This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Leeds University Business School September, 2011
This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the requirement of MBA degree.
Word Count: 13,039
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents List of figures List of tables Abstract Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 Literature review 2.1 Research question Research objectives Scope and outline ii iv v vi 1 2 3 3 5 5 5 Brands and their effects Brand equity and image perception 5 6 7 Destiantion branding complexities Role of destiantion branding in tourism 7 9
Introduction Brands and Brand 2.2 equity 2.2.1 2.2.2 Destiantion branding 2.3 Theoratical applications 2.3.1 2.3.2 Establishing 2.4 destination image from destination brand Destination image 2.5 Implications on consumer beaviour 2.6 Destination personality 2.7 Conclusion
16 17 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 22 22 23 23 23 25 28 28 28
Methodology 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Introduction Research philosophy Research approach Research strategy 3.4.1 Research choices Time horizons Data collection 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.4 Data analysis Conclusion
Cognitive access Sampling Questionnaire design Covering letter
TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 4 Findings 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Research findings 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.3 29 29 29 29 31 34 38 38 40 42 44 45 45 45 Identification and analysis of gaps created in customer service delivery and its implications on destination management organizations and managers Building a model showing the interaction extent and nature within various circumstances and its implications on destination management organizations and managers Model representation and development Limitations of study Scope of future research
General observations Descriptive statistics Chi square goodness of fit test Non parametric test 188.8.131.52 184.108.40.206 220.127.116.11
Mann - Whitney test Friedman test Identification and analysis of variable interaction within corresponding factors
4.3 Conclusion Chapter 5 Observations 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Model development
5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 Chapter 6 Conclusion Conceptual model of 6.1 customer service delivery gaps Variable Interation 6.2 model Bibliography Appendices
53 56 56 57 57 57 58 68
A relationship model The research onion Chart describing the extent and nature of interaction of variables in case of customer perception and actual experience Depiction of service delivery gaps experienced by tourists arriving in UK Conceptual model incorporating variables observed as gaps in service delivery Chart showing interaction of variables corresponding to core resources and attractors Chart showing interaction of variables corresponding to supporting factors and resources Chart showing interaction of variables corresponding to qualifying and amplifying determinants A depiction of variable intensities in core resources and attractors A depiction of variable intensities in supporting factors and resources A depiction of variable intensities in qualifying and amplifying determinants Page no. 2 6 9 10 13 15 19 46 Figure 9 Figure 10 48 49 Figure 11 50 Figure 12 51 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 52 53 54 55 iv . Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure name Contribution of tourism industry to UK's economy Usefulness of managing brand Travel decision influencing factors AHP Destination competitiveness decision model Crouch and Ritchie conceptual model of destination competitiveness Brand & Image .LIST OF FIGURES Figure no.
LIST OF TABLES Table no. Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table name Factors and variables Table showing general statistics of dataset Table showing the frequency of most preferred destination of respondents Descriptive statistics of raw data Chi square goodness of fit comparison of extent of variable impact on decision making in subset 1 & 2 Chi square goodness of fit comparison between tourist perception and tourist experience of UK Chi square goodness of fit comparison between extent of variable impact while visiting UK to that of alternate country Mann Whitney test results comparing traveller perception to that of traveller experience A comparative study of level of variable influence on decision making and level of variable influence experienced in alternate country Results of friedman test showing the interaction of variables within associated factor under various scenarios A comparison between the mean ranks of variables associated with perception to that of actual experience while visiting UK Page no. 12 30 31 32 35 Table 6 36 Table 7 37 Table 8 39 Table 9 41 Table 10 43 Table 11 47 v .
This study develops a variable interaction model that assist in forming destination brand image in context to UK’s tourism industry.ABSTRACT Tourism industry is undergoing a considerable extent of research in recent times due to its high relative influence on the economy of nations. It also identifies opportunities of further improvement in said context. All destinations provide a unique style of experience to every leisure traveler who has a unique perspective about country that is influenced by destination brand image. vi . The area is subject to multiple studies done by scholars as well as practitioners.
Figure 1 on next page shows how tourism sector contributes to the economy of UK: vii . France currently tops the list of popular tourist destinations with 79. 1989) and has most number of tourist arrivals (The Economist. Historical trend shows a continuous increase in the tourism industry across the globe except for in 2009. it is the resultant mix of rumours.3 million tourist arrivals in 2008 (The Economist. With London fetching the highest number of tourists in the world. 2008). ranks seventh for the largest tourist receipts (The Economist. 2008) and tourism is UK’s 5th largest industry (VisitBritain website. 2010). Currently. 2009). He further notes. it still lags far behind a country like France that shows the strongest positive image influence over the travellers (Woodside & Lysonski. 2007). UK ranks sixth major tourist destination of the world. 2011). that a country’s knowledge does not necessarily mean it will be favoured while making a choice of destination and cites United States as an example.CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Leisure and hospitality service is one of the fastest growing sectors with a predicted annual growth rate of 2. As Olins (2003) states that whatever knowledge people get about a certain country.5% till 2018 (Bureau of Labour Statistics. it has become a tourism hub (Euromonitor International. 2008). anecdotes and folklores which influences tourist’s decision making process and intent of purchase and visit a destination for leisure travel. However. This makes this subject area more complicated. A regular and structured growth in the tourism demand is the reason why destinations compete with each other to attract the tourists to their respective countries (Crouch. when a 4% decline was noted mainly contributed by Europe that declined by 6%.
Figure 1 . This dissertation aims to use the Crouch & Ritchie model (1999) to study the factors that affect UK’s brand image and thus identifying a custom model for marketing and branding UK in international markets in order to promote tourism.1 RESEARCH QUESTION The key deliverable of this dissertation is to address is to develop a variable interaction model for UK in context to its tourism industry to identify the nature and extent of interactions within variables that determine a destination’s competitiveness and to identify the key variables hindering the influencing power of brand UK on customers. 1. viii .Contribution of tourism industry to UK's economy Source: VisitBritain. 2011 These facts with the review of available literature in the following pages. indicate the importance of undertaking this research project for the benefit of UK’s economy.
this study then develops a model of interaction of all variables in a holistic manner and creates interaction path model of these variables within their associated factors. First chapter introduces the background and scope of study.1. To identify and analyse the role of each variable in determining its position within its respective factor under level of influence on decision making. To compare the variable interaction in each factor under different scenario in order to arrive at a complex relationship of consumer behaviour affecting variables. To develop a gap model to analyse the opportunities of further improvement 1.3 SCOPE AND OUTLINE This study uses Crouch & Ritchie (2009) model of destination competitiveness in order to find differences between interactions of various variables forming a destination image within customer’s mind. post purchase experience of a consumer and to benchmark it against the experience gained at a competitive destination. entertainment. Furthermore. accessibility and special events. These identified interactions are then observed and analysed and applied to develop a gap model of customer service delivery and to develop a path interaction model of variables within their respective factors in terms of nature and extent. Some of the negative identified gaps are found to be mix of activities. hospitality & safety/ security. researcher proposes to achieve the following objectives: 1. 3. 2. superstructure. pre purchase perception. This dissertation is divided into five chapters in order to achieve objectives and the final goal. Variables that offer further opportunities of improvement in context to UK’s tourism context are found to be both on positive and negative in nature.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES In order to fulfil the key deliverable as indicated above. Second chapter critically analyses available literature in order to understand related topics and connect research to the existing ix . These variables induce negative influences that result in negative contribution of brand image in customer’s mind while comparing pre purchase perceptions and delivered experiences. Some of the positive variables as identified by the study are location. A positive contribution by these variables implies that quality of service delivery associated with these variables is higher than as compared to the consumer perceptions.
It also gives highlight and rationale behind the statistical tests being run by the researcher in order to attain objective.literary framework. Third chapter of findings is associated to presentation of actual raw data in comprehendible format and its analysis highlighting the most important aspects. Fifth chapter relates to discussion and conclusion that connects the analysis of data to available literature and development and application of various models as discussed earlier. x .
and to the organization. sign. 442). an effective brand reduces risks perception and indicates high trust and satisfaction adssociated to its products. term. 2005) that constitutes various related or unrelated industries.CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2. 1991. This chapter is divided into seven distinct subchapters that are further subdivided into segments. al. Hosani. trying to achieve a common goal whether knowingly or unknowingly by way of a bouquet of stakeholder management activities (Boyce & Ville. et... et. (2007) cite that for customers. Pp.2 BRANDS AND BRAND EQUITY 2. (2008) is in agreement with this argument by indicating that brands build and manage consumer perception of an organizations products and services by acting as an agent of development of strong emotions in consumer’s mind. xi . and implications while considering various frameworks and models that have been derived in academic literature.1 – Brands and their Effects “A name. This chapter aims to identify and analyse previous literature based on destination brand management and related topics.1 INTRODUCTION Consumer behaviour of a tourist is strongly impacted by destination brands. symbol or design or a combination of all these which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or a seller group and to differentiate them from those of competitors” is defined as a brand (Kotler. The chapter finally ends with the understanding the impact of destination image and destination personality on the consumer behaviour and decision making. The chapter starts with a review of branding and its relation to brand equity. From there. it ventures as an application in tourism industry with destination branding. 2002). This belief is further stregthen by the idea that brand is a major asset for any organization and its impact lasts more then its product/ services (Kotler. 2006). 2. al. thus its management is crucial in order to have a positive impact on decision making process (Taski & Kozak. 2006). its complexities.2. it implies development and maintenance of a strategic asset that differentiates its product s from that of competitors.. 2008) and acts as a strategic non imitable asset (Kotler & Keller. A location can be termed as a social organization (Hankinson. Kotler et. In their works. al. It then evolves a connection between destination brand and destination image.
Kim. A strong brand enhances the brand equity of a particular product/ service (Capon. Organizational brand equity concentrates on financial and organizational variables (Simon & Sullivan. a strong brand. 2. whereas. 1993. 1991. 1996). Aaker. 6) Concentrated promotions. The developed model further strengthens the ideology of a brand being the relationship building block between an organization and its customers. Capon. 2) assures quality & 3) reduces psychological risks. 4) customer loyalty. 5) Innovation. 3) Premium pricing. customer brand equity considers customer values customer values xii . (1999) According to above model.2. 2008). for a seller. &. 1) reduces identification costs. it helps in 1) Segmenting the market. Keller. 1993). et al. for a customer.To support this. 2001). (2001) further states two widely recognized brand equity measures: Organizational brand equity & Customer brand equity. et al.2 – Brand Equity and Image Perception Brand equity is defined as the added value to a service or product due to the brand name associated to it (Farquhar. (1999) presents following model to show the functions of a brand. there is evidence that knowledge of a brand in a consumer’s memory affects his/ her decision making (Alba. Berthon et al. 1989.Usefulness of managing brand Source: Berthon et al. thus usefulness of managing it: Figure 2 . 2) Repeat purchase. et al. et al. Whereas.
that involvement of multiple members creates challenges by the fact that every tourist feels uniquely of the experiences at a destination (Crouch. Morgan et al. This could be the possible outcome of destination brand is a relatively new concept (Caldwell & Freire. 1996. 2000. Vazquez & Iglesias. 1995. In practical cases. Despite clarity of this idea.such as emotions. This is further escalated by the fact that in order to create unique tourism experience. 1996. xiii . Crouch. 2004. 2003.1 – Destination Branding Complexities Experience of a tourist is considered to be highly emotional value and of personal significance to every individual and relates to significant experience value as against tangible products (Otto & Ritchie. 1993. 2004. the concept of destination brand is associated to unique complexities as mentioned below. So. Travis. perceptions. 2005). which are 1) Brand awareness.3. in their work. Yoo et al. perhaps. Pike. 1993. They are collectively termed as brand values. et al. et al. 2002).3 – DESTINATION BRANDING – THEORATICAL APPLICATION This part of literature aims at understanding the holistic idea of destination branding by using the available literature. Pike. Dyson. knowledge and awareness (Keller. Aaker & Joachimsthaler (2000) & de Chernatony (2001). This leads marketers to concentrate on customer perceptions brand value instead of organizational perspective. the extent of destination branding and has overtaken available academic mainstream literature (Morgan et. loyalty. there are various individual organizations from private to public are working on it (Crouch.. 2005). Kotler & Gartner. (2003) further estimates one of the main reasons of this. 3) brand association. A destination can be marketed as a tourism service in order to increase revenues (Coldwell & Freire. et al. any change in one of these organizations’ value process creates a completely different experience for a tourist. Keller (1993) states in his work that although an organizational approach towards brand equity is more precise and logical. 2010). & 4) Brand loyalty. al. 2010). Destination brand is explained by Morgan. Blackston. 2) perception of quality. Yoo & Donthu. it does not assist in measuring the customer’s perception of brand value as customer brand equity. 2005). Similarly. (2002) as a corresponding tangible or intangible aspect of a destination that is visible or can be felt by customers and can differentiate one destination from another. &. 2. identify four distinct factors affecting customer based brand equity measures. McIntosh & Ciggs. 2002). 2001. 2000) resulting in an increase of country equity (Shrimp. is the complexity of branding a location relative to its stakeholder scope and limited management control. (2010) further states. 2.
