Strategies for Creating

Loyal Park Visitors: Ontario

Provincial Park Case Study

Maria Legault
Project for REC/ENVS 433, Ecotourism and Park Tourism
April 1st, 2011
Project supervised by Dr. Paul F.J. Eagles and Teaching Assistant Yaw Agyeman

Table of Contents
1.0. Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
2.0.

Literature Review.................................................................................................................2

2.1.

Literature on Satisfaction..................................................................................................2

2.2.

Literature on Commitment................................................................................................3

2.3.

Literature on Loyalty........................................................................................................5

3.0.

Data Analysis Results...........................................................................................................7

3.1.

General Survey Results.....................................................................................................7

3.2.

Results on Visitor Satisfaction..........................................................................................9

4.0.

Discussion and Recommendations.....................................................................................16

5.0. Conclusions.............................................................................................................................18
6.0. Reference List.........................................................................................................................20

List of Table

Table 1: Variables Involved in Three Different Approaches for Measuring Visitor Commitment. 4
2

Table 2: Group Type..............................................................................................8

Table 3: Top Four Park Visitation Motivation Factors, by Group Type.................................9
Table 4: Age and Gender of Family Category Respondents.............................................9
Table 5: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for Family Category.............10
Table 6: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for Family Category............10
Table 7: Age and Gender of Groups of Friends Category Respondents.............................11
Table 8: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for Group of Friends Category 11
Table 9: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for Groups of Friends Category
.......................................................................................................................11
Table 10: Age and Gender of Couples Category Respondents........................................12
Table 11: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for Couples Category..........12
Table 12: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for Couples Category.........12
Table 13: Age and Gender of Individuals Category Respondents....................................13
Table 14: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for Individuals Category......13
Table 15: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for Individuals Category......14
Table 16: Age and Gender of Organized Group Category Respondents............................14
Table 17: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for Organized Groups Category
.......................................................................................................................14
Table 18: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for Organized Groups Category
.......................................................................................................................15
Table 19: Summary Table of Group Satisfaction Levels towards Park Services....................15
Table 20: Summary Table of Group Satisfaction Levels towards Park Facilities...................16

List of Figures
Figure 1: Matrix of four different loyalty types based on psychological attachment to the activity
and intensity of activity use.............................................................................................................8

1.0.
Introduction
This research highlights strategies for creating loyal park visitors. Guiding questions for this
analysis include:
1) What motivates each group type to visit the Ontario Parks?;
2) What factors are influential in satisfying each group type?; and
3) How can managers attract and retain loyal park visitors?
3

Academic literature provides the theoretical basis for this research, while data are drawn from
the Ontario Park Interior User Survey questions #1, 5, and 9 through 12. By showing managers
how to satisfy customers, this research assists in the accurate dispersal of scarce financial and
personnel resources within a park setting (Backman, Backman & Malinovsky, 2000; Eng &
Niininen, 2005; ONeill, Riscinto-Kozub & Van Hyfte, 2010).
Three primary motivations drive this analysis of visitor satisfaction and loyalty. First, satisfied
visitors can spread positive word-of-mouth referrals and generate political support for the park
(ONeill et al., 2010). Second, a manager who has determined the desired facility and service
levels for each visitor demographic group will be better positioned to encourage repeat visitation
(ONeill et al., 2010). A complete awareness of visitor preferences can also aid managers in their
efforts to limit the environmental damage caused by visitation (Eagles, 2001; Ellis & Vogelson,
2002). Third, there is a dearth of research on visitor satisfaction and loyalty levels in naturebased settings (ONeill et al., 2010). Theories in this report are therefore based on influential
research in the general field of tourism, recreation, and leisure (e.g. Oliver, 1980).
From the literature research for this project, five primary hypotheses with regards to group
type motivation, satisfaction, and loyalty levels were created. These five include:
1. H1- Family groups will be visiting for relaxation and family bonding, and their low level
of activity specialization will mean lower expectations with higher satisfaction/loyalty
levels.
2. H2- Groups of friends will be visiting for adventure. This could lead to dissatisfying
conflicts with managers; however, they may have lower expectations and could be easily
satisfied with park services.
3. H3- Couples will be fairly wealthy, young, and well-educated individuals with high
expectations and therefore lower potential for becoming satisfied and loyal customers.
4. H4- Individuals will be well-educated, mature, and quite familiar with park operations.
Their experience with park management could have a variable affect on satisfaction and
loyalty levels.
5. H5- Organized groups will be motivated to visit the park for recreation; thus, their
satisfaction with the park will be based on the degree to which their safety and recreation
needs are met.
The outline for this paper is as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the literature
relevant to managers interested in improving service quality for park visitors. Section 3 consists
2

of a data analysis, while section 4 makes several recommendations for park managers based on
this analysis. Conclusions of this paper in section 5 propose possible changes to future surveys.

2.0.

Literature Review
2.1.

