УПРАВЛЕНИЕ И ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ
TOM V (1) 2009
MANAGEMENT AND EDUCATION
VOL. V (1) 2009
A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON TOURISTS’ HOLIDAY EXPERIENCES ACROSS THREE
NATIONALITIES
Aydın Çevirgen, Boran Toker
СРАВНИТЕЛНО ПРОУЧВАНЕ НА УДОВЛЕТВОРЕНОСТТА И НАГЛАСИТЕ НА ТУРИСТИ
ОТ ТРИ НАЦИОНАЛНОСТИ
Айдън Джевирген, Боран Токер
ABSTRACT: Together with the developments encountered in international tourism, the competition between
the tourism destinations is increasing gradually. Tourists’ satisfaction is one of the key strategic management
tools for measuring the performance of tourism destinations. Success in tourism destination management depends heavily on tourists’ satisfaction with holiday experiences and their behavioral intentions (intention to
recommend and revisit) for destinations in the future. This study attempts to explore the tourists’ attribute-based
destination experiences, overall satisfaction and their behavioral intentions. Turkey's major incoming tourist
markets are composed of German, Russian and Dutch tourists. Therefore the sample of the study focuses on
these groups of tourists. Gathering data was analyzed by descriptive statistics, frequency distributions, factor
analysis, regression analyses and analysis of variance. The research findings indicated that the essential element
which had high influences on behavioral intensions was overall satisfaction for all national groups. In addition
to this, it was found that there were significant differences among three national group of tourists’ satisfaction
and their behavioral intensions.
Key Words: Destination management, strategic management, holiday experience, tourist satisfaction, behavioral intentions
Satisfaction with the total holiday experience
is dependent on all the links in the experience
chain. Many of the links are not even located
within one destination, and are thus beyond the
control or even the influence of a single destination manager [6]. Some holiday experiences such
as; taxi to airport, airport services, air travel etc.
are outside of the destination could not be controlled in tourist destination. But others, such as
accommodation facilities, meals, travel agency
services, recreational and sports facilities, sightseeing etc. are within the destination could be
controlled.
How to attract the tourists to revisit and/or
recommend the destination to others is crucial
for the success of destination tourism development [7]. Satisfied tourists are more likely to
return to the same destination, and are more willing to share their positive traveling experience
with their friends and relatives [8, 9]. It is generally believed that satisfaction leads to repeat
purchase and positive word of mouth (WOM)
recommendation, which are main indicators of
loyalty [9]. Repeat visitation is an attractive outcome for destinations that offer positive experi-
Introduction
Tourism is a service industry with a particularly complicated product which depends on an
extremely fragmented supply [1]. The tourism
product as a complex consumptive experience
that results from a process where tourists use
multiple travel services during the course of their
visit (information, transportation, accommodation, and attraction services). A destination may
be viewed as an amalgam of individual products
and experience opportunities that combine to
form a total experience of the area visited [2].
Tourist satisfaction within the holiday experience is an important topic for all stakeholders in
a destination. Wöber and Fesenmaier [3] explained that tourist satisfaction with the tourism
product is one of the variety indicators which are
frequently used to measure the success in tourism destination management. Delight tourists by
maximizing their satisfaction is one of the key
strategic management objectives for destinations
[4]. Many tourism destinations consider tourist
satisfaction as one of the most important sources
of their competitive advantage [5].
8
destination is essential to destination managers
for improving products and services [19].
Swarbrooke and Horner [20] stated that satisfying tourist is important because;
ƒ It leads to positive word of mouth recommendation of the product to friends and relatives, which in turn brings in new tourists.
ƒ Creating a repeat tourist by satisfying them
with their first use of the product brings a
steady source of income with no need for extra expenditure.
The tourists’ experiences may enhance tourists’ holiday satisfaction or discourage them.
Satisfaction determines whether the tourist becomes a repeat visitor [21]. If the expectations
and needs of tourists are not met, there is the
possibility that they will not come to the same
destination again. Satisfied tourists are more
likely to return to the same destination, and are
also more willing to share their positive traveling
experience with their friends and relatives [9].