2008). (2001). however. 1986. generality and mental intangibility leads to perceived risk which is a combination of xiv . They define physical intangibility as something that cannot be touched or seen. however. 2003). To assist this argument. physical intangibility. 1991. However. Generality is defined as customer’s inability to describe the service/ product & mental intangibility reflects the physical tangibility but customer’s inability to define the product/ service. et al.Furthermore. 1975. These dimensions are physical intangibility. Otto & Ritchie. a trend of destination slogans evolved in early 1990’s.2 – Role of destination branding in tourism A strong brand plays a very important role in tourism industry since it enhances customer’s trust on potential intangible purchase (Berry. 2005). in case of a destination. et al. 2. there is evidence that although customers purchase each of the tourism services individually. they perceive complete visitor experience as a final integrated outcome (Hunt. as Blain. (2005) notes. Fakeye & Crompton. Blain et al. In product or service marketing. Phelps. generality and mental intangibility. there is a complex value chain that integrates all the services in a bouquet for a customer leading to a customer dissatisfaction with the complete destination altogether rather then being dissatisfied with one of the organizations. 2000) & is considered as one of the most critical issues in service industry (Kim. The decision making of a tourist industry considers unique aspects like intangibility of the services consumed and the services are purchased by the savings of an individual or group of individuals (Moutinho. the effectiveness of a destination slogan is short lived and often transient in traveller’s perception. 1987). (2005) further clarifies that levels of customer satisfaction in each of the functional areas are relative. the goals and objectives of these individual players often create a diverse set because of their individual responsibilities and conflicting interests (Ritchie & Crouch. (2001) attributes three dimensions of this intangibility that makes consumer decision making process more complex while buying a service then as compared to that of a product. Pike (2005) notes that mere name of a destination does not effectively communicate what destination management organizations intend to evolve it as in travel market and rarely the name of a location is changed in order to strengthen the brand of that destination. As per Gold & Ward (1994).3. 1996. an unsatisfactory service leads to customer’s dissatisfaction with the organization. and may differ from person to person and from one functional area to another. According to the perceived risk model developed by Laroche et al. Blain et al. Laroche et al.
the decision influencing factors can be depicted by the following figure: Figure 3 . travel mode. emotional attachment and perceptions (Stepchenkova & Eales. and. they developed a further enhanced and standardised model called AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) as a standardised model as shown below: xv . In case of this figure. 1987 According to the above figure. So. 2) Time risk. destination advertising. Moutinho et al. An increase in the perceive risk increases the negative influence on consumer behaviour. &. 2011). 4) Social risk. there is a further complexity to assign the scales of relative importance and weightage in order to arrive on a standardized model. travel distance.3 – Evolution of Destination Branding Models Due to its complexity and the role of many other factors such as a recent news events . and.3. 2. 4) The influence. 3) Acquaintances and influential people such as close friends & family members. 4) Consumer attitudes leading to final decision to travel. is then enhanced by 1) Destination Personality. This motivation. 3) Consumer perceptions about potential travel location. (1996) & Curry & Moutinho (1992) note that it is often difficult to measure these variables involved in decision making process of tourists and even if they are measured. 3) Performance risk. family influence. 1) Cultural & Sub cultural Impact of a particular destination on potential consumer. 2) Accessed information about destination. size and structure of consumer’s family. based on above figure. motivation to decide upon a travel destination comes from four variables viz. 5) Psychological.Travel decision influencing factors Source: Moutinho. 2) Social class of the consumer as well as the destination.1) Financial risk.
1992. It gives the final figure a shape of decision making tree that is easy to use and can be adapted to various situations (Crouch. they identified and considered variable factors as shown in the following page: xvi . 1996 This AHP model. is a layer of influences which is derived out of a combination of variable factors. 1996 & Crouch. 2011). also takes into account the factors within each of the variables. et al. 2010). AHP model is based on the decision tree or decision hierarchy foundation with the apex being the final outcome and base being the variable factors (Curry & Moutinho. Rita & Curry. In their model. In between the variable factors and the final outcome.AHP Destination competitiveness decision model Source: Curry & Moutinho. 1992 and Moutinho.Figure 4 . Moutinho.
1992. 1996 & Crouch. et. 2011 xvii . Moutinho..Factors and variables Source: Curry & Moutinho. al.CORE RESOURCES SUPPORTING FACTORS AND RESOURCES DESTINATION POLICY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DESTINATION MANAGEMENT QUALIFYING AND AMPLIFYING DETERMINANTS Special events Physiography & climate Culture & history Mix of activities Entertainment Superstructure Market ties Infrastructure Accessibility Facilitating resources Hospitality Enterprise Political will System defination Philosophy/ Values Vision Positioning/ Branding Development Competitive/ Collaborative analysis Monitoring & evaluation Audit Organization Marketing Quality of service/ experience Information/ research Human resource development Finance & venture capital Visitor management Crisis management Resource stewardship Location Safety & Security Cost/ value Interdependencies Awareness/ image Carrying capacity Table 1.
2) Destination policy planning and development. Since this factor encompasses a mix of natural (Example: Weather. further enhanced by Crouch (2011) into Crouch & Ritchie conceptual model of destination competitiveness as shown below: Figure 5 . This creates a basic infrastructure in order to develop and manage a brand around a location which helps in enhancing the brand by 1) Destination management activities.Crouch and Ritchie conceptual model of destination competitiveness Source: Crouch & Ritchie. Core Resources and Attractions are basis of a destination’s brand. Culture & History) as well as manmade variables (Example: Events. Superstructure and Market ties).This model was thereupon. and. it may not always be possible to enhance all the variables in order to improve this influencing factor. 3) Qualifying and xviii . Entertainment. These core resources are directly supported and managed by Supporting factors and resources that can be influenced by a location’s internal capability. Activities. 1999 The model suggests that in the context of macro and micro environment.
2005). the most commonly used definition of destination image was given by Crompton (1979) much earlier who defines it as “the sum of beliefs. 85). 2001). It was designed as a universal model that constitutes all the aspects of developing. 18). whereas others believe that destination image evolves out of destination brand (Cai. Bramwell & Rawding (1996) define destination image as a mirror of information accessed by the potential consumer. 2002. Coshall (2002) defines destination image as “individual perceptions of the characteristics of destination” (Pp. ideas and impressions that a person has of a destination” (Pp. managing and enhancing a tourism destination brand (Crouch. However. 2004. 723). Crouch & Ritchie (1999) destination competitiveness model has been widely accepted and there is evidence of it to be the most influential and accurate model ever developed in context of tourism (Enright & Newton. An exhaustive study by Taski & Kozak (2006) showed a relationship model between destination brand and destination image as shown below: xix . Similar definition is given by by Cai (2002.amplifying determinants. Cai (2002) further asserts that destination image is the core of a destination’s brand. b) as “perceptions about the place as reflected by the associations held in tourist’s memory. 2011). Ravinder & Govers. Kotler & Gertner (2002) note in their works that country’s name may develop an image within consumer’s minds without any efforts being made by destination management organizations. Building a brand image amounts to identifying the most relevant associations and strengthening their linkages to the brand” (Pp. 2003). Enright & Newton. Some experts believe both terms imply same meaning (Pritchard & Morgan.4 – ESTABLISHING DESTIANTION IMAGE FROM A DESTIANTION BRAND There is an ongoing debate on the correlation between destination brand and destination image. 2. However.
4) Culture. name and slogan.Brand & Image . 2) Benefits. 5) Personality. relatives and friends and forms his/ her personal opinion (Destination image) which to a certain extent overlaps the actual brand communication of destination. This model proves that destination brand and destination image are two distinct factors and it positively evaluates the original theory that destination image (Or destination brand image) is an outcome of destination brand. The customer then interprets the communication in the same contexts but with an addition of information gained from external sources such as family. xx .Figure 6 . 8) Users. 2006 This model shows a destination’s communicates to its customers in the context of 1) Attributes. 7) Relationships. 9) Trademarks via Logo. and.A relationship model Source: Taski & Kozak. 3) Values. 6) Patents.
Kotler. According to Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004). 2007. et al. family. Ballantine & Aitken. each of which transitions into the next stage with the quality. Hanlan & Kelly (2004) suggest that brand image development occurs in various stages. et al. 1993. 2000. With this new dimension. So they try to concentrate on more controllable factors and try to manipulate the consumer perceptions by implementing tactical market communication strategies (Fakeye & Crompton. Woodside & Lysonski. 2001). 2008). Over the period of time. however. 2000. Cooper. Traditional branding concentrated on product enhancement. 2002). Chon. 2000. Brodie. interaction between the customer perspective and successful brand image is a two way communication. Echtner & Ritchie. 2000. 1991. (2001) can be attributed to a difference in the service level expectations for every individual. This as per Bigne. Moorthi. both these variants supplement each other. Mansfeld.2. et al. 2009). xxi . Destination brand image explained as perception about location in consumer’s mind (Moutinho. 1978. et al. 1992. 2003). Kotler (1991) attributes this to the gaps in service delivery standards and proposes conceptual model of customer service delivery to be considered for organizations in order to understand the gaps between perceptions of quality and delivery of product/ service quality. 2001). Some confusion has been found on the relationship between quality of experienced service and customer satisfaction (Hurley & Estelami. 1993 & Litvin & Ling. Milman & Pizam. 2001). 1989. A location with a strong and positive brand image is more likely to be chosen by a tourist as a location to travel (Goodrich. Bigne. 1995. relatives is out of the control of destination management organizations. conjunctive model & disjunctive model (Kotler. Gartner. (2008) agrees that brand image influences the process of alternative evaluation. consumer started to taking part in creation and management of brand image (Gronroos. et al. 1998. et al. Waryszak. Some of this information being percolated by sources such as friends. 2004). 2000). et al. 1989. Positive destination brand image is known to contribute positively to the experience while customers visit a destination (Berry. 1990. eventual research of customer perspective of brand image resulted in a transition of this traditional viewpoint from product development to customer engagement (Hanlan & Kelly.5 – DESTINATION IMAGE – IMPLICATION ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR It is evident that destination image of a country influences the choice in decision making process of a tourist in order to chose the country for leisure travel (Ashworth & Goodall. 1987. Woodside & Lysonski. various models have been developed by researchers to identify & measure the favourability of buying a particular brand some of which are expectancy value model. According to them. 1988. Bigne. quantity & scope of information being accessed by consumer. Bigne. Wood.
2004. 2) Sincerity. While doing so. et al. 1999. 1994. 7) Down to earth. Triplett. 2003). 1997. 1993. Dwyer and Kim. Caprara. 2. and. 1990. 2000). and to influence decision making of a consumer (Biel. et al. 4) Civilised. Aaker. Kozak and Rimmington. Crockett & Wood. 2002). Results of Ekinci & Hosany (2006) support the findings of Caprara. 1999. 2010). Aaker (1997) defines destination brand personality as combination of human behaviour. As against these. 2003). 2000 & Phau & Lau. 1990. Therefore. He further creates five generic factors to calculate Brand Personality Scale (BPS) which are 1) Excitement. They further define these dimensions as trustworthy and dependable for sincerity.Thus. and. et al. they create a destination’s brand image/ identity that eventually leads to formation of brand personality for a destination (Crask & Henry. 3) Refined. In a study done by Ekinci & Hosany (2006) it was evident that consumers tend to associate human traits to a destination depending on their perceptions. 2001. et al. Hassan. 2002). 5) Sophistication. These findings associated UK to human traits such as 1) Conservatism. Crouch and Ritchie. Buhalis. nature and personality that can be associated to a destination’s image in a consumer’s mind. Similar study done by Morgan. 2) Pleasant. They try to attract as many tourists as possible by planning and implementing branding strategies (Pike & Ryan. excitement and conviviality. 2000. 1998. Hanlan & Kelly (2004) attribute this to limited cognitive ability of consumers. Fournier. daring and original as excitement and friendly. 2000. 4) Competence. Blain et al. Morgan. a more recent study done by Ekinci & Hosany (2006) present an existence of just three dimensions to these personality which are sincerity. managing the brand of their respective destinations has become a very important and crucial activity for destination management organizations (Ahmed and Krohn. (2003) presents findings in context to UK’s tourism industry. 6) Eccentric. xxii .6 – DESTINATION PERSONALITY Tourism plays a major role in contribution towards a location’s economic growth (Crouch. It is very important to position a particular destination in order to appeal a set of market segment which is done by creating an acceptable image for that segment (Echtner & Ritchie. 3) Rugegdness. et al. 2005). (2001) that states brand personality can be described by less than five dimensions. A strong brand personality is found to improve brand image (Johnson. exciting. family oriented and charming as conviviality.
xxiii .2. Brands are also important in tourism industry since it acts as a social organization thus evolving discussions pertaining to concept of destination branding which offers a unique set of challenges for destination management organizations. Concept of destination brand leads to a concept of destination image which is often studied by scholars by developing unique brand strength measurement models. Destination image then gives rise to destination personality which is understood as human traits associated to a destination or physical location.7 – CONCLUSION Brands are essential to organizations in order to ensure a superior perception of quality in the service or product associated to them. Researcher uses one of the most widely accepted models in order to conduct this study that will involve analysis of variables that constitutes their internal behaviour and interaction with each other.
1 INTRODUCTION This chapter aims at understanding the research philosophy. This chapter is divided into eight parts and is structured around the research onion as shown below: Figure 7 . It explains the overall research design as well as the minor intricacies with a supportive justification of acquiring each of the strategies. et al xxiv .The research onion Each of the sections in this chapter deals with the details of above shown research onion from outside in. accomplices.CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 3. news. These are the prospective leisure tourists to a certain country or have visited a specific country for leisure. Researcher treats individual respondents to the survey as social actors who act in context to the external environment and are affected by the external environment like relatives. information sources. Saunders. research design and tactics to be used by researcher during the course of dissertation work.2 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY In this dissertation. 3. Data thus collected is related to the respondents’ personal opinion about a certain country. researcher aims to collect and analyze data as availed from consumers or potential consumers of tourism services.
researcher aims to use following strategy. theory and models in order to conduct a research is called deductive approach (Saunder.(2009) defines this type of research as interpretive philosophy. However. Usage of existing framework. researcher also intends to create models. author aims to use deductive and inductive approach. et. It further states that it is highly appropriate in the field of marketing to which this dissertation is linked to. Foddy. Creswell (2002) agrees that in practical cases. this technique often leads to complications in context to interpretation of question by the surveyed population (Robson. their perception of UK as a tourism destination.1 – Survey strategy Researcher uses survey as a strategy to collect data.4 RESEARCH STRATEGY This research is trying to understand the relationship between various variables that play a role in affecting a potential tourist’s buying behaviour. et al (2009). 3. It thus. et al (2009) states is inductive approach. et al (2009) notes it to be one of the most common techniques for quantitative data collection. Such research is termed as explanatory studies by Saunders. most of the researchers use deductive and inductive approach in order to address various issues faced in various timeframes. al. During the first phase of research. also seeks to identify opportunities of further improvement on the basis of a gap model that show currently existing gaps.4. 2002. researcher uses variables adapted from Crouch & Ritchie (1999) destination competitiveness model in order to develop the questionnaire to be sent to sample. However. In order to understand this relationship between variables. 1994). Saunders. researcher uses various techniques as described in the following sections: xxv . and framework based on the analysis of data. In order to overcome this difficulty. 2009). their actual experience as against their perceptions and the actual experience gained while visiting a competing destination. for which sample will be the set of tourists. 3. Jankowicz (2005) agrees that it is easier to collect and analyse data by using this strategy. 3. which Saunders. It further agrees that this technique gives more control and command to the researcher and reduces the analysis time.3 RESEARCH APPROACH In order to achieve stated objectives.
