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

net/publication/233432892

Satisfaction

Article in Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · October 2006

DOI: 10.1300/J073v20n01_05

CITATIONS READS
25 748

2 authors, including:

Rodoula H. Tsiotsou
University of Macedonia
133 PUBLICATIONS 2,687 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rodoula H. Tsiotsou on 07 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Satisfaction:
A Segmentation Criterion for “Short Term” Visitors
of Mountainous Destinations
Rodoula Tsiotsou
Eleytheria Vasioti

ABSTRACT. The purpose of the study was to study the “short-term” visitors of mountainous des-
tinations in order to gain a better understanding of this market and improve marketing practices.
The objectives of the study were (a) to develop a measurement instrument on “short-term” visitors’
satisfaction and (b) to segment “short-term” visitors of mountainous destinations based on their
satisfaction. An anonymous questionnaire was given to 170 subjects who participated in a
three-day trip organized by travel agencies to the mountainous region of Hepeiros, Greece, from
November 2003 to February 2004. The questionnaire was given the last day of the trip and was
answered by 115 individuals (68% response rate). A factor analysis followed by a cluster analy-
sis on satisfaction was performed for identifying distinct tourist segments. Classification with
discriminant analysis was used to test the two satisfaction segments. Furthermore, a Multivariate
Analysis of Variance was employed to better describe the segments using demographics and
physical activities as the dependent variables. The findings of the study provide theoretical
and practical implications in identifying homogeneous segments, in predicting satisfac-
tion level, and increasing marketing effectiveness. doi:10.1300/J073v20n01_05 [Article copies avail-
able for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:
<docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The Haworth
Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Consumer satisfaction, visitor segmentation, tourism services, physical activities,

mountainous destinations

(industry 12.4% and agriculture 9%) in Greece.

INTRODUCTION
Greece is a tourism destination and tourism
is one of the main sectors that contribute sig-
nificantly to the economic development of the
country. According to the National Institute
for Tourism Research and Predictions (2004),
tourism contributes to the Gross National
Product by 22%, more that any other sector
Tourism is one of the main industries in Greece
that stimulates economic development in in-
dustries from hospitality, transportation, con-
struction, and retail, to small business such as
restaurants, bars, and tourism agents.
However, no much scientific data exists on
tourism in Greece. In particular, there is lim-
ited information on international tourists that