Literature on Satisfaction

Satisfaction can be broadly defined as an individuals emotional response to service quality

and is critical in retaining park visitors (Eagles, 2001; Lee, Graefe & Burns, 2004; McMullan &
Gilmore, 2003; ONeill et al., 2010; Silverberg, Backman & Backman, 1996). Oliver (1997)
defined it as the the consumers fulfillment response towards a consumable item (13). Service
quality is based on the customers assessment of park facilities and employees reliability,
knowledge, and empathy (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985). The service quality gap (VS)
formula can be used to evaluate satisfaction; it is determined by subtracting the visitors
expectations (VE) from the visitors experience (VQ) (Eng & Niininen, 2005; McMullan &
Gilmore, 2008; Oppermann, 2000). Managers frequently make use of this formula in the
importance-performance analysis (IPA) technique, which provides quantitative measures for
rating consumer evaluations (Jaten & Driver, 1998; LaPage & Bevins, 1981; McMullan, 2005;
Pritchard & Havitz, 2006; Wang, 2010).
A complete understanding of visitor satisfaction also requires research on the visitors
characteristics, attitudes towards nature, and group interactions. This research is necessary
because of the two barriers to creating loyal park visitors. First, visitors with a high degree of
interest in specific facilities or recreation activities may regard the parks natural environment as
substitutable (Backman et al., 2000; McMullan, 2005; Pearce, 2009). Second, individuals have a
broad range of possible destinations in which to spend their leisure time and money (McMullan,
2005). These two challenges, combined with the limited resources available to managers, require
the use of effective methods for retaining visitors (Eagles, McCool & Haynes, 2002).
A complete profile of the individual is important when attempting to create satisfied park
visitors. The basis for such a profile includes information on the visitors socio-demographic,
geographic, and psychographic characteristics (Eagles et al., 2002). The customers desired
participation frequency, desired recreational activities, and anticipated benefits from participation

also constitute critical information (Eagles et al., 2002). When combined with research on
commitment, this information can be used to create highly satisfied park visitors.
Understanding a visitors attitude towards nature is the second step in achieving visitor
satisfaction in a nature-based leisure setting. An attitude can be defined as the individuals
cognitive evaluation of an entity with favour or disfavour (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Buijs,
Elands and Langers (2009) identified how societal perspectives of nature are primarily based on
the relationship between humans and the environment. Their discussion highlights the
subjectivity of individual perspectives; these perspectives are strongly influenced by factors such
as ethnicity, past experiences with nature, and religious views (Johnson et al., 2004; Schwartz &
Howard, 1980). Managers able to identify visitor attitudes could more easily create a positive
cycle of park experiences for visitors (Kals, Schumacher & Montada, 1999; Kellert, 1997).
Group interactions can indicate the desired goals of individual park visitors. Society has
traditionally demanded parks as places for the preservation of both social and ecological
imperatives (Eagles & McCool, 2002). Within this dynamic context, groups of visitors interact
with and recreate their social and physical experiences together as they strive to achieve desired
end goals (Higging & Bridger, 1964; Kay 2008; Sayer 1997; Vollmer 2005). Understanding a
groups physical, cognitive, and emotional goals can generate methods for satisfying individuals
because each member contributes to the evolution of the group over time (Mennecke, Hoffer &
Wynne, 1992; Wurzinger & Johansson, 2006).
2.2.

Literature on Commitment

Commitment, a vital antecedent to visitor loyalty, has several characteristics which influence
its measurement. Defined as an individuals emotional attachment to specific behaviours,
feelings of commitment increase with more time, money, and effort invested in a specific activity
(Buchanan, 1985; Han, Kwortnik & Wang, 2008). A committed individual will be more likely to
ignore other similar opportunities, gain psychological benefits from their involvement, and
develop a social identity based on their participation (Buchanan, 1985; Wang, 2010). Emotional
and cognitive factors are both influential in creating visitor commitment (Han et al., 2008).
Activities with rigid role expectations for participants tend to generate higher levels of
commitment, and this can be measured in various ways (Michels & Bowen, 2005).
Researchers can rely on either theories or variable sets when measuring visitor commitment.
Consumer involvement theory suggests that a visitors familiarity with an activity can influence
4

their associated motivation levels and behaviours (Pearce, 2009). Consequently, frequency and
intensity of park visitation becomes a reasonable measurement of commitment (Opperman,
1999). Visitor commitment can also be evaluated on the basis of a combination of variables.
Table 1 illustrates three different sets of variables which contribute to the commitment level of
visitors. In combination, each variable set illustrates the activitys degree of role expectations and
each participants degree of resource investment in the activity.
Table 1: Variables Involved in Three Different Approaches for Measuring Visitor Commitment
First Approach
Individuals past
experience

Second Approach
Centrality of activity
participation to
individuals lifestyle

Frequency of
individuals
participation

Individuals status in
the activity and
opportunity for
advancement
Number of years
Psychological
individual has
importance of activity
participated in activity in comparison to other
interests
Participants age

Resistance to change
in activity

Number of times
individual has
engaged in this
activity compared to
alternatives

Degree of
independent ability in
activity (as perceived
by participant)

Third Approach
Amount of money
spent by individual on
equipment required
for activity
Length of time spent
engaged in the
activity
Individuals
preference of
technique in the
activity (i.e. level of
expertise)
Individuals
preference for the
setting of the activity

Source: Buchanan (1985)

2.3.