4) Respondent Uneasiness.1. 5) Any missed out topics. correlation statistical analysis was undertaken for received responses. 2007). 3) Unclear questions. et al. Initial design of the questionnaire was in the form of ranking questions where respondents were to assign relative rank to each of the 19 variable parameters in the order of importance. 2007). who notes that motivation of respondents is inversely proportional to length of ranking based questionnaire. a covering letter was added to the questionnaire since to increase the response rate in self administered method (Dillman. This assessment was carried out in three stages. 6) Layout clarity. and. Questionnaire was then edited on multiple occasions based on information on these parameters. thus making it easier for respondents to understand what researcher is trying to convey them (Gay. Second stage refers to construct validity that included a pilot study to refine the questionnaire. A questionnaire is said to be more xxvi . reduces respondents difficulty of answering on ranking format and improves question reliability. Questions were formed in close ended or multiple choice to reduce responding and analysis time (Saunders. In order to overcome this complexity semantic differential rating scale was created and used which evidently. 2) Instruction clarity. 1994). Reliability testing refers to improving questionnaire interpretation. 2002: 372). the numbers of questions were increased by breaking down various questions that were grouped together because longer questionnaires are preferred by respondents over cramped questionnaires (Dillman. it was noted that respondents were feeling it difficult to rank beyond the fifth or sixth variable thus leaving other variables unaccountable. while conducting the pilot study. 2. 1998). This was further explained by Cooper & Schindler (2008). 2009). 7) Taking open feedback. Reliability Testing: Questionnaire was deliberately kept self – completion process since it is believed to improve response reliability (Hurst. Pilot study was conducted on 20 random respondents who filled the questionnaire in the presence of researcher who in turn observed and noted parameters as suggested by Bell (2005) as 1) Time taken to complete the response. Also. the first stage being content validity that was done during the collection and analysis of research in order to ensure complete coverage of data from research questions. During the final stage of validity assessment. Validity assessment: This refers to “the ability of questionnaire to measure what a researcher intends to measure” (Saunders et al. et al. Finally. called predictive validity stage. However.
This choice of acquiring data by single technique and analyzing it by relevant quantitative data analysis is known as mono method of research data collection (Saunders. (2009) cognitive access refers to access of precise and accurate data. et al. Robson (2002) and Easterby – Smith. 2009). et al (2009). al.1 – Cognitive Access According to Saunders. will increase the size of questionnaire leading to respondent fatigue (Saunders et. It is difficult to persuade the same set of individuals to fill up the questionnaire twice (Saunders et. (2008).reliable if respondents interpret the questions to what researcher wishes to communicate (Saunders. Given this drawback. it is not possible to do a test re – test method as well. state that survey strategy is normally adopted for cross sectional study. 2009). this research is done as by analyzing data collected over a single timeframe. It further states that researchers often encounter barriers that restrict direct access to responders for a researcher which eventually may force them to select or change a xxvii . Furthermore. This is explained as cross sectional study by Saunders. This part deals with the finer details of research and makes the core of research onion.5 RESEARCH CHOICES This section aims at understanding the method of data collection and further analysis.6 TIME HORIZONS Due to time constraints of the study period. 3. al. coupled with the limited timeframe. This can be done by measuring the internal consistency of responses (Mitchell. in their work. 3. inserting “check questions”.7 DATA COLLECTION This part of the chapter gives an insight on the techniques and procedures to be used by the researcher during the course of dissertation. 1996). et al. 3. Data is acquired from questionnaire in this technique and will be scrutinized by relevant data analysis procedures.7. et al. Researcher intends to use Chi squared goodness – of – fit as statistical tool in order to check and maintain the internal consistency of responses since as an alternative. 2009). 3. 2009). et al.
3. which. 1995). 1978.representative sample during the course of study. Researcher understands this to be a resultant of differences between consumer’s expectations and actual experience gained. Milman & Pizam. et al. researcher divides sample frame into two distinct subsets: • People who never visited United Kingdom – This segment of respondents are the people who have developed certain perception of UK as a tourism destination brand leading to a distinct destination image and personality formation. 1978.2 – Sampling In order to meet objectives. researcher has decided to administer this sample frame. researcher uses probability sampling or representative sampling. Scott.7. As covered in literature review. et al. as discussed in the literature review. voluntary participation. al. • People who visited United Kingdom in past – This segment relate to sample set that visited UK as a tourist. is most common sampling method of data collection for survey strategy. In order to measure the difference between effect of various variables in case of pre purchase perception. This distinct destination personality as conceived by this set of sample. and confidentiality of responses are expected to reduce concerns of language and comfort levels of respondents thus giving research study an ethical approach. In case of this dissertation. this segment will have past xxviii . fruitful and accurate data. In order to minimize this issue. (2009) states. which is expected to increase response rate due to social obligation of individuals (Buchanan. impacts their decision making process of finalizing UK as a preferred tourist destination on their possible future journey. researcher is expected to encounter the problem of reduced response rate. as discussed in the earlier sections of this chapter. post purchase experience and post purchase competition experience. as discussed earlier. in order to gain access to complete. Sampling frame used in this context is researcher’s personal database of all the acquaintances which leaves scope of argument on the basis of Henry (1999) who is not in favour of probability sampling and argues that views of a sample may not be the same as views of an entire population that leads to incorrect results. there is evidence that past visit affects the destination image formation in consumer’s perception and is involved in preference intentions (Goodrich. Saunders. Complete sample frame accounts for 570 individuals. et. However. researcher plans to send survey questionnaires to his personal acquaintances and contacts requesting them to get the response from their further acquaintances. 2008). In case of tourism. The pilot study that was conducted.
Based on the above two findings. researcher estimates 50% of sample to respond with usable response. external validity is stronger since the research typically looks at the tourist buyer behaviour in context to UK itself. Researcher then comes up with the exact number of people that he has to send questionnaires to by the following formula as taken from Saunders. Both these interaction models can then be merged together to form a model that ascertains UK’s tourism destination brand in consumer perception while showing an interaction between various variables and factors. this study then compares UK with its possible competitors on various factors that impact consumer behaviour during decision making process of buying one of the destinations. Said data sample sets will include a mix of various nationalities from across the globe. in turn. In this case. Researcher aims to gain an access to them by mailing questionnaires to his own contacts that. sample size is calculated as mentioned below: xxix . The analysis of this segment will give us post purchase consumer behaviour towards UK as a destination brand. Due to high expected response rate. Furthermore. researcher finalises on target response data from at least thirty respondents in each of the two groups in order to maintain reliability of statistical analysis. a comparison can be done on interaction of various variables in both the cases to ascertain possible discrepancies. This phenomenon may not repeat itself for other countries and is specific to UK itself. Abovementioned methodology of this study helps in development and identification of a holistic destination brand image model custom built for UK reflecting the consumer feelings. Researcher aims to collect at least not less than thirty responses from each of the data sets in order to complete the analysis. As advised by Saunders. (2009): From the above equation.experience to judge various variables that impact destination competitiveness in context to UK. consumers may tend to buy another destination. This further helps in identifying the controllable factors thus impacting micro environment (Competitive environment) that could assist in improving UK’s brand as a destination of leisure travel. will further cascade the questionnaires to their acquaintances. et al. This part of the study identifies the variables because of which to a certain extent. (2009) and Stutely (2003). et al.
al (2009) states that this technique aims at stratifies given sample. 4) Number of decision xxx . The decision of which group an individual is to be kept is taken on personal judgement and previous conversations (Past interactions). However. Following paragraphs detail the importance of including sections in questionnaire. this study aims at identifying the consumer image or perceptions of UK as a leisure destination. questionnaire for this study includes all variables as considered in Crouch & Ritchie model of destination competitiveness except the ones that are associated to 1) Destination policy planning and development. Researcher then uses stratified random sampling technique in order to segregate sample frame into two distinct groups based on whether people have travelled to UK before or not. as discussed in literature review. First segment is of seven questions that assist in grouping the responses on the basis of 1) Location. it does not approach destination marketing organizations to be a part of survey. and 2) Destination management factors since these are specifically aimed at destination marketing organizations to share their perceptions about the internal capability of a destination to promote itself in terms of government support. 2) Age range. easy to access. Researcher has developed a set of two questionnaires. 3) Education level. 2009). 3. Saunders. their implications and outcomes. Questionnaire for this study was adopted based on variables shown in Crouch & Richie model of destination competitiveness (1999) that considers consumer viewpoint as well as destination marketing organization viewpoint. Thus. and. each of which will be sent to respondents from either of sampled subsets. funding and other related factors (Crouch & Ritchie. accurately. 3) Size of travelling family.This means that questionnaire is to be administered to sixty individuals in each of the group of respondents. gives an opportunity for comparison.3: Questionnaire Design Following excerpts provide a brief on the final questionnaire that was derived after review and enhancement of structure and language in questionnaire based on feedback received from pilot study. et. Questionnaires aimed to receive responses for a quantitative analysis and are divided in three distinct segments.7.
The study considers only one additional destination in order to be completed under time guidelines. Expected response to this part of questionnaire. The path interaction model will then assist in developing a custom model of UK’s tourism destination competitiveness from consumer perspective. finite resources and to reduce the questionnaire length.influencers. This will help in analysing possible differences in the model that researcher is developing. Findings of the gap analysis and from path interaction model will be clubbed together and the model will be improved further in context to the competitive environment. The response to second segment consists of behavioural as well as attribute variable depending on respondent’s current location as well as past visits to UK. Gap analysis of this data will identify opportunities of further improvement for UK as a tourism destination. and ‘how strong were these variables when they visited xxxi . consists of behavioural variables and attribute variables depending on respondent’s current location as well as history of travelling to a leisure destination. Third part of the questionnaire compares consumer perspective on the relative strength of variables adapted from Crouch & Ritchie model (1999) of one country that could be possible competition to UK and benchmarks it against UK. This segment is designed in order to collect data about previous customer experience while travelling to UK or customer perception (If never travelled to UK). Second part of the questionnaires is divided into two segments. whereas the next two questions will help in evaluating the difference between the pre purchase and post purchase consumer behaviour. contexts being ‘how much impact do given variables have on their decision making process’. A combination of results from these perspectives will assist in development of an interaction path model between all the variables. A comparison will be carried out in order to arrive at possible differences between pre purchase and post purchase interaction of these variables giving a two dimensional perspective on consumer behaviour in tourism industry in context to UK as a destination. Response to the first segment is based on opinion variable and helps in studying consumer preference in terms of finalizing a particular tourist destination for their leisure travel. First five questions aim to identify the segment of consumers. Respondents of survey that was carried out on sample population that has previous visit history were asked to rate on 3 distinct contexts on relative grading scale. ‘how strong were these variables felt on their visit to UK’. and 5) Historical visits to UK. All the questions are adapted from the variables used by Crouch & Ritchie (1999) model.
3.4: Covering letter Covering letter to questionnaire is drafted to improve response rate as discussed earlier. In this case. Blumberg. (2009) argues it to be Numerical data since it can be analyzed with usual numerical techniques. Saunders. However. Thereupon. all but one context were same. Survey form 2 will be administered to people who have been to UK as a tourist in the past and have formed an opinion based on their actual experience. This interaction path model will then be converted to a framework that is specifically applied to UK to analyse and identify its competitiveness in context of tourism. These people form an opinion about a country based on their perception which is an outcome of information they have gathered intentionally or unintentionally. (2009) describes it as Ranked data or Ordinal Data. This standard covering letter was made the part of e mail which is to be sent to the sample set with questionnaire as an attachment. 3) Usefulness and necessity of response. For respondents who have not been to UK before. 2) Brief to the topic. It will then be analysed by re – ranking all variables and comparing it with actual research used by Crouch & Ritchie in order to arrive at their model of destination competitiveness. two groups of responses will be studied individually in order to identify the pre purchase and post purchase behaviour and any discrepancies arising out of this will be incorporated into previous framework.8 DATA ANALYSIS The data acquired from given questionnaire will be in the form of relative position/ ranking of all variables. xxxii .another country of choice’. and. context of ‘how strong were these variables felt on their visit to UK’ was replaced by ‘how strong do they perceive are these variables for UK’. A copy of covering letter is reproduced in Appendix 1 for reference and perusal. 3.7. 4) Instructions. et al. The collected data will then be fed into data matrix and will be analysed in SPSS and Microsoft excel. Survey form 1 is intended to be administered to Subset 1 (For the people who have not visited UK before). A copy of questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix for reference and perusal. A further analysis of data from response to question 10 will help in development of gap model to identify opportunities of further improvement by benchmarking UK’s current positioning perception to that of other known countries. It concentrates upon 1) Introduction of researcher. closing instructions. et al. The variations will then be noted and interaction path will be identified for all variables specifically for UK.
Researcher uses survey as data collection strategy under mono method to collect cross sectional data across the time horizon. xxxiii .3.9 CONCLUSION Considering research onion as the basis of methodology. Survey questionnaires are sent to 120 respondents and 60 usable responses are received which are then converted to two unrelated distinct datasets to conduct analysis using statistical tools such as SPSS and Microsoft Excel. researcher uses interpretive research philosophy with a combination of deductive as well as inductive approach to address the objective of this study.
First part aims at understanding the layout of the chapter and general information. In order to maintain uniformity of both samples.2. family size and education levels. all the responses from earlier group and 30 random responses latter set were arranged in data matrix as shown earlier. age groups. Second part covers summary reports of statistical analysis administered by researcher.2 Research findings 4. includes a cross section of countries. The response rate achieved was as per expectations. Table below shows the configuration of all these factors. data was administered to 60 participants who have been to UK on an occasion before and 60 participants who never visited UK before.1 Introduction This chapter aims at understanding the received data and present it to the readers in a comprehendible format.CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 4. The key concerns are highlighted after every set of observation assisting reader to comprehend and interpret the data. Data thus obtained. thus proving homogeneity of sample: xxxiv . in order to achieve required sample size. This chapter is divided in three parts. 4. A total of 63 responses were received out of which 30 constituted respondents who have never visited UK before and 33 have had a history of previous visit. Third part of this chapter offers the conclusion of main points discussed.1 – General observations As discussed in methodology. This chapter also introduces various statistical analyses tools in order to arrive at the rationale of using them.
