lable at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management 30 (2009) 650–657

Contents lists avai

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tourman

The Qinghai–Tibet railway and Tibetan tourism: Travelers’ perspectives

Ming Ming Su*, Geoffrey WallDepartment of Geography, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 12 November 2007Accepted 15 February 2008

Keywords:Qinghai–Tibet railwayTibetan tourismDestination choice

* Corresponding author. Unit 262, 350 Columbia StCanada N2L 6P6. Tel.: þ1 519 721 8052.

E-mail addresses: mmsu@fes.uwaterloo.ca (M.M.(G. Wall).

0261-5177/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2008.02.024

a b s t r a c t

The Qinghai–Tibet railway opened in July 2006 and boosted Tibetan tourism markedly due to theincreased accessibility and affordability of travel to Tibet. This study evaluates the impacts of theincreased accessibility on tourists’ travel decisions for, and experiences in, Tibet from travelers’perspectives. The relative importance of the train journey in comparison with the destination experiencein Tibet is also examined. A survey of 187 travelers, 82 for the pre-visit and 105 for the post-visit samples,was used to collect travelers’ perceptions. Important destination choice factors for Tibet are identified.The importance of the railway to tourists’ destination choice of Tibet and in their overall travel expe-rience of Tibet is confirmed.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 3. What is the relative importance of the train journey in

Tibet has long been a desirable travel destination for people inChina and from elsewhere because of its unique natural environ-ment and cultural characteristics. However, tourism developmentin Tibet was hindered by its remote and inaccessible location. Travelto Tibet has increased substantially since the opening of the Qing-hai–Tibet railway in July 2006, resulting in many issues concerningtourism development, regional economic development, environ-mental protection, and the preservation of the culture. There is nowa huge gap between tourism demand and supply, in terms offacilities, service quality, tourism planning, and managementexperience and capability.

This research investigates the Qinghai–Tibet railway andTibetan tourism from travelers’ perspectives by identifyingimportant motivational factors influencing the choice of Tibet asa travel destination, evaluating how the increase in accessibility bythe opening of the railway line has influenced tourists’ traveldecisions and experiences, as well as the relative importance of thetrain journey itself in comparison with the destination experiencein Tibet. The following research questions will be explored.

1. What are the major factors influencing Chinese tourists’destination choice of Tibet?

2. How has the opening of the railway line to Lhasa influencedtourists’ destination choice of Tibet?

reet West, Waterloo, Ontario,

Su), gwall@fes.uwaterloo.ca

All rights reserved.

comparison with the destination experience in Tibet?

2. Literature review

With increasing competition for tourists, destinations are chal-lenged to differentiate and position themselves properly to attractmore tourists. Therefore, understanding how tourists make desti-nation choices is of critical importance to destination planners,managers and marketers. The travel decision-making process isa crucial part of the overall travel process that includes pre-travel,on-site, and post-travel facets. It involves decisions on whether togo and where to go, leading to the actual travel to certain desti-nations, the latter being of primary concern for destinationmanagers and tourism planners. Travel destination choice, as oneaspect of the overall travel decision-making process, has been animportant concern in tourism research. Such studies enhance theunderstanding of tourists’ decision-making behaviour, and can beused to identify and prioritize the factors influencing the destina-tion selection process. Furthermore, the interrelations betweentourists’ socio-demographic characteristics, their motivations andtheir destination preferences can be measured, with practicalimplications for destination planning, development and marketing.

Destination choice is made largely through interactions betweendestination attributes and individual tourist’s motivations (Baloglu& Uysal, 1996; Nicolau & Mas, 2005). Tourists’ socio-demographiccharacteristics also influence destination choice (Huybers, 2003).Other relevant factors are familiarity with the destination, priortravel experience, expectations and satisfactions. Moreover, thesefactors will influence tourist destination choice with differentdegrees of importance specific to each destination and tourist.

