See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235272249

Conceptualizing tourist satisfaction at the destination level

Article  in  International Journal of Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research · June 2009

DOI: 10.1108/17506180910962122

CITATIONS READS

159 3,566

6 authors, including:

Ljubica Knežević Cvelbar Tomaž Kolar

University of Ljubljana University of Ljubljana
57 PUBLICATIONS   1,615 CITATIONS    28 PUBLICATIONS   411 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Maja Makovec Brenčič

University of Ljubljana
35 PUBLICATIONS   2,039 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Project: Sustainable tourism development: case of Bled. Research for BEST EN conference, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana 2013. View project

Analysis of territorial and social impacts of the urban tourism and its territorial governance: the cases of Ljubljana, Graz and Maribor View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Irena Ograjensek on 09 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Conceptualizing tourist satisfaction at the
destination level
Tanja Dmitrović, Ljubica Knežević Cvelbar, Tomaž Kolar, Maja Makovec Brenčič,
Irena Ograjenšek and Vesna Žabkar
Tanja Dmitrović, Ljubica
Knežević Cvelbar, Tomaž
Kolar, Maja Makovec
Brenčič, Irena Ograjenšek
and Vesna Žabkar are all
based at the Faculty of
Economics, University of
Ljubljana, Ljubljana,
Slovenia.
Received: March 2008
Revised: June 2008
Accepted: August 2008
This research was sponsored
by the Slovenian Research
Agency and the Ministry of the
Economy, Republic of Slovenia,
Grant No. V5-0206ARRS-RI-
CRP-VP-2007-II. The research
group included researchers
from the Faculty of Economics
at the University of Ljubljana
and from the Faculty of
Economics and Business at the
University of Maribor.
PAGE 116 j INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the research is to conceptualize a model of tourist satisfaction at the
destination level which can serve as a background for designing a universal, parsimonious, short and
easily applicable measurement instrument.
Design/methodology/approach – The conceptual model was developed on the basis of existing
theoretical and empirical research in the fields of marketing and tourism.
Findings – The model includes eight latent constructs, with tourist satisfaction being the central one.
The analysis of the antecedents (quality, image, value, and costs and risks) of customer satisfaction
provides insights into the processes underlying the creation of satisfaction, while the outcome
constructs (complaint behavior and loyalty) indicate the consequences of (dis)satisfaction.
Research limitations/implications – Designing a parsimonious and easily applicable measurement
instrument imposes some limitations with respect to the number of constructs and measured variables
included. The inclusion of additional constructs/variables should provide a more comprehensive insight
into customer satisfaction and a more solid basis for strategic decision-making but at the same time it is
likely to reduce the model’s transparency and universality.
Practical implications – The results of a continuous customer satisfaction monitoring should serve as
an input for a trend analysis and strategic discussions regarding the development of a tourist
destination. The ultimate goals of monitoring satisfaction include identifying strategic objectives at the
destination level, preparing tactical and operational plans and ultimately increasing the competitiveness
of a given destination.
Originality/value – Achieving customer satisfaction should be one of the most important goals of every
DMO and, to our knowledge, a few universal cause-and-effect measurement instruments/models have
been developed to support this goal. The proposed model provides a basis for the continuous
monitoring and improvement of the competitiveness of a given destination.
Keywords Tourism, Customer satisfaction, Modelling
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
A tourist destination is an amalgam of tourist products, services and public goods
consumed under the same brand name, thus offering the consumer an integrated
experience (Buhalis, 2000; Leiper, 1995). Rather than describing it in terms of a well-defined
geographical area such as a country, island or town (Davison and Maitland, 1997; Hall,
2000), contemporary definitions view a destination as a blend of consumers’ space and
tourism products providing a holistic experience which is subjectively interpreted according
to the consumer’s travel itinerary, cultural background, purpose of visit, past experience, etc.
(Fuchs and Weiermair, 2003).
A tourist destination is perceived by tourists as a single entity, but in fact it comprises several
stakeholder groups:
j VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009, pp. 116-126, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182 DOI 10.1108/17506180910962122
B tourists;
B business entities operating in the tourism sector;
B the public sector;
B the host population; and
B representatives of non-governmental organizations (Buhalis, 2000).
The interests and priorities of the various stakeholders do not always coincide and, even
worse, they inherently generate inter-group conflicts (Sheehan et al., 2007); therefore,
destinations are considered some of the most difficult entities to manage and market
(Sautter and Leisen, 1999). The task of destination marketing and management is often
entrusted to a central tourism organization, a so-called destination management
organization (DMO), which acts on behalf of stakeholder groups (Goeldner and Ritchie,
2003) by pursuing a range of strategic objectives such as maximizing customer satisfaction
and the profitability of local enterprises, assuring the long-term prosperity of the local
population, and optimizing available resources through the destination’s sustainable
development (Buhalis, 2000).
One of the crucial elements of successful destination marketing is tourist satisfaction, which
influences the choice of destination and the decision to return (Yoon and Uysal, 2005).
Therefore, enhancing customer satisfaction should be one of a DMO’s primary functions
(Morgan and Pritchard, 1998; Pearce, 1997; Seaton, 1997) and a prerequisite for the
development of a strategy leading to a destination’s enhanced attractiveness and its
competitive positioning. However, achieving tourist satisfaction hinges on the collaboration
and integration of marketing efforts by multiple suppliers. While steering different
supply-side stakeholders towards the common goal of maximizing customer satisfaction
may sound very logical at the theoretical level, it is very difficult to achieve in practice. Fuchs
and Weiermair (2003) note that understanding the nature and the antecedents of satisfaction
is paramount, but so is deciphering the determinants of satisfaction in tourism, which is ‘‘the
amalgam of service industries’’ (p. 7), as it is a difficult theoretical and empirical task. Several
destination competitiveness models include elements which are the building blocks of
tourist satisfaction – for example, awareness, perception, preferences, etc. – but fail to
incorporate them in a coherent and unified manner in a model that can be used as a general
instrument and a tool for benchmarking (Gomezelj and Mihalič, 2008).
The objective of this article is to present a conceptual framework for measuring tourist
satisfaction and hence to provide DMOs with a comprehensive tool for understanding the
key factors of destination competitiveness and quality improvement. More specifically, we
aim to develop a standard model of the antecedents and consequences of customer
satisfaction and thereby provide a conceptual basis for the development of a universal,
parsimonious, short and easily applicable measurement instrument which could be used by
destination managers.
The next section provides a short review of the existing models for measuring customer
satisfaction in tourism. Then the scope of inquiry is widened by reviewing customer
satisfaction measurement in the marketing literature and discussing the merits of aggregate
satisfaction indices. The main contribution of this article lies in developing a conceptual
model of tourist satisfaction and formulating research propositions which are presented
next. The final section offers some implications of employing the model at the tourist
destination level.