Literature on Loyalty

Although the concept of loyalty has evolved over time in response to research findings, loyalty
in Ontario Parks can be understood and enhanced by park managers. Oliver (1999) is a seminal
researcher on the topic of loyalty and has had his work referenced by multiple academics
(Brunner et al., 2007; Ha et al., 2009; Han et al., 2008; McMullan, 2005; McMullan & Gilmore,
5

2008; Yuksel, Yuksel & Bilim, 2010). Oliver (1997) defined loyalty as the individuals deeply
held commitment to use a preferred entity repeatedly in the future (392). Prior to his research,
loyalty was narrowly defined as being repeated purchase behaviour; its drivers and moderators
were poorly understood within the research community (Evanschitzky & Wunderlich, 2006).
This situation changed with Olivers (1999) model of loyalty, which included a linear
progression through the following four stages:
1. Cognitive (weakest stage): created by the clarity of the brands message, its accessibility
to the customer, and its centrality to their lifestyle (Evanschitzky & Wunderlich, 2006)
2. Affective (emotional stage): created by the brands ability to appeal to and satisfy the
customers emotions; this stage is unstable because it is vulnerable to alternative brands
(Evanschitzky & Wunderlich, 2006; Yuksel et al., 2010)
3. Conative (rational stage): created by the customers cognitive evaluation of the costs and
benefits of switching to other brands (McMullan, 2005)
4. Active (outcome stage): momentum generated by the previous three stages encourages
the customer to continue their purchase behaviour (McMullan, 2005)
Loyalty in the Ontario Parks is the customers willingness to return rather than make use of
comparable natural environments. Satisfaction is influential in creating the initial relationship
between the customer and organization, as well as driving the progression through each of the
above loyalty stages (Ha, Janda & Park, 2009; Yuksel et al., 2010). However, interactions
between satisfaction and loyalty levels can be moderated by customer characteristics such as age,
income, and education (Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006). The Ontario Parks Interior User
Survey in 2008 provided a preliminary analysis of customer satisfaction and loyalty by asking
customers if their expectations for park services were met (Baker & Fesenmaier, 1997; Ontario
Parks, 2008).
There are several factors which are influential in enhancing visitor loyalty. First, place
attachment is when a location fulfills an individuals desired activity goals or has symbolic
meaning to them (Yuksel et al., 2010). Place attachment can generate affective loyalty, which is
the customers favourable attitude towards the brand (Li, 2010). Second, an organizations image
can affect behavioural loyalty by perpetuating the customers purchase behaviour (Li, 2010).
Image is created based on information and memories of service provision; thus, it formulates
visitor expectations and influences their satisfaction levels (Brunner, Stocklin & Opwis, 2007).
This highlights the complexity of visitor loyalty as a multi-layered process (Opperman, 1999).
6

To cultivate a sense of place and organizational image within parks, managers must undertake
relationship marketing, utilize diverse technologies, and measure consumer loyalty. Relationship
marketing draws connections between the customer, the organizations brand, and the
organizations staff (Morais, Kerstetter and Yarnal, 2006). Although the role of the provider in
this context has previously been ignored, recent studies have identified how special treatment of
the customer can create strong customer-provider relationships (Morais et al., 2006). Diverse
technologies can also assist in the development of customer loyalty by maintaining contact with
the customer once they have left the service location (Michels & Bowen, 2005). For example,
electronic newsletters could be sent to customers to remind them of their visit and encourage
repeat visitation (Michels & Bowen, 2005).
To measure consumer loyalty, managers must consider both emotional and behavioural
elements. Oppermann (1999) developed the matrix of four different loyalty types outlined in
Figure 1, based on the individuals psychological attachment to the organization and their
visitation frequency. Figure 1 is limited in that it does not consider the impacts of situational
constraints (e.g. lack of time or money) on customers loyalty levels. Thus, conclusions reached
from evaluations based on this figure provide only a partial picture of customers organizational
loyalty. Consequently, a complete understanding of customer loyalty can only be garnered
through consideration of all factors discussed in this literature review. This is because
satisfaction and commitment are two vital precursors to the development of customer loyalty.

Figure 1: Matrix of four different loyalty types based on psychological attachment to the activity
and intensity of activity use.

Source: Opperman, 1999

3.0.

Data Analysis Results

3.1.
General Survey Results
Data from survey questions #1, 5, and 9 through 12 are used here to evaluate motivations for
park visitation as well as current levels of satisfaction within each group type. The service
quality gap (VS) analysis provides some of the most valuable information in the following
section. Recall that VS requires subtracting customer expectations from experiences; here, the
number of visitors ranking high importance and performance to the service is evaluated.
Services and facilities with negative values have a contingency of individuals not completely
satisfied with their experience. Managers should address these problems, with a particular focus
on issues identified by the largest group types. Table 2, below, shows the frequency of each
group type in the survey. The three largest categories were Group of Friends (34.7%), Family
(26.8%), and Couple (26.6%). Identifying gaps in service quality for these individuals would
allow managers to resolve issues and enhance overall satisfaction levels (Eng & Niininen, 2005).
8

Table 2: Group Type

Group Type
Other
Individual
Couple
Family
Group of
Friends
Organized
Group
Total
Invalid
Total

Frequency
154
132
920
926
1198

Percent (%)
4.5
3.8
26.6
26.8
34.7

110

3.2

3440
15
3455

99.6
0.4
100.0

The data analysis revealed that no relationship between group type and park visitation
motivations existed in survey results. A chi-squared test between group type and their reasons for
visiting the park did not identify one as being dependent upon the other; this may have been due
to the uniformity of visitation motivations. Table 3 provides a summary of the top four reasons
each group type visited the Ontario Parks. In brackets, there is a number indicating the
percentage of people who ranked that factor as being Very Important in their decision to visit
the parks. Although these results indicate positive attitudes towards the environment, managers
cannot be expected to draw new visitors based on the general park merits of naturalness and
isolation (Buijs et al., 2009). Thus, satisfying existing customers becomes an even more
important task. The following section provides an overview of group characteristics and
evaluates this information in relation to the service quality gaps identified by each respondent
group. It is organized around the hypotheses for each group type and discusses the managerial
implications of current visitor satisfaction levels.