Rodoula Tsiotsou is Associate Professor, Department of Commerce and Advertising, Higher Technological Ed-
ucation Institution (A.T.E.I.) of Crete, Palama & Kakridi, Ierapetra, TK 72200, Greece (E-mail: rtsiotsou@yahoo.
gr). Eleytheria Vasioti is Administrative Assistant, Region of Hepeiros, Voreiou Ipeirou 20, TK 45 445 Ioannina,
Greece.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 20(1) 2006
Available online at http://jttm.haworthpress.com
 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J073v20n01_05 61
62 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
visit the country and even less data on Greek
tourists. “Internal” tourism (Greeks who take
their vacation in Greece) is developing rapidly
in Greece the last decades. According to
Eurostat (the statistics office of the European
Union), 56% of the Greek population prefers
Greece as the place for its vacation. Moreover,
Greek tourists spend more money during their
vacation than foreign tourists (Glynia, Lytras,
& Maras, 2004).
Lately, several changes that refer to “inter-
nal” tourism have taken place. The Greek
tourist is not a “passive” tourist anymore but
prefers to be involved in activities during his/
her vacation. A study conducted by GFK Mar-
ket Analysis in 20 countries (with a sample
size of 20,818 tourists) revealed that Greeks
are very fanatic in participating in physical ac-
tivities during their vacation. The majority of
Greeks (71%) exercise during their vacation
and swimming is the most preferred physical
activity (“Vacations Hobbies,” 2004). In addi-
tion, it has been noted that more and more
Greeks prefer “short-term” vacations than
“long-term” vacations. Vacation time has ex-
panded to winter period whereas a few de-
cades ago it was limited to the summer
period only. Furthermore, near the coasts
places are not the only destination choices
anymore. Mountainous regions are attracting
“short-term” visitors and especially during
winter time. The “internal” vacation market
has changed mainly due to financial and time
constraints and weekends have become the
most favorable time for short vacations (Na-
tional Institute for Tourism Research and Pre-
dictions, 2001). However, there is no much
knowledge about these “new Greek tourists,”
their demographics, wants, needs, behavior
and satisfaction with “short-term” trips.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to study
the “short-term” visitors of mountainous des-
tinations in order to gain a better understand-
ing of this market and improve marketing
practices. Specifically, the objectives of the
study were: (a) to develop a measurement in-
strument on “short-term” visitors’ satisfaction,
and (b) to segment “short-term” visitors of
mountainous destinations based on their satis-
faction.
The visitors were defined based on their
length of stay. “Short-term” visitors refer to those
taking a vacation from one to six nights whereas
“long-term” visitors are those taking a vaca-
tion for more than six nights. This categoriza-
tion has been proposed by Neal (2003) and
was adapted for the purpose of this study.
Because satisfaction plays a central role in
marketing tourism services, it was chosen as
the main variable of the study. Demographics,
preferred physical activities and perceived
level of competence in these activities were in-
cluded in the study after reviewing the related
literature. The combination of satisfaction, de-
mographics and preferred physical activities
has not been used before for segmentation pur-
poses in the tourism literature. Thus, besides
gaining a better understanding of “short-term”
visitors’ behavior, the study could contribute
theoretically to the tourism literature. More-
over, this study proposes the combination of
cluster analysis, classification with discriminant
analysis, and Multivariate Analysis of Vari-
ance for segmenting tourists, as another meth-
odological approach that provides the benefit
of segmentation and a better description of the
segments.
The following research questions have been
raised after reviewing the related literature:
1. Could “short-term” visitors be divided
into sub-segments based on their satis-
faction?
2. Do satisfaction segments differ in their
demographics and preferred physical ac-
tivities?
The first research question investigates
whether satisfaction can be used as a criterion
to segment “short-term” visitors of mountain-
ous destinations into mutually exclusive groups.
The second question refers to whether demo-
graphics and physical activities could lead to
significant differences between satisfaction
segments.
Following, the review of literature on satis-
faction and segmentation provides the con-
ceptual framework of the study. Then, the
methodology and results of the study are pre-
sented. Finally, the paper concludes by dis-
cussing the results and their implications and
by providing recommendations for future re-
search.
 Rodoula Tsiotsou and Eleytheria Vasioti
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Consumer and Tourist Satisfaction
Consumer satisfaction is a topic that at-
tracted the interest of marketing scholars the
last few decades. However, though consumer
satisfaction has been studied extensively, a
generally accepted definition does not exist.
