POR-424-07
Contract # 08170-070592/001/CY
Contract Award Date: 2008-02-28
Prepared for
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Lester B. Pearson Building
125 Sussex Drive
2nd floor
Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0G2
Kevin.Chappell@international.gc.ca
The Strategic Counsel is pleased to present the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada with this report on a survey conducted between March 5th and March 20th, 2008 among 817 Canadian travellers in the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver international airports. This survey of international travellers is the second phase of a two-phased research program. The first phase of research comprised a series of 18 focus groups held among travellers and travel professionals in Halifax, Quebec City (in French), Montreal (in French), Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver. Results of the first phase of research are presented under separate cover.
In keeping with the need to ensure the safety and well-being of Canadian travellers, the Client Services Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada’s (DFAIT) Consular Affairs Bureau has produced a series of communication tools designed to inform Canadians on the precautions and/or considerations to be taken into account when travelling abroad. Since 2006, yearly evaluations of these tools have been undertaken as a means of obtaining feedback from the target audience regarding awareness, usage and reaction. DFAIT’s Consular Affairs Bureau employs the results from these combined qualitative and quantitative evaluations to provide guidance on improvements to its suite of communications products and tools.
The current program of research was conducted to extend DFAIT’s understanding of travellers’ and travel professionals’ information requirements when preparing for travel abroad. The qualitative and quantitative components of the 2007 study were replicated for the 2008 research program such that tracking data over a three-year period can be provided for the quantitative portion and trends can be reported on for the qualitative portion.
This report presents the findings of the quantitative portion only of the research. The qualitative results are presented under separate cover.
The research objectives of this quantitative phase of research were as follows:
As in previous years, this second phase of research was conducted inside the international departure concourse beyond the security screening areas at the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver airports. A total of 817 interviews lasting approximately 15 minutes were conducted between March 5th, 2008 and March 20th, 2008.
It is important to note that results of this survey are indicative of the opinions of Canadian international travellers and they should not be deemed representative of the views of the entire Canadian population. Although respondents were selected randomly among travellers in international waiting areas, it is advisable not to assign a set margin of error to an intercept survey. This is because intercept surveys cannot be considered a fully random sampling technique, as not all Canadian international travellers have an equal chance of being selected during the fielding of the survey. Nevertheless, no “hard” quotas were fixed in order to maximize the random nature of the survey, although care was taken to ensure adequate representation by gender, age groups and language.
Interviewing was held on different days and times in each airport, depending on flight schedules and times made available by airport authorities. The interviewing process took place as follows at each airport:
| LOCATION | DATES | TIMES | NO.OF COMPLETIONS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Montreal | March 7th-15th | 2pm-10pm | 268 |
| Toronto | March 6th-th, 14th-16th | 6am-11pm | 275 |
| Vancouver | March 5th-9th, 18th- 20th | 7am-11pm | 274 |
As was the case in previous years, travellers show a lack of top-of mind awareness of the specific key steps to be taken when planning a trip to a new international destination. Looking for accommodation, attractions, and weather (57%) tops the un-prompted list, followed by ensuring their passport is valid (41%), getting information about the destination country (36%), checking the necessary health steps (34%), arranging health and/or travel insurance (27%), checking entry visa requirements (24%), and checking travel advisories (21%).
When prompted, travellers are much more likely to report taking many more steps in their preparation, suggesting that these steps may simply not be top-of-mind for many. Almost all respondents indicated that they verified that their passport is current (97%). The vast majority of respondents also ensured they have health insurance coverage (86%), left a copy of their itinerary with someone at home (81%), ensured proper travel insurance coverage (75%), obtained information on currency (74%), checked visa requirements (72%), and checked vaccination requirements (67%).
It is notable that significantly fewer travellers this year indicated that they obtained information regarding their destination (39% vs. 59% in 2007). One possible explanation for this could be that travellers generally feel more comfortable travelling to the Mexican and Caribbean destinations they favoured this year, given that so much is already known about these areas.
In last year’s report, we ventured that the stark difference in unprompted and prompted responses may be linked to the time-compressed nature of many people’s lives which, combined with increasing access to the Internet almost anywhere in the world, means that travellers may feel more comfortable taking an improvisational or less planned approach to trips. Based on findings from the focus groups, it is also likely that recommendations from friends and family on accommodations and sights may require less upfront legwork by travellers as they are preparing their trip plans. It also appears to be the case, based on focus group commentary, that as international travel becomes more commonplace, even to destinations in more remote or less travelled parts of the world, travellers appear to be more confident in their own ability to react to or handle situations as they arise. As such, they may embark on a trip with the attitude that “nothing can happen” rather than with the attitude that “anything could happen” and this tends to reduce the degree of active thought given to key steps in the trip planning process.
Respondents to the 2008 survey, like those from the 2006 and 2007 surveys, exhibit a somewhat paradoxical view towards the Government of Canada as a source of information on international travel when compared to how often they are actually used as a source of this information. The Government of Canada continues to be seen as credible source of information on international travel, especially regarding safety and security issues, though it is seldom used as such a source. Interestingly, the Government of Canada is used less often than in 2006 and fewer travellers consider are now considering it as the best place to get information on safety and security issues.
The predominance of the Internet is displacing other sources, such as the Government of Canada as more travellers consider the web as the best place to obtain travel-related information compared to 2006 or 2007.