M.M. Su, G. Wall / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 650–657 651

Transport provides the essential link between tourists’ originsand destination areas, facilitating the movements of travelers withdiverse purposes (Page, 2005). It also is an integral part of the overalltravel experience (Lamb & Davidson, 1996; Page, 2005). It formsa context and a controlled environment for tourists’ movementsbetween destinations and attractions (Page, 2005). Althoughtransport can act as a main focus of the tourists’ experiences, such asin cruises and heritage rail trips, transport is usually considered asa supportive element that is of less importance than the destinationattributes within the overall travel experience. Limited research hasbeen concentrated on the importance of the transportation experi-ence in tourism, especially in comparison with the destinationexperience. Therefore, the relationships between the transport andoverall tourist experience, the factors influencing these, and theireffects on the overall experience need to be further investigated.

Although tourist destination choice has been extensivelystudied, because of the logistical difficulties involved, fewresearchers have compared groups of tourists on their destinationchoice preferences before and after their trips. Furthermore, mostresearchers examine a limited number of the factors influencingtourist destination choice. In this study, a wide range of factorsdrawn from the literature is addressed encompassing socio-demographic variables, previous travel experience (first-time orrepeat visitor), destination familiarity, expectations and satisfac-tions, and motivations (push and pull factors). This is the first studyto focus on the train journey to Tibet from the travelers’ perspec-tive, including their opinions on the train journey experience andimplications of the train for Tibetan tourism. Very few studies haveexplored the relative importance of the journey in comparison withthe destination and the role of the journey in tourists’ destinationchoices. The recent opening of the Qinghai–Tibet railway providesthe opportunity to analyze how the railway impacts tourismdevelopment in Tibet, travelers’ decisions to visit Tibet and therelative importance of the train journey in comparison with thedestination.

3. Research methods

3.1. The Qinghai–Tibet railway

The direct passenger train connecting Beijing and Lhasa firstoperated on July 1, 2006. The train journey takes 48 h from Beijingto Lhasa, via Qinghai. The Qinghai–Tibet section of the railway is1142 km long, stretching across the Tibetan Plateau from Golmud ofQinghai to Lhasa of Tibet. As the world’s highest railway, around960 km or over 80% of the Qinghai–Tibet section are more than4000 m above sea level, and over half the length of the railway islaid on permafrost. In addition to Beijing, passenger train servicesare available to Lhasa from several major cities in China, such asShanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Chongqing, Lanzhou and Xining.

3.2. Research methods

Research by Bowden (2006), Pike (2006), and Seddighi andTheocharous (2002) among others indicates that a traveler surveycan be used to understand travelers’ decision-making behaviourand to identify their destination decision set. A questionnairesurvey was chosen as the major research method for primary datacollection. In addition, the first author’s observations, both on thetrain and at the destination, and different sources of secondary dataprovide complementary information. Two sets of questionnaireswere designed for train passengers on the outward and return trainjourneys between Beijing and Lhasa. In order to maintain thecomparability of the pre- and post-visit questionnaires, themajority of questions were the same for both surveys. Changeswere made in sections pertaining to the expected actual destination

experience. The questionnaire survey was used for both Chineseand foreign travelers; it was first developed in English and thentranslated by the first author into Chinese. A pilot test in bothEnglish and Chinese was carried out and the final Chinese andEnglish versions of the questionnaires were developed based on thefeedback from the pilot test.

The questionnaire survey was delivered by the researcher totravelers on the train using a cluster sampling technique. The totalcapacity of the train between Beijing and Lhasa is 936 passengers.The train contains three types of seats: soft sleepers, hard sleepersand hard seats. The questionnaire survey was conducted in the hardsleeper cars, which is the major type of car on the train (9 out of thetotal of 16 cars) with a total of 60 beds in each car. This means thatrespondents in the cheapest and most expensive seats were notinterviewed. The survey was conducted from 13th May to 22ndMay 2007 on train journeys in both directions between Beijing andLhasa. For each trip, four cars were visited in around 4 h todistribute and collect questionnaires. A total of 82 useable ques-tionnaires were collected on the train from Beijing to Lhasa and 105useable questionnaires were collected on the train from Lhasa toBeijing. Statistical tests were performed to evaluate the data,including descriptive statistics, independent sample t-tests, Chi-square tests and one-way ANOVA tests.