Table 3: Top Four Park Visitation Motivation Factors, by Group Type

Top Four
Motivations
Family

Natural
Setting
(90.5%)
Natural
Setting
(85.6%)
Natural
Setting (91%)

Friends and
Family
(79.9%)
Solitude
(70.7%)

Solitude (76.8%)

Relaxation
(65.7%)

Relaxation
(63.6%)

Friends and
Family (61.9%)

Solitude
(83.4%)

Relaxation
(75.2%)

Individual

Natural
Setting (92%)

Solitude
(86.2%)

Organized
Group

Natural
Setting (92%)

Solitude
(86.2%)

Escaping
Responsibilities
(67.5%)
Escaping
Responsibilities
(67.5%)

Escaping
Responsibilities
(66.3%)
Camping (55.9%)

Group of
Friends
Couple

Relaxation
(65.6%)

3.2.
Results on Visitor Satisfaction
This report hypothesized that low activity specialization would create high satisfaction levels
in family groups. Data results supported this, although the age and wealth of family groups could
generate demand for certain services. Table 4 indicates that those aged 25 to 44 years were the
largest category in the family group. Other major categories were those aged 0 to 14 years (51%)
and males 45 to 64 years (29.4%). In agreement with the size and maturity of this group type,
survey respondents reported a high household income; those earning over $200,000 constituted
the largest category at 6.8% of the population. High income levels could mean that this group is
willing to pay more for adequate safety, access, and convenience facilities in the park. Managers
should also be aware of the needs of young children because of their impact on family leisure
spending decisions and their potential to become life-long park supporters (Oppermann, 1999).
Table 4: Age and Gender of Family Category Respondents
Age
0-14
15-24
25-44
45-64

Male (%)
24.2
15.7
28.2
29.4
10

Female (%)
26.8
15.9
32.1
23.0

65+
2.4
2.3
Total
100
100
Families who responded to the survey were largely satisfied by their experience with park
services and facilities, as shown in Table 5 and Table 6. Staff treatment and park security, two
critical park services, were both rated positively by many individuals in this group. There were
fewer individuals satisfied with staff knowledge and interior campsite facilities, suggesting that
park managers should respond to these concerns.
Table 5: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for Family Category
Aspect of Service Quality Evaluated
Park Staff Responsiveness
Attention Provided by Park Staff
Park Staff Treatment
Staff Knowledge and Competency
Park Security Levels

VS Results
4.6
4.1
10
-1.1
10.1

Table 6: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for Family Category
Aspect of Park Facilities Evaluated
Condition of Interior Campsite
Condition of Trails and Portages
Value of Information Provided for Trip

VS Results
-16.9
0.5
4.7

This report also hypothesized that groups of friends would be easily satisfied, but their youth
could cause them to engage in risky behaviours. It was thought that these risky behaviours would
bring them into conflict with managers and generate dissatisfying experiences (Wilson & Daly,
1985). The latter aspect of this hypothesis was not supported by the data results in Table 7. It was
found that the overwhelming majority of survey respondents in the Group of Friends category
were males (47.3%) and females (50.2%) aged 25 to 44 years. The age category of 45 to 64 years
was also quite large for both males (25.8%) and females (21.1%). This suggests that, contrary to
the hypothesis, friends groups are more mature and therefore less likely to engage in risky,
disruptive behaviours.

11

Table 7: Age and Gender of Groups of Friends Category Respondents

Age
0-14
15-24
25-44
45-64
65+
Total

Male (%)
6.5
16.9
47.3
25.8
3.6
100

Female (%)
7.6
19.4
50.2
21.1
1.6
100

Groups of friends were found to have relatively high satisfaction levels with their park
experience. Table 8 indicates their high satisfaction with park services; although Table 9 shows
that they found park facilities to be problematic, the number of friends dissatisfied was low
relative to other group types (see Table 20). Survey data indicates that almost all respondents had
visited an Ontario Park in the past, suggesting that high customer satisfaction could be
contributing to repeat visitation.
Table 8: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for Group of Friends Category
Aspect of Service Quality Evaluated
Park Staff Responsiveness
Attention Provided by Park Staff
Park Staff Treatment
Staff Knowledge and Competency
Park Security Levels

VS Results
9.9
7.2
13.5
-0.8
17.9

Table 9: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for Groups of Friends Category
Aspect of Park Facilities Evaluated
Condition of Interior Campsite
Condition of Trails and Portages
Value of Information Provided for Trip