Approaches to measuring customer satisfaction in tourism

In tourism, satisfaction is often evaluated through the characteristics of tourism offers.
Researchers typically create a pool of destination attributes and ask respondents to evaluate
them on a ‘‘satisfaction scale’’ (ranging, for example, from ‘‘delighted’’ to ‘‘terrible’’ (Kozak,
2001) or from ‘‘fully satisfied’’ to ‘‘not satisfied at all’’ (Fuchs and Weiermair, 2003)). These
items are then observed individually, summated, or assigned to dimensions of a construct
measuring tourist satisfaction (for example by using factor analysis). The main goal of

j j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 117
 measuring tourist satisfaction is to provide managerial guidance. Fuchs and Weiermair
(2003) show that those models where destination attributes are regressed or correlated to a
variable measuring total satisfaction with the destination produce more valid managerial
implications than models that only employ individual destination attributes.
Assessing satisfaction through the characteristics of a tourism offer involves several
problems. First, consumers (tourists) are unable to assess objectively the characteristics of
product offerings and they often add their own interpretations (Johnston and Heineke, 1998).
Second, consumers normally do not simply sum up their evaluations of each characteristic
and do not give an equal weight to each characteristic, as assumed by a summated scale
that is often used in such an approach (Oliver, 1997). Third, when the measurement of
customer satisfaction is based on a destination’s attributes, the calculated score depends
on the particular choice of attributes included in the measurement instrument. Changing the
selection of the offer’s characteristics necessarily affects the satisfaction score, even though
the actual satisfaction of the respondent has not been altered. In addition, as the offer’s
characteristics are not separated from the measurement of satisfaction researchers are
unable to analyze the impact of each specific antecedent (set of characteristics) on
customer satisfaction.
Satisfaction should therefore be measured separately from the elements of tourism offers.
Unfortunately, tourism researchers have largely neglected this principle. Only recently have
researchers started to design and evaluate models where these elements are distinct (e.g.
Hui et al., 2007; Yoon and Uysal, 2005). To address this problem, this article introduces a
comprehensive conceptual model in which customer satisfaction is a distinct construct, and
hence its relations with conceptual antecedents and consequences can be empirically
assessed.

