A Study of Chinese Tourists in Finland - Winter 2003

Transcription

1 A Study of Chinese Tourists in Finland - Winter 2003 Tong Tuominen

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of the research Data collection 3 2. DATA The profile of the respondents Gender of the travellers Marital status of the travellers Age of the travellers Professional background of the travellers Educational background of the travellers Regions of the travellers Detailed information concerning the trips Purpose of the trips Destinations in Finland Destinations in Europe Duration of the whole trip Duration in Finland Travelling in groups Visa and information sources about Finland Duration of getting Finnish visa Information sources Travel agencies The perceptions and satisfaction level Satisfaction of the trip in Finland Satisfactory score Recommendation Reasons not to recommend Reasons to recommend What likes most in Finland 35 1

3 2.5 Winter related aspects Finnish winter Snow Santa Claus Winter activities Lapland Shopping Expenditure on shopping Preferred shopping items CONCLUSION A comparison between the two researches Summary ADDITIONAL MESSAGE TO FINNAIR LIMITATIONS 50 APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF THE DATA COLLECTED FEBRUARY 2003 APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF THE DATA COLLECTED OCTOBER 2000 APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE IN CHINESE 2

4 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The purpose of the research The purpose of this research is to deepen the knowledge concerning Chinese tourists visiting Finland and their ideas about Finland as a tourist destination, especially during the winter season. This research is especially made for Finnish Tourist Board (MEK). 1.2 Data collection The data was collected at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport by interviewing Chinese travellers who were leaving Finland back to China. At the moment, only Finnair offers direct flights between Beijing and Helsinki in Finland. Thus, in order to capture most of the Chinese travellers, the author did the interview according to Finnair flight schedule from Helsinki to Beijing. At this moment (Feb. 2003), there are five Finnair direct flights every week from Helsinki to Beijing, namely Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Sunday. There were only three flights each week in Oct (when the previous similar research was made). On-site survey was conducted at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport from January 19th, 2003 to February 2nd, During these two weeks, altogether 11 times interviews were made, including eight times on weekday and three times during the weekend. The interviews took place inside the airport building after the luggage checking-in area. The author approached Chinese tourists and asked if they were about to depart for Beijing. They were asked if they were willing to participate in a survey. The questions were asked according to the prepared questionnaire by the author, and the author also wrote down the answer for each question. The questionnaire comprised 25 questions. It collected information on sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, etc.); trip related characteristics (travel agency, length of stay, activities, etc.); evaluating Chinese visitors satisfaction levels in relation to nine attributes on a five points scale (ranged from least satisfied to most satisfied). 3

5 The questions were based on the questionnaire of the previous survey, which the author did in Ms. Pirkko Hannula and Mr. Tom Ylkänen from Finnish Tourist Board were given their valuable ideas to what questions should be considered to ask in this particular study. Both the questionnaires in English and Chinese used in the interview are presented at the end of this report (as Appendix 3 and 4). 4

6 2. DATA A summary of the data collected during the interview is presented as Appendix 1. And a summary of the data collected in the previous research in the year of 2000 is presented as Appendix 2. Previous study is very much mentioned, as you will notice when you are reading the current one. This is in order to compare easily, so readers would have a clear picture of Chinese outbound travellers in these two studies. 2.1 The profile of the respondents A total number of 157 respondents were interviewed at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport. And this included 123 who had visited Finland and 34 who were in transit only (see Table 1). Among the respondents, 115 (73.2%) were males and 42 (26.8%) were females. Table 1: Gender of the travellers, 2003 Total*) Finland**) Transit***) Sex Σ % Σ % Σ % Male Female *) All respondents (157), **) Respondents who had visited Finland (123), ***) Respondents who were in transit only (34) Gender of the travellers Figure 1 reports the respondents' demographic characteristics. Among those people who had been visiting Finland, over 75% were males and less than 25% were females. Clearly, there were more men than women. There was a bit more women in transit, about 35.3% were females and 64.7% were males. Visiting in Finland, 2003 Transit only, 2003 Figure 1: Gender of the travellers,

7 Compared to the research did in the year of 2000 (see Figure 2), there were a bit less women and a bit more men in average this year. Total 2003 October 2000 Figure 2: Gender of the travellers, 2003 vs Marital status of the travellers Among the respondents who had visited Finland, 88.6% of them were married and the rest were single or did not answer the question. Among the transit respondents, 52.9% were married and the 44.1% were single (see Figure 3). This is due to the reason that the respondents in transit were younger, and they were mainly students and young businessmen in other European countries. Visiting in Finland, 2003 Transit only, 2003 Figure 3: Marital status of the travellers, 2003 From Figure 4, you can see that there were a bit more married in number in this study than the previous one did in 2000, and the reason could be that the respondents in previous research on average were younger. 6