VS Results
-14.8
-0.8
8.3

The third hypothesis of this report was that couples would be young and difficult to satisfy.
Although this was partially contradicted by the maturity of couples, they were found to have low
satisfaction levels. The largest age categories were males (57.3%) and females (57.3%) aged 25

12

to 44 years, followed by males (29.9%) and females (28.1%) aged 45 to 64. Table 10 shows the
frequency of males and females within the entire population, based on age category.
Table 10: Age and Gender of Couples Category Respondents
Age
0-14
15-24
25-44
45-64
65+
Total

Male (%)
1.0
9.3
57.3
29.9
2.5
100

Female (%)
0.5
13.0
57.3
28.1
1.2
100

Respondents in the couple category were more difficult to satisfy. Based on other survey
data, their high income and education levels could be contributing to their high expectations for
their park experience. Table 11 and Table 12 reveal that couples were particularly negative
regarding staff knowledge and interior campsite conditions. Their dissatisfaction with staff
knowledge and information suggests that they could be better satisfied through the provision of
more and better interpretation activities during their park stay.
Table 11: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for Couples Category
Aspect of Service Quality Evaluated
Park Staff Responsiveness
Attention Provided by Park Staff
Park Staff Treatment
Staff Knowledge and Competency
Park Security Levels

VS Results
3.4
5.1
8.7
-7.7
8.3

Table 12: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for Couples Category
Aspect of Park Facilities Evaluated
Condition of Interior Campsite
Condition of Trails and Portages
Value of Information Provided for Trip

VS Results
-19.3
-7.3
-2

The fourth hypothesis of this report was largely supported by survey data and stated that
individuals would be mature and quite familiar with park operations. However, these variables
were found to have a positive influence on satisfaction levels, rather than the variable influence
13

anticipated in the hypothesis. As shown in Table 13, the two largest age categories were males
(50.9%) and females (45.5%) 25 to 44 years of age, followed by males (40.9%) and females
(27.3%) aged 45 to 64 years. The concentration of individuals in these two age categories,
combined with the high number of survey respondents who had previously visited an Ontario
Park, supports the hypothesis that individuals are life-long park supporters who are already quite
familiar with park resources.
Table 13: Age and Gender of Individuals Category Respondents
Age
0-14
15-24
25-44
45-64
65+
Total

Males (%)
1.8
5.5
50.9
40.9
0.9
100

Females (%)
4.5
18.2
45.5
27.3
4.5
100

The virtuous circle of tourism could be influencing survey respondents in the individual
category; this circle occurs when highly satisfied visitors continue to visit the parks to gain the
perceived benefits of their visitation experiences (P.F.J. Eagles, personal communication, January
5th, 2011). Table 14 and Table 15 show the number of individuals satisfied with park facilities
and services. Satisfaction results shown here are relatively higher than other group types, as
revealed by Table 19 and Table 20. Many respondents in the individual category were
particularly positive towards staff treatment and park security; managers should therefore focus
on other problematic issues, such the condition of interior campsites.
Table 14: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for Individuals Category
Aspect of Service Quality Evaluated
Park Staff Responsiveness
Attention Provided by Park Staff
Park Staff Treatment
Staff Knowledge and Competency
Park Security Levels

14

VS Results
3.4
5.1
8.7
-7.7
8.3

Table 15: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for Individuals Category
Aspect of Park Facilities Evaluated
Condition of Interior Campsite
Condition of Trails and Portages
Value of Information Provided for Trip

VS Results
-19.3
-7.3
-2

Organized groups were thought to be satisfied by the degree to which their safety and
recreation needs were met during their stay. However, satisfaction levels were found to be low
within this group. Unique to this group was a very consistent age and gender distribution, as
shown in Table 16; consequently, few conclusions could be drawn from these demographic data.
Table 16: Age and Gender of Organized Group Category Respondents
Age
0-14
15-24
25-44
45-64
65+
Total

Males (%)
16.8
28.2
28.2
23.6
3.2
100

Females (%)
20.1
30.6
28.5
18.8
2.1
100

Not many respondents in the organized group category were satisfied with their park
experience, as shown by Table 17 and Table 18. This group may have been dissatisfied with their
park experience because their recreational needs surrounding park facilities were not met. It may
also have been that negative intra- or inter-group conflicts lowered their satisfaction levels. The
former refers to conflict within groups, while the latter refers to conflicts between groups
(Wurzinger & Johansson, 2006).
Table 17: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Services for Organized Groups Category
Aspect of Service Quality Evaluated
Park Staff Responsiveness
Attention Provided by Park Staff
Park Staff Treatment
Staff Knowledge and Competency
Park Security Levels

15

VS Results
-8.3
1.9
3
-11.4
17.2

Table 18: Service Quality Gap (VS) Analysis of Park Facilities for Organized Groups Category
Aspect of Park Facilities Evaluated
Condition of Interior Campsite
Condition of Trails and Portages
Value of Information Provided for Trip