Models of customer satisfaction in the marketing literature

Models and methods for measuring customer satisfaction, its antecedents and
consequences abound in the marketing literature. Researchers have developed and
validated several models in a variety of industries and countries. Various theories and
models have assessed customer satisfaction based on:
B expectancy/disconfirmation (Oliver, 1980);
B equity (Oliver and Swan, 1989);
B importance-performance (Martilla and James, 1977); and
B perceived overall performance (Tse and Wilton, 1988).
Lovelock and Wright (1999) define customer satisfaction as ‘‘a short-term emotional reaction
to a specific service performance’’. There is much debate in the marketing literature about
the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction, as well as the direction of
their causality. Even though some researchers argue that satisfaction affects quality (Oliver,
1980, 1997) the dominant view supports the opposite notion, namely that quality influences
satisfaction (e.g. Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1994; Taylor and Baker, 1994).
Baker and Crompton (2000) attribute these inconsistencies to the fact that both constructs
have been derived from the same theoretical source – the disconfirmation paradigm.
Research has also confirmed that both service quality and customer satisfaction affect
behavioral intentions (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Cronin and Taylor, 1992).
In addition to observing the relationships among latent variables such as service quality,
customer satisfaction and purchase behavior, several researchers have attempted to
construct national and international satisfaction barometers and indices. Satisfaction
barometers and indices are based on the so-called cumulative view of satisfaction, whereby
satisfaction is defined as a customer’s overall experience to date with a product or service
provider, as opposed to a transaction-specific satisfaction which refers to a customer’s
experience with a particular product or service encounter (Johnson et al., 2001).
One of the most widely acknowledged models of customer satisfaction is the American
Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), which is based on six constructs, i.e. customer

j j
PAGE 118 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
satisfaction as a central construct, three antecedents (customer expectations, perceived
quality and perceived value), and two outcomes (complaint behavior and customer loyalty).
Surveys have used 15 indicator variables rated on a ten-point satisfaction scale to
operationalize the latent constructs (Fornell et al., 1996).
In their evaluation of the ACSI model’s weaknesses and strengths, Johnson et al. (2001)
suggest eliminating expectations from the model since, in the case of a cumulative
experience, customer expectations concerning the service provider become more rational,
leading to their confirmation rather than disconfirmation. In addition, expectations seem to
be strongly linked to quality since quality appears to completely mediate the impact of
expectations on satisfaction. The same authors proposed a few other modifications to the
ACSI model:
B to replace perceived value with perceived price in order to remove the overlap between
value and quality;
B to replace complaint behavior with complaint handling; and
B to define corporate image as a consequence and not an antecedent of satisfaction.
After modifying the expected linkages among the constructs they built the new Norwegian
Customer Satisfaction Barometer (NCSB). The model was empirically validated and
explained more variance in customer loyalty than other national index models (Johnson et al.,
2001).
In the past two decades there have been several attempts to use the concepts and
measurement instruments developed in the marketing literature to study tourist satisfaction
(for some more recent studies, see, for example, Briggs et al., 2007; Fuchs and Weiermair,
2003; Kozak, 2001; Truong and Foster, 2006). Most are based on the disconfirmation
paradigm which, has received substantial criticism not only in the marketing literature (e.g.
Deng, 2007), but also in tourist satisfaction research (Fuchs and Weiermair, 2003; Kozak,
2001). As noted above, several existing studies do not distinguish between measuring
tourist satisfaction and its antecedent elements and/or constructs. It is therefore important to
avoid these pitfalls when designing a model which could serve as a standard assessment
tool at the destination level. The next section presents the conceptualization of a
comprehensive input-output model of tourist satisfaction.