Several studies in tourism point to a positive
relationship between tourist satisfaction and a
desire to return [22, 17, 8]. Cronin and Taylor
[23] stated that customer satisfaction has a significant effect on purchase intentions. Kozak and
Rimmington [13] also concluded that the level of
overall satisfaction with holiday experiences had
the greatest impact on the intention to revisit the
same destination. In other study, Baker and
Crompton [15] found a significant direct relationship between satisfaction and behavioral
intentions.
In tourism industry, there are empirical evidences that tourists’ satisfaction is a strong indicator of their intentions to revisit and recommend
the destination to other people [17, 13, 8, 9].
Tourists’ positive experiences of service, products, and other resources provided by tourism
destinations could produce repeat visits as well
as positive word-of-mouth effects to potential
tourists such as friends and/or relatives [9, 8].
Past experience and word-of-mouth recommendations can reduce uncertainty, and consequently
should have a significant impact on vacation
decisions [24].
ences [10]. Recommendations by previous visits
can be taken as the most reliable information
sources for potential tourists. Recommendations
to other people (WOM) are also one of the most
often sought types of information for people
interested in traveling [9].
This study focuses on tourists’ satisfaction
with destination attributes and their behavioral
intentions (intention to revisit and recommend to
others) within the holiday experience context. It
also attempts to explore whether there were any
differences among three national group of tourists’ satisfaction and their behavioral intensions.
In the study, holiday experience was assesed in
terms of destination attributes which could be
controlled by destination stakeholders.
Conceptual Framework
Customer satisfaction is one of the most frequently examined topics in the hospitality and
tourism field because it plays an important role
in survival and future of any tourism products
and services [11, 12]. Overall satisfaction or
dissatisfaction is the result of evaluating various
positive and negative experiences [13]. Satisfaction is not a universal phenomenon and not everyone gets the same satisfaction out of the same
holiday experience. The reason is that customers
have different needs, objectives and past experiences that influence their expectations [14].
Holiday satisfaction has been generally used
as an assessment tool for the evaluation of holiday experiences [8]. The tourist satisfaction can
be considered as a reflection of various tourist
experiences within the holiday experience chain.
Satisfaction with the tourist destination depends
on the outcome of tourists’ consumptions and
their perceptions of tourist product. Tourist satisfaction can be defined as the tourist’s emotional
state after exposure to the opportunity or experience [15]. Therefore, evaluating satisfaction in
terms of a traveling experience is a postconsumption process [16, 17].
The tourism product consists of many sub
products such as accommodations, catering, excursions, recreational activities, entertainment,
transportation etc. Satisfaction or dissatisfaction
with one of the components leads to satisfaction
or dissatisfaction with overall tourism product.
Therefore, it is very important to measure tourist
satisfaction with each attribute of destination
[18]. Understanding tourists’ levels of satisfaction with and reaction to their experience in the
Methodology
Questionnaire survey method was used in the
study. The instrument consisted of three parts.
The first part of the instrument included a demographic section. The second part of the instrument comprised 23 questions concerning tourists’ experiences of destination attributes. The
9
of Antalya Gulf on the Anatolian Peninsula.
Alanya, as one of the most important tourism
destinations in Turkey received 6.8% of total
tourists and provided 7.2% of total receipts in
2006 [32, 33].
Questionnaires were distributed to tourists
via travel agencies. The questionnaires were
filled out by the respondents at the end of their
holidays. 1212 questionnaires were obtained
from German (599), Dutch (337) and Russian
(276) tourist sample. The number of the sample
population was rather adequately for research
[34]. The data obtained were analyzed by using
SPSS for Windows 14.0 program. Data analysis
included descriptive statistics, frequency distributions, factor analysis, regression analysis, and
Anova.
literature on destination attributes provided the
basis for developing a questionnaire for this
study [25, 26, 27, 18, 28, 29]. A 5-point Likert
type scale was used in this part of the instrument,
ranging from “completely agree” (5) to “completely disagree” (1). The final part consisted of
the measurement of single-item overall satisfaction and two single-item behavioral intentions
(intention to revisit and recommendation) with a
5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree
(5) to strongly disagree (1). Although multi-item
scales are the most commonly used measures of
satisfaction, several researchers have used a single-item measure of overall satisfaction [9, 30,
31, 22, 7]. Therefore, a single-item overall measure of satisfaction was used in this study for its
empirical support. The survey questions were
discussed with travel agency managers. Thus,
this result was used to improve the clarity and
readability of the questions.