The standard deviation for a tourist’s visit to UK is low at 3 (2. When the respondents were asked to mention a country of preference where they have been to as a tourist and would wish to go there again. or above Travelling family size 1 to 3 3 to 5 5 to 7 7 or more Number of travel decision influencers 1 to 3 3 to 5 5 to 7 7 or more Statistical values Mean Median Standard Deviation 7.92) days.D.27) days and median duration is 7 days.Table showing general statistics of dataset As observed from above table. following responses were obtained: xxxv .SAMPLE THAT HAS VISITED UK Number of countries covered Age Range (Years) 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 or more Education level Diploma holders Undergraduate degree Postgraduate degree Ph. average duration of a tourist’s visit to UK is 7 (7.27 DAYS 7 DAYS 2. or above Travelling family size 1 to 3 3 to 5 5 to 7 7 or more Number of travel decision influencers 1 to 3 3 to 5 5 to 7 7 or more Duration of visit (Days) 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 or more 26 Number of respondents 8 8 8 6 Number of respondents 7 6 10 7 Number of respondents 11 11 6 2 Number of respondents 22 8 0 0 Number of respondents 9 17 4 SUBSET 2 .D.SAMPLE THAT HAS NEVER VISITED UK Number of countries covered Age Range (Years) 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 or more Education level Diploma holders Undergraduate degree Postgraduate degree Ph.SUBSET 1 .92 23 Number of respondents 6 12 11 1 Number of respondents 4 9 8 9 Number of respondents 13 14 3 0 Number of respondents 24 6 0 0 Table 2 .
Highest number was noted in the case of France which recorded 12 such responses. Relative grading is done on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being strongest impacting variable and 1 being the most insignificant of all the variables): xxxvi .2. 3) Relative experience measure of variables when a tourist visits UK.Country Frequency France 12 USA 10 Italy 7 Australia 4 India 4 Singapore 3 China 2 Germany 2 N Zealand 2 S Africa 2 Spain 2 Switzerland 2 Hong Kong 1 Hungary 1 Malaysia 1 Mexico 1 Morocco 1 Russia 1 Thailand 1 Turkey 1 Table 3 . researcher generates following descriptive statistics table and re arranges the responses in order for them to be compared clearly. 2) Relative experience measure of variables when a tourist visits a country other than UK. Following table shows descriptive statistics for 1) Relative measure of impact of variables on the decision making process of a tourist’s choice of travel destination. 4) Relative perception measure when a tourist thinks of UK as a possible tourist destination of choice.Table showing the frequency of most preferred destination of respondents As observed from above. 4. respondents preferred just 20 countries as a possible destination where they would prefer to travel again.2 – Descriptive statistics In order to undertake a holistic analysis of responses. and.
28 3.18 1.23 4. Deviation (0.571 1.93 1.847 0.791 1.731 0.53) that impacts their choice of a leisure destination during decision making process.094 0.Descriptive statistics of raw data Following observations could be made from above set of descriptive statistics under each of the given cases: • Relative measure of impact of variables on the decision making process of a tourist’s choice of travel destination – In terms of relative ranking.45 4.73 4. Least important variable is observed to be special events (Mean = 2.731 0.98 4.037 1.731 1.87 3.076 4.52 4.5 4.828 0.776 0.83 1.568 0.52 3.40) for the given set of people.5 4.32 4.5 4.331 0.7 0.6 4.8 3.277 1.28 2. Highest Std.723 0.85 0.102 0.666 1.986 0.106 1.Descriptive Statistics – Impact of variables on decision making Descriptive Statistics – Relative ranking of variables in case of alternate country of choice Descriptive Statistics – Overall ranking of UK’s relative strength of each variable Descriptive Statistics – Relative grading of perceptions about UK on each variable Variable Mean Std.27 4.8 4.03 1. Deviation Mean Std.828 1.792 0. Deviation (= 1.4 3.228 1.87 3.106 0.73 4.58 3.521 0.467 0.081 1.925 0.219 1.86 1.87 4.57 4.43 2.739 1.67 3.27 4.27 4.833 0.77 0.958 1.67 3.106 0.53 3. It is further evident by the least Std.821 0.97 3.4 3.85 3.28 3. Deviation Safety/ Security Culture and history Mix of activities Physiography and climate Infrastructure Awareness/ Image Accessibility Facilitating resources Entertainment Cost/ Value Carrying capacity Hospitality Superstructure Interdependence Political will Market ties Enterprise Location Special events 4.53 3.4 4.07 0.53 2.32 4.22 4.97 2. Deviation Mean Std.5 4.1 4.8 3.194 1.47 4.814 1.53 3.676 0.277) is noted to be associated with ‘interdependencies’ variable which may prove that there is a widely varying opinion of people in given data set regarding the mentioned variable (Since this indicates a higher spread of data across mean value).922 1. xxxvii .6 3.268 0.57 2.098 1.165 1.57 3.165 0.828 0.202 Table 4 .776 0.22 2.05 0.764 1.57 3.23 4.129 1.38 3.954 1.629 0.061 Mean Std.334 1.698 0.97 3.127 1.583 0.13 4.27 4.57 0. it is observed that respondents feel that safety and security is the most important factor (Mean=4.07 3 4.48 2.071 0.53 4.23 4.626 0.221 0.93 0.679 0.17 2.191 1.2 3.172 1. Deviation 0.23 3.700) in response pattern of given sample.145 1.728 1.9 4.62 3.5 3.73 2.47 4.5 4.104 4.748 0.62 3.27 3.091 1.73 3.57 4.349 1.125 1.184 1.57 4.
Variable ‘Superstructure’ is also observed to have the lowest spread of data across the mean (Std. as inferred from second data set.666) that shows most of the respondents may eventually tend to take a final decision based on superstructure of destination while placing down safety and security aspects. when making final choice. Deviation (= 0.00) tends to be weakest of all the given variables in this case. Physiography & climate (Mean = 3. Dev. when compared with implications of first set of responses it can be noted that though people perceive safety/ security to be the most important aspects of leisure travel destination choice and they feel UK to be highly secure thus in favour. Respondents in this set have not been to UK before and are guided by their perceptions instead of experience.• Relative experience measure of variables when a tourist visits a country other than UK – As against the previous observation.349) is attained by location variable that could be a result of wide respondent spread across the globe. It is observed that relative rank of this variable is same as in the case of experience that a tourist gains while visiting UK and the xxxviii . second set of response notes that when survey respondents visited an alternative country instead of UK. ‘superstructure’ variable was strongest with highest mean score (= 4. • Relative perception measure when a tourist thinks of UK as a possible tourist destination of choice – Fourth set of data as described in the table shows the relative grading of each variables when people make a perception of UK as a tourist destination.568) suggesting lowest spread of data across mean thus inferring narrowest opinion set of sample. deviation (= 1. this aspect is under weighed. Safety and security trailed down with a mean of 4.62).73). • Relative experience measure of variables when a tourist visits UK – Third set of data shows that tourists who have been to UK in the past and experienced all the variables personally. = 0. they feel that country’s facilitating resources and safety/ security appear as strongest (Mean = 5.23. However. This may possibly imply that although data set considered safety and security to be of highest importance while considering a destination for their leisure travel. Respondents perceive Safety/ Security and Carrying capacity to be the strongest variables (Mean = 4. Highest Std.47) with lowest Std. Highest standard deviation (= 1. they may eventually overlook that aspect in relation to other variables.462) is observed to be associated with variable ‘Interdependence’ showing a large spread of data across mean and thus may imply a wide variety of opinions. This.
For this purpose. Sig. In order to do this. gives following results: xxxix . researcher proceeds towards identification and analysis of preference towards relative grade of individual variables in all the cases. This could possibly reflect homogeneity of data set in context to respondent’s relative purchasing power. shows the exact p value (2 tailed) in the forthcoming tables and significance column is reflective of statistical significance of given variable under particular given case.87) in this group. Highest spread of opinion is found to be Cost/ Value (Std. Market ties variable is observed to be of least significance (Mean = 2. a variable that is most important under the given circumstance (Rated as 5 as a response of questionnaire) has been labelled as bearing ‘Strongest significance’ and variable that is of least importance under given circumstance (Rated as 1 as a response of questionnaire) has been labelled as bearing ‘Least significant’.331). For example. Data values of variables have been graded based on significance level of particular variable.influence on decision making process of a potential tourist. Exac. researcher has to investigate data skewness (Presence of outliers) in raw data so as to administer suitable test. 4. chi – squared goodness – of – fit test is being administered to data in order to show asymmetric probability distribution or the skewness of variables under each case.2. dev=1.3– Chi – Squared goodness – of – fit test After descriptive analysis. 1) A chi – square goodness – of – fit test to analyse interaction of variables when they influence potential tourist’s decision making process in order to finalize a destination.
facilitating resources. xl . Above table shows high measures of skewness (Presence of outliers) in case of market ties.Table 5 . enterprise. hospitality. hospitality. • Respondents in subset 1 have a more robust opinion of the influence of carrying capacity of destination playing a part in decision making of a tourist. interdependencies and carrying capacity in subset 2. accessibility. A comparative study of both cases reveals: • Respondents. It also shows a high occurrence of outliers in case of market ties. have a more robust opinion of location being an influential factor in decision making process of a tourism destination finalization as compared to that of respondents in subset 2. • Respondents who have visited UK. superstructure. accessibility. facilitating resources. location. have a skewed opinion about the strength of superstructure being an influential variable in decision making process. who have not experienced UK as a tourist. • Respondents in subset 1 have a skewed opinion of cost/ value being an influential variable in decision making process of a tourist.Chi square goodness of fit comparison of extent of variable impact on decision making in subset 1 & 2 Calculations and detailed workings of above are available in Appendix 4. cost/ value and interdependencies in subset 1. enterprise.
entertainment. special events. superstructure and infrastructure variables. The table gives statistical proof of data skewness in responses from sample that has experienced these variables while visiting UK in mix of activities. • Opinion of sample that has been to UK. A relative comparison of both data sets is observed to show following facts: • Sample that has not been to UK has a skewed opinion of UK’s strength in terms of entertainment variable. political will and cost/ value variable are showing a presence of outliers in case of sample that has not been to UK and thus carries a perception of UK as a tourist destination brand. location. market ties.2) A chi – square goodness – of – fit test to compare and analyse statistical deviation in interaction of variables between people perception about UK as a possible tourist destination and the actual experience gained while visiting UK as a tourist gives following results: Table 6 .Chi square goodness of fit comparison between tourist perception and tourist experience of UK Calculations and detailed workings for these results are shown in appendix 4. It also shows that mix of activities. special events. superstructure. cost/ value and awareness/ image. infrastructure. xli . and accessibility. is distinctively widespread (Presence of outliers) in terms of UK’s strength in market ties.
Subset 2 has a wide range of opinion on accessibility’s relative strength in context to UK.
Respondents of subset 1 give robust data on the strength of political ties between their country of residence and UK.
Data gathered from responders in subset 1 shows skewness in their response towards location being a strong or weak factor that might point towards responders being from various locations with varying distance of travel.
Data gathered from subset 1 indicate an asynchronous result towards awareness/ image being a relatively strong or weak factor in context to UK.
3) A chi – square goodness – of – fit test to compare and analyse statistical deviation in interaction of variables between an alternate tourist destination and UK gives following results:
Table 7 - Chi square goodness of fit comparison between extent of variable impact while visiting UK to that of alternate country
Calculations and detailed workings for these results are shown in appendix 4. Above table shows inconsistent responses of data relating to market ties, hospitality, enterprise, political will, location and carrying capacity in for the alternate country chosen. It has also shown to have inconsistent responses relating to market ties, accessibility, hospitality, enterprise, cost/ value, interdependencies and carrying capacity for UK. A comparison in both the cases reveals following comparative observation:
Data concerned with accessibility and facilitating resources have generated skewed and unrelated responses when respondents in subset 1 were asked to rate these factors on relative scale.
Response on political will and location were found to have presence of high outliers when administered in context to alternate country of choice which implies, these factors carried a wide variety of opinion.
Cost/ value & interdependencies were found to reflect a robust opinion of respondents in context to alternate country of choice.
4.2.3– Non parametric tests There is a mix of opinion on dependability of non-parametric tests. On one hand there are works of Siegel & Castellan (1988) recommend non – parametric tests, while on other, more recent works of Howell (2007) question their dependability. However, researcher uses the advice of Kinnier & Gray (2008) that suggests the use of non-parametric test in case of data sets deviant scores. In this research, from previous section, most of the data as gathered is found to be highly skewed which can lead to misleading results of t – tests (Kinnier & Gray, 2008). Due to this, researcher uses non – parametric tests instead of t – tests to measure statistical significance of variables in this case. These tests will be helpful in ranking/ grading all the variables under different cases.
18.104.22.168 – Mann – Whitney tests This non – parametric test is an equivalent of T – Test for unrelated variables for skewed data showing presence of wide outliers (Kinnear & Gray, 2008). This test shows the relative ranking of unrelated variables under distinct circumstances. As against claims that Man – Whitney test can produce misleading results, researcher uses it because of large data sample which restricts this test to provide misleading results (Kinnier & Gray, 2008). Response to question number 8 (Column B) in survey was collected from two distinct set of respondents based on perception of strength of 19 variables from UK and actual experience of these variables when visiting UK as leisure traveller. In order to determine the relationship between variable reactions between
perception and experience, Mann – Whitney test was run to determine mean of ranks of score in each of the two groups and following relative rankings were observed:
Relative mean rank of perception Relative mean rank of actual experience -1.56 -0.50 6.80 -7.00 6.10 -4.76 7.94 4.80 -10.36 -3.40 13.20 -1.16 -2.50 -7.40 5.40 -4.60 -0.26 4.10 -4.80
Relative mean rank of actual experience
Relative mean rank of perception
Physiography & climate Culture & history Mix of activities Special events Entertainment Market ties Superstructure Infrastructure Accessibility Facilitating resources Hospitality Enterprise Political will Location Safety/ security Cost/ value Interdependence Carrying capacity Awareness/ image
31.28 30.75 27.10 34.00 27.45 32.88 26.53 28.10 35.68 32.20 23.90 31.08 31.75 34.20 27.80 32.80 30.63 28.45 32.90
29.72 30.25 33.90 27.00 33.55 28.12 34.47 32.90 25.32 28.80 37.10 29.92 29.25 26.80 33.20 28.20 30.37 32.55 28.10
Table 8 - Mann Whitney test results comparing traveller perception to that of traveller experience Detailed calculation and working of each of these findings is shown in appendix 3. In given table, negative as well as positive deviations were observed between perceptions and experience. Highest negative deviations were observed in the case of ‘Accessibility’ and highest positive deviations were observed in case of ‘Hospitality’. Output of above table will be utilized in the development of gap model and brand strength model in discussion and conclusion chapter.