Giese and Cote (2000) have defined satisfac-
tion as a summary affective response of vary-
ing intensity with a time specific point of
determination and limited duration directed
toward focal aspects of product acquisition
and/or consumption.
Consumer satisfaction is one of the most
important constructs (Morgan, Attaway, & Grif-
fin, 1996; McQuitty, Finn, & Wiley, 2000)
and constitutes one of the main goals in mar-
keting (Erevelles & Leavitt, 1992) because it
is a good predictor of purchase behavior (re-
purchase, purchase intentions, brand choice
and switching behavior) (McQuitty, Finn, &
Wiley).
Various theories and models have been
developed in an effort to define the construct
and explain satisfaction. The expectancy-
disconfirmation paradigm (Oliver, 1980), the
perceived performance model (Churchill &
Surprenant, 1982) as well as attribution mod-
els (Folkes, 1984), affective models (West-
brook, 1987) and equity models (Oliver &
DeSarbo, 1988) are only some of the main the-
oretical bases developed to explain consumer
satisfaction. The above approaches have raised
several issues and debates among marketing
scholars. Some of the questions refer to (a) the
application of each model; which of the mod-
els are best applicable in different consump-
tion situations and for different products
(Erevelles & Leavitt, 1992); (b) the measure-
ment of satisfaction; different measurement
instruments should be used for different
products and services; (c) the definition of
satisfaction; should it be defined with focus
on the response (construct) or on the process
(model) (Giese & Cote, 2000)?
Satisfaction has been studied in different
products and services as well as consumption
stages. Many studies have been conducted on
satisfaction with travel and tourism services.
Satisfaction in travel and tourism has become
63
a major research area in the last three decades
(Fallon & Schofield, 2003; Kozak, Bigne, &
Andreu, 2003). It has been recommended that
tourist satisfaction should be taken into ac-
count when assessing the strengths and weak-
nesses of a tourism organization. Moreover, it
should be considered when forecasting de-
mand for developing the marketing strategy.
Tourist satisfaction is central to marketing and
should feed into the strategic and operational
planning of tourism organizations (Satish &
Menezes, 2001).
Tourist satisfaction has been explained by
different variables acting either as antecedents
or as mediators. It has been found that tourist
(visitor) satisfaction is determined by the ex-
tent to which desired outcomes or benefits are
realized (Tian-Cole & Cromption, 2003), by
the type of location and the number of facili-
ties (Webb & Hassall, 2002) and by the emo-
tions evoked (Bigne & Andreu, 2004). It has
been also proposed that the role of personnel is
important in explaining tourist satisfaction
(Noe & Uysal, 2003) whereas demographic
variables such as age and education can be
good predictors of the level of satisfaction
(Tsiotsou & Vasioti, 2006).
Moreover, satisfaction can act a mediator in
tourist behavior. Knutson, Singh, Yen, and
Bryant (2003) have proposed the American
Consumer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) model as
a measurement instrument of service quality
in the hotel industry. In this model, customer
expectations, perceived quality and perceived
value are the antecedents of satisfaction
whereas customer complaints and customer
loyalty are the consequences. According to
Baloglu, Pekcan, Chen, and Santos (2003)
satisfaction plays a mediating role between
attribute based destination performance and
behavioral intentions (return intention and rec-
ommendation). Lee, Graefe, and Burns (2004)
found that service quality is an antecedent of
satisfaction and satisfaction is a mediator
between service quality and behavioral in-
tentions. Satisfaction is also a significant pre-
dictor of destination loyalty (Yoon & Uysal,
2005) purchase intentions (Ekinci, 2003). Fur-
thermore, it has been state that multiple com-
parison standards are used by consumers when
determining their satisfaction (Ekinci).
64 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
Different tourist segments have been de-
scribed by their satisfaction. Andereck and
Caldwell (1994) have reported that satisfac-
tion and enjoyment demonstrated significant
differences among segments in tourism mar-
ket while demographic variables displayed
little difference in their study. Significant sat-
isfaction differences have been identified be-
tween “short-term” and “long-term” visitors,
and first time and repeated visitors. Short-term
visitors are less satisfied with perceived ser-
vice quality and perceived reasonableness of
the cost of their travel destination than long-
term visitors (Neal, 2003). Similarly, repeated
visitors score higher in satisfaction than first-
time visitors (Baloglu et al., 2003). Further-
more, overall satisfaction varies according to
the length of stay, gender and decision horizon
(Huh & Uysal, 2003). Since satisfaction varies
from segment to segment, it is recommended
that it should be measured and predicted in
each segment separately (Baloglu et al.) to
gain a better understanding of tourists and