Conceptual model of tourist satisfaction at the destination level

In designing a standard model for measuring tourist satisfaction at the destination level, we
considered several theoretical bases. The model builds on the concept of cumulative
experience and was formed by:
B using national customer satisfaction index models (most notably the ACSI and NCSB) as
the basis;
B enriching it by incorporating some aspects of general consumer satisfaction models for
services (e.g. Cronin et al., 2000; Johnson et al., 2001); and
B applying them to the tourism industry (Baker and Crompton, 2000).
Although several partial models evaluate either specific aspects of tourism offers (at the level
of hotels, tourist agencies, etc.) or measure individual constructs (satisfaction, quality, etc.)
and their immediate linkages, we found no complete universal cause-and-effect model for
measuring tourist satisfaction in the literature.
The proposed conceptual model of tourist satisfaction includes seven latent constructs,
with tourist satisfaction placed as the central construct. It incorporates four antecedent
constructs – i.e. quality, value, costs and risks, and image – and two outcome constructs
– i.e. complaint behavior and loyalty (see Figure 1). Nine research propositions explicated
the relationships between the constructs, based on the existing marketing and tourism
literature.

j j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 119
 Figure 1 The conceptual model

Antecedents to tourist satisfaction

The linkages among tourist satisfaction, quality and value are arguably the most widely
studied relationships in tourism literature. However, the delineation between the constructs is
a widely debated issue. An overview of the marketing literature shows that as a theoretical
construct, customer satisfaction is problematic to define and operationalize, especially in
relation to service quality. Some authors suggest that perceived service quality and
customer satisfaction are distinct constructs (Oliver, 1997; Taylor and Baker, 1994), and that
there is a causal relationship between the two (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Gotlieb et al., 1994;
Spreng and Mackoy, 1996). In some cases, however, the constructs are interchangeable
(see, for example, Parasuraman et al., 1994; Taylor and Baker, 1994; Oliver, 1997; Mittal et al.,
1998). In tourism research, Tian-Cole et al. (2002) support the former view and consider
satisfaction and quality as separate constructs.
Similar dilemmas arise in delineating quality and value. Some researchers equate perceived
utility and product quality (e.g. Fornell et al., 1996; Zeithaml, 1988), while others adopt a
broader view and define value using several other concepts apart from quality, for example
image (Ball et al., 2004) and brand (Chen et al., 2005). Johnson et al. (2001) believe there is
some tautology in the relationship between quality and value, which is why they remove the
value construct from their NCSB model and replace it with perceived price.
Based on the premise that measurement at the destination level in fact captures tourist
cumulative satisfaction, we follow Parasuraman et al.’s (1994) view that quality is an
antecedent to customer satisfaction. A number of studies in tourism research confirm a
positive relationship between quality and satisfaction (e.g. Baker and Crompton, 2000;
Murray and Howat, 2002; de Rojas and Camarero, 2008; Ruiz et al., 2009), and between
perceived value and satisfaction (Moliner et al., 2007; Murray and Howat, 2002). Several
studies also found that that the relationship between perceived quality and customer
satisfaction is partly mediated by perceived value (Chen and Tsai, 2007; Johnson et al.,
2001; Murray and Howat, 2002). Previous research results therefore support the view that
perceived value and quality are distinct constructs, both affecting tourist satisfaction
directly, and that the effect of quality on satisfaction is partly mediated by perceived value.
Hence, we propose:
P1. The quality of tourist offers at the destination level affects tourist satisfaction.
P2. The perceived value of a tourist destination’s offer affects tourist satisfaction.
P3. Quality influences the perceived value of a tourist destination’s offer.

The conceptualization of perceived value is perhaps the most controversial of all evaluative
constructs which form an integral part of customer satisfaction models. Rust and Oliver
(1994) adopt a microeconomic view that value is some combination of what is received
(utility derived from quality) and what is sacrificed (price and other costs). Today it seems
that researchers replace the traditional conception of value as a trade-off between received
utility and given sacrifices with the ‘‘utility only’’ view. Holbrook (1999) posits that the concept

j j
PAGE 120 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
of value is constituted from qualitatively different types of value like playfulness, aesthetics,
status, etc. Therefore, researchers argue that value can also be defined as a bundle of
various benefits that facilitate the achievement of customers’ personal goals (Woodruff,
1997). This suggests that it is not limited to the monetary meaning of utility only, and that
equating value with price as suggested by Johnson et al. (2001) is probably too narrow.
The constituent components of perceived value are also open to discussion, as some of its
basic components (i.e. costs, risks, sacrifices) may also be regarded as separate
constructs, especially in service settings (Cronin et al., 2000). We adopt a conceptualization
where affective and calculative benefits are the key components of perceived value (Bolton
and Drew, 1991), while costs and risks (causing disutility) represent an independent
construct in the model (Pisnik Korda and Snoj, 2007). Costs and risks (sacrifices) are
negatively related to perceived value and adversely affect customer satisfaction. The
sacrifice construct includes the element of price (Monroe, 1990; Zeithaml, 1988), non-price
components (e.g. the time and effort invested in pre-purchase activities, the actual purchase
process, etc.) as well as the risks associated with the purchase (social desirability, security,
etc.). We propose:
P4. Costs and risks construct is a direct antecedent of perceived value.