4. Findings

No statistically significant differences were found between pre-and post-visit groups in terms gender, age, place of origin, careerand monthly income. Despite between-sample difference identi-fied in education (p¼ 0.044), high education level was noted forboth pre- and post-samples with higher than 70% of respondentshaving university education or above. The data suggest that traintravelers to Tibet are from diverse age groups and employmentcategories, with perhaps slightly more males (56%) than females,generally high education levels and higher than the Chineseaverage monthly income. This supports Wang’s (2006) conclusionthat tourists to Tibet are generally people with a high educationlevel, high income, high consumption level and comparatively goodhealth. Almost all visitors were Chinese (98%), mostly from northChina, and the majority was visiting Tibet (90%) for the first time,mostly for personal reasons (86%) rather than business. Tibet is stilla new tourism destination for most visitors. This finding is sup-ported by Wang’s study showing that very few people in China havebeen to Tibet, but the majority of them wish to go, which indicatesa large potential market for Tibet tourism (Wang, 2006). Tourists toTibet have a distinctive travel pattern due to the characteristics ofthe destination itself. One feature is that the length of stay (6.4 daysfor the overall sample) is longer than in other tourism destinationsin China. For all respondents, the transportation choice for theentire journey was predominantly by train (66%). The remaindertraveled in one direction by plane (31%). However, overall, the pre-and post-visit samples were similar in their demographic andsocio-economic features. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that anyobserved differences between pre- and post-visit samples withrespect to perceptions and satisfactions with the train journey andthe destination cannot be explained by these demographic andsocio-economic factors.

Respondents’ motivations for traveling to Tibet were measuredby asking them to rate the importance of a number of reasons forvisiting Tibet on a 5-point Likert scale (1 being very unimportant; 5being very important). No statistically significant differences werefound between pre-visit and post-visit samples at the 0.05 levelusing independent sample t-tests. Information was sought on bothpull and push factors. The former are mainly attributes of thedestination. The five motivations categorized as pull factorsreceived high ratings on importance (Natural scenery mean¼ 4.44,

M.M. Su, G. Wall / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 650–657652

Tibetan culture 4.19, opening of the railway 3.92, novelty of Tibet3.90 and mysteriousness of Tibet 4.12). In contrast, push factorswere perceived to be much less important (Seek a learning expe-rience mean¼ 3.24, personal satisfaction/self-esteem 2.97 andescape from routine 2.74). This indicates that for Tibet, pull factorsplay a much more important role in attracting tourists than pushfactors. However, the low scores for push factors may be attributedto the fact that the survey was conducted with travelers who hadalready overcome the socio-psychological barriers and made thedecision to travel to Tibet. Thus, generalisability of the results mightneed further support, perhaps through interviewing potentialtravelers prior to their decision to visit Tibet.

Independent Sample t-tests and One-way ANOVA tests wereconducted to examine the between-group differences in motivationsfor traveling toTibet among travelers with different demographic andsocio-economic characteristics, such as education, monthly income,gender, age and origin. These attributes are commonly considered inthe literature as factors influencing travel motivations. No statisticallysignificant differences at the 0.05 level were identified in respon-dents’ motivations to visit Tibet. Therefore, travelers to Tibet fromdifferent demographic and socio-economic backgrounds are gener-ally similarly motivated in deciding to visit Tibet.

Respondents’ perceptions of the train journey were exploredthrough statements concerning reasons for choosing the train andsatisfaction with the train journey. Again, evaluations were elicitedusing 5-point Likert scales. The view from the train (mean¼ 4.17)was the most important reason for deciding to travel by train, fol-lowed by gradual adaptation to the height of the destination (3.99),safety (3.65), the low price 3.34, to relax (3.13) and novelty (2.56).The generally high mean scores indicate that the train journey itselfwas an important reason for taking the train and was expected tobe a positive part of the travel experience. Perhaps surprisingly asa new and somewhat unusual travel experience, novelty receivedthe lowest score among the reasons offered to respondents forchoosing to travel by train. Respondents were generally positiveabout the train journey but many were not satisfied with theduration of travel (Mean¼ 2.98) although it is inevitable that thejourney by train is a long one.