8 Total 2003 October 2000 Figure 4: Marital status of the travellers, 2003 vs Age of the travellers As shown in Figure 5, only 10% of the respondents who had visited Finland were either younger than 25 or older than 54, whereas the majority (87.8%) were between 25-54, and there were no old and really young respondents. On the contrary, respondents were in transit clearly younger due to the reason that many of them were students and young businessmen. More than half (52.9%) of the respondents in transit were under 34 years old. Visiting in Finland, 2003 Transit only, 2003 Figure 5: Age of the travellers, 2003 Chinese respondents were older in this study than in the previous one (see Figure 6). This is because in the previous one, there were a lot of young respondents from foreign joint venture companies and young respondents doing business with Finnish companies. 7

9 Total 2003 October 2000 Figure 6: Age of the travellers, 2003 vs Professional background of the travellers It was found that employees in government owned enterprises, businessmen and government officials were dominating (71.5% together) among those respondents who visited Finland (see Figure 7). For detailed information about the professions of the respondents, please look at Appendix 1. Visited in Finland, 2003 Figure 7: Professional background of the travellers, visited in Finland, 2003 On the other hand, the respondents in transit were mainly students (38.2%), businessmen (23.5%) and had some other occupations (20.6%) that were not listed (see Figure 8). For detailed information about the professions of the respondents, please look at Appendix 1. 8

10 Transit only, 2003 Figure 8: Professional background of the travellers, transit only, 2003 Considering all the respondents, the biggest amount (29.9%) of the respondents worked for government owned enterprises. The share of respondents who were businessman or worked in private owned enterprises was high (21.7%), also. And 12.1% were government officials (see Figure 9). Total 2003 Figure 9: Professional background of the travellers, total,

11 While in the previous survey, the biggest group (44%) was clearly employees working in foreign / joint venture companies (no leisure trips, or at least there were no pure leisure trips. Maybe there were quite a lot of combined business-leisure trips). Nowadays, relatively speaking, this kind of group had almost vanished (or actually other groups has increased so much that they do not show any more on graphs). The percentages of people who were employees in government owned enterprises almost doubled this year. And government officials had remained the same (see Figure 9 and Figure 10). October 2000 Figure 10: Professional background of the travellers, October Educational background of the travellers Figure 11 shows that 87.3% of the respondents who visited Finland had at least college education, which is a bit less than in the previous study and the proportion of less than college education is a bit more. There is no big difference between the respondents visited Finland and those were in transit in this study. 10

12 Total 2003 October 2000 Figure 11: Educational background of the travellers Regions of the travellers From Figure 12 you can see that the respondents who visited Finland in this study were coming quite equally from different parts of China; and surprisingly the capital of China, Beijing, was not the first place any more, but the second. Liaoning occupied the first place with 14.6%, followed by Beijing (13.0%), Jilin (8.9%), Shandong (8.1%), Shanxi (7.3%), Hebei (7.3%), Heilongjiang (4.9%), Hubei (4.1%), Guandong (4.1%), and Zhejiang (4.1%), etc. Table 2 shows the detailed information concerning the regions of the travellers. Visited in Finland, 2003 Figure 12: Regions of the travellers, visited in Finland,

13 On the contrary, the respondents who were in transit were mainly from Beijing and other big cities; distribution similar compared to the previous study in 2000 (see Figure 13 and Figure 15). Transit only, 2003 Figure 13: Regions of the travellers, transit only, 2003 Considering all the respondents, altogether 21.2% were from Beijing, 14.7% from Liaoning, 7.1% from Jilin and 7.1% from Shandong (see Figure 14). The respondents in this survey were from much more diversified places than the previous one. Total, 2003 Figure 14: Regions of the travellers, total 2003 It was found that in the previous study 56% of the respondents were from Beijing, and 15% from Heilongjiang, 9% from Shangdong and 5% from Shanghai (see Figure 15). Beijing was a very dominating place where respondents were coming from in the previous study. This situation has changed totally nowadays. Chinese leisure travellers are now from much more different places, they are coming from all over the country, especially the northern part of China. 12

14 October 2000 Figure 15: Regions of the travellers, October 2000 From Table 2 you can see that there were only 4 respondents from Shanghai and none was from Hong Kong. Most respondents were still from Beijing, but the percentage lowered more than half compared to the previous study. Table 2: Regions of the travellers, 2003 Total Finland Transit Provinces Σ % Σ % Σ % Beijing Liaoning Jilin Shandong Shanxi Hebei Heilongjiang (from Harbin) Tianjin Hubei (from Wuhan) Guandong, Guangzhou (Canton) Jiangsu Zhejiang Other: Shanghai Xinjiang (Sinkiang) Anhui Hunan Gansu (from Lanzhou and Ning Xian) Fujian Shaanxi (from Xi'an) Inner Mongolia Qinghai Hong Kong Oversee Chinese Not answered