their needs. Satisfaction as a base for tourist
segmentation has not attracted researchers and
marketers attention though it has been found
to be different among segments (Yuksel &
Yuksel, 2002; Petrick, 2002). Thus, studies
using satisfaction as segmentation criterion are
necessary for better understanding different
tourist segments.
Segmentation
Market segmentation has become one of
the main practices in marketing that assists in
identifying distinct groups of consumers. These
groups have similar needs, wants, attitudes,
shopping habits, media usage, price sensitivity
and other. The goal of segmentation is to
identify homogeneous groups of consumers
in order to satisfy their needs and increase
marketing effectiveness. The information gath-
ered through market segmentation is crucial in
the strategic marketing planning process of a
company.
There are two types of segmentations, “a
priori” and “post hoc” segmentation. “A priori”
segmentation is when the variable used as a
criterion to divide a market is known in ad-
vance whereas “post hoc” segmentation is when
there is no knowledge about distinct groups
and a set of variables is used as the base for
segmentation (Chen, 2003).
Different variables have been used as the
bases of segmentation. The most often used
variables for segmenting consumer markets
are demographic (age, gender, family status,
income), geographic, behavioral (benefits,
frequency of use, loyalty), and psychographic
(lifestyle, personality characteristics) (Kotler,
2000).
Segmentation has been often used to iden-
tify distinct groups of tourists because like any
other market, tourists do not respond homoge-
neously to marketing activities. The diversity
of products and customers in tourism has made
segmentation a necessary tool for responding
to changes and to an increasingly competitive
environment.
The most often used bases for segmenting
tourists are demographic, socioeconomic, and
lifestyle variables. Specifically, the variables
recommended for tourist segmentation are
demographic characteristics (Chen, 2000;
Sung, 2004), activities (Sung, 2004; Sung,
Morrison, & O’Leary, 2000), travel expendi-
ture (Mok & Iverson, 2000), benefits (Frochot,
2005; Frochot & Morrison, 2000), and moti-
vation (Sellick, 2004).
In terms of the role of demographics in seg-
menting tourists, different findings have been
reported. Age and occupation differed signifi-
cantly among Norwegian tourist segments
(Chen, 2000), gender, age and marital status
were found to be significantly different among
adventure trip segments (Sung, 2004) and age
differed between heavy and light spenders
(Mok & Iverson, 2000). However, it has been
also found that marital status, gender and oc-
cupation did not differ significantly among ex-
penditure-based segments (Mok & Iverson),
neither age, education, marital status and
income among risk taking-sensation seeking
tourist segments (Pizam et al., 2004). It seems
that it not clear whether demographics act as
discriminating factors among segments or not.
Further research is needed to identify in which
occasions demographics are important in seg-
menting tourists.
Activities have been often used to segment
tourists of different trip type, age and na-
tional origin. It has been suggested that tour-
ists who prefer certain activities are likely to
 Rodoula Tsiotsou and Eleytheria Vasioti
differ from others who participate in different
types of activities (Jeffrey & Xie, 1995). How-
ever, activities are not well defined in the
travel and tourism literature. More often the
term refers to physical activities (or sport ac-
tivities) and sometimes to cultural or other ac-
tivities such as shopping. For the purpose of
this study, the literature in relation to segmen-
tation and physical activities is reviewed.
There are two segmentation approaches, ei-
ther a priori segmentation based on activities
or posteriori segmentation that leads to the
identification of “active” segments. Sung et al.
(2000, p. 17) identified six physical activity
segments (soft nature, risk equipped, question
marks, hard challenge, rugged nature and win-
ter snow) and suggested that “activity sets are
associated with distinct groups of customers
who have varying demographic and travel
characteristics.” They further argued that ac-
tivities should be taken into account when
studying adventure traveler segments because
they are associated with consumer preferences.
Adventure trip segments differ in trip-related
characteristics, demographic and socioeco-
nomic characteristics (Sung, 2004). Similarly,
it has been found that high risk taking-sensa-
tion seeking tourist score significantly higher
in physical activities than low risk taking-sen-
sation seeking tourists of eleven different
countries (Pizam et al., 2004). Thus, it be-
comes evident that physical activities can dis-
criminate among different tourist segments.
In posteriori segmentation, the identifica-
tion of “physical active” segments is very
common. In most segmentation studies at least
one segment is characterized by its preference
in active participation in physical activities.
Preference for active participation in physical
activity (sports) was the main factor along
with age and social class that distinguished the