When the satisfaction scores for the train journey werecompared for pre- and post-visit travelers, statistically significantdifferences were found for duration, schedule, service, facility andview, but not for expenses. With the exception of duration of thejourney, which was scored lower by post-visit travelers, high meanscores were recorded on the return journey. The higher satisfactionlevel (mean¼ 4.23) on the views from the train received on thereturn journey compared with the pre-visit one (Mean¼ 3.87)were most likely because the most impressive views of the Tibetanplateau were seen at the start of the return journey. On the otherhand, on the journey from Beijing to Lhasa, the most attractiveviews were seen at the end of the journey, after some respondentshad completed their questionnaires. With the exception of theduration of the journey, as a traveler in both directions, the firstauthor experienced differences in the services on the train betweenthe two journeys. The atmosphere on the return journey was morerelaxed because the train staff was more easygoing. Although thefacilities were basically the same, the higher service level may havealso increased the satisfaction with the facilities and the schedule.

Among the total sample of 184 respondents, the majority(N¼ 142) agree or strongly agree that the train journey is animportant part of the overall travel experience and is generallysatisfied with the train journey (N¼ 143). Compared with othermodes of transportation, 149 respondents agree or strongly agreethat train is preferable to the bus when traveling to Tibet, while 106respondents prefer the train over air travel. More than half (52%) ofrespondents agree or strongly agree that if there was no train, theywould not have visited Tibet. This indicates the great importance of

the train to Tibetan tourism. However, as the questionnaire surveywas distributed only to passengers on the train, it is not possible toapply this statistic to the broad market for travel to Tibet. Allrespondents had actually chosen the train as their means oftransportation to or from Tibet, already indicating their preferencefor train travel over other modes of transportation.

When comparing the train journey with the destination expe-rience in Tibet, 58 out of 105 (55%) respondents agree or stronglyagree that the train journey is equally important as the destinationexperience in Tibet. However, when rating the best part of thewhole trip, among 102 valid answers, 87 respondents (85%)considered the destination experience as the best part, and 15 (15%)voted for the train journey. Therefore, it can be inferred that whentraveling to Tibet, the train journey is without doubt an importantpart in the overall travel experience; nonetheless, the destination,as the objective of the journey, is most important to tourists.Therefore, although the Qinghai–Tibet train has better facilitiesthan other trains in China and a route designed for tourism, thequality of the destination is still vital to its success.

Suggestions concerning the train journey, tourism developmentand the tourism products of Tibet were solicited in an open-question format in the post-visit questionnaire. With respect tosuggestions concerning the train journey, 19 out of 38 answerspointed out that the duration of the train journey was too long.However, there are limitations to what can be done about this.Another five suggested that there should be more programs oractivities for passengers on the train, such as more on-boardbroadcasting introducing the landscapes along the railway line, ormore sightseeing stops for passengers to take a break and enjoy theviews. These appear to be feasible suggestions. It is evident thatsometimes some passengers felt bored during the journey. To thestatement ‘‘I do not feel bored during the train journey’’, only 17disagreed and 4 strongly disagreed with the statement, which intotal constituted only 21% of all respondents. In spite of the aboveissue, the train journey was generally considered to be good withseven respondents expressing their satisfaction with the trainjourney in the open-ended question. Other minor issues includethe difficulty in getting the train tickets (two respondents), theneed for a non-smoking car (two respondents); and one respon-dent was concerned about the safety of passengers’ belongings.

5. Conclusions

Natural scenery and culture in Tibet were identified as the mostimportant reasons for travelers to visit Tibet. Mysteriousness andthe novelty of Tibet were highly rated as important reasons forvisiting, indicating that Tibet is still a new tourism destination.Another important factor is the opening of the railway line, whichincreased the accessibility and the affordability of traveling to Tibet,and is also an attraction in its own right. No difference was iden-tified in travel motivations to Tibet among travelers from differentdemographic and socio-economic backgrounds.

The relative importance of the Qinghai–Tibet train journey incomparison with the destination experience in Tibet was analyzedquantitatively from travelers’ perspectives. Satisfaction with thetrain journey is high. It was considered to be an important part ofthe overall travel experience by the majority of respondents. Morethan half of respondents agree that if there was no train, they wouldnot visit Tibet. These findings consistently illustrate the greatimportance of the train to Tibetan tourism. When comparing thetrain journey with the destination experience in Tibet, about half ofrespondents agree that the train journey is equally important as thedestination experience in Tibet. However, 85% respondentsconsidered the destination experience to be the best part of the trip.