15 When looking at the respondents who were on leisure trips only (see Figure 16), it is noticeable how low the percentage of Beijing was (only 5.1%). Regions were otherwise quite equally distributed, except the northern part of China was dominating (Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang - over 40% altogether). 12.7% were from Shandong, 11.4% from Shanxi and both from Xinjiang and Anhui were 5.1% - the same as Beijing. On the other hand, when we look at non-leisure trips, it is a totally another situation. From Figure 16 you can see also that Beijing was dominating (36.4%), also other big cities such as Guandong and Shanghai are now having some percentages on the graph. The respondents who were on leisure trips were mainly from the northern part of China, not from the biggest cities in China, such as Beijing, Shanghai and Guanzhou. It would be very interesting to investigate the reasons behind this. At this moment the author could only guess. The imagined reasons are listed below: a. The respondents in the northern part of China have more disposal incomes. b. There is not so much to see in the region, and Beijing is next to the region. The most people have visited Beijing already, and now they want to go abroad to see something different. c. The people in that region are more used to travel abroad. Leisure trip, 2003 Other than leisure trip, 2003 Figure 16: Regions of the travellers vs. leisure trip,

16 From Table 3 you can see that most respondents on leisure trips were mainly from Liaoning, Jilin, and Shandong. They occupied 48.2% of the total leisure trip respondents. There was only 1 person from Shanghai, and none was from Guangzhou. Table 3: Regions of the travellers who were on leisure trip, 2003 Total Finland Transit Provinces vs. leisure trip Σ % Σ % Σ % Liaoning Jilin Shandong Shanxi Beijing Xinjiang (Sinkiang) Anhui Heilongjiang (from Harbin) Other: Tianjin Jiangsu Gansu (from Lanzhou and Ning Xian) Fujian Inner Mongolia Hebei Hubei (from Wuhan) Zhejiang Shanghai Hunan Guandong, Guangzhou (Canton) Shaanxi (from Xi'an) Qinghai Hong Kong Oversee Chinese Not answered Clearly, among the respondents who were not on leisure trips, the majority (36.4%) was from Beijing, especially on transit (48.5%). Followed by Hebei (10.4%), Liaoning (6.5%), Hubei (6.5%), Guangzhou (6.5%), Zhejiang (5.2%), Shanghai (3.9%), Tianjin (3.9%), Jiangsu (3.9%), and Hunan (3.9%) (See Table 4). 15

17 Table 4: Regions of the travellers who were not on leisure trip, 2003 Total Finland Transit Provinces vs. other than leisure trip Σ % Σ % Σ % Beijing Hebei Liaoning Hubei (from Wuhan) Guandong, Guangzhou (Canton) Zhejiang Shanghai Tianjin Jiangsu Hunan Other: Heilongjiang (from Harbin) Shaanxi (from Xi'an) Jilin Shandong Qinghai Shanxi Xinjiang (Sinkiang) Anhui Gansu (from Lanzhou and Ning Xian) Fujian Inner Mongolia Hong Kong Oversee Chinese Not answered Detailed information concerning the trips Purpose of the trips Table 5 shows that leisure travel was dominating, namely more than 50% of the respondents were on leisure trips. Followed by transit trips (23.6%), and the third were the trips related to other business reasons (14.6%). 16

18 Table 5: Purpose of the trips, 2003 Total Finland Transit Purpose of the trip Σ % Σ % Σ % Leisure travel Around trip through several countries Transit Other business reasons Study (educational) Congress or Seminar Trade fair or exhibition Professional study tour Visiting friends, relatives Other: working in Finland inspection studying in Finland living in Finland There were no leisure trips at all in the previous study in On the contrary, the share of transit in the current study was more than tripled compared to the previous one. The share of other business reasons was more or less the same. Congress or seminar and professional study tours were dominating in previous study in 2000, but in this study their share had dropped almost to zero (see Table 5 and Figure 17). October 2000 Figure 17: Purpose of the trips, October Destinations in Finland Helsinki was clearly the dominating (79%) destination in Finland (see Figure 18). Leisure travellers had to stay in Finland for at least two nights due to the reason that Finnish Embassy in China had issued Schengen Visas to them. Some respondents 17