Another important antecedent to tourist satisfaction at the destination level is its image. In
some studies it acts as an antecedent of satisfaction (Ball et al., 2004), and in others as a
consequence (Johnson et al., 2001). Tasci and Gartner (2007) construct a conceptual model
predicting a bi-directional relationship between destination image and consumer behavior
on the basis of an extensive theoretical and empirical literature review. The reversed
causality implies that not only destination image affects behavior, but also that past
experiences, such as number of previous visits and length of stay, may affect image
formation. Gallarza et al. (2002) note a gap in the literature regarding the conceptualization
of destination image and design a comprehensive framework which identifies and describes
four features of the image construct showing that destination image is ‘‘simultaneously a
variable of analysis, action, strategy and tactics’’ (p. 73). Tasci et al. (2007) review a large
number of studies and come to a similar conclusion, i.e. that even though image is believed
to have a strong effect on behavior, ‘‘a systematized structure has not been achieved in
either conceptualizing or operationalizing the destination image construct’’ (p. 217).
Bigne et al.’s (2005) study of residents’ tourist behavior confirms the importance of
destination image in a quality-satisfaction-loyalty framework. Their results show that image is
a direct antecedent of the evaluation of the stay and future behavior, where perceived quality
acts as a mediator between destination image and satisfaction. Chen and Tsai (2007) report
a positive relationship between destination image and trip quality; furthermore, quality
mediates the relationship between image and perceived value. Lee et al. (2005) arrive at a
similar result by confirming a triangle of relationships among destination image quality, and
value (operationalized as affective evaluation). We posit:
P5a. Destination image influences quality perceptions at the tourist destination.
P5b. Destination image influences perceived value received at the tourist destination.

Behavioral consequences of tourist satisfaction

Satisfaction manifests itself in (re)purchase behavior (loyalty), a willingness to pay higher
prices, increased brand equity, etc. Satisfaction is an essential element for maintaining
long-term relationships with customers. It not only affects immediate repeat purchases but
also reputation (Ryan et al., 1999) and trust (Selnes, 1998). Enhanced tourist satisfaction
may lead to increased revenues and profits for service providers. Thus, recognizing and
understanding the cognitive and behavioral consequences of satisfaction has important
implications for destination management.
A key consequence of satisfaction is loyalty. Research has verified the relationship between
the two constructs both theoretically and empirically in various markets (Anderson and
Fornell, 1994; Chi and Qu, 2008; Fornell et al., 1996; Oliver, 1997; Ryan et al., 1999; Yoon and

j j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 121
 Uysal, 2005). Although researchers conceived loyalty initially in behavioral terms (as
repeated purchases), they identified various components and even types; behavioral and
attitudinal (i.e. commitment) components are the most widely acknowledged (Oliver, 1997).
The commitment component seems especially relevant as tourist attitudes strongly influence
positive or negative ‘‘word of mouth’’, which is highly relevant for a destination’s reputation.
Research shows that satisfaction leads to intention to return, to willingness to pay more, and
to willingness to recommend the destination to others (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Bigné
et al., 2005; Murray and Howat, 2002; Yoon and Uysal, 2005).
Tourist dissatisfaction may, on the other hand, lead to negative behavior, such as customer
complaining behavior which (ultimately) affects retention rates (Bolton and Drew, 1994). In
such instances, customer recovery and complaint management become paramount
(Anderson and Fornell, 1994). Understanding complaint behavior is important for improving
efficiency in customer recovery (e.g. the retention of dissatisfied customers and churn
management) and for a better allocation of marketing resources. Well-handled complaints
may have positive effects on loyalty by creating secondary satisfaction (Maxham and
Netemeyer, 2002), while those handled poorly might accentuate dissatisfaction and avert
tourists from returning to the destination. Excellent service recoveries can even lead to levels
of cumulative satisfaction that are higher than those existing prior to service failure (Ennew
and Schoefer, 2004). Therefore we posit that customer satisfaction affects customer loyalty
directly and indirectly through complaint behavior and its handling:
P6. Tourist satisfaction has a direct and positive effect on loyalty.
P7. Tourist satisfaction is inversely related to complaint behavior.
P8. Handling of complaint behavior affects loyalty.