Almost all Canadian travellers view the Government of Canada as a highly credible information source on safety and security issues related to international travel. A full 95 per cent of respondents indicated that they trust the information provided by the government, including 71 per cent who said they have a great deal of trust in the Government of Canada on this front.
As was the case in previous research, these levels of trust are slightly higher than that for friends and family (93%), travel guides (90%) and travel agents (87%) and significantly higher than the trust of governments of destination countries (66%).
While the Government of Canada is seen as a highly trustworthy source of information to international travellers, it is not identified as a primary source of such information. These results are even lower in 2008 (5%) than in 2006 (10%), though are on par with 2007 (4%).
Interestingly, in each year these studies have been conducted results have confirmed the high degree of reliance on the Internet as the primary source of information on international destinations. Results for 2008 show the Internet substantially higher as a key source (70%) as compared to the baseline findings in 2006 (61%), although there has been little year-over-year change on this measure since 2007.
As in other years, about one-third of respondents indicated travel books are the best source of information on new travel destinations (30%), while about one-in-five (22%) said they thought friends and family who live in the destination country are the best source of this information.
Very few travellers see the Government of Canada as the best place to get information on safety and security issues (15%), about the same as in 2007 (17%), but lower than in 2006 (27%). Again, the Internet is the most important source of information on safety and security (48%), significantly higher than in 2006 (31%) and 2007 (34%). Travel books (12%) and friends and family who have been to the destination country (11%) are also seen as sources of information on safety and security issues.
It is quite possible, and this is backed up by comments from focus group participants, that those who are using the Internet are in fact finding themselves, unbeknownst to them, on Government of Canada web sites. While many would readily be able to identify a Government of Canada web site through the “Canada” wordmark, it is often the case that in surfing the net, one may not absorb the extent to which one is relying on government web sites for information.
Familiarity with Government of Canada travel reports and warnings is low. Almost two-thirds (63%) of travellers indicated that they were not familiar with these reports and warnings. Of those who are aware of the warnings, about half have checked them. This amounts to just 18% of all travellers.
Nevertheless, the reports and/or warnings are seen as having a high level of utility to international travellers. In fact, almost nine-in-ten (87%) travellers who have used the reports and/or warnings indicated that they found the reports/warnings to be useful in helping them plan their trips. While travelers do see the reports as useful, many are not altering their trip preparations or travel plans as a result of the reports; only about three-in-ten (29%) said they did so.
The key issue here, for the Government of Canada, is awareness. Awareness levels for these reports and warnings are low, but about half of those aware of the reports do use them. Additional efforts to enhance travellers’ exposure to these reports would in all likelihood have beneficial effects on their usage. In last year’s report, given similar findings, we speculated that many travellers rely on the media for information with regard to destinations that are under a travel advisory or warning. In addition, it is possible that most travellers or those preparing to travel simply do not view travel reports as a “routine” source of information. There may be a tendency to view the information from DFAIT such as travel reports and warnings or advisories, as the latter terms suggest, as information alerts rather than routine information that one could rely on to familiarize oneself with all aspects of a foreign country, including local laws and customs, climate, currency, entry requirements, health conditions as well as safety and security. It may be important to emphasize that these travel reports and warnings provide a very exhaustive portrait of the current situation in a given country and, in particular, provide important information on regional safety and security concerns which may not be top-of-mind for many travellers.
As in previous years, despite the fact that travellers do not see the Government of Canada as a preferred source of information on international travel, about two-thirds (63%) of them indicated that they obtained some information about travelling abroad from the Government of Canada in the past five years, although this has dropped off from 2007 (71%). The vast majority of travellers (91%) have seen this information on the Internet.
About one-half (45%) of Canadian international travellers recall seeing the Bon Voyage, But… brochure, while one-quarter (25%) recall visiting the “voyage.gc.ca” Web site.
The vast majority of travellers would make use of Government of Canada resources if they found themselves in trouble in a foreign country. About two-thirds (67%) said they would contact the Canadian Embassy in the country of their destination, while over one-third (37%) would contact the Canadian Consulate. Travellers are less likely to rely on local resources such as local police (17%) and family and friends (13%). These results are in line with findings from the focus groups in which participants indicated they would immediately contact consular officials in the event of a problem such as loss of a passport or a run-in with police.
The most important role of the Government of Canada in assisting Canadian travellers in need is the provision of a new passport in case of loss (53%). About one-third of travellers (31%) see the Canadian Government as providing assistance during natural or civil disasters. Respondents would also rely on the Government of Canada to provide assistance in case of detention by foreign authorities (29%).
While a shift in opinion from 2006 to 2007 was found with regards to views on limiting Government of Canada assistance to Canadians abroad, that trend has abated somewhat in 2008. Results in 2008 have either levelled off since 2007 or reverted back to 2006 numbers. The drop in these numbers may very well reflect a shift in the frame of reference or the lens through which respondents interpreted this question. The 2007 survey followed the much publicised Lebanese crises which had occurred during the previous summer and undoubtedly influenced respondents’ perceptions with respect to any limitations on Government of Canada assistance for persons travelling abroad. A full year later, this crisis is probably no longer as top-of-mind for travellers. As such, it may be the case that the 2007 findings were somewhat of an anomaly, while those for 2006 and 2008 may represent the norm.