19 complained also that there was almost no program arranged in Finland - they were just staying in Hotels in the capital area and not going elsewhere at all. On the contrary, respondents who came because of business related reasons went to other parts of Finland as well not only to the capital area. In the year of 2000 when the first survey was done, the destinations in Finland were much more equally distributed between biggest cities (because most of the trips were somehow work or business related at the time). Visiting in Finland, 2003 October 2000 Figure 18: Destinations in Finland Destinations in Europe All leisure trip travellers were on a nine-country going-around trip without any clear main destination. In addition to these nine countries they had to stay in Finland at least for two nights (because of the Schengen visa issued by Finnish Embassy in China). This situation was not taken into account in the main destinations in Europe in 2003 in Figure 19. Many leisure respondents had expressed that it was a surprise that they actually had to come to Finland as the first destination in a European going around trip. Figure 19 also shows that Finland was the main destination (16.6%) in Europe for people doing business, work or study related things. Followed by Sweden (4.3%), Denmark (3.7%), Warsaw (2.5%), Budapest (1.8%), and Moscow (0.6%). Among other destinations in Europe, Austria, Germany, San Marino, Vatican City, Italy, Luxemburg, Belgium, France and Netherlands had equal (11.1%) shares of combined trips in Europe in the current study, see Figure

20 The main destinations in Europe, 2003 Other destinations in Europe, 2003 Figure 19: The destinations in Europe While in the previous study (see Figure 20), Sweden was the main destination (56.8%) among combined trips, followed by England (15.9%), Norway (11.4%), Denmark (6.8%), Estonia (4.5%), Germany (2.3%) and Russia (2.3%). October 2000 Figure 20: Other combined countries, October 2000 Detailed information concerning destinations in Europe, please look at Table 6. In Table 6, 17.2% of the answers among the respondents claimed that Finland was the main destination. In Figure 19, it said that 16.6% of the respondents' main destination was Finland. There is a small difference between the two percentages. The reason is that because there were some respondents having more than one main destination, the sum makes over 100% in Table 6. The same reason also works for other different percentages between Table 6 and Figure

21 Table 6: The destinations in Europe Total Finland Transit Destinations in Europe Σ % Σ % Σ % The main destinations in Europe: Finland Stockholm / Sweden Denmark Warsaw / Poland Budapest / Hungary Moscow, Russia No clear main destination Not answered / irrelevant Other places visited in Europe: France Belgium Luxemburg Italy Vatican City San Marino Germany Austria Netherlands Duration of the whole trip Figure 21 shows that the majority (54.8%) of the respondents were taken 11 to 30 days trips, 12.1% were taken four to ten days trips, and only 1.9% were taken longer than 180 days trips. And none of the respondents was taken less than three days or from 31 to 179 days trip. In the previous study did in 2000, trips were clearly shorter, and they were mainly business or work related and had no leisure trips. The average staying was eight days (living in Finland cases were not counted). The main destination in Europe was mainly Finland. Total 2003 October 2000 Figure 21: Duration of the whole trip 20

22 In this study, the average duration of the trip was 12.7 days (the respondents who are living in Finland permanently were not counted either). 15 days leisure & goingaround several European Schengen countries' trips were dominating. The respondents who were working, living or studying in Finland stay for 180 days or more (see Table 7). Table 7: Duration of the trip, 2003 Total Finland Transit Duration of the whole trip Σ % Σ % Σ % 1-3 days days days days days or more Not answered / irrelevant days Average duration of the whole trip Duration in Finland 71.5% of the respondents who were not in transit stayed one to three days in Finland, 15.4% stayed four to ten days, 3.2% stayed longer than 10 days and the rest did not answer the question (see Figure 22). Visited in Finland, 2003 Figure 22: Staying in Finland, 2003 Respondents were on average staying in Finland 2.7 days (see Table 8). This is due to the reason that leisure trip travellers were dominating and those people had to stay at least two nights in Finland due to Schengen visa issuing by Finnish Embassy in 21

23 China. Among all the respondents, 56.1% stayed one to three days, 12.1% stayed four to ten days, and altogether less than 3% were staying more than 10 days in Finland. Table 8: Staying in Finland, 2003 Total Finland Transit The days of staying in Finland Σ % Σ % Σ % 1-3 days days days days days or more Working in Finland Studying in Finland Living in Finland Transit only (not staying) Not answered days Average amount of days staying in Finland Travelling in groups The majority of Chinese leisure tourists travelled in groups (65.6%) by purchasing tours recommended by travel agencies and they stayed for short lengths of time (15 days going around 9 countries in Europe). Only 15.3% of the respondents travelled alone (see Figure 23). The percentage of travelling alone halved compared to the previous study. Total 2003 October 2000 Figure 23: Travelling in groups The average group size was 33,8 in this study, compared to only nine people in the previous study. Moreover, both the number of respondents who travelled in groups and the group size had increased a lot compared to the earlier survey, and this is 22