This study was executed in three basic stages:
sampling, data collection, and data analysis. The
data used in this study is based on the project,
named as: Alanya Tourist Profile Research 2007.
Sampling design and sample size are significant
subjects to statistically represent the population
and to be able to suggest implications both theory and practice. Simple random sampling design was used for this survey owing to its efficiency. The sample population of the study was
limited to German, Dutch and Russian tourists
visiting Alanya via travel agencies. In recent
years, the number of Russian tourists coming to
Antalya has increased remarkably, whereas the
average growth rate of German and Dutch tourist
arrivals to Antalya has declined in the same period. In 2006, 6.011.183 foreing tourists visited
Antalya. 34.7% of these tourists were German,
21.5% were Russian and 6.2% were Dutch [32].
Despite the important growth in the number of
Russian tourists, Germans maintain the largest
group of foreign tourists visiting Antalya. Dutchs
also maintain in third position. These trends can
be seen in Alanya. According to the tourist statistics obtained from Alanya Municipality and
travel agencies, 506.398 German, 286.290 Russian and 101.678 Dutch tourists came to Alanya
in 2006. Therefore, the study aimed to assess the
holiday satisfaction and behavioral intentions
with German, Dutch and Russian tourists visiting
Alanya.
The study was conducted in summer 2007
(high season) in Alanya. Together with its natural and cultural attractions, Alanya is a resort in
Antalya, and it’s located in the 135 km east coast
Findings
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Results of the descriptive analysis indicate
that 49.4% of the respondents were Germans,
27.8% were Dutchs, and 22.8% were Russians.
59% of the respondents were female and 41%
were male. The age groups are represented
29.9% of 18-24 ages, 20.6% of 25-34 ages and
27.8% of 35-44 ages; in other words, 78.3% of
respondents had consisted of young and middle
age groups. About half of the respondents
(47.8%) were single. 89.6% of the respondents
had completed high school and above, indicating
that a large proportion of the sample was well
educated. When asked to indicate professions,
45.2% of the respondents reported that they were
worker and 17.8% reported that they were civil
servant.
Factor Analysis
The first stage in the analysis of the questionnaire design in respect of tourist satisfaction
measurement using Likert-type scales should
become the assessment of item-total correlation
and reliability. This stage is significant in designing effective and valid research, as a part of the
suggested qualitative measures, in order to ensure that findings are accurate and to be able to
discuss further implications. Firstly, Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient was also used to evaluate the
internal consistency of the instrument. The alpha
coefficient for this study was .95, indicating high
scale reliability.
10
ing from .48 to .83, indicated the strength of the
association among variables in the observed
variable set. Factor loadings of the variables
ranged from 0.62 to 0.83, indicating a good correlation between the items and the factor grouping they represent. The Cronbach’s alpha for the
three factors varied from 0.91 to 0.94, suggesting
high internal consistency. The three factors were
named as; “destination facilities, accommodation
services and travel agency services”. The results
of the factor analysis are showed in Table 1.