6 7.4 4.8 13.45 1.8 13.89 Variables Physiography & Climate Culture & History Mix of activities Special events Entertainment Market ties Superstructure Infrastructure Accessibility Facilitating resources Hospitality Enterprise Political will Location Safety/ security Cost/ value Interdependence Carrying capacity Awareness/ image Table 9 .4 5.81 10.3 8.3 11.65 -3.68 7.31 1.21 3.5 9.3.5 7.98 -0.Mean rank of influence level -2.95 5. non-parametric tests offer various alternatives in the form of Wilkoxon. 2008).82 2.46 9.63 1.14 -0.52 13 Mean rank of experienced variable influence in alternate country 11.8 5.53 14 10.2 Alternate country mean rank .18 11 9.3 9.39 -2.96 -2.24 12.13 2.1 10.98 6.45 8.A comparative study of level of variable influence on decision making and level of variable influence experienced in alternate country xlv .75 -2.6 4. Mc.5 11 10.65 13 11 10.01 -1.81 -1.26 9.19 10.08 1.85 0.9 11.06 2.95 12.7 12. Response to question number 8 (Column A) and question 10 is analysed in order to calculate the means of ranks of score in each of the cases as shown below: Mean rank of level of influence in decision making 13. In this part of dissertation. Sign.81 11. researcher uses Friedman three or more related sample test because it offers a distinctive feature of comparing and ranking the mean of score of multiple related variables (Howit & Cramer.43 -0. Nemar and Friedman (Kinnear & Gray.2 – Friedman test As an alternative to T – test for related samples.4. 2008).2.
Detailed calculation and working of each of these findings is shown in appendix 7.01) is observed to be associated to ‘Safety/ security’. Above table shows deviations between mean ranks of score of variables in case of experience gained at alternate country of choice and the influence of these variables over the decision making process of a potential tourist.3 – Identification and analysis of variable interaction within corresponding factors In this part of findings.2.3. This could be attained by identifying relative ranking of mean of the score of variables.81) is observed to have been associated to ‘Superstructure’ and the least degree of deviation (= -3. Highest level of deviation positive deviation (=3. As compared to results of previous table. researcher aims to identify the interactive relationship between variables inside their corresponding factors under different circumstances. Result of this table will be utilized in the chapter of discussion and conclusion to draw the attention towards gap model and the development of brand strength. 4. deviations in this case are relatively small. In order to achieve this. researcher runs Friedmann test of related variables individually to 12 distinct cases. the results of which are shown in following table: xlvi .
12 2.29 3.5 2.08 2.58 3.46 4 2.87 Interdependencies 2.Results of friedman test showing the interaction of variables within associated factor under various scenarios Above table shows a summary of results obtained.03 2.44 3.68 3.2 3.95 2.78 2.91 4.68 3.Variables Mean rank of extent of influence on the decision making process of potential tourist Mean rank of extent of Mean rank of impact on Mean rank of extent of impact customer on actual extent of impact perception on actual experience while experience recieved while considering visiting recieved while UK as a visiting UK competing potential country tourist destination 2.73 3. If sorted in the order of increasing or decreasing values.98 3.3 5.54 2.72 4.5 2.67 5.9 3.86 2.39 5.21 Cost/ value 2.23 3. these scores are observed to have been interacting positively or negatively within each other in the silos of their corresponding factor under each circumstance.42 3.35 4.67 4.25 Awareness/ image 4.28 3.07 3.68 QUALIFYING AND AMPLIFYING DETERMINANTS Location 2.32 Table 10 .81 3.03 4.56 3. Original working and actual results of 12 distinct Friedmann analysis used for preperation of this table can be referred from Appendix 8.17 3.74 4.92 4.68 2.3 Safety/ security 5.95 3. The output xlvii .67 3. Mean ranks as shown in this table pertain to the mean of the score of variables within its own corresponding factor under different circumstances.28 4.77 4.22 3.63 3.63 4.79 2.51 4.82 3.63 3.78 3.05 Carrying capacity 3.72 5.18 CORE RESOURCES AND ATTRACTORS Physiography & climate Culture & history Mix of activities Special events Entertainment Market ties Superstructure Infrastructure Accessibility Facilitating resources Hospitality Political will Enterprise 5.44 3.12 4.1 1.64 2.03 4.9 4.48 SUPPORTING FACTORS AND RESOURCES 4.33 5.99 3.56 2.1 3.4 3.23 4.56 4.1 3.52 4.02 4.
Consequently. ranking based tests were approached and chi square goodness of fit test was undertaken to identify the most effective rank based tests. Descriptive analysis shows the variations in the relative movement and interaction between various variables.of this table will be used in discussion chapter to analyse these interactions and in the conclusion chapter to develop the variable interaction models. 4. However.3 CONCLUSION Data collected by researcher is found to be homogenous across the segments of market and France is considered to be most frequently mentioned destination that respondents would wish to visit again. In order to understand this interaction. Mann – Whitney test and Friedman test were administered to unrelated and related data respectively to judge the interaction between models and arrive at a statistical proof of movement. xlviii . it does not give a statistical proof of these interactions.
1975. et al.1 – INTRODUCTION This chapter is divided into four parts. 5. As shown in table 2. 2008). In case of tourism.2. Mittal. Respondents from both the datasets are of varying age. It deciphers the findings indicated in the previous chapter and build data into substantially comprehendible format to be used in order to arrive at the final deliverable of this research project.3 million tourist arrivals in 2008). it is known that experience of xlix . First part is aimed at understanding the structure and basic approach of this chapter. This observation is further strengthened by the facts published by The Economist (2008). maximum numbers of respondents consider France to be an ideal destination of leisure tourist destination that they would wish to visit again in future. 5. Fourth part gives future scope of further research in subject area. There is evidence showing positive emotions towards consumption of service associated to positive perception and it may change when consumer’s perceptions are high or low then as compared to the actual quality of services provided by the vendor (Dube & Menon. As shown in table 3.CHAPTER 5: OBSERVATIONS 5.2 – MODEL DEVELOPMENT In this dissertation. researcher gained access to homogeneous sample characteristics of respondent populations.1 – Identification and analysis of gaps created in customer service delivery and its implications on destination management organizations and managers Over the period of time. education level and varying size of family as shown in the pie charts in appendix 8. researchers have argued consumer behaviour is affected by situational and behavioural variables (Belk. Second part of this chapter presents observations derived from previous chapter. researcher collected data from 26 countries in subset 1 and from 23 countries in subset 2. This chapter highlights the findings and analyses them in detail. 2000). Researcher uses simple analytical tools available in excel in order to comprehend the information shown in previous chapter in addition to relate the observations to already available literature. that showed France to be most dominant tourist destination across the globe (Receiving 79. Third part of the chapter is dedicated to discuss the limitations of this work.
a tourist is considered to be of high emotional value and of personal significance to every individual and relates to significant experience value as against tangible products (Otto & Ritchie. Study undertaken by researcher supplements this viewpoint and shows a relative variation in the interaction of various variables that constitute the effectiveness of destination competitiveness. following information can be inferred about variables where extent of interaction is relatively higher leading to a creation of gap in service delivery process (Resulting because of differences between customer perception and actual experience): l . Thompson. et al. referring to table 8 following inter – variable relationships are noted: Chart showing relative extent and nature of interaction within variables in case of perception and actual experience Awareness/ image Carrying capacity Interdependence Cost/ value Safety/ security Location Political will Enterprise Hospitality Facilitating resources Accessibility Infrastructure Superstructure Market ties Entertainment Special events Mix of activities Culture & history Physiography & climate 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Core resources and attractors Relative mean rank of perception Relative mean rank of actual experience Extent of relative influence Figure 8 . As per findings of this research. These deviations as suggested by Kotler. McIntosh & Ciggs. verifies that an experience that of high emotional value is relatively more vulnerable to perceptual and experiential deviations. From above graph.Chart describing the extent and nature of interaction of variables in case of customer perception and actual experience Red line in the middle of the ‘Actual experience’ bar and ‘relative perception’ bar shows the extent and nature of interaction of variables in case of perception and actual experience. 1996. (2009) create gaps in service delivery of an organization to its customers. 2005). et al (2005).
00 36.80 33.20 7.Variables Relative mean rank of variables experienced while visiting UK Relative mean rank of variable when UK is perceived as tourism destination 33.10 -7.68 23.00 27.40 Mix of activities Special events Entertainment Superstructure Accessibility Hospitality Location Safety/ security 27.53 35.00 22.80 7.10 34.00 28.36 -13.47 25.A comparison between the mean ranks of variables associated with perception to that of actual experience while visiting UK Difference between actual experience and perception shows negative and positive gaps in customer service delivery which can be depicted in below graph: Chart showing the negative and positive gaps in customer service delivery while a tourist visits UK 38.90 27.55 34.00 24.00 30.00 -6.40 -5.94 10.20 Relative mean rank of actual experience Relative mean rank of perception -6.00 33.00 Relative mean 34.10 26.32 37.45 26.00 26.Depiction of service delivery gaps experienced by tourists arriving in UK li .00 Entertainment Superstructure Special events Hospitality Location Mix of activities Safety/ security Accessibility Relative mean rank of perception Relative mean rank of actual experience Gap creating variable Figure 9.80 Table 11 .20 27.90 34.00 32.
By improving on given aspects.Figure 10 – Conceptual model incorporating variables observed as gaps in service delivery the brand image and brand positioning of UK as a destination in context to tourism. UK’s destination management organizations can witness a growth in terms of revenue from tourism sector since improvement in destination image will atract more lii .
in some cases. 1992. In most of the cases. et al.5 Physiography & climate Entertainment Special events Culture & history Mix of activities Superstructure Market ties Mean rank of extent of influence on the decision making process of potential tourist Mean rank of extent of impact on customer perception while considering UK as a potential tourist destination Mean rank of extent of impact on actual experience recieved while visiting UK Mean rank of extent of impact on actual experience recieved while visiting competing country 11 Figure .tourists to the country (Ashworth & Goodall. 1988. These graphs show a comparison of statistical mean of the score of each of the given variables associated to their respective factors in context to UK as a destination of tourist interest. As observed from these. Fakeye & Crompton. Mansfeld. variables may tend to move in the opposite direction signifying a situation under which customer can be dissatisfied or delighted.5 4 3.2. variables tend to move in the same direction on the graph. however. variables tend to react positively or negatively amongst each other depending on the scenario.2 – Building a model showing the interaction extent and nature within various circumstances and its implications on destination management organizations and managers Crouch & Ritchie (2009) destination competitiveness model shows relationship between factors but does not explain the nature and extent of interaction between the variables that correspond to each factor.5 2 1. Researcher has established relationship and extent of interaction between variables from table 10 or previous chapter to infer following set of graphs. Bigne. 1991.5 5 4.Chart showing interaction of variables corresponding to core resources and attractors Above graph shows the interaction between variables associated to Core resources and attractors. (Like in the relationship shown by special events variable in context to actual experience to that of other three cases). It is observed to show little harmony across the scenarios and relatively higher liii . Chart showing relative extent of impact of variables corresponding to core resources and attractors under various scenarios Relative extent of impact 6 5. 2001). 5.5 3 2.
Chart showing interaction of variables corresponding to qualifying and amplifying determinants liv . Chart showing relative extent of impact of variables corresponding to supporting factors and resources under various scenarios Relative extent of impact 6 5.5 Infrastructure Accessibility Hospitality Facilitating resources Political will Enterprise Mean rank of extent of influence on the decision making process of potential tourist Mean rank of extent of impact on customer perception while considering UK as a potential tourist destination Mean rank of extent of impact on actual experience recieved while visiting UK Mean rank of extent of impact on actual experience recieved while visiting competing country Figure 12 .5 5 4. Relatively higher extents of deviations are observed within Infrastructure. mix of activities.5 4 3.5 Interdependencies Awareness/ image Carrying capacity Safety/ security Cost/ value Location Mean rank of extent of influence on the decision making process of potential tourist Mean rank of extent of impact on customer perception while considering UK as a potential tourist destination Mean rank of extent of impact on actual experience recieved while visiting UK Figure 13 .5 4 3. Accessibility. special events and superstructure.Chart showing interaction of variables corresponding to supporting factors and resources Above graph shows interaction within variables associated to supporting factors and resources.5 3 2. Hospitality.5 5 4.5 3 2. Chart showing relative extent of impact of variables corresponding to qualifying and amplifying determinants under various scenarios Relative extent of impact 6 5.deviations are clearly visible in physiography & culture.5 2 1.5 2 1. and political will.
competing destination offers a relatively lower range of cultural & history. Relatively higher extents of deviations are observed within Safety/ security. UK also offers a high perception towards superstructure and entertainment variables which play a relatively lesser influence on customer’s decision making process. and awareness. can be incorporated in their respective factors as shown below: Figure 14 .Above graph shows interaction of variables within qualifying and amplifying determinants. if a competitive d destination is considered. These customers percieve UK to be ables high on culture & history attracting them towards UK. and special events. security. When the customer finally visits ser UK as a leisure traveller. when compared to the influence of these variables on decision lv . Deviation of observations from of competing destination. Interdependencies. 5. However.A depiction of variable intensities in core resources and attractors Above diagram shows the positive and negative interactions between various variables across the scenarios and extent of interaction within their own scenario. Culture and history and mix of activities are the most influential variables for a customer’s decision making process. However. it is observed to have been of ring a wider range of mix of activities and offering market ties and superstructure.2. Carrying capacity. his/ her experiences are almost similar to his/ her perceptions except geography and climate and mix of activities. Additionally.3 – Model representation and development Graphical representations as shown in the previous section. Major observations about core resources and attractors from above figure lead to following practical implications in context to UK’s toursim industry: • Physiography & climate.
tends to overlook some of these important aspects in lieau of some relatively unimportant aspects. final judgement they make. As a result of this observation. and. Figure 15 . This observation is relatively similar to that of competing country as well. However. However. This may involve making people aware of easy tourist visa systems and ease of accessibility. This may have an implication on destination management organizations for them to concentrate more towards variables like accessibility issues that people think may prove to be hindrance when visiting UK. facilitating resources. acessibility and facilitating resources are found to be most influential variables during customer’s decision making process. when tourists actually visit UK.making process of a potential customer shows that customers ‘feel’ that some variables are important to their process of decision making. These customers hold a perception of UK to have relatively strong infrastructure. enterprise. UK lvi . In terms of supporting factors.A depiction of variable intensities in supporting factors and resources Above diagram shows the positive and negative interactions between various variables across the scenarios and extent of interaction within their own scenario. Major observations about supporting factors and resources from above figure lead to following practical implications in context to UK’s toursim industry: • Infrastructure. destination management organizations may consider adapting to some of the possible aspects og competing destinations and reduce stressing on some of the relatively unimportant aspects in order to further enhance UK’s brand positioning. hospitality service levels. they realize its easy to gain accessibility and find facilitating resources even more stronger then what they initially percieved.