24 mainly because of leisure trips, which were done in big groups, such as people. These groups were normally formed from smaller groups, which were coming from different parts of the China (Table 9). Table 9: Travelling in groups Total Finland Transit Travelling in a group Σ % Σ % Σ % Travelling alone Travelling in a group Not answered Travelling group size: ### 2-5 peoples peoples peoples peoples or more peoples Average travelling group size Visa and information sources about Finland Duration of getting Finnish visa In the current study, 38.5% of the respondents took four to seven days, 30.8% took 8-15 days, 15.4% took one to three days, and 15.4% took more than 15 days to get the visa. In the earlier study, 57% took four to seven days, 18% took one to three days, 13% took 8-15 days, and 12% took more than 15 days to the visa (Figure 24). Getting Finnish visas took a bit longer time compared to the previous study. Total 2003 October 2000 Figure 24: Duration to get the visa On average, it took 12.6 days in the current study to get a visa and 11.0 days in the previous one. For leisure trips, travel agencies were mainly arranging the visa and for 23

25 this reason most of the leisure trip respondents didn't even know how long it took to get the visa. If a person is in transit only and she/he stays only in transit area then no Visa is required (see Table 10). Table 10: Duration to get visa, 2003 Total Finland Transit Time needed to get Visa Σ % Σ % Σ % 1-3 days days days days or more Not answered / don't know / not needed (transit) days Average time to get visa Information sources Quite many respondents complained that there was no access to Finnish tourist information. Even they could not find anything at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport. Quite few respondents (35 %) of the respondents who visited Finland and 27% in transit had got information about Finland before their trips. Those respondents who were on leisure & going-around several countries' trips were not even interested to get any information about Finland, the same for those respondents who were in transit (see Figure 25). Visiting in Finland, 2003 Transit only, 2003 Figure 25: Information about Finland, 2003 Compared to the previous study in 2000, the amount of the respondents who had got information about Finland has more than halved (see Figure 26). The reason is that in the earlier survey, the main destination was mainly Finland and the trips were business related, therefore information was often received via these sources. More 24

26 importantly, the respondents in the previous survey were very eager to get information concerning the trips. Total 2003 October 2000 Figure 26: Information about Finland From Figure 27, we can see that the biggest amount (47.4%) got the information from books, 15.8% from friends, relatives and colleagues, 14.0% from business contact in Finland, 14.0% from TV or Radio programmes, 5.3% from travel agencies, 1.8% from internet and 1.8% from other sources than listed. While in the previous study (see Figure 27), the biggest amount of the respondents (31.9%) got the information from business contact in Finland. 16.7% of the respondents got information from books, 15.3% from newspaper or magazines, 11.1% from friends, relatives and colleagues, 5.6% from TV or radio programmes, 4.2% from travel agencies, 4.2% from internet, 4.2% from experiences, 2.8% from brochures, and 1.4% from Finnish Embassy in China. Total 2003 October 2000 Figure 27: Information sources,

27 56.1% did not get any information before their trips, and only 33.1% got information, and 10.8% did not answer (see Table 11). There was no information got from Finnish Embassy in China, Articles in newspaper or magazines, MEK office in Hong Kong or in Beijing. Table 11: Information source, 2003 Total Finland Transit Information about Finland Σ % Σ % Σ % No information before the trip Got information before the trip: General information about Finland in books Friends / relatives / colleagues Business contact in Finland TV / Radio programmes Travel agency Internet Finnish embassy in China Articles in newspaper / magazines MEK, office in Hong Kong MEK presentative in Beijing Other Not answered Travel agencies The respondents who were on leisure trips were normally using local travel agencies, and then those people were put together by some big international agencies located in Beijing. For this reason most of the respondents didn't actually know which final travel agency they were using. Therefore, 77.1% did not know or did not answer. 7.6% of the respondents were using Ocean Travel Agency, 7% were using China International Travel Agency, 5.1% were using Huan Yu Travel Agency, 1.3% were using China Youth Travel Agency, and 1.3% were using China Kang Hui Travel Agency (see Figure 28). 26

28 Total 2003 Figure 28: Travel agencies The reality was that all the leisure trip travellers used travel agencies, but most of them did not know which one they did use really. 2.4 The perceptions and satisfaction level Satisfaction of the trip in Finland Most respondents who were on leisure trips expressed that the reason to come to Finland was purely because it was easy to get Schengen visa from Finnish Embassy in Beijing. Initially, there was no Finland in the list of the destinations, because of Finnish Schengen visa that they had no choice but to come and stay in Finland for two nights. However, there was almost no programme arranged in Finland. Most of the time they stayed in hotels doing nothing, therefore, most of them were not at all satisfied with their staying in Finland. Therefore, among the respondents, only 28.5% were satisfied with the trip in Finland and 44.7% were unsatisfied (see Figure 29). 27