VS Results
-22.5
-13.5
-5.6

Although the preceding data analysis is useful for a general understanding of park visitors, it
is necessary to evaluate summary tables to determine where managers should be distributing
their resources. The mean defines the average of the values, while the median indicates the
middle value (Bryman, Teevan & Bell, 2009). Both are valuable for better understanding the
information revealed by the available survey data. Table 19 provides a summary on group
satisfaction levels; it reveals that staffs degree of knowledge and competency was negatively
perceived by most group types, while park security was the most positively regarded feature. The
organized group and couple categories had the fewest number of people satisfied, while group of
friends and individuals were the most satisfied. This analysis shows how many individuals were
not completely satisfied with critical aspects of their park experience.
Table 19: Summary Table of Group Satisfaction Levels towards Park Services

Park Staff
Responsiveness
Attention
Provided by
Park Staff
Park Staff
Treatment
Staff
Knowledge and
Competency
Park Security
Levels
Median
Mean

Family
Visitors
Satisfied
(%)

Group of
Friends
Visitors
Satisfied (%)

Couple
Visitors
Satisfied
(%)

Individual
Visitors
Satisfied
(%)

Organized
Group Visitors
Satisfied (%)

Median

Mean

4.6

9.9

3.4

9.3

-8.3

4.6

3.78

4.1

7.2

5.1

5.6

1.9

5.1

4.78

10

13.5

8.7

10.9

10

9.22

-1.1

-0.8

-7.7

-3.4

-11.4

-3.4

-4.88

10.1
4.6
5.54

17.9
9.9
9.54

8.3
5.1
3.56

16.8
9.3
7.84

17.2
1.9
0.48

16.8

14.06

16

The second summary table garnered from this research is Table 20, which reveals group
satisfaction levels with park facilities. It shows that interior campsites were the most problematic
for all group types; it also reveals that organized groups and couples were the most negative
towards all park facilities. The low level of activity specialization thought to occur within
families is here substantiated by their largely positive attitude towards most park facilities.
Table 20: Summary Table of Group Satisfaction Levels towards Park Facilities

Condition of
Interior
Campsite
Condition of
Trails and
Portages
Value of
Information
Provided for
Trip
Median
Mean

4.0.

Family
Visitors
Satisfied
(%)

Group of
Friends
Visitors
Satisfied
(%)

Individual
Visitors
Satisfied
(%)

Organized
Group
Visitors
Satisfied
(%)

Couple
Visitors
Satisfied
(%)

Median

Mean

-16.9

-14.8

-19.3

-8.1

-22.5

-16.9

-16.32

0.5

-0.8

-7.3

-9.3

-13.5

-7.3

-6.08

4.7
0.5
-3.9

8.3
-0.8
-2.4

-2
-7.3
-9.5

-2
-8.1
-6.5

-5.6
-13.5
-13.9

-2

0.68

Discussion and Recommendations

Several key managerial recommendations can be drawn from the above data analysis and
literature review. Managers should be aware of the issues associated with each group, especially
the dominant groups of friends, families, and couples, because dissatisfying experiences could
deter future visitation. Motivations for park visitation were found to be based on the natural and
isolated character of the parks, rather than on specific natural features. As this indicates that
managers may be challenged to market their park amenities to draw new customers, retaining
existing customers becomes an even more important task (Eagles et al., 2002).
From the findings of the data, several methods can be identified for retaining loyal park
visitors. Managers must contend with the high expectations of park visitors for their experience
17

by appealing to the demands of each unique group type. Although families regarded staff
treatment as positive, managers should provide staff training in interpretation to appeal to
younger generations of park visitors. Increasing the ability of staff to provide high quality
education experiences is important because: 1) service quality and satisfaction are partially based
on employees knowledge; and 2) youth are typically very receptive to educational experiences
surrounding nature (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985). Enjoyable park experiences early in
life could also cause youth to become life-long park supporters.
Groups of friends visiting the parks were found to have very positive attitudes towards park
services and facilities, and were older than originally anticipated in the hypothesis. Their
maturity was expected to reduce the likelihood that they would engage in risky behaviours,
thereby increasing their desirability as frequent park visitors. According to the consumer
involvement theory, their motivations and behaviours are closely tied to their emotional
evaluation of park resources (Pearce, 2009). Consequently, managers should continue to
cultivate a strong sense of place at the Ontario Parks for groups of friends. Encouraging staff to
develop personal connections with groups of friends could assist in this goal. However, this may
require the parks to retain staff all year round, rather than relying on transient summer students as
the customers primary contact with park staff.
Respondents in the couple category were found to have negative attitudes towards park
services and facilities because of their high expectation levels. They were particularly negative
towards staff knowledge and interior campsite conditions. Managers could address this problem
by designing specific campsite facilities and information services targeted at couples which
appeal to their preferences for naturalness, solitude, and relaxation; these preferences were
identified by their stated motivations for park visitation. Interior campsites should be a particular
focus for managers, as these sites were found to have a negative impact on the satisfaction levels
of all group types.
Individuals were found to have been largely satisfied by their park experience, and could be
life-long park supporters. It is possible that these individuals have entered the active stage of
Olivers (1999) loyalty model, because they continue to return to the Ontario Parks without
prompting. Their visitation is likely being perpetuated by their ongoing investments of time,
money, and effort into park activities; consequently, regular reminders of their park experience
are the most effective method for maintaining their patronage (Buchanan, 1985; Han et al.,
18

2008). This could be done by sending out regular bulletins about recent park news via email
(Morais et al., 2006; Michels & Bowen, 2005). Due to the isolated nature of backcountry
experiences, safety could be a concern for some individuals (McCool & Braithwaite, 2009).
Managers should provide visible evidence of park safety to these visitors to assuage any fears
they might have, while still preserving the desired level of isolation and relaxation.
In contrast to those in the individual group type, organized group members were quite
dissatisfied with their park experience. As they perceived park safety to be satisfactory during
their visit, their dissatisfaction may have been caused by inadequate facilities and the impacts
this had on their recreational activities. It may also have been that intra- or inter-group conflict
lowered their satisfaction levels. Park facilities should be plentiful enough to avoid conflict over
these resources between groups. Further research is needed on the specific factors generating
dissatisfaction towards park services and facilities within this group type.