Afterwards, a principal factor analysis was
performed on items in order to identify dimensions. Bartlett’s test of sphericity with a value of
7009.246 (p<.001) and the calculation of KaiserMeyer-Olkin statistics of .94, pointed out that
data seemed suitable for factor analysis. Taking
the distribution of the scree plot into consideration, principal component factors with an eigenvalue of one or greater were rotated by the varimax analysis. 23 items from the factor analysis
resulted in 3 factor groupings and explained
64.2% of the total variance. Communalities rangTable 1. The Factor Analysis Results
Items
F1: Destination facilities
Cleanliness of town
Safety of town
People’s hospitality
Cleanliness of beaches
Lively nightlife
Rich in ancient monuments
Sufficient shopping
opportunities
Sufficient recreation
facilities
Easy to reach
Cheapness of town
F2: Accommodation Services
Cleanliness of Hotel
Hospitable staff
Safety of Hotel
Food quality
Service quality
Comfortable of Hotel
Animation and sports
facilities
F3: Travel Agency Services
Expertise of agency
Attitudes of staff
Airport transfers
Information services
Guide services
Reservations
Eigenvalue Variance Cronbach’s Mean Factor Communalities
loadings
explained
α
(%)
5.51
23.97
0.91
3.82
0.70
0.55
0.72
0.56
0.67
0.60
0.71
0.58
0.64
0.52
0.69
0.57
4.78
4.46
20.78
19.41
0.90
0.94
0.69
0.55
0.74
0.64
0.65
0.65
0.52
0.50
0.77
0.76
0.73
0.74
0.80
0.81
0.69
0.65
0.64
0.64
0.75
0.76
0.62
0.48
0.80
0.83
0.70
0.80
0.81
0.74
0.78
0.83
0.61
0.77
0.79
0.69
3.78
3.90
each process are reported in Table 2, 3, and 4 for
three nations together with the t statistics, standardized regression coefficients, and R2 values.
Table 2 showed the influence of four variables over the level of the Germans’ behavioral
intensions. The model accounts for 51% of the
variance in the dependent variable. It is observed
that overall satisfaction, accommodation ser-
Regression Analyses
Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the aggregate impact of certain independent variables exerting the strongest influence in dependent variables for Germans, Dutchs
and Russians. This analysis presents the strength
of any variable in the overall model. Results of
11
intensions (p<.001), followed by, accommodation services (p<.001), and destination facilities
(p<.005).
vices, and destination facilities had statistically
significant beta coefficients. These variables had
a positive score. In Table 2, overall satisfaction
was the strongest predictor of the behavioral
Table 2. Impacts of Variables on Germans’ Behavioral Intensions
Variable
Constant
β
T value
Sig.
1,629
,104
Destination Facilities
,084
2,035
,042
Accommodation Services
,167
3,806
,000
Travel Agency Services
,076
1,815
,070
Overall Satisfaction
,551
14,880
,000
R2=.51
Dependent Variable: Behavioral Intensions
Table 3 shows the influence of four factor
variables over the level of the Dutchs’ behavioral
intensions. The model accounts for 56% of the
variance in the dependent variable. It is observed
that overall satisfaction, destination facilities,
and accommodation services had statistically
significant beta coefficients. These variables had
a positive score. In Table 3, overall satisfaction
was the strongest predictor of the behavioral
intensions (p<.001), followed by destination
facilities, (p<.001), and accommodation services
(p<.005).
Table 3. Impacts of Variables on Dutchs’ Behavioral Intensions
Variable
Constant
β
T value
Sig.
-2,875
,004
Destination Facilities
,197
3,702
,000
Accommodation Services
,148
2,655
,008
Travel Agency Services
-,015
-,277
,782
Overall Satisfaction
,544
10,686
,000
R2=.72
Dependent Variable: Behavioral Intensions
tion services had statistically significant beta
coefficients. These variables had a positive score.
In Table 4, overall satisfaction was the strongest
predictor of the behavioral intensions (p<.001),
followed by accommodation services (p<.001).
Table 4 shows the influence of four factor
variables over the level of the Russians’ behavioral intensions. The model accounts for 55% of
the variance in the dependent variable. It is observed that overall satisfaction and accommoda-
Table 4. Impacts of Variables on Russians’ Behavioral Intensions
Variable
Constant
β
T value
Sig.
-2,202
,029
Destination Facilities
-,033
-,589
,557
Accommodation Services
,256
4,404
,000
Travel Agency Services
,061
1,186
,237
Overall Satisfaction
,572
10,440
,000
R2=.55
Dependent Variable: Behavioral Intensions
12
cally different and higher than Dutchs. Meanwhile, no significant differences were observed
for accommodation services scores. The difference in means of travel agency services for Russians was statistically different and higher than
Germans and Dutchs. Russians was reported a
greater level of overall satisfaction than Dutchs.