Following practical implications can be inferred from above figure: • Safety and security is considered to be the most significant factor in decision making process in order to finalize of a tourist destination. it often plays a role of relatively less importance in lieau of other factors. Figure 16 . however. This may imply stronger marketing communications strategy to be adopted by UK destination management organizations.A depiction of variable intensities in qualifying and amplifying determinants Above representation of variables corresponding to their respective factors gives an insight into the extent of interaction of variables within their scenario and with respect to other variables responding within their corresponding scenarios in context to UK’s tourism industry. However. their perception and actual experience in context to UK is very low. it is played down by other variables when final decision is taken. Tourist feel that awareness about the specific country is one of the important aspect that they consider in order to evaluate a future tourist destination.and its competitors maintain similar service levels except quality of hospitality that comes up as an opportunity of further improvement for UK authorities. lvii . when they actually visit a destination. Consumers feel that infrastructure is the most influential of all the variables that constitute decision making process in context to toursim.
it is still limited in several aspects in this field of research. Another. is offset by reliability and practicality of context (Surowiecki.2. As stated by Crouch & Ritchie (2009). This limitation. Macro and micro economic perspective to business could not be studied. The study could be made more reliable by administering questionnaire to respondents from all the countries instead of restricting to 23 countries as done by researcher. Study conducted by researcher aims to look at consumer perspective of UK as tourist destination. a missing link on formation of equation within variables and affirmative corresponding model is observed to be missing due to complexities arising out of 19 independent variables due to limited time restriction.5 – Scope of future research This dissertation opens new research areas of study in future that could offer a challenging but informative opportunities. 2004). this study involves depicting relative importance of variables and their interaction within respective factors in addition to development of integrated model. 5.4 – Limitations of the study As advised in works of Couch (2011). A study could be undertaken on linking variables by clusters of geometric equation and depiction on geometric pattern that eventually could give rise to development of a comprehensive model based that could include consumer perspective. lviii . a holistic model of destination competitiveness cannot be developed unless a destinations internal resource capability is known. it does not consider internal resource capability. However.2. Also.5. limitation of this research is data gathered from respondents which is fairly subjective in nature and does not provide a precise and measurable quantity to any variable. destination’s internal resource management perspective and micro and macro economic factors that act as key drivers of business. however.
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION Though limited in various aspects. It involved analysing the survey questionnaire data statistically & achieving the objective of formation of conceptual gap model and variable interaction depiction. lix . this study provides an in depth knowledge of UK’s current positioning in tourism market. These modelled depictions show impact of image formation variables in consumer’s mind on various stages that include pre purchase and post purchase image formation and their differences.1: Conceptual model of customer service delivery gaps Negative service delivery gaps are identified in mix of activities. Following are some of the important practical implications that were observed in this dissertation: 6. superstructure. entertainment. These negative gaps pull down customer satisfaction since the actual experience of service is lower than that of perceived/ expected level of service. hospitality & Safety/ security. accessibility and location. 6. Implications arising out of these models have been discussed in detail in observations chapter and they offer a comprehensive insight to destination management organizations in order to understand the avenues that could be concentrated more upon.2: Variable interaction model Variable interaction model gives us considerable insights in order to understand the extent and nature of interaction of variables under various scenarios. These variables are influencing and increasing customer satisfaction due to experience that is of higher standard then as compared to the perception of visitors. This could imply that destination management organizations can now concentrate towards more comprehensive marketing communications Another aspect of conceptual model revealed positive deviations between perception and experience in variables such as special events.
Archer. Doing your research project. Pp. Brand leadership. Managing brand equity across products and markets. Vol. F. (1975). A. & Joachimsthaler. W. Journal of consumer research. W. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Vol. (1996). B.. 868 – 882. Pp. 31. Pp. W.. 3. 6. 23 – 29. Pp.. R. J.. Annals of tourism research. B. Berry. D. 29 (2). Journal of travel research. Hulbert.. 11. Aaker. B. J. Pp. Importance of tourism for the economy of Bermuda. (1991). Ahmed. 128 – 137. & Goodall. Reversing the United State’s declining competitiveness in the marketing of international tourism: A perspective on future policy. Ballantine.. J. F. Marketing in the tourism industry: The promotion of destination regions. 4th Ed. (1993). Brand management prognostications. Handbook of consumer theory & Research. E. lx .. (2007). Situational variables and consumer behaviour. 14. G. Alba. (1997). 12. Journal of academy of marketing science. London: Routledge. (1990). Z.. BNranding in B2B markets: Insights from service dominant logic of marketing. 2 (3). L. 918 – 930. & Pitt. A. U. Sloan management review. R. Vol. 38 (3). 1 – 49. 67 – 82. Aaker. 2.. 28. 9. California management review. J. Journal of consumer research. D. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. (1988). (2000).. 8. Vol... New York: Free Press. Cultivating service brand equity. (2000). 157 – 164. Dimensions of brand personality. L.. Vol.. Hutchinson. Pp. (1968). D. Brand equity and Advertising. 13.. J. Journal of marketing research. Aaker. & Lynch. Pp. & Aitken. 40 (2). P. Belk. (2005). A.. M. J. Ashworth. 10. (1994). L. Biel. 34. 5. Pp.. New Jersey: Prentice – Hall.. Buckingham: Open University Press. 7. L.. Barker. Pp. Pp. 102 – 120. Berthon.. Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods of studying environment of human behaviour. 347 – 356. G. (1999). Vol. 53 – 65. 22 (4). 4.Bibliography 1. and Krohn. Vol. Bell. Vol.
Pp. From goods to service branding: An integrative perspective.. Tourism marketing images of industrial cities. Vol. 28. Brodie. evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour: Inter – Relationship. G. 16. 24. D. 723. L. New York: Palgrave.. Vol. & Sanchez. J. Vol. (1995).. S. (2002. Pp. M. S. D. Bramwell. Cai. D.. Barbarranelli. Vol. J. (2000). Blain. & Rawding. B. and Schindler. Caprara. E. Pp. J... Bureau of Labour Statistics (2009). Bigne. Capon. Brand custodianship: A new primer for senior managers. (2001). Cooper. Maidenhead: Mc. Boyce.Graw – Hill. S. Vol. 27. G. Pp... Burthan. (2002). Buhalis. 20. Destination branding: Insights and practices from Destination Management Organizations. 9 (1). Vol. Pp. B. 43. Vol. Journal of travel research. Tourism management.15. Vol. London: Rouledge. & Guido. Blumberg. & Ville.. J. L. Pp. 17. (1996). (2005).. Hulbert. Buchanan. Monthly Labour review.. B. 607 – 616. 22. J. 29 (3). D. R. 201 – 221. (2001).. Pp. Vol. 22. Boddy. (2001). & McCalman... Journal of advertising research. Sanchesz. Industry output and employment projections to 2018. R. Cooperative branding for rural destinations. N.. 22. G.. 52 – 81. A. 215 – 227. 23. Blackston. Marketing theory. 23. Vol.. (1988). R.. 19 (3). 19. The qualitative dimension of brand equity.. 21. Annals of tourism research. 35 (4). L. & Ritchie. 720 – 742. Doing research in organizations. P. 18. C. 21 (1). Vol. Pp. Pp. A. lxi . Marketing the competitive destination of the future. 97 – 116. No. European management journal. 11. & Pitt. 25. M. Annals of tourism research. Tourism image. Pp. J. b). V. 377 – 395. L. Levy.. Cai.. Tourism management. 29 (3).. C. 328 – 338. (2002).. Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit? Journal of economic psychology. Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of tourism research. RC2 – RC7. 132. D.. Business research methods. 107 – 111. (2008).. E. (2009).. Pp. I. 26. M.. The development of modern business.
and Ritchie. J. M. Journal of brand management. A. Curry. Tourism: Principles and practice. 44 (3). Pp. S. 12 (1). L. R.29. & Wood. Coldwell. Chon.. 30 (4). Crockett. 124 – 147. 2. J. S. Vol. Crask. London: Pitman publishing. lxii .. R. Fletcher. Research design: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Pp.. (1992). Journal of travel research. Vol.. Gilbert. Business research methods. 37. P. D. (1990).. (2008). A positioning based decision model for selecting advertising messages. 39. & Moutinho. Coshall. Journal of travel research. (1999). Destination branding: Creating a unique destination proposition... K. Pp. 34. G. (2004).. Measurement of tourist’s images: The repertory grid approach. 9 (1). S. R. The differences between branding a country. Pp.. de Chernatony. Pp. Pp. 13 (Feb). 32 – 44. 40. 31.. B. Journal of advertising research. (1993). 33. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Pp.. Pp. R. & Freire. 38. T. 50 (1). 17 (1). (2002). Boston: McGraw – Hill. 30.. Cooper. 3 (1). Vol.. Journal of brand management. Tourism competitiveness and societal prosperity. 36. 32 – 38. Vol. Crompton.9. Crouch. International journal for service industry management. Destination competitiveness: An analysis of determinant attributes. a region and a city: Applying a brand box model. (1979). Vol. L. & Henry.. 32. Cooper. Environmental issues in tourism management: Computer modelling for judgemental decisions. I. 85. D. (2011). Journal of business research. L. 41.. Pp. Vol. J.. C. A /model for strategically building brands. Vol. Vol. An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence of geographical location upon the image. 10th Ed.. Crouch. R. (2002). & Wanhill. 35. J. G. (2002). (2001). Vol. J. L.. I. 50 – 61. 27 – 45.. 18. 39. The role of destination image in tourism: A review & discussion. B.. J. & Schindler. Tourist Review. 2nd Ed. Creswell. (1990). 57 – 69... J. L. Journal of travel research. N.
. & Newton. B.. The meaning & measurement of destination image. R. A. Thorpe. J. Multiple roles of consumption emotions in post – purchase satisfaction with extended service transactions. J. N. Hoboken: Wiley. (1994). (2003).com/top-150-city-destinations-london-leads-theway/article. Pp. Managing brand equity. 45. 11 (3). Vol. 25 (6).. C. Journal of travel research. J. Farr. A. (1991).. D. R. Pp. 36 (6).euromonitor. Vol. 1 (3). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design methods. 43 (4). 30 (2). [Accessed: 23rd April 2011] 52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. L. Tourism destination competitivenss: A quantitative approach. 9 – 21. Marketing research. (2003). Enright. Understanding. Dillman. (2004). Farquhar. Management research. Y.. 369 – 414. The journal of tourism studies. 2007... & Newton. Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires... P. K. Ed. C. & Lowe. P.. 3rd Ed.. Current issues in tourism. London: sage. International journal of service industry management. Vol. & Ritchie. Journal of advertising research. Dwyer. 54.. M. 24 – 33. Dyson. Jackson. Vol. 10 – 16.. Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in Asia Pacific: Comprehensiveness and Universality. 49. S. P. 287. Enright. 339 – 350. P. A. M. Dube. Pp. Euromonitor International (2006). M. Vol. 48. Journal of travel research. L. Vol. Tourism management. 777 – 788. W. Top 150 destinations: London leads the way. Fakeye. lxiii ..42.. [Online] Accessed from http://www. H. first – time and repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande valley. M. 2nd Ed. 43. J. J. & Menon.. J.(1989). 44. Pp. C. Pp. Pp. measuring and using brand equity. (2005). Vol. Journal of travel research. Easterby – Smith. Foddy. 53.. Echtner. 14 (1). S. Vol. Vol.. (2000). Images differences between prospective. (2006). & Crompton. 37 – 48. 6 (5).. Pp. Pp. 46. (2007). L. Destination personality: An application of brand personality to tourism destination.. Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators. (2008). 127 – 139. and Kim. 47. 51. 50. (1996). Ekinci.. Pp. 45. & Hollis. & Hosany..
C. Pp.. (2005). 19 (1). Image as a factor in tourism development. Hunt. T. 239 – 245. R. auditing and accountability journal. Pp. Image formation. (2007). Journal of travel research. Hosani. (1994). Gay. Place promotion. 6th. Newbury Park: Sage 66. Accounting. Vol. N. 163 – 177. 62 – 81. (1975). 57. Vol.. Hankinson. Vol. (2000).. SPSS in psychology: For version 16 and earlier... Journal of vacation marketing. Vol. D. D. Belmont: Thomson/ Wedworth.. No. S. Howit. 2 (2/3). 2. (2008). 64. Gartner. Image formation process. Vol. 63. R. Fournier. Pp 472 – 494. Vol. & Uysal. Practical sampling. 1 – 12. J. Pp. Schelluch. S. Destination image evaluation: Part II. Gold. Goodrich. Eclipse: The periodic journal from moonshine travel marketing for destination marketers. 68. S. Pp. G. Statistical methods for psychology. 191 – 215. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Destination brand images: A business tourism perspective. Govers. G. & Ward. 24. 1 – 7. 11 (4). Vol. tourism and hospitality research. W.. 13 (3). M. 65. Vol. 67.. Perceptions of messages conveyed by review and audit reports. Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. (1993). J. Journal of services marketing. 1 (1). Hassan. 10. Pp. Vo.. 61. 58. Service management & marketing: A customer relationship management approach. Henry. Ed. D. 69. (1998). Ekinci. 343 – 373. A. (2004). V. 62.. D.. (1998). information sources and an iconic Australian tourist destination. Destination image and destination personality. Journal of travel research.55. Gronroos. Vol. and Baines. P. S. (1999). C. International journal of culture. & Kelly.. J. J. 59. S. R. & Cramer. (2003). 4th. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 56. 17. (2000). 11 (2). Journal of travel and tourism marketing. The relationship between preferences for and perceptions of vacation destinations. (2007). Ed. 60. Journal of consumer research. Pp. 24 – 32. Y. lxiv . Journal of travel research. Hanlan. & Ravinder.. Pp. Pp. S.. Howell. 38 (3). Pp. 8 – 13. Determinants of market competitiveness in an environmentally sustainable tourism industry. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. (1978). G.