In summary, it can be concluded that when traveling to Tibet,the Qinghai–Tibet train, with its better facilities than other trains in

M.M. Su, G. Wall / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 650–657 653

China and a route designed for tourism, is without doubt animportant part of the overall travel experience. Nonetheless, thequality of the destination, as the objective of the journey, is stillvital to the success of the train journey in terms of its tourism use.

After the opening of the Qinghai–Tibet railway, tourism in Tibetexperienced a marked increase and it is likely to continue toincrease, for good or ill. In order to understand tourism issues andto achieve sustainable development in the region, it is necessary tostudy the impacts of tourism on Tibet from economic, social,cultural and environmental perspectives. Thus, the positive impactscould be identified and encouraged; and negative impacts could becontrolled and managed. It is important to strive to preserve thenatural environment, local culture, tradition and religion. Also itwill be necessary to understand, balance and manage the impactsto different stakeholders at the destination. This study examinedTibetan tourism only from train travelers’ perspectives, whichnarrowed its generalisability to a broader context; nevertheless, itdeepens the understanding of tourism to Tibet.

Several research opportunities can be identified. First, as thisstudy focused on train travelers to Tibet, excluding opinions ofpeople traveling via other transportation modes, future researchcould be conducted on travelers using other means of trans-portation, especially air, in order to get a more complete view oftravelers’ perceptions and opinions on Tibetan tourism. Second, thisstudy was developed based on a one-time questionnaire survey of

187 respondents in total, which was restricted by the travel time andtrain route selected for the study. Therefore, more questionnairesurveys could be conducted at different times of the year during thepeak and non-peak seasons and on different train routes to Lhasa, iftime and funds permit. This would minimize the possible biasinherent in a single survey and facilitate comparisons between peakand non-peak seasons, and people from different geographicalorigins taking different train routes. Thus, more complete resultscould be achieved and practical suggestions on Tibetan tourismdevelopment could be derived with more confidence. Third, as itfocused on the train journey, this study just scratched the surface oftourism issues, planning and management at the destination.Therefore, more detailed on-site study of Tibet as a tourism desti-nation could be conducted in order to better understand issuesconcerning destination management and operation in Tibet and toprovide more information to guide future tourism development.

This study is novel as the first one to examine the newly openedtrain journey to Tibet by examining train travelers’ perceptions onboth the train journey and Tibet. Although it is widely recognizedthat both the journey and the destination are important in tourism,very few studies have explored the relative importance of thejourney in comparison with the destination. Therefore, using traintravel to Tibet as a case study, this paper provides a new perspectiveon the relationship between destination and transportation expe-riences in tourism.

Appendix

M.M. Su, G. Wall / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 650–657654

M.M. Su, G. Wall / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 650–657 655

M.M. Su, G. Wall / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 650–657656

M.M. Su, G. Wall / Tourism Management 30 (2009) 650–657 657

References

Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments of push and pull motivations:a canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-tality Management, 8(3), 32–38.

Bowden, J. (2006). A logistic regression analysis of the cross-cultural differences ofthe main destination choices of international tourists in China’s main gatewaycities. Tourism Geographies, 8(4), 403–428.

Huybers, T. (2003). Domestic tourism destination choices: a choice modelinganalysis. International Journal of Tourism, 5, 445–559.

Lamb, B., & Davidson, S. (1996). Tourism and transport in Ontario, Canada. InL. Harrison, & W. Husbands (Eds.), Practising responsible tourism: International

case studies in tourism planning, policy and development (pp. 261–276). Chi-chester: Wiley.

Nicolau, J. L., & Mas, F. J. (2005). The influence of distance and prices on the choice oftourist destinations: the moderating role of motivations. Tourism Management,27, 982–996.

Page, S. J. (2005). Transport and tourism (2nd ed.). England: Pearson Education Limited.Pike, S. (2006). Destination decision sets: a longitudinal comparison of stated desti-

nation preferences and actual travel. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 12(4), 319–328.Seddighi, H. R., & Theocharous, A. L. (2002). A model of tourism destination choice:

a theoretical and empirical analysis. Tourism Management, 23, 475–487.Wang, X. (2006). Tibetan tourism after the opening of the Qinghai–Tibet Railway.

Tourism Research (China)(9).