“actives” from the other segments of rural
tourists in Scotland (Frochot, 2005), the “ac-
tive individual tourists” of Austria (Dolnicar
& Leisch, 2004) and the “carefree wellness
tourists” in Czech Republic (Tureckova, 2002).
Even in senior tourist segments physical activ-
ity as travel motive is different among seg-
ments. The “enthusiastic-connectors” segment
of Sellick’s study (2004) scored higher in
physical activity than the other three segments
of senior tourists. Similarly, the “physicals”
65
(seniors who traveled so they participate in a
physical activity) were one of the segments
identified by Astic and Muller (1999).
Another aspect of tourism segmentation be-
ing studied is the role of the length of a trip.
Neal (2003) categorized tourists as “short-term
visitors” (those who stayed from one to six
nights) and “long-term visitors” (those who
stayed seven or more nights). These two types
of visitors differ in their satisfaction with the
efficiency of travel and tourism services.
“Long-term” visitors are significantly more
satisfied than “short-term” visitors. Conse-
quently, it is necessary to investigate what are
the factors that influence “short-term” visitors
satisfaction since this segment seems to be-
have differently from “long-term” visitors.
After reviewing the related literature, it be-
came apparent that demographics and physi-
cal activities should be used in the study in
order to identify homogeneous segments. It
has been argued that activities should be the
primary base for tourist segmentation (Sung
et al., 2000) whilst demographics should be
used too because in several cases their ef-
fect might be significant (Tsiotsou, 2006).
Moreover, “short-term” visitors have not been
studied adequately in travel and tourism litera-
ture. Thus, “short-term” visitors became the
population of interest for this study while sat-
isfaction, demographics and physical activi-
ties became the variables to be studied in order
to gain a better understanding of these visitors.
METHODOLOGY
The study utilized the survey research method
to study consumer satisfaction with tourism
services. Specifically, en route survey meth-
odology was used due to its cost effectiveness
and the reduction of response errors (memory
bias) (Hurst, 1994).
An anonymous questionnaire was given to
170 subjects who participated in a three-day
trip (“short-term visitors”) organized by travel
agencies to the mountainous region of Hepeiros,
Greece, from November 2003 to February
2004. The questionnaire was given the last day
of the trip before their departure and was an-
swered by 115 individuals (68% response rate).
Table 1 presents the data analyses process.
66 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
TABLE 1. Data Analysis Procedure of the Study
Data Analysis Results
Analysis of Sample Description of the sample
Demographics
Factor Analysis Five factors were extracted
on Satisfaction Instrument validated and evaluated
Case Analysis Identified if serious violations of the
assumptions of independence, multivariate
normality and the
homogeneity of variance/covariance
matrices exist
Cluster Analysis Identified “short-term” visitors segments
(K-means)
Discriminant Analysis Tested the reliability of the two-segment
solution
Classification Evaluated the predictability of the
classification functions (cross validation)
Multivariate Analysis
of Variance (MANOVA)
Described the segments in relation to other
variables (demographics
and physical activities)
Instrumentation
A self-developed questionnaire was used to
gather data from “short-term” visitors of the
mountainous region of Hepeiros. The ques-
tionnaire consisted of three parts. Part I mea-
sured visitors satisfaction, Part II gathered data
on the preferred physical activities and Part III
gathered demographic data.
Part I consisted of 32 items that had to be
rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all
satisfied, 5 = completely satisfied). The self-
developed satisfaction questions were used due
to the unique aspects of the specific tourist
destination (sport activities, cultural activities,
traditional food testing and sight seeing were
included in the three-day trip). Subjects ex-
pressed their satisfaction in relation to the
destination they visited. It had been recom-
mended that different satisfaction survey in-
struments should be developed, tailored to
different types of customers and research ques-
tions (Fallon & Schofield, 2003; Giese & Cote,
2000).
RESULTS
Sample Demographics
The majority of the respondents participat-
ing in the study were males (64%) whereas
only 36% were females (Table 2). From these,
66% were single, 8% were married with no
children and 25% were married with children
(1% declared that had another family status).
Regarding their age, 52% of the respondents
were between 26-35 years old, 22% were up to
25 years, 22% were between 36-45 years and
4% were between 46-55 years old.
Regarding their level of education, most of
the respondents had a university degree (50%),
20% had a high school diploma, 18% had a
graduate degree and 12% graduated from a vo-
cational education institution. Most of the
respondents were independent professionals
(32%), several also worked in the private sec-
tor (25%) whereas only 22% were employees