Implications and future research

The purpose of this research was to construct a holistic model of tourist satisfaction, its
antecedents and consequences which could serve as a theoretical background for
designing a meaningful and easily applicable measurement instrument for destination
managers. Analyzing the antecedents of customer satisfaction should give insights into the
process of creating satisfaction at both the construct and indicator levels. An analysis of the
outcomes allows an assessment of the linkages among complaint behavior and customer
loyalty.
Tourist satisfaction has an important role in planning marketable tourism products and
services for destinations and its assessment must be a basic parameter used to evaluate the
performance of destination products and services (Yoon and Uysal, 2005). As Buhalis
(2000) points out, ‘‘partnership between the public and private sector and close cooperation
between all local suppliers is key to the ability of destinations to offer quality products’’
(p. 113). The complexity of destination marketing is increasing as tourists consume regions
as integrated experiences, and hence a high degree of integration (networking) of suppliers
is essential for achieving distinctive competitive advantages of any destination. The task of
measuring satisfaction at the destination level should be assumed by a DMO and the results
should be broadly disseminated among all supply-side stakeholders at the destination level
(hotels, restaurants, tourist information centers, tourist agencies, etc.) in order to facilitate
and/or enhance their co-operation, the general level of the destination’s quality and
ultimately its attractiveness.
The managerial relevance of satisfaction measurement lies primarily in its control function,
since satisfaction is one of the key measures of market effectiveness (Ambler, 2000).
Customer satisfaction, however, has a double managerial role – i.e. informative and
communicative (Vavra, 1997). The primary purpose of measuring and explaining customer
satisfaction is to understand how well suppliers at a particular destination recognize and
respond to the needs of its visitors and which elements of a destination’s offer need
improvement. Tourists’ comments, complaints and suggestions are a valuable source of
ideas for improvements and innovations. The communicative role of satisfaction
measurement is partially fulfilled by the very fact that measurement itself represents a

j j
PAGE 122 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
positive sign of interest and care for customers. Myers (1999) finds that satisfaction
measurement is aimed at several goals, all of which are relevant to the DMO, for example:
B the interest and involvement of managers in ‘‘customer’’ issues;
B a comparison with competitive destinations;
B defining and monitoring critical issues and areas;
B allocating resources;
B internal ownership (of the responsibility for customers’ satisfaction); and
B defining the DMO’s mission.
Tourist satisfaction monitoring should be performed on a continuous basis. Its results may
serve as inputs for a trend analysis on the one hand and strategic discussions on the other.
The ultimate goals of the latter should be:
B to identify strategic objectives at the destination level;
B to prepare tactical and operational plans (carefully balancing risk/cost and quality
elements); and
B ultimately to increase the competitiveness of a given destination.
Further research should concentrate on the measurement issues and take a step towards
operationalization of the model. A questionnaire developed on this basis should be
designed and implemented in such a way that allows different modes of data collection,
including face-to-face interviews, telephone surveys, web surveys, as well as
self-administered surveys. The quest for a parsimonious and easily applicable
measurement instrument imposes some limitations with respect to the number of
constructs and measured variables. While acknowledging that ‘‘no universal and optimal
competitiveness model exists for every destination’’ (Gomezelj and Mihalič, 2008, p. 302),
we have attempted to include in the framework the most widely applicable constructs. The
inclusion of additional constructs/variables would provide improved insights into customer
satisfaction and better grounds for strategic decision-making but at the same time reduce
the transparency and universality of the model.
The proposed model could be modified to allow standardized measurement of tourist
satisfaction at the level of individual suppliers (e.g. hotels, restaurants and other service
providers). This would enable a direct comparison of results across different types of
supply-side stakeholders, as well as the benchmarking of suppliers’ individual results
against the overall level of tourist satisfaction achieved at the destination level. A common
methodological basis for measuring tourist satisfaction at different interaction points
across a single destination would thus help in identifying the weakest elements in a
destination’s integrated offer and provide a valuable input for managerial decision-making
processes.

References
Ambler, T. (2000), Marketing and the Bottom Line, Prentice-Hall, London.