5.0. Conclusions
The purpose of the preceding analysis was to identify managerial methods for increasing
repeat park visitation. Satisfaction was a primary focus of the analysis because of its
contributions to visitor commitment and loyalty. Methods for attracting new visitors were not
discussed, as survey data did not reveal what motivated individuals to visit the park. The VS
analysis was used to measure satisfaction, and this information acted as proxy for more advanced
measurements of customer loyalty.
Based on the results of the VS analysis, there are several things managers can do to enhance
visitor satisfaction levels. First and foremost, staff knowledge requires attention. Retaining a
larger proportion of permanent park staff, rather than relying summer students, would have two
primary benefits: 1) training in education and interpretation services for staff would have a
greater impact on the park; and 2) there would be more customer relationship-building
opportunities, and these relationships would likely last longer. This would allow managers to
create a stronger sense of place for park visitors. Second, managers should send visitors regular
email bulletins containing park information to provide reminders of their park experience. Such
interaction could be beneficial for allowing a two-way exchange between managers and the most
dissatisfied park visitors. For example, managers could use the email bulletins to direct visitors
to the Ontario Parks blog (http://www.parkreports.com/parksblog/), where they would be
19

encouraged to interact with park staff and indicate desired improvements in their park
experience. Lastly, managers must attempt to address the problems with interior campsite
facilities. These were rated negatively by all group types. Future surveys could assist in this goal
by identifying the specific problems visitors had with park facilities.
The data was limited in its ability to compare group type to motivation, satisfaction, and
loyalty levels. This may have been because the design of the survey limited the utility of some
responses to this particular research project. For example, the focus on group type in the survey
was problematic when trying to determine the characteristics of individual group members.
Group goals were used to better understand the individual visitor; however, the limitations of this
technique mean that it could generate unreliable results (Mennecke et al., 1992; Wurzinger &
Johansson, 2006). To overcome this barrier, individual participant information, such as age and
gender, was carefully evaluated to create a participant profile for this research project.
In the future, the Ontario Parks could rewrite their survey questions with the ultimate goal of
developing a loyalty scale for visitation. The creation of such a scale would require: 1) secondary
research into existing scales, 2) evaluation of existing scales for validity and reliability, 3)
conducting a survey, 4) summarizing the responses to a number of questions, and 5) interpreting
individual scale scores within the context of other scores (McMullan, 2005). Future surveys
could also be improved by better establishing the goals of the research and using this to design
the survey (Bryman et al., 2009). This change would mean that the survey could provide a clear
socio-demographic, attitudinal, and group interaction profile of visitors. Such information is
critical in understanding the motivations and satisfaction levels of visitors, both of which are
vital antecedents to the development of customer loyalty.

20

6.0. Reference List

Backman, K., Backman, S., & Malinovsky, J. (2000). An assessment of service quality in a
nature-based tourism setting. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism,
1(2), 9-30.
Baker, D., & Fesenmaier, D. (1997). Effects of service climate on managers and employees
rating of visitors service quality expectations. Journal of Travel Research, 36(1), 15-22.
Brunner, T.A., Stocklin, M., & Opwis, K. (2007). Satisfaction, image and loyalty: New versus
experienced customers. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 1095-1105.
Bryman, A., Teevan, J.J., and Bell, E. (2009). Social Research Methods. Don Mills, ON: Oxford
University Press.
Buchanan, T. (1985). Commitment and leisure behaviour: A theoretical perspective. Leisure
Sciences, 9(4), 401-416.
Buijs, A.E., Elands, B.H.M., & Langers, F. (2009). No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural
differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 91(3), 113-123.
Eagles, P. (2001). International Trends in Park Tourism. EUROPARC 2001. Edition 4:17,
September 2001. Retrieved on January 14, 2011, from
http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/~eagles/taskforce/inttrends.pdf
Eagles, P.F.J., & McCool, S.F. (2002). Tourism in National Parks and Protected Areas: Planning
and Management. New York: CABI.
Eagles, P.F.J., McCool, S.F., & Haynes, C.D. (2002). Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas:
Guidelines for Planning and Management. A. Phillips (Ed.), prepared for the United
Nations Environment Programme, World Tourism Union, and The World Conservation
Union. Retrieved January 14th, 2011 from
http://ecosynapsis.net/RANPAold/Contenido/MainPages/preAmac/articulosPDF/sustaina
ble_tourism_in_pa_guidelines.pdf
Ellis, C., & Vogelsong, H. (2002). Assessing Indicators Relating to Overall Tourist Satisfaction
of Ecotourism Developments in Eastern North Carolina. Proceedings of the 2002
Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium (p. 52-57). Retrieved on January 17th,
2011, from http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_ne302/gtr_ne302_052.pdf
Eng, T.Y., & Niininen, O. (2005). An integrative approach to diagnosing service quality of public
parks. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(2), 70-80.
Evanschitzky, H., & Wunderlich, M. (2006). An examination of moderator effects in the fourstage loyalty model. Journal of Science Research, 8(4), 330-345.
21