29 Visiting in Finland, 2003 Figure 29: Satisfaction with the trip Figure 30 tells us the reasons for the respondents who visited Finland to be satisfied or unsatisfied with the trip. Among the respondents who visited Finland, 19.4% were satisfied with the good environment, and 14.9% liked the hotels where they stayed. 7.5% liked the forestry, 7.5% felt the food they were eating was good, 7.5% expressed that the hotel breakfast was good, and 7.5% were satisfied with the people in Finland. Figure 30 also tells us that among the respondents who visited Finland, 18.2% complained that there was nothing to see and 12.4% also complained that there was no arranged programme in Finland. 8.3% expressed that they did not like the long dark winter, and 5% were not satisfied with the coldness of the winter. 5% of the respondents who visited Finland also complained that shops closed too early or were closed on Sundays, 5% were not satisfied that Finland was actually included in the list of the destinations, and 5% was not satisfied with the high price level. Visiting in Finland, 2003, reasons to be satisfied Visiting in Finland, 2003, reasons not to be satisfied Figure 30: Satisfaction with the trip reasons 28

30 Table 12 tells us the detailed information of the reasons for the respondents feeling satisfied or unsatisfied with their trips in Finland. Table 12: Satisfaction with the trip Total Finland Transit Satisfaction with the trip Σ % Σ % Σ % Satisfied with the trip: Good environment Hotels are good A lot of forestry Eating is OK Breakfast is good People are nice Other: Traffic is good Safe Studying / working conditions are good General impression is good Facilities are good Climate is good Better than imagined Lights on the streets are good Airport hotels are convenient Society is in good shape Not satisfied with the trip: Nothing to see No arranged program in Helsinki Dark time is too long / daytime is too short Too cold Shops are closed on Sundays It was surprise that Finland was included in trip Nordic countries have high prize reputation Other: Helsinki has too few outdoor activities No Chinese restaurant at airport No sunshine Feel depressed / unhappy Nothing to see at winter time Summer better Too expensive There is nothing special Shops closed too early Not interesting to come at winter time Just staying at hotel No entertainment Bad attitude of passport control No night life Not used to live in this kind of environment Not good for tourists Too small You cannot get news about Finland in English Eating is not good Nothing exciting Hotels are not good Service is not good Tax free area too small at Airport Cannot say / so-so Not answered / irrelevant (transit)

31 2.4.2 Satisfactory score In the interviews, the respondents were asked to score (five is the highest and one is the lowest number) their experiences in Finland in nine aspects. Safety received the highest score of 4.7, followed by state of environment (4.6), people's friendliness (3.7), service (3.1), Finnish food (2.9), people's knowledge of English (2.7), and Chinese food (2.2) in Finland. The least scored were shopping possibilities (1.4) and value for money (1.3) (see Figure 31). Visiting in Finland, 2003 Figure 31: Satisfactory score, visiting in Finland, 2003 Concerning 'people's knowledge of English', one thing deserves to be mentioned here. It seemed that those who spoke very good English themselves, perceived Finnish were very talented in languages, they speak lots of languages and they do speak good English. However, those who did not speak English themselves, perceived that there was big difficulty in language communication. They could not communicate at all with Finns and they had to rely on tour guide. There were some Chinese respondents complained that there was not even one Chinese restaurant at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport. And they also expressed that it would be very nice if there were information available in Chinese in hotels where they stayed. Also, it would be very helpful that if shopping centres in Finland could have 30

32 Chinese assistance. All these would make Chinese travellers more satisfied, and this leads to consider travelling to Finland as a tourist destination. In the previous study, the respondents were asked to score (five is the highest and one is the lowest number) their experiences in Finland in eight aspects. Visitors were giving safety the highest score of 4.8, the state of the environment the second highest score (4.7). Chinese respondents also gave friendliness (4.4) and service (4.3) quite high score. Food (2.9) and the value of money (2.4) had been the greatest disappointments (see Figure 32). Compared to the survey did earlier, safety and the state of environment remained the same. But the perceptions of the rest of elements scored much lower this time. However, in the current study, the most respondents who visited in Finland were satisfied with the hotel breakfast, but not with the Chinese food. October 2000 Figure 32: Satisfactory score, October Recommendation Almost half (48%) of the respondents clearly said that they would not recommend Finland to their friends or relatives as a tourist destination. 35% would recommend and 17.1% did not answer or were not sure. Compared to the result of the survey 31

33 made in the year of 2000, the percentage of recommending lowered by 13% (see Figure 33) and the percentage of not recommending almost doubled. Visiting in Finland, 2003 October 2000 Figure 33: Recommendation Reasons not to recommend There were many reasons for not recommending Finland as a tourist destination. Among the reasons, 'nothing to see' (22.1%) was the most frequently mentioned reason. 'Nothing special' (16.9%) was the second, followed by 'came here only because of the transit or visa (11.7%), 'summer would be better time to come to Finland (10.4%), 'too high price level' (9.1%), 'no information in Chinese' (7.8%), 'too cold' (6.5%), and other reasons (15.6%) (See Figure 34). For detailed information, please look at the Table 13. Visiting in Finland, 2003 October 2000 Figure 34: Reasons not to recommend Whereas in the earlier study, the main reasons for not recommending Finland (see Figure 34) were 'nothing to see' (25%), 'bad climate' (12.5%), 'too small country/cities' 32