Anderson, E.W. and Fornell, C. (1994), ‘‘A customer satisfaction research prospectus’’, in Rust, R.T. and
Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA, pp. 241-68.

Baker, D.A. and Crompton, J.L. (2000), ‘‘Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 785-804.

Ball, D., Coelho, P.S. and Machas, A. (2004), ‘‘The role of communication and trust in explaining
customer loyalty: an extension to the ECSI model’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1272-93.

Bigné, E., Sanchez, I. and Sanz, S. (2005), ‘‘Relationships among residents’ image, evaluation of the
stay, and post-purchase behavior’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 291-302.

j j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 123
 Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991), ‘‘A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service changes on
customer attitudes’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, January, pp. 1-10.

Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1994), ‘‘Linking customer satisfaction to service operations and outcomes’’,
in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 173-98.

Briggs, S., Sutherland, J. and Drummond, S. (2007), ‘‘Are hotels serving quality? An exploratory study of
service quality in the Scottish hotel sector’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 1006-19.

Buhalis, D. (2000), ‘‘Marketing the competitive destination in the future’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 97-116.

Chen, C.-F. and Tsai, D. (2007), ‘‘How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral
intentions’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 1115-22.

Chen, T.Y., Chang, P.L. and Chang, H.S. (2005), ‘‘Price brand cues and banking customer value’’,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 273-91.

Chi, C.G.-Q. and Qu, H. (2008), ‘‘Examining structural relationship of destination image, tourist
satisfaction and destination loyalty: an integrated approach’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 624-36.

Cronin, J., Brady, J.M. and Hult, G.T. (2000), ‘‘Assessing the effects of quality, value, and satisfaction on
consumer behavioral intentions in service environments’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), ‘‘Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension’’, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.

Davison, R. and Maitland, R. (1997), Tourism Destination, Hodder and Stoughton, London.

Deng, W.J. (2007), ‘‘Using a revised importance-performance analysis approach: the case of Taiwanese
hot springs tourism’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1274-84.

de Rojas, C. and Camarero, C. (2008), ‘‘Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage
context: evidence from an interpretation center’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 525-37.

Ennew, C. and Schoefer, K. (2004), ‘‘Service failure and service recovery in tourism: a review’’, in Raj, A.
(Ed.), The Tourist: A Psychological Perspective, Tourism and Travel Research Institute, Nottingham.

Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996), ‘‘The American Customer
Satisfaction Index: nature, purpose and findings’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, October, pp. 7-18.

Fuchs, M. and Weiermair, K. (2003), ‘‘New perspectives of satisfaction research in tourism destinations’’,
Tourism Review, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 6-14.

Gallarza, M.G., Gil, I. and Calderon, H. (2002), ‘‘Destination image. Towards a conceptual framework’’,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 56-78.

Goeldner, C.R. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2003), Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Gomezelj, D.O. and Mihalič, T. (2008), ‘‘Destination competitiveness – applying different models, the
case of Slovenia’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 294-307.

Gotlieb, J.B., Grewal, D. and Brown, S.W. (1994), ‘‘Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality:
complementary or divergent constructs?’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, December, pp. 875-85.

Hall, C.M. (2000), Tourism Planning: Policies, Processes, Relationships, Prentice-Hall, Harlow.

Holbrook, M.B. (1999), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, Routledge, London.

Hui, T.K., Wan, D. and Ho, A. (2007), ‘‘Tourists’ satisfaction, recommendation and revisiting Singapore’’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 965-75.

Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W., Lervik, L. and Cha, J. (2001), ‘‘The evolution and future of
national customer satisfaction index models’’, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 217-45.

Johnston, R. and Heineke, J. (1998), ‘‘Exploring the relationship between perception and performance:
priorities for action’’, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 101-12.

Kozak, M. (2001), ‘‘Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across two
nationalities’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 391-401.

j j
PAGE 124 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009
Lee, C., Lee, Y. and Lee, B. (2005), ‘‘Korea’s destination image formed by the 2002 World Cup’’, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 839-58.

Leiper, N. (1995), Tourism Management, RMIT Press, Melbourne.

Lovelock, C. and Wright, L. (1999), Principles of Service Marketing and Management, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Martilla, J.A. and James, J.C. (1977), ‘‘Importance-performance analysis’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 77-9.

Maxham, J.G. and Netemeyer, R.G. (2002), ‘‘Modelling customer perceptions of complaint handling
over time: the effects of perceived justice on satisfaction and intent’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78,
pp. 239-52.