Germans indicated a higher level of intention to
recommend than Dutchs. Germans also reported
a higher level of intention to revisit than Russians and Dutchs.
Mean Differences
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test
was used to analyze the destination attributes,
overall satisfaction and their behavioral intensions for any significant differences among the
respondents’ nationality. A post-hoc Tukey test
was used to detect the difference in means
among German, Dutch and Russian tourists. As
can be seen in Table 5, the difference in means
of destination facilities for Germans was statisti-
Table 5. One-way ANOVA and post hoc multiple comparison tests (Tukey)
Variables
Destination
Facilities
German
3,79
Dutch
3,63
Russian
3,78
F value
4,045*
Tukey post-hoc
G>D
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.
Accommodation
Services
T.A.
Services
Overall
Satisfaction
Recommendation
Revisiting
3,80
3,77
3,64
2,446
3,86
3,71
4,11
11,715**
R>G,D
4,03
3,96
4,16
3,325*
R>D
4,15
3,89
4,01
6,100*
G>D
4,06
3,66
3,63
15,993**
G>D,R
that the satisfaction has a significantly positive
effect on behavioral intentions among tourists
visiting Kengtin region, Taiwan. Ryu, Han, and
Kim [35] also revealed that customer satisfaction
was found to be significant predictors of customers’ behavioral intentions in quick-casual restaurant industry. In a study done by Yoon and Uysal
[8] in Northern Cyprus, satisfaction is found to
directly affect behavioral intentions in a positive
direction. Baloglu et al. [31] also found that
overall satisfaction significantly influencing behavioral intention for Canadian visitors to Las
Vegas.
Anova results showed that Russian tourists
were more likely to be satisfied with destination
facilities than Dutch tourists. Russians also were
more likely to be satisfied with travel agency
services than Germans and Dutchs. Meanwhile,
Russian tourists reported a higher level of overall
holiday satisfaction than Dutch tourists. German
tourists indicated a higher level of intention to
recommend than Dutch tourists. Germans also
reported a higher level of intention to revisit than
Dutch and Russian tourists.
Germans’ mean scores of behavioral intensions were higher than their mean score of overall satisfaction. This result may be explained by
tourist loyalty. In this case, it is possible to say
that Germans’ are more loyal than other national
tourist groups. On the other hand, the mean
scores of Russian and Dutch tourists’ overall
satisfaction were higher than their mean scores
of behavioral intensions. Vassiliadis [36] pointed
Conclusion and Discussion
Alanya is faced with fierce competition
with the similar mass tourism destinations in the
Mediterranean Rim. Tourists’ satisfaction with
holiday experiences and their future behavior are
important for success in tourism destination
management. This study investigated to focus
too much on assessing German, Dutch and Russian tourists’ experiences of destination attributes, overall satisfaction and their behavioral
intensions. The study results showed that tourists
were generally satisfied with their holiday in
Alanya.
The results of the regression analysis revealed
that the main determinants of behavioral intensions were first overall satisfaction, followed by
accommodation services and destination facilities dimensions for Germans. The main determinants of Russians’ behavioral intensions were
first overall satisfaction, and second accommodation services. The main determinants of behavioral intensions were also first overall satisfaction, followed by destination facilities and accommodation services for Dutchs. In conclusion,
the main determinant of behavioral intensions
was overall satisfaction for all national group of
tourists. This means that the essential element
which had high influences on behavioral intensions was overall satisfaction for three national
groups.
The above mentioned results are supported by
the relevant literature. Chen and Tsai [7] found
13
4. Buhalis, D. “Marketing the competitive
destination of the future.,” Tourism management,
2000, 21, pp. 97-116.
5. Fuchs, M., K. Weiermair. “Destination
benchmarking: An indicator system’s potential
for exploring guest satisfaction,” Journal of
travel research, 2004, 42, pp. 212-225.