26 (3). Measuring and managing customer based brand equity.. P. V. D. 18 (3). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. C. 73. The journal of marketing. & Estelami.alternative indexes for monitoring customer perceptions of service quality: A comparative evaluation in a retail context. 4/5. Kotler... Pp. J. B. Keller.4th Ed. G. & Kim. and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective... (1991). Wong. (1998). Pp. 76. Measuring tourist destination competitiveness: conceptual considerations and empirical findings. 1st. New York: Waley. Soutar. Pp. 2nd. M. F. 32 (2). Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Vol. & Sweeney. Journal of brand Management. W. and Gartner. P. (2000).. 425 – 433. J.. 8th Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. product. Kotler. Journal of hospitality and tourism research. 81. Ed. SPSS 15 made simple. D.. J. Ed. 79. 273 – 284. Jin – Sun. 290. 209 – 221. H.. G. Country as a brand. 442. G. Vol. 75. Travel & hospitality research: A handbook for managers and researchers. Journal of brand management. Pp. Marketing management: Analysis. A. Kim. 57 (1).. Sussex: Psychology press. 80. W. and Rimmington. H. D. Vol.. Kotler. K. 7 (6). Journal of the academy of marketing science. H. Business research projects. (2008).. H. 249 – 261. Vol... & Gray. lxv . L... Johnson.. (2008). Vol.. Pp. Kozak. 1 – 22. Armstrong. (1999). P. 71. & Saunders. (2005). F. M. 235 – 254. N. P. International journal of hospitality management. Pp. P. R... (1994). (1993). Marketing management. Multidimensional customer based brand equity and its consequences in mid priced hotels. Vol. 12th Ed. L. (2002). & Keller. Pp. 5th Ed. R. L. Moderators of brand image/ Perceived product quality relationships. Pp.. Principles of marketing. Kotler. 521. K. 78. No. 72. Pp. London: Thomson learning..70. Hurley. C.. planning and control.. 77. (2008). Kinnier. 9.. Jankowicz. (2006). H. Hurst. 74.
481 – 492.. R. Vol. B. 74 – 81. G. Bergeron.. 335 – 354. London: Routledge.. & Woodside. Pp. lxvi .. L. 10. Journal of applied management studies. Consumer behavior in tourism.. & Pizam. Morgan. A. (2000). feel. (1995).. Journal of service research. G. (2003). An approach to branding services. Raghubir. The destination attribute management model: An empirical application to Bintan. R. 16 (3). Vol. (b). 86. V. H. From motivations to actual travel. Vol. (2008). S. Pp. Mittal. & Ling. New Zealand. Pritchard. 9 (4/5). & Pride. R... 93. Moorthi. Morgan. Assessing the reliability and validity of questionnaires: An empirical example.... 94. The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination: the Central Florida case. 5 (2). Pp. N. An exploration of experiential nature of boutique accommodation. & Piggott.. 21 – 27. 83. (2001). Journal of services marketing.. Litvin. 259 – 274. Paulo... Y. Vol. Vol. 33 (3). Expert systems in tourism marketing. Pritchard. A. Pp.. A. 6 (4). (1996). 88. Moutinho L. Cincinnati: Open Mentis Publishing Company. 5 – 7. Holbrook. N. 399 – 419. 373 – 389. Mansfeld. 91. Pp. European Journal of Marketing. Tourism management. 11 – 41. 90. (2005). A.82. G. Destination branding: Creating the unique destination proposition. Mitchell.Destination branding: Creating the unique destination proposition. (1987). Oxford: Butterworth – Heinemann. Oxford: Butterworth – Heinemann. (1996). Pp. 3. R. Pp. A. 84. McIntosh. Iss. A. A. Pp. S. Pp.. 22 (5). B. Z. Consumer behaviour: How humans think. P. 87. Journal of travel research. Moutino. 92. B. 89. McDougall.. (2002). A. J. 21.. Vol. & Ciggs. Milman. N. Laroche M. (1992).. Pritchard. Indonesia. (2003).. Vol. 199 – 207. Pp. J. Beatty. M. 85. Vol. S. (2002). and act in the marketplace. 44 (1). Vol.. Exploring how intangibility affects perceived risks. & Pride. & Curry. Annals of tourism research. 19. Y.. Morgan. Journal of brand management. & Yang.. Journal of travel research. 100% pure: The creation of powerful niche destination brand.
Tourism destination branding complexity. Holiday destination image – The problem of assessment: an example developed by Menorca.. A sustainable tourism perspective... 100. & Ryan. & Morgan. Vol. 17. 23 – cognitive structure perspective.. A. 17 (3). C. A. Real World research. (2000). D. Culture. Oxford: Blackwell. P. J. 98. T. B. Wally Olins on brand. 5 – 14. R. M. 106. Saeed. Research methods for business students. 258 – 259. Thornhill.. E. C. & Ritchie. Pp. J. Pp. 105. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. (2003). Pp. Schewe. Pp. 99. affective and conative perceptions. Journal of targeting. 97. The service experience in tourism. 101. A. Journal of travel research. A multi brand/ Multi attribute model of tourist state choice. P. G. I. & Lau. T. 22. Pp. 3. A. R. Phelps.. The competitive destination. Co – creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. (2004). Otto. 14 (4/5).. Ritchie. Saunder. 104.. Vol. Prahalad. (1993). (2004). 4. D.. S. (2003). 168 – 180. G. (2005).. measurement and analysis for marketing.. 108. Tourism management.. Olins. 29. (1978).. K. (2003). Lewis. C.. 52 – 69. Countries and their products: A Scott.. Pike. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. & Crouch. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Pritchard. Lewis. V. J. 42 (May). Saunder.95. Journal of travel research. Wallingford: CABI. 103. Pike. lxvii . London: Thames and Hudson Limited. Research methods for business students. 107. 2nd Ed. C. Thornhill. 18 (3). D... Robson. 7 (3). No.. A. R. (2009). Pp. Vol.167 – 179. 9 (1). Vol. Tourism management. Vol. I. Vol. & Frederick.. Pp. Vol.. Phau. S. Journal of interactive marketing. B. Pp. N. (1986). 96.. M.. S. No. 5th Ed. C. 333 – 342. J... (1996).. 21. Vol. & Ramaswamy. Vol.. The journal of product and brand management.. Pp. W. Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of cognitive. Conceptualising brand personality: A review and research propositions. 165 – 174. 102. K. identity & tourism representation: Marketing Cymru or Wales? Tourism management. J. Madden. Shrimp. 323 – 330.. (2001). (2002).
P. 117. Vol.Graw – Hill. 110. societies and nations. Stutely. Pp. Vol. 18 (1/2). Pp. Pocket world in figures. 1.. Journal of travel research. M. (2011). London: Little Brown. 50. Consumer based brand equity: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. & Castellan. Vazquez... 28 – 52. The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business. Ed. Seeing music performance: Visual influences on perception and experience. 252 – its own. (2003). Pp. C. Non parametric statistics for behavioural sciences.. R.. The economist (2008). 9. V. & Sullivan. & Russo. Pp 77. Thompson. Vol. 156. F. (1994). 120. Stepchenkova. 198 – 212. Triplett. B. A. London: Bloomberg Press. 116.. A. New York: Mc. (1993). & Iglesias. D. Vol.. 112. Taski. (2002). Destiantion brands vs destination images: Do we know what we mean? Journal of vacation marketing. Pp. Pp. Emotional Branding: How successful brands gain the irrational edge.109. 114. A. W. 27 – 49. London: Profile books Ltd. Destination Image as quantified media messages: The effect of news on tourism demand. (2005). 28 (10). D. Vol.. Branding cities and countries. 2nd. Pp. (2006). & Kozak. T.pdf [Accessed: 23rd April 2011] lxviii . S. Surowiecki. 12 (1). Graham.. Siegel. J.. No. Brand personality must be managed or it will assume a life of Travis. (2004). N. (1988). (2000). Semiotica. 113. Numbers guide: The essentials of business numeracy. & Eales. M. 12. 2011. 2.. economies. Marketing science.. J. 299 – 317.visitbritain. 260. M... A. J. S. The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A financial approach. Vol. Pp. 119. J.. Journal of marketing management. 111. 203 – 227. Vol. VisitBritain brochure. [Online] Accessed from http://www. Marketing news. W.. 115..org/Images/NTB%20brochure%20final_tcm29-14491.. 118. VisitBritain Website (2011). R. Ed.. Roseville: Prima Publishing. D. Simon. E. F.
S. Vol. 14. Journal of the academy of marketing science. B. A general model of traveler destination choice. & Donthu. 195 – 211. A. Vol.. 27 (Spring).. N. Brands & brand equity: Definitions & management. Pp. (2000). 1 – elements and brand equity. 52 (1). Developing and validating multidimensional consumer based brand equity scale.. Journal of business research. 37 – 44. (2001). Management Decisions. (2000). S. (1989). B. Pp. 8 – 14. 39 (1).121. Vol. Donthu. Vol. Pp. Yoo. lxix . & Lysonski. Wood.. L. Woodside. Waryszak. 123. An examination of selected marketing mix Yoo. 38 (9). Vol. 662 – 669. & Lee. 122. (2000). An examination of the role of beneficial image in tourist destination selection. Journal of travel research. 124. Pp. Journal of travel research. R. 125. N. 28 (2). Pp.
Shobhit Kulshreshtha The copy of final questionnaire is reproduced below for reference and perusal: SURVEY FORM – Subset 1 (Respondents who have not been to UK) * You can italicize/ bold/ highlight your responses to each question based on your convenience. it is important to respond to all the questions except question 7 where it depends on the response to question 6.kulshreshtha@gmail. On completion. it is compulsory to answer all the questions. * Please note. Age Range: 20 – 29/ 30 – 39/ 40 – 49/ 50 or above lxx . Current location (Country): 2. 1.Appendix I Copy of cover letter Dear Sir/ Madam. The response to the questionnaire will be used as a part of data set to arrive at a conclusion and information provided will be treated as strictly confidential. Thank you for your time and assistance. Please note. I request you to please mail the responses to shobhit. This study will assist in improving the image of United Kingdom as a tourist destination in our region with your kind support and assistance in the form of ten minutes of your time. Attached file carries a copy of questionnaire for this purpose. Best regards. My study aims to look at the current perception of people from your nation towards United Kingdom as destination for leisure travel.com. the response to which will be a valuable input from your end towards this study and will help me in achieving the objectives of this study. Allow me to introduce myself as a student pursuing his MBA program from University of Leeds currently doing a project work on the importance of management of a destination brand.
If yes. 1. the extent to which the mentioned factors influence your decision while finalizing a leisure travel. Example: A mix of Water rafting. Please rate on a relative scale of 1 to 5 (1 being lowest and 5 being highest) in column A.2 Culture & History 1.1 Infrastructure such as quality of Public facilities.7 Quality of Accommodation.3. please evaluate the relative level of these variables UK: Variables Column A – Level of influence Column B – Your perception for UK 1. Number of adults in the family: 1 to 3/ 3 to 5/ 5 to 7/ More then 7 6. or above 4. Transportation and Food services 2. Family Size (Leisure travellers): 1 to 3/ 3 to 5/ 5 to 7/ More then 7 5. Air shows etc) 1. In column B (1 being lowest and 5 being highest).3 Bouquet of available activities. Sightseeing.5 Entertainment facilities 1. Sanitation and legal systems 2.1 Geographical features & Climatic conditions 1.6 Relatives. Have you visited United Kingdom on any occasion? Yes/ No 7. etc. friends and family settled in the destination of choice 1. Trekking. Education level: High School/ Diploma/ Undergraduate/ Postgraduate/ Ph. D.4 Special events (Example: Olympics. Potable water.2 Accessibility factors such as Entry 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 lxxi . please tell how long was the approximate duration of your visit? ____________ 8.
employee politeness & human touch 2. 10.6 Easy access to tourism promotion agencies (Example: Travel agencies. Social concerns such as curfews. 2. annual grants donor) 2.2 Safety & Security 3. airport hub. permit.4 Hospitality qualities such as staff Courteousness.6 Awareness/ Image 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9.3 Knowledge and information about the destination – Availability and access 2.3 Expected Costs/ Expenses 3. riots.5 Government relationship with a tourist destination (Political ally.5 Seasonality of tourist destination (Clearly marked ideal visit times) 3. event managers) 3. etc) 3. against its competitors (Identified in question 9) on the following parameters.1 Physical distance from your point of origin 3. and airline route. Consider one country that you know about (In context of being an ideal tourism destination) and mention its name: __________. Asia Tour.4 A location being offered as a package of various destinations (Example: Europe tour. The rating is to be given on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest): Indices Current lxxii . Please draw a relative comparative rating of UK’s current perceived/ experienced status (Identified in question 8).visa.
5 Government relationships with with a tourist destination (Political ally. permit. Sightseeing. Social concerns such as curfews.6 Relatives. Air shows.2 Culture & History 1. 2.5 Entertainment facilities 1.1 Infrastructure such as quality of Public facilities. Transportation and Food services 2. Access routes. 1. airport hub. and airline route.7 Quality of Accommodation. event managers) 3. employee politeness & human touch 2. etc. Sanitation and legal systems 2.performance 1. annual grants donor) 2.6 Easy access to tourism promotion agencies (Example: Travel agencies.1 Physical distance from your point of 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 lxxiii . friends and family settled in the destination of choice 1.3 Knowledge and information about the destination – Availability and access 2. Trekking. Potable water. Example: A mix of Water rafting.4 Hospitality qualities such as staff Courteousness.4 Special events (Example: Olympics. etc) 1.1 Geographical features & Climatic conditions 1. riots.2 Accessibility factors such as Entry visa.3 Bouquet of available activities.