34 (9.4%), 'drunken people' (6.3%), 'bad food' (6.3%), 'not a good tourist place' (6.3%), 'too few people' (6.3%) and other reasons (15.6%). 'Nothing to see' was the main reason that respondents would not recommend in both surveys Reasons to recommend There were a lot of reasons to recommend Finland, 12.7% of the respondents visited Finland mentioned direct flight and 9.1% also appreciate the short flying time between Beijing and Helsinki. 'To experience what is a cold place', 'clean environment', 'civilised people' and 'the first impression of the country is good' were on the top of the list (see Figure 35). And there were many other reasons (54.5%) mentioned too (detailed see Table 13). Whereas in the previous study, the main reasons for recommending Finland (see Figure 35) as a tourist destination were clean and good environment (15.6%), honest and kind people (10.9%), the beauty of Finland (9.4%), scenery, landscape and nature (7.8%), safety (7.8%), air (6.3%), good impression (6.3%), good climate (6.3%) and quietness (4.7%). And also there were many other reasons (25%) too. 'Other reasons' was doubled in this research compared to the previous one. Visiting in Finland, 2003 October 2000 Figure 35: Reasons to recommend The detailed information concerning the reasons of recommending and not recommending Finland as a tourist destination for Chinese is shown in Table

35 Table 13: Not recommending / recommending Total Finland Transit Not recommending/recommending Σ % Σ % Σ % Wouldn't recommend Finland: Nothing to see Nothing special Came here only because of the transit / Visa Summer would be better time to come to Finland Too high price level No information in Chinese Too cold / climate Other: Not better than Harbin in Northern China Shops closed too early Too small Goods in shops look like rubbish No historical buildings No cultural history Not winter time at least Too dark Never come second time No famous place to go Not a country to immigrate Would recommend Finland: Direct flight Flight time is short To experience what is a cold place Clean (environment) Civilized (people) First impression is good Other: Rich (people) Polite (people) Environment Safe Happy to see snow Lapland If has possibilities to come Scandinavian conditions and customs Short visit OK, otherwise will depress Good to live in Finland If coming in summer time with nearby countries Combined with other countries Efficient Quiet (environment) If weather is warmer People are beautiful As a transit place good For people liking nature, but not for city people Scenery, forestry, artic circle, midnight sun at summer time For business is OK Scenery Traffic is in good order Satisfies curiosity Doesn't know / No answer / Irrelevant (transit)

36 2.4.4 What likes most in Finland Understanding Chinese tourist perceived image of Finland is the key of repeating customers or to achieve 'the word of mouth' effect. Therefore, it is very important to know the image of Finland by the eyes of Chinese travellers in Finland, namely what do travellers really like in Finland. There were a lot of features that Chinese respondents liked about Finland. The top nine items are shown in Figure 36. Environment / nature (18.1%) was the most mentioned factor that respondents liked about Finland. Followed by people (15.3%), air (13.9%), cleanliness (11.8%), forests (4.9%), quietness (4.9%), 'traffic is good' (3.5%), summer (2.8%), sauna (2.8%) and other reasons (22.2%). Please look at Table 14 for detailed information about the answers. While in the earlier survey did in 2000, environment (clean and neat) was also the most mentioned factor that the respondents liked most about Finland (see Figure 36). Followed by air, people, forests, scenery / landscape, lakes, nature / environment protection, and safety. All in all, natural environment is the most liked factor in both surveys, and most of other factors are also related to the nature, too. Visiting in Finland, 2003 October 2000 Figure 36: What likes most in Finland From Table 14, you can find out the detailed answers of the question. 35

37 Table 14: What likes most in Finland Total Finland Transit What likes most in Finland Σ % Σ % Σ % Environment / nature People Air Cleanliness Forests Quietness Traffic is good Summer Sauna Other: Finland is like a natural park Not crowded Water Chocolate Hotels No police on the street, people still follow the rules Social benefits Finnish women are beautiful Fishing Snow Islands Machinery quality is high Education system is good No traffic accidents Nation is democratic Working environment General impression is good Not busy Beautiful living environment Ease life style Government is not corrupted People are working hard Nothing Not answered Irrelevant (transit) Winter related aspects Many respondents had said that the seasons, winter or summer did not matter at all. The attractiveness of a country is the specific characteristics that country has Finnish winter The majority (65.9%) of the respondents did not like the winter in Finland. The reasons were mainly 'summer time is better' (27.7%), 'day time is too short, feeling 36