6. Ritchie J.R.B., G.I. Crouch. The Competitive Destination A Sustainable Tourism Perspective. 2003, UK. CABI Publishing, pp. 213214.
7. Chen, C.F., D.C. Tsai. “How destination
image and evaluative factors affect behavioral
intentions?,” Tourism management, 2007 28, pp.
1115–1122.
8. Yoon, Y., M. Uysal. “An examination of
the effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A structural model,” Tourism
management, 2005, 26, pp. 45-56.
9. Chi C.G.Q., H. Qu. “Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist
satisfaction and destination loyalty: an integrated
approach,” Tourism management, 2008, 29, pp.
624-636.
10. Pritchard, M., M. Havitz. “Destination
appraisal an analysis of critical incidents,” Annals of tourism research, 2006, 33, p.25–46.
11. Gursoy, D., K.W. McCleary, L.R. Lepsito. “Segmenting dissatisfied restaurant customers based on their complaining response styles,”
Journal of food service business research, 2003,
6 (1), pp. 25-44.
12. Neal, J.D., D. Gursoy. “A multifaceted
analysis of tourism satisfaction,” Journal of
travel research, 2008, 47, pp. 53-62.
13. Kozak M., M. Rimmington. “Tourist
satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an offseason holiday destination,” Journal of travel
research, 2000, 38, pp. 260-269.
14. Pizam, A., T. Ellis. “Customer satisfaction and its measurement in hospitality enterprises,” International journal of contemporary
hospitality management. 1999, 11(7), pp. 326339.
15. Baker D.A., J.L. Crompton. “Quality,
satisfaction and behavioral intentions,” Annals of
tourism research, 2000, 27(3), pp. 785-804.
16. Fornell, C. “A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience,” Journal of marketing, 1992, 56(January), pp.6-21.
17. Kozak, M. “Repeaters’ behavior at two
distinct destinations,” Annals of tourism research, 2001, 28 (3), pp. 784-807.
18. Pizam, A., Y. Neumann, A. Reichel.
“Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with a desti-
out that tourists who do not return to the same
destination may be loyal with the place they have
visited, but they may also be travel experience
seekers because they want to have more travel
experiences. As mentioned by Oppermann [37],
a tourist who is highly satisfied with a destination might not return because they have a desire
to see new places [as cited in 38]. In fact, on
many occasions tourists do seek variety and prefer to visit new destinations. Thus, the tourists’
satisfaction with their experience in the destination does not guarantee their return [22].
Consequently, tourists’ satisfaction would
positively affect future behaviors related to revisiting and recommendation. The more satisfied
the tourists are, the more likely they are to return
to the same destination and to share their positive
experiences with others.
The findings of this study provide valuable
information for destination managers and policymakers. Destination managers and planners
could be able to establish participated and integrated management approach within the destination management concept. Applying strategies
and actions for destinations should take into account the wishes of all stakeholders, such as,
local people, tourists, tour operators, local authorities, hoteliers. This management approach is
actually required if Alanya is to remain as one of
the preferred tourist destinations in the future.
The study has some restrictions. The population of this study was limited to tourists visiting
Alanya. Because of this, it is not possible to generalize the results of the study for three nationalities. It would be useful that future studies should
be replicated within the prescribed time limits in
Alanya and include other tourist destinations.
References
1. Eraqi, M.I. “Tourism services quality
(TourServQual) in Egypt the viewpoints of external and internal customers,” Benchmarking:
An international journal, 2006, 13 (4), pp. 469492.
2. Murphy, P., M.P. Pritchard, B. Smith.
“The destination product and its impact on traveller perceptions,” Tourism management, 2000,
21, pp. 43-52.
3. Wöber, K.W., D.R. Fesenmaier. “A
multi-criteria approach to destination benchmarking: A case study of state tourism advertising programs in the United States,” Journal of
travel & tourism marketing, 2004, 16 (2), pp. 1-18.
14
performance, overall satisfaction, and behavioral
intention for distinct segments. In J.A. Williams
& M. Uysal (Eds.) Current Issues and Development in Hospitality and Tourism Satisfaction
(149-165), 2003, New York: The Haworth Press.
32. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises. 2006 Tourism Statistics. 2007, Ankara. pp. 58-59, 130.
33. Alanya Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Alanya Economic Report 2006, 2007,
Alanya. p.68.
34. Altunışık, R., R. Coşkun, S. Bayraktaroğlu, E. Yıldırım. Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma
Yöntemleri. 2005, Sakarya: Sakarya Kitabevi. p.
127.
35. Ryu, K., H. Han, T.H. Kim. “The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant
image, perceived value, customer satisfaction,
and behavioral intentions,” International journal
of hospitality management, 2008, 27, pp. 459469.
36. Vassiliadis, C.A. “Destination product
characteristics as useful predictors for repeat
visiting and recommendation segmentation variables in tourism: a CHAID exhaustive analysis,”
International journal of tourism research, 2008,
10, pp. 439–452.
37. Oppermann M. “Destination threshold
potential and the law of repeat visitation,” Journal
of travel research 1998, 37 (2), pp. 131-137.
38. Chen, J., D. Gursoy. “An Investigation
of Tourists’ Destination Loyalty and Preferences,” International journal of contemporary
hospitality management, 2001, 13, pp. 79-85.
nation area,” Annals of tourism research, 1978, 5
(3), pp. 314-332.
19. Yu, L., M. Goulden. A comparative
analysis of international tourists’ satisfaction in
Mongolia,” Tourism management,2006, 27 1331–42.
20. Swarbrooke, J., S. Horner. Consumer
Behaviour in Tourism. 2007, UK. ButterworthHeinemann. p. 213.
21. Reisinger, Y., L. Turner. “Japanese tourism satisfaction: Gold Coast versus Hawaii,”
Journal of vacation marketing, 2000, 6 (4), pp.
299-317.
22. Bigne, J.E., M.I. Sanchez, J. Sanchez.
Tourism image, evaluation variables and after
purchase behavior: Inter-relationship. Tourism
Management, 2001, 22, 607-616.
23. Cronin, J.J., S.A. Taylor. “Measuring
service Quality: A reexamination and extension,”
Journal of marketing, 1992, 56, pp. 55-68.
24. Lehto, X.Y., J.T. O’Leary, A.M. Morrison. “The effect of prior experience on vacation
behavior,” Annals of Tourism Research, 2004,
31 (4), pp. 801-818.
25. Ball, S. & P. Giakoumis. “An empirical
analysis of the perceived importance attached to
destination and accommodation attributes,” Anatolia: An international journal of tourism and
hospitality research, 2003, 14 (1), 45-78.
26. Heung, V.C.S. “Satisfaction levels of
mainland Chinese travelers with Hong Kong
hotel services,” International journal of contemporary hospitality management, 2000, 12 (5), pp.
308-315.
27. Millan, A., A.Esteban. “Development of
a multiple-item scale for measuring customer
satisfaction in travel agencies services,” Tourism
management, 2004, 25, 533-546
28. Sussmann, S., C. Rashcovsky. “A crosscultural analysis of English and French Canadians' vacation travel patterns,” International journal of hospitality management, 1997, 16 (2),
191-208.
29. Yüksel, A., F. Yüksel. “Comparative performance analysis: Tourists' perceptions of Turkey relative to other tourist destinations,” Journal of vacation marketing, 2001, 7 (4), pp. 333355.
30. Simpson, K. “Customer satisfaction and
behavioural intentions in a rural community museum environment,” Journal of quality assurance
in hospitality & tourism, (2000), 1 (3), pp. 1-27.
31. Baloglu, S., A. Pekcan, S.L. Chen, J.
Santos. The relationship between destination
Aydın Çevirgen, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Akdeniz University, Alanya Faculty of Business
Department of Tourism Management
Merkez M. Sigorta C. Kestel/Alanya
07400 TURKEY
e-mail: [email protected]
Boran Toker, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Akdeniz University, Alanya Faculty of Business
Department of Tourism Management
Merkez M. Sigorta C. Kestel/Alanya
07400 TURKEY
e-mail: [email protected]
15