Ha, H.Y., Janda, S., & Park, S.K. (2009). Role of satisfaction in an integrative model of brand
loyalty: Evidence from China and South Korea. International Marketing Review, 26(2),
198-220.
Han, X., Kwortnik,R., & Wang, C. (2008). Service loyalty: An integrative model and
examination across service contexts. Journal of Service Research, 11(1), 22-42.
Higging, G., & Bridger, H. (1964). The psychodynamics of inter-group experience. Human
Relations, 17(4), 391-446.
Jaten, A., & Driver, B.L. (1998). Meaningful measures for quality recreation management.
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(10), 43-57.
Johnson, C.Y., Bowker, J.M., Bergstrom, J.C., & Cordell, H.K. (2004). Wilderness values in
America: Does immigrant status or ethnicity matter? Society and Natural Resources, 17,
611-628.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a
motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behaviour, 31(2), 178-202.
Kay, J.J. (2008).An introduction to systems thinking. In D. Waltner-Toews, J.J. Kay, and N.E.
Lister, The Ecosystem Approach: Complexity, Uncertainty, and Managing for
Sustainability (pp. 3-13). New York, USA: Columbia University Press.
Kellert, S.R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development.
Washington: Island Press.
LaPage, W.F., & Bevins, M.I. (1981). Satisfaction Monitoring for Quality Control in
Campground Management. Research Paper NE- 484. Northeastern Forest Experiment
Station; United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved on January 17th, 2011, from
http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/research_papers/pdfs/scanned/OC
R/ne_rp484.pdf
Lee, J., Graefe, A.R., & Burns, R.C. (2004). Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioural
intention among forest visitors. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17(1), 73-82.
Li, X. (2010). Loyalty regardless of brands? Examining three non-performance effects on brand
loyalty in a tourism context. Journal of Travel Research, 49(3), 323-336.
McCool, S.F., and Braithwaite, A.M. (1989). Beliefs and behaviours of backcountry campers in
Montana toward Grizzly Bears. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17(4): 514-519.
McMullan, R. (2005). A multiple-item scale for measuring customer loyalty development.
Journal of Services Marketing, 19(7), 470-481.
McMullan, R., & Gilmore, A. (2003). The conceptual development of customer loyalty
measurement: a proposed scale. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis in
Marketing, 11, 230-243.

22

McMullan, R., & Gilmore, A. (2008). Customer loyalty: An empirical study. European Journal
of Marketing, 42(9/10), 1084-1094.
Mennecke, B., Hoffer, J., & Wynne, B. (1992). The implications of group development and
history for group support system theory and practice. Small Group Research, 23(4), 524572.
Michels, N., & Bowen, D. (2005). The relevance of retail loyalty strategy and practice for
leisure/tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(1), 5-19.
Morais, D., Kerstetter, D., & Yarnal, C. (2006). The love triangle: Loyal relationships among
providers, customers, and their friends. Journal of Travel Research, 44(4), 379-386.
ONeill, M, Riscinto-Kozub, K., & Van Hyfte, M. (2010). Defining visitor satisfaction in the
context of camping oriented nature-based tourism- the driving force of quality! Journal
of Vacation Marketing, 16(2), 141-156.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioural Perspective on the Consumer. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 65(5), 33-44.
Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460-469.
Ontario Parks. (2008). Park User Survey Program: Interior User Statistical Summary- 2008.
Obtained by Paul F.J. Eagles for ENVS/REC 433, Winter 2011, University of Waterloo,
Ontario.
Oppermann, M. (1999). Predicting destination choice- A discussion of destination loyalty.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(1), 51-65.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 78-84.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
Pearce, P.L. (2009). The effects of prior and recent experience on continuing interest in tourist
settings. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 172-190.
Pritchard, M.P., & Havitz, M.E. (2006). Destination appraisal: An analysis of critical incidents.
Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 25-46.
Sayer, A. (1997).Critical realism and the limits to critical social science. Journal for the Theory
of Social Behaviour, 27(4): 473-488.
Silverberg, K., Backman, S., & Backman, K. (1996). A preliminary investigation into the
psychographics of nature-based travelers to the Southeastern United States. Journal of
Travel Research, 35(2), 19-28.
23

Vollmer, F. (2005). The narrative self. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35(2): 189205.
Wang, C.Y. (2010). Service quality, perceived value, corporate image, and customer loyalty in
the context of varying levels of switching costs. Psychology and Marketing, 27(3), 252262.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young male
syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(1), 59-73.
Wurzinger, S., & Johansson, M. (2006). Environmental concern and knowledge of ecotourism
among three groups of Swedish tourists. Journal of Travel Research 45(2), 217-226.
Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer
satisfaction and cognitive, affective, and conative loyalty. Tourism Management, 31(2),
274-284.

24