fun and entertainment Seeing and learning Nature Push Factors 56.0 15.2 14.9 13.9 Thailand China Other country in Asia Other countries Destination 44.4 27.4 22.2 18.3 Somebody else book for them Got phone number from internet, and then Call for booking Booking on the hotel website Booking on online travel agent website Booking Method Percentage Findings Descriptive analysis

24. Summary of IUT behaviors 10.8 8.3 9.5 Tours 8.0 9.4 9.3 Currency 13.9 18.5 14.2 Packages 19.1 15.1 17.3 Flights 11.4 7.6 5.7 Car Hire 15.1 17.0 21.4 Destination 21.7 24.2 22.6 Accommodation 66.5 64.5 69.4 User Arranging (%) Planning (%) Searching (%) IUT Behaviors

25. Summary of Hypotheses Testing Rejected Independent Sample t-test H o 1 H o 1: There is no difference among tourists in Travel Desire when classified by IUT related Travel Awareness. Remarks Result (REG) Result (IUT) Statistics Test Hypothesis Traveler Destination

26. Summary of Hypotheses Testing (cont.) Rejected One way ANOVA H o 2 H o 2: There is no difference among tourists in Intensity of using IUT when classified by Travel Desire . Remarks Result (REG) Result (IUT) Statistics Test Hypothesis Traveler Destination Internet

27. Summary of Hypotheses Testing (cont.) (IUT) Thai greater than Non-Thai Rejected Independent Sample t-test Rejected Rejected One way ANOVA Nationality (IUT) Female greater than Male (REG) Female greater than Male Rejected Rejected Independent Sample t-test G ender Accepted Accepted Independent Sample t-test Education H o 3: There is no difference among tourists in Intensity of using IUT when classified by Traveler’s profile. Remarks Result (REG) Result (IUT) Statistics Test Hypothesis Traveler Internet

28. Summary of Hypotheses Testing (cont.) Traveler Internet H o 3: There is no difference among tourists in intensity of using IUT when classified by Traveler’s profile. Remarks Result (REG) Result (IUT) Statistics Test Hypothesis (REG) Below 3,000 Baht smaller than 10,001 – 20,000 Baht 3,000 – 10,000 Baht smaller than 10,001 – 20,000 Baht Above 50,000 Baht smaller than 10,001 – 20,000 Baht Rejected Rejected One way ANOVA Disposable income (REG) Below 2 smaller than 3.01 – 3.80 Rejected Accepted One way ANOVA GPA (IUT) Below 471 greater than Above 496 491 – 496 greater than 471 – 486 491 – 496 greater than Above 496 Rejected Undergraduate Accepted One way ANOVA Graduate Student ID

29. Summary of Hypotheses Testing (cont.) Traveler Internet H o 3: There is no difference among tourists in intensity of using IUT when classified by Traveler’s profile. Remarks Result (REG) Result (IUT) Statistics Test Hypothesis Accepted Accepted One way ANOVA Average overall expenditure per year (IUT) 1 time and less smaller than 4 – 5 times 1 time and less smaller than More than 8 times Rejected Rejected One way ANOVA Frequency of travel Accepted Accepted One way ANOVA Internet use (IUT) None smaller than 3 persons 3 persons greater than 4 and above (REG) None smaller than 1 person None smaller than 3 persons 2 persons smaller than 3 persons 3 persons greater than 4 persons Rejected Rejected One way ANOVA Living party Rejected Accepted One way ANOVA Total family income

30. Summary of Hypotheses Testing (cont.) (IUT) Positive Rejected Independent Sample t-test Pull Factors – Attractions (IUT) Positive Rejected Independent Sample t-test Pull Factors – Event (IUT) Positive Rejected Independent Sample t-test Pull Factors – Time & Cost Accepted Independent Sample t-test Pull Factors – Sun & Beach H o 4: There is no difference among tourists in Intensity of using IUT when classified by Characteristics of the destination . Remarks Result (REG) Result (IUT) Statistics Test Hypothesis Destination Internet

31. Summary of Hypotheses Testing (cont.) Destination Internet H o 4: There is no difference among tourists in Intensity of using IUT when classified by Characteristics of the destination . Remarks Result (REG) Result (IUT) Statistics Test Hypothesis Accepted Independent Sample t-test Pull Factors – Natural Environment (IUT) Positive Rejected Independent Sample t-test Pull Factors – Family

32. Summary of Hypotheses Testing (cont.) Destination Accepted Accepted One way ANOVA Confident about the cheap price they offered Accepted Accepted One way ANOVA Confident about the knowledge and expertise of their service Accepted Accepted One way ANOVA Distance of trip Ho5: There is no difference among tourists in intensity of using IUT when classified by Trip features . Remarks Result (REG) Result (IUT) Statistics Test Hypothesis Internet Traveler

33. Summary of Hypotheses Testing (cont.) Destination Internet Traveler Ho5: There is no difference among tourists in intensity of using IUT when classified by Trip features . Remarks Result (REG) Result (IUT) Statistics Test Hypothesis Rejected Accepted One way ANOVA Confident about them when they provide personalization service Accepted Accepted One way ANOVA Confident about them when they provide a large amount of helpful, up-to-date and attractive information Rejected Accepted One way ANOVA Confident about their ease of purchasing Accepted Accepted One way ANOVA Confident when making payment Rejected Rejected One way ANOVA Confident about what I arrange through the internet is what I will get

34. Summary of Hypotheses Testing (cont.) Destination Internet Traveler Ho5: There is no difference among tourists in intensity of using IUT when classified by Trip features . Remarks Result (REG) Result (IUT) Statistics Test Hypothesis Rejected Rejected One way ANOVA Awareness that influence the desire of travel Accepted Accepted One way ANOVA Distance of trip Accepted Accepted One way ANOVA Confident about them when they had the ability to deal with complex travel arrangement Accepted Rejected One way ANOVA Confident about them when they have high speed of searching and browsing Accepted Rejected One way ANOVA Confident about them when they have refinement page and interface design Accepted Accepted One way ANOVA Confident about them when they offer unbiased advice

35. Summary of Hypotheses Testing (cont.) Destination Internet Traveler Ho5: There is no difference among tourists in intensity of using IUT when classified by Trip features . Remarks Result (REG) Result (IUT) Statistics Test Hypothesis Accepted One way ANOVA The language of website (IUT) Below 3,000 Baht smaller than 3,000 – 10,000 Baht Below 3,000 Baht smaller than 10,001 – 25,000 Baht Below 3,000 Baht smaller than Above 50,000 Baht (REG) 10,001 – 25,000 Baht greater than Above 50,000 Baht Rejected Rejected One way ANOVA The cost of this trip per person (IUT) 1 day 1 night – 3 day 2 nigh smaller than More than 3 day 2 night – 1 week 1 day 1 night – 3 days 2 nights smaller than More than 1 week – 2 weeks (REG) Not stay overnight greater than 1 day 1 night – 3 days 2 nights Rejected Rejected One way ANOVA The duration that they stay (IUT) Girlfriend/ boyfriend couple greater than More than 5 friends (REG) One friend smaller than Girlfriend/boyfriend couple Rejected Rejected One way ANOVA Number of people they travel with

53. Question and Answers