Mittal, V., Ross, W.T. and Baldasare, P.M. (1998), ‘‘The asymmetric impact of negative and positive
attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions’’, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 33-47.

Moliner, M.A., Sanchez, J., Rodriguez, R.M. and Callarisa, L. (2007), ‘‘Perceived relationship quality and
post-purchase perceived value: an integrative framework’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos
11/12, pp. 1392-422.

Monroe, A.K. (1990), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (1998), Tourism Promotion and Power: Creating Images, Creating
Identities, Wiley, Chichester.

Murray, D. and Howat, G. (2002), ‘‘The relationships among service quality, value, satisfaction, and
future intentions of customers at an australian sports and leisure centre’’, Sport Management Review,
Vol. 5, pp. 25-34.

Myers, J.H. (1999), Measuring Customer Satisfaction, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.

Oliver, R.L. (1980), ‘‘A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions’’,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 460-9.

Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oliver, R.L. and Swan, J.E. (1989), ‘‘Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction in
transactions: a field survey approach’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, April, pp. 21-35.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L.L. (1994), ‘‘Reassessment of expectations as a comparison
standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58,
January, pp. 111-24.

Pearce, D.G. (1997), ‘‘Competitive destination analysis in Southeast Asia’’, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 16-24.

Pisnik Korda, A. and Snoj, B. (2007), ‘‘Direct and indirect effects of perceived price and perceived value
of the mobile phone’’, Annals of Telecommunications, Vol. 62 Nos 9/10, pp. 913-35.

Ruiz, D.M., Gremler, D.D., Washburn, J.H. and Carrion, G.C. (2009), ‘‘Service value revisited: specifying
a higher-order, formative measure’’, Journal of Business Research, forthcoming.

Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (1994), ‘‘Service quality: insights and managerial implications from the
frontier’’, in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-19.

Ryan, M.J., Rayner, R. and Morrison, A. (1999), ‘‘Diagnosing customer loyalty drivers’’, Marketing
Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 19-26.

Sautter, E.T. and Leisen, B. (1999), ‘‘Managing stakeholders: a tourism planning model’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 312-28.

Seaton, A. (1997), ‘‘Destination marketing’’, in Seaton, A. and Bennett, M. (Eds), Marketing Tourism
Products: Concept, Issues, Cases, Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 350-76.

Selnes, F. (1998), ‘‘Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller

relationships’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 3/4, pp. 305-22.

j j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH PAGE 125
 Sheehan, L., Ritchie, J.R.B. and Hudson, S. (2007), ‘‘The destination promotion triad: understanding
asymmetric stakeholder interdependencies among the city, hotels, and DMO’’, Journal of Travel
Research, Vol. 46, August, pp. 64-74.

Spreng, R.A. and Mackoy, R.D. (1996), ‘‘An empirical examination of a model of perceived service
quality and satisfaction’’, Journal of Retailing, Summer, pp. 201-14.

Taylor, S.A. and Baker, T.L. (1994), ‘‘An assessment of the relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction in the formation of consumer’s purchase intentions’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70
No. 2, pp. 163-78.

Tasci, A.D.A. and Gartner, W.C. (2007), ‘‘Destination image and its functional relationship’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 413-25.

Tasci, A.D.A., Gartner, W.C. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2007), ‘‘Conceptualization and operationalization of
destination image’’, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 194-223.

Tian-Cole, J., Crompton, L. and Willson, V.L. (2002), ‘‘An empirical investigation of the relationships
between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions among visitors to a wildlife refuge’’,
Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-24.

Truong, T.-H. and Foster, D. (2006), ‘‘Using HOLSAT to evaluate tourist satisfaction at destinations: the
case of Australia holidaymakers in Vietnam’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 842-55.

Tse, D.K. and Wilton, P.C. (1988), ‘‘Models of consumer satisfaction: an extension’’, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 204-12.

Vavra, T.G. (1997), Improving Your Measurement of Customer Satisfaction, ASQ Quality Press,
Milwaukee, WI.

Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2005), ‘‘An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on
destination loyalty: a structural model’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 45-56.

Woodruff, R.B. (1997), ‘‘Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage’’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-53.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), ‘‘Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.

Corresponding author
Tanja Dmitrović is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
tanja.dmitrovic@ef.uni-lj.si

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
PAGE 126 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH VOL. 3 NO. 2 2009

View publication stats