Asia Tour. Have you visited United Kingdom on any occasion? Yes/ No 7.5 Seasonality of tourist destination (Clearly marked ideal visit times) 3. D.origin 3. please evaluate the reltive extent to which these variables you experienced while visiting UK as a tourist: lxxiv . Age Range: 20 – 29/ 30 – 39/ 40 – 49/ 50 or above 3. Education level: High School/ Diploma/ Undergraduate/ Postgraduate/ Ph. * Please note.4 A location being offered as a package of various destinations (Example: Europe tour. or above 4. Please rate on a relative scale of 1 to 5 (1 being lowest and 5 being highest) in column A. it is important to respond to all the questions except question 7 where it depends on the response to question 6.3 Expected Costs/ Expenses 3. Current location (Country): 2. Family Size (Leisure travellers): 1 to 3/ 3 to 5/ 5 to 7/ More then 7 5.6 Awareness/ Image 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 SURVEY FORM – Subset 2 (Respondents who have been to UK) * You can italicize/ bold/ highlight your responses to each question based on your convenience. please tell how long was the approximate duration of your visit? ____________ 8.2 Safety & Security 3. etc) 3. If yes. the extent to which the mentioned factors influence your decision while finalizing a leisure travel. Number of adults in the family: 1 to 3/ 3 to 5/ 5 to 7/ More then 7 6. 1. In column B (1 being lowest and 5 being highest).
1.5 Entertainment facilities 1.2 Accessibility factors such as Entry visa. riots.5 Government relationship with a tourist destination (Political ally. Air shows etc) 1. 2. friends and family settled in the destination of choice 1. permit. Trekking.Statement Column A – Level of influence Column B – Experienced level in UK 1. etc. annual grants donor) 2. Transportation and Food services 2.1 Infrastructure such as quality of Public facilities. Sanitation and legal systems 2.1 Geographical features & Climatic conditions 1. employee politeness & human touch 2.3 Knowledge and information about the destination – Availability and access 2.7 Quality of Accommodation.4 Special events (Example: Olympics.6 Easy access to tourism promotion agencies (Example: Travel agencies.2 Culture & History 1. airport hub.3 Bouquet of available activities. Sightseeing. Social concerns such as curfews. Potable water. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 lxxv .4 Hospitality qualities such as staff Courteousness.6 Relatives. Example: A mix of Water rafting. and airline route.
Asia Tour. Example: A mix of Water rafting.1 Physical distance from your point of origin 3.2 Culture & History 1.5 Seasonality of tourist destination (Clearly marked ideal visit times) 3. Consider one country that you know about (In context of being an ideal tourism destination) and mention its name: __________.1 Geographical features & Climatic conditions 1.event managers) 3.6 Relatives.6 Awareness/ Image 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9.3 Expected Costs/ Expenses 3. etc) 3. Please draw a relative comparative rating of UK’s current perceived/ experienced status (Identified in question 8). etc) 1.5 Entertainment facilities 1. The rating is to be given on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest): Indices Current performance 1. against its competitors (Identified in question 9) on the following parameters. 10. etc. 1. 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 lxxvi . Trekking. friends and family settled in the destination of choice 1. Sightseeing.2 Safety & Security 3.4 Special events (Example: Olympics.7 Quality of Accommodation.4 A location being offered as a package of various destinations (Example: Europe tour.3 Bouquet of available activities. Air shows.
permit. and airline route.2 Accessibility factors such as Entry visa. Access routes.3 Knowledge and information about the destination – Availability and access 2. riots.6 Awareness/ Image 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 lxxvii . Social concerns such as curfews. Potable water.6 Easy access to tourism promotion agencies (Example: Travel agencies. annual grants donor) 2. 2. Sanitation and legal systems 2.1 Infrastructure such as quality of Public facilities.4 A location being offered as a package of various destinations (Example: Europe tour. Asia Tour. airport hub.5 Government relationships with with a tourist destination (Political ally.4 Hospitality qualities such as staff Courteousness.1 Physical distance from your point of origin 3.5 Seasonality of tourist destination (Clearly marked ideal visit times) 3.2 Safety & Security 3.Transportation and Food services 2.3 Expected Costs/ Expenses 3. employee politeness & human touch 2. etc) 3. event managers) 3.
00 30 33.55 1006.72 891.50 30 29.Appendix 3 Mann-Whitney Test Ranks Mean Subset Name Physiography & Climate Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Culture & History Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Mix of activities Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Special events Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Entertainment Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Market ties Subset 1 (Been to UK before) 60 30 32.50 30 27.00 30 30.28 Sum of Ranks 938.50 60 30 27.50 30 33.00 810.88 986.90 1017.25 907.50 N 30 Rank 31.50 60 30 30.75 922.00 60 30 34.10 813.45 823.00 60 30 27.50 lxxviii .00 1020.
10 1113.50 30 29.50 60 30 26.Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Superstructure Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Infrastructure Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Accessibility Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Facilitating resources Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Hospitality Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Enterprise Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) 30 28.00 30 37.50 lxxix .92 897.00 30 32.08 932.00 60 30 23.00 30 34.90 987.00 60 30 35.20 966.00 60 30 31.53 796.10 843.00 30 28.47 1034.68 1070.50 30 25.00 60 30 28.90 717.50 60 30 32.32 759.12 843.80 864.
Total Political will Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Location Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Safety/ security Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Cost/ value Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Interdependence Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Carrying capacity Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total 60 30 31.20 996.80 984.00 60 30 32.55 976.63 919.20 1026.75 952.00 30 30.00 30 33.20 846.80 804.00 30 28.37 911.45 853.50 30 29.00 60 30 27.50 30 32.80 834.00 30 26.25 877.50 60 lxxx .50 60 30 34.00 60 30 30.00 60 30 28.
(2tailed) Exact Sig.500 -.500 -1. Sig. (1tailed) .500 -2.500 823.277 .128 .607 .714 .108 .159 Market ties 378.00 30 28.122 .000 843.274 Superstructu Infrastructur Accessibilit re 331.500 759.000 810.872 .000 796.050 30 32.410 .000 -1.363 .000 -1.557 .061 .138 .481 .500 843.016 lxxxi .962 .10 843.111 .063 . (2tailed) Exact Sig.008 . (2tailed) Exact Sig.500 -1. (2tailed) Exact Sig.235 y 294.000 -1. Sig.055 . (1tailed) Point Probability 426.162 .Awareness/ image Subset 1 (Been to UK before) Subset 2 (Never been to UK before) Total Test Statisticsa Physiograph y & Climate Culture & History 442.00 60 Mix of activities 348.230 .000 813.016 358.119 .407 .061 e 378.002 Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp.898 .003 Special events 345.081 .032 .366 .725 .000 -1.095 .500 907.008 Test Statisticsa Entertainme nt Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp.90 987.500 -.115 .500 891.188 .
Sig.135 Cost/ value 381.001 Test Statisticsa Facilitating resources Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp.000 -.128 .000 Test Statisticsa Safety/ security Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp.000 877.004 .014 .048 .320 .002 .000 911.390 .135 . Sig.002 .002 .151 .500 -1.000 -1.155 .382 Hospitalit y 252.015 . Grouping Variable: Subset Name lxxxii .597 .500 897.000 -3. (2tailed) Exact Sig.942 . (1tailed) Point Probability .875 .500 853.026 .000 846.009 . (1tailed) Point Probability .945 Carrying capacity 388.069 .000 -.210 .000 843.119 . (2tailed) Exact Sig.078 .302 .294 Interdepende nce 446.500 -. (2tailed) Exact Sig.566 .495 .500 804.002 Enterprise 432.000 -.273 .002 .089 a. (2tailed) Exact Sig.001 .780 .471 .256 Awareness/ image 378.785 Political will Location 412.160 .046 .001 .256 .019 .256 369.Point Probability .135 .421 .000 717.500 339.057 .012 .000 -1.000 864.091 399.698 .283 .002 .000 -1.551 -1.000 834.
Appendix 4 A chi – square goodness – of – fit test run on raw data for variables in context to extent of impact on influencing the decision maker’s opinion about a destination: Subset 1 Subset 2 Chi – square goodness – of – fit test. when run on the raw data to check for deviations between perception and the actual experience of UK’s leisure travel: Subset 1 lxxxiii .
was run on the raw data.Subset 2 Chi – square goodness – of – fit test. to check for deviations in relative comparison between the traveller’s experience in UK and an alternative country of choice: Relative grading of alternate country of choice: Relative grading of variables in context of UK: lxxxiv .
Appendix 5 Mann – Whitney U Tests Appendix 6 Wilkoxon signed rank tests: lxxxv .
Appendix 7 Friedman tests 1.96 10.26 9.610 13.45 8.83 lxxxvi .53 13.98 6.52 13.78 5. Level of influence of variables on decision making process Ranks Mean Rank Physiography & Climate Culture & History Mix of activities Special events Entertainment Market ties Superstructure Infrastructure Accessibility Facilitating resources Hospitality Enterprise Political will Location Safety/ security Cost/ value Interdependence Carrying capacity Awareness/ image Test Statisticsa.b N ChiSquare Df 18 60 339.65 12.95 5.04 13.68 7.27 8.40 5.47 9.46 9.99 10.84 13.96 10.
24 12.000 2.81 11.08 lxxxvii .31 9.68 12.37 4.98 10.29 11.58 7.95 12.95 9.19 10.46 7. Sig.625 10.15 11.Asymp.46 10.81 10. Level of influence of variables experienced at competing destiantion Ranks Mean Rank Physiography & Climate Culture & History Mix of activities Special events Entertainment Market ties Superstructure Infrastructure Accessibility Facilitating resources Hospitality Enterprise Political will Location Safety/ security Cost/ value Interdependence Carrying capacity Awareness/ image Test Statisticsa.18 10. .64 4.b N ChiSquare Df 18 60 238.88 11.
Appendix 8 1. Relative extent of influence of variables on decision making process of a customer in context to core resources and attractors Ranks Mean Rank Physiography & Climate Culture & History Mix of activities Special events Entertainment Market ties Superstructure Test Statisticsa,b N ChiSquare Df Asymp. Sig. 6 .000 60 160.945 5.30 5.28 2.23 3.91 2.56 3.39 5.33
2. Relative extent of influence of variables on decision making process of a customer in context to supporting factors and resources Ranks Mean Rank Infrastructure Accessibility 4.63 3.95
Facilitating resources Hospitality Political will Enterprise Test Statisticsa,b N ChiSquare Df Asymp. Sig. 5 .000 60 73.611
3.81 3.46 2.20 2.95
3. Relative extent of influence of variables on decision making process of a customer in context to qualifying and amplifying determinants
Ranks Mean Rank Location Safety/ security Cost/ value Interdependenci es Carrying capacity Awareness/ image Test Statisticsa,b N ChiSquare Df 5 60 94.567 4.42 3.28 2.10 4.74 3.54 2.92
4. Relative extent of influence of variables on customer perception while considering UK as a potential tourist destination in context to core resources and attractors Ranks Mean Rank Physiography & Climate Culture & History Mix of activities Special events Entertainment Market ties Superstructure Test Statisticsa,b N ChiSquare Df Asymp. Sig. 6 .000 30 59.859 5.67 3.90 3.03 4.77 2.82 5.03 2.78
5. Relative extent of influence of variables on customer perception while considering UK as a potential tourist destination in context to supporting factors and resources Ranks Mean Rank Infrastructure Accessibility Facilitating resources 3.98 2.58 3.90
23 xci . Relative extent of influence of variables on customer perception while considering UK as a potential tourist destination in context to qualifying and amplifying determinants Ranks Mean Rank Location Safety/ security Cost/ value Interdependenci es Carrying capacity Awareness/ image Test Statisticsa.b N ChiSquare df Asymp.448 3. 5 . 5 . Sig.Hospitality Political will Enterprise Test Statisticsa.000 30 75.78 4.809 4.43 6.003 30 17.10 4.00 3.67 2. Sig.72 1.b N ChiSquare df Asymp.10 3.50 4.
68 3.03 3.12 3.48 3.40 4. Relative extent of influence of variables on actual experience gained by customers while visiting UK in context to core resources and attractors Ranks Mean Rank Physiography & Climate Culture & History Mix of activities Special events Entertainment Market ties Superstructure Test Statisticsa.72 3.68 3. Sig. 6 .17 4.12 8.b N ChiSquare df Asymp.22 xcii .473 5.7.63 3. Relative extent of influence of variables on actual experience gained by customers while visiting UK in context to supporting factors and resources Ranks Mean Rank Infrastructure Accessibility Facilitating resources Hospitality Political will Enterprise 2.67 4.000 30 39.08 4.
87 4.32 4.971 3.000 30 35.003 30 17. 5 . 5 . Relative extent of influence of variables on actual experience gained by customers while visiting competing country in context to core resources and attractors xciii .22 2. Sig.b N ChiSquare df Asymp.30 4. Relative extent of influence of variables on actual experience gained by customers while visiting UK in context to qualifying and amplifying determinants Ranks Mean Rank Location Safety/ security Cost/ value Interdependenci es Carrying capacity Awareness/ image Test Statisticsa.b N ChiSquare df Asymp.856 9.05 10.25 2. Sig.Test Statisticsa.
50 3.86 2.07 xciv .45 3.99 4.68 3.393 4.000 60 147.02 4. Sig.35 4.52 4. Relative extent of influence of variables on actual experience gained by customers while visiting competing country in context to supporting factors and resources Ranks Mean Rank Infrastructure Accessibility Facilitating resources Hospitality Political will Enterprise Test Statisticsa.b N ChiSquare Df Asymp.64 2. 6 .63 11.b 3.51 4.79 2.Ranks Mean Rank Physiography & Climate Culture & History Mix of activities Special events Entertainment Market ties Superstructure Test Statisticsa.
60 38. 5 .68 3. Sig. Sig.000 60 29.18 3. Relative extent of influence of variables on actual experience gained by customers while visiting competing country in context to qualifying and amplifying factors Ranks Mean Rank Location Safety/ security Cost/ value Interdependenci es Carrying capacity Awareness/ image Test Statisticsa.b N ChiSquare df Asymp.56 xcv .000 12.56 2.014 5 .29 3.572 4.73 3.N ChiSquare Df Asymp.
Appendix 8 xcvi .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.