38 depressed' (23.1%), 'too cold' (23.1%), 'no service in Chinese' (9.2%), and 'nothing to see' (6.2%). 'No service in Chinese' is not related to winter at all, but many of the respondents still mentioned it. Therefore, we can see that how important they felt to get service in Chinese. About 7.3% among the respondents visited Finland liked Finnish winter (see Figure 37). 16.3% expressed they were so-so with the winter in Finland. Visiting in Finland, 2003 Visiting in Finland, reasons not to like Figure 37: Finnish winter Detailed information concerning Finnish winter is shown in Table 15. Table 15: Finnish winter Total Finland Transit Finnish winter Σ % Σ % Σ % Didn't like: summertime is better day time too short, feel depressed too cold no service in Chinese nothing to see Other: no difference to the place (s)he is coming from too dry snows and rains winter in Beijing is also cold too long Liked: Snow Warmer than in Xinjiang Different Lapland in winter time is ok Beautiful So-so Not answered / irrelevant (transit)

39 2.5.2 Snow 37.4% of the respondents visited Finland liked snow, 29.3% did not like snow and 17.9% felt snow so-so (see Figure 38). For the respondents from northern parts of China snow is nothing special. They did not come to Finland to see snow. Visiting in Finland, 2003 Figure 38: Snow Santa Claus The majority (see Figure 39) had heard about Santa Claus, but very few respondents knew that Santa Claus was actually originally from Finland. Visiting in Finland, 2003 Figure 39: Santa Claus 38

40 2.5.4 Winter activities The majority of the respondents (94%) did not carry out any winter activities (see Figure 40). On the other hand, some respondents were complaining that there were no activities arranged. Visiting in Finland, 2003 Figure 40: Winter activities Only 6.5% of the respondents visited Finland did carry out winter activities, such as skiing, skating, motor-sledge, and downhill skiing (see Table 16). Table 16: Winter activities Total Finland Transit Winter activities Σ % Σ % Σ % Didn't carry out any winter activities because nothing arranged Did carry out winter activities: skiing skating motor-sledge downhill skiing Irrelevant (transit) Lapland Most respondents had not been in Lapland. On the other hand, there were no programme or trips to other places in Finland arranged to leisure travellers who had to stay at least two days in Finland due to the visa reason (see Figure 41). 39

41 Visiting in Finland, 2003 Figure 41: Lapland 2.6 Shopping Chinese tourists love for shopping during their overseas trips. They are big spenders, and they are also very generous on buying gifts for relatives and friends, which is a must that they have no choice. If Chinese people travel, most of them do not want to save money, as long as it is exciting and special, they will pay for it regardless of the price. 'There is nothing special in Finland that other countries do not have', this was the sentence that most Chinese telling the author when she was asking about shopping in Finland. They expressed that they had lots of money, but they could not spend. More importantly, they found that shops are closed on Sundays was very inconvenient, especially for Chinese business travellers. In China, shops are especially open late during weekends, and only weekend people who are in working life have time to do some serious shopping Expenditure on shopping Figure 42 shows money spent for shopping among respondents who visited Finland. On average, male spent more than females on shopping. Female respondents aged between 25 to 34 spent more money than other age groups; and for males, respondents aged between 45 to 54 spent more money than other age groups (see Figure 42). Therefore, young females and older males tend to spent more money in Finland. 40

42 Visiting in Finland, 2003 Figure 42: Money spent on shopping, visiting in Finland, 2003 While in the earlier survey, males also spent more money than females. Female respondents aged between 35 and 44 spent more money than other age groups, and for males, respondents aged between 55 and 64 spent more money than other age groups (see Figure 43). October 2000 Figure 43: Money spent on shopping, October

43 As a surprise, many (39%) of the Chinese respondents spent 0 in Finland. We must also notice that from Figure 44, 25.2% of the respondents did not answer, and this means that among them there must be a lot of respondents who had not spent money on anything either. This makes the percentage on 'no money spent on shopping in Finland' even bigger. The reasons that the author assumed are listed below: 1. Finland was the first destination in Europe. They did not want to carry heavy luggage, and they had planned to buy products in shopping paradise countries, such as France and Italy. 2. There is nothing famous or special that they must buy in Finland or at least the respondents did not know any such products. 3. Finland has a reputation of expensiveness; they rather buy in other countries with lower price. However, many Chinese respondents have expressed that saving money would be the last thing they do when they are travelling, the most important thing is to have a good time. Among those respondents who had spent money on their trips, from Figure 44, we can see that most (15.4%) of them spent under 200, 13.8% spent 200 to 500, 3.3% spent 500 to 1000, and 3.3% spent over Visiting in Finland, 2003 Figure 44: Money spent on shopping, 2003 The average amount of money spent on shopping in Finland was 169, but the average deviation of money spent on shopping was 222. In other words many respondents were using much more money than respondents on average, while majority of the respondents spent nothing or really small amount of money, making 42