in the public sector, some were students (17%)
or unemployed (4%).
In terms of physical activities, the respon-
dents could participate in activities such as
horseback riding, rafting, walking and others.
The study showed that the most preferred ac-
tivity was rafting (54%), second most selected
was walking (34.5%), third most preferred
was horseback riding (9.7%) whereas only a
1.8% preferred another activity.
Finally, 80% of the respondents had visited
before the mountainous region of Hepeiros
whilst 16.5% visited it for the first time (3.5%
did not reply to the question).
Factor Analysis
A factor analysis was used to identify the
underlying structure of the 32 variables re-
flecting various aspects of satisfaction. The
variables were reduced to 22 during the analy-
sis (10 items dropped because either they were
highly correlated with others or not correlated
at all). The Maximum Likelihood procedure
was used to determine the dimensionality of
the factor model. Sampling tests were used
to determine the appropriateness of the sam-
ple being used for the factor analysis. A Kai-
ser-Meyer-Olkin test measuring the adequacy
of sampling was conducted (produced a p-value
of .792) and provided evidence that the sample
used for the study was adequate. Based on
Kaiser’s rule of selection (eigenvalues larger
to 1), six factors were extracted; they accounted
for 74.6% of the total variance. However, a six-
factor solution indicated a lack of model fit
 Rodoula Tsiotsou and Eleytheria Vasioti
TABLE 2. Sample Demographics (Frequencies and Proportions), N = 115
Gender
Males 73 (64%) Up to 25
Females 40 (36%) 26-35
36-45
46-55
Education
High school 22 (20.2%) Unemployed
IEK 13 (11.9%) Student
University 54 (49.5%) Public sector
Graduate degree 19 (17.4%) Private sector
Other 1 (.9%) Free agent
(p-value for fit test = .186 and 64 (21%) resid-
uals). Thus, a five-factor solution was exam-
ined and seemed that it was the best approach
(explained variance 70.3%; p-value for fit test =
.038; Chi-square statistic = 199.682, 59 resid-
uals (21%)) (Table 3).
An oblique rotation (delta = 0) was chosen
because of the theoretical expectation that the
resulting factors would in reality be corre-
lated. The factors were labeled as personnel
satisfaction, food satisfaction, excursion sat-
isfaction, socialization satisfaction and land-
scape satisfaction. The factors Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha ranged from .847 to .957 and
the correlations between the factors ranged
from ⫺.033 to .481.
Cluster Analysis (K-Means)
To segment “short-term” visitors of moun-
tainous destinations, cluster analysis (K-Means)
was used on the five satisfaction factors. Due
to small sample size, a solution of two seg-
ments seemed reasonable. Based on their mean
in the five satisfaction factors, the two seg-
ments were named as low satisfaction and
high satisfaction. The low satisfaction seg-
ment represented 37% of the sample whereas
the high satisfaction segment represented 63%
of the sample. To validate the 2-cluster solu-
tion, cluster membership was related (one-way
ANOVA and Duncan multiple-range test) to
the original five satisfaction factors. Between
groups and within groups differences were
tested using one-way Analysis of Variances
(ANOVAs) (Table 4). Cluster means were found
67
Age Marital Status
25 (22.3%) Single 74 (66.1%)
58 (51.8%) Married no children 9 (8%)
25 (22.3%) Married with children 28 (25%)
4 (3.6%) Other 1 (.9%)
Employment Status Preferred Physical Activities
5 (4.4%) Horseback riding 11 (9.7%)
19 (16.8%) Rafting 61 (54%)
25 (22.1%) Walking 39 (34.5%)
28 (24.8%) Other 2 (1.8%)
36 (31.9%)
significantly different on all 5 factors at the
0.05 level.
Classification with Discriminant Analysis
To evaluate the two-segment solution and
test for significant differences between the two
segments, classification with discriminant anal-
ysis was used. Classification with discriminant
analysis involves classifying subjects into the
one of several groups on the basis of a set of
measurements. Discriminant analysis pro-
vides information on the strength of the rela-
tionship between each segment and the criterion
of interest and assists in correctly classifying
new observations into the identified segments
(Chen, 2003).
The five satisfaction factors used to gener-
ate the cluster solution were the independent
variables of the analysis. The total sample was
randomly split into a development sample of
36 subjects and a cross validation sample of 79
subjects to assess the classification accuracy
of the discriminant variates. The classification
function was computed first on the develop-
ment sample and then checked its hit rate on
the cross validation sample. The classification
variables were the five satisfaction factors.
The homogeneity of variance/covariance test
(Box’s M) indicated that the data did not vio-
late the assumption (fail to reject at the .05
level; F = 1.219, p = .249).
The overall multivariate relationship
(MANOVA) was statistically significant at
the .05 (chi square = 42.920; Wilk’s L = .256;
p = 0.000) indicating that the difference between
the two segments was statistically significant.
68 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING

TABLE 3. Factor Loadings for Satisfaction

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Factor 1: Personnel Satisfaction
Expert drivers/escorts .842
Consistent drivers/escorts .809
Helpful drivers/escorts .779
Useful guides .739
Friendly personnel .657
Well organized trip .413
Factor 2: Food Satisfaction
Tasteful local food ⫺.967
Good food ⫺.924
Opportunities for trying new food ⫺.838
Factor 3: Excursions Satisfaction
Fascinating excursions .878
Opportunities for excursions .731
Opportunities for tours .559
Factor 4: Socialization Satisfaction
Opportunities for shopping .699
Socialization with others .603
Good quality for the money spent .541
Interesting cultural choices .538
Opportunities for socializing with new people .441
Factor 5: Landscape Satisfaction
Fascinating view .836
Beautiful environment .664
Opportunity for multiple paths .466
Enough free time .406
Friendly people .305
Eigenvalue 9.273 2.932 1.877 1.498 1.288
Variance (%) 38.6 12.2 7.8 6.2 5.4
Cumulative Variance (%) 38.6 50.9 58.7 64.9 70.3
Cronbach’s Alpha .941 .957 .877 .853 .847
Number of Items (total = 22) 6 3 3 5 5

TABLE 4. Cluster Analysis Results (N = 115)

Factor Low Satisfaction Segment High Satisfaction Segment F Significance

(37%) (63%)
Personnel Satisfaction 2.96 4.37 73.126 0.000
Food Satisfaction 2.35 3.94 64.748 0.000
Excursions Satisfaction 4.05 4.39 5.535 0.021
Socialization Satisfaction 2.67 3.65 51.066 0.000
Landscape Satisfaction 3.69 4.42 31.568 0.000

The MANOVA results indicated that the two
satisfaction segments (low and high satisfac-
tion) differed significantly with regard to the
means of the independent variables. Thus, the
five satisfaction factors were able to discrimi-
nate between the two satisfaction segments.
The analysis continued by evaluating the con-
tribution of each independent variable to the
discrimination of the two satisfaction segments.
All univariate F-tests were significant at the
0.05 level.
The analysis continued with the evaluation
of the performance of the classification proce-
dure. The results for the development sample
indicated a 100% correct classification rate
whereas the “hit rate” for the cross validation
sample decreased to 95.3% though it re-
mained very high. The precision of correct
classification was high, indicating good inter-
nal consistencies of the two segments and pro-
viding support for the appropriateness of the
two-segment solution. However, according to
Aldenderfer and Blashfield (1984) high
classification accuracy is strong evidence of
reliability (internal consistency) but not of va-
lidity.
 Rodoula Tsiotsou and Eleytheria Vasioti
Multivariate Analysis of Variance
(MANOVA)
As it has been recommended, the best way
to test the cluster solution is to validate the
clustering solution on a set of external vari-
ables different from those used to produce the
clusters (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). By
doing so, the external validity is demonstrated
whilst the segments can be better profiled.
Thus, to assess the validity of the two satisfac-
tion segments identified, Multivariate Analy-
sis of Variance (MANOVA) was employed.
MANOVA was chosen over one-way ANOVAs
(the usual methodological approach taken in
the tourism segmentation literature) to secure
a better protection against the inflation of fam-
ily-wise error rate. Age, education, family sta-
tus, preferred physical activities and perceived
level of competence in these activities were
the dependent variables of the MANOVA
analysis.
To test the equality (homogeneity) of the
covariance matrices in each segment for the
five dependent variables, the Box test was
used. The Box test was not significant (F =
1.632, p = 0.057) indicating that the homoge-
neity of the covariance matrices assumption
was tenable at the 0.05 level. Descriptive statis-
tics of the variables are presented on Table 5.
Thus, a MANOVA was conducted with fol-
low-up Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs).
The overall multivariate null hypothesis (Ho:
population mean vectors are equal), tested to
determine if any differences existed within the
groups in the dependent variables, was re-
jected (Wilks L = 0.849, p = 0.015; Hotellings
test = 0.178, p = 0.015). Thus, it was con-
cluded that the two satisfaction segments
TABLE 5. Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Results on the Dependent Variables (N = 115)
Variable (range) Low Satisfaction Segment
Mean Standard Deviation
Education (1-5) 2.35 0.981
Age (1-6) 2.26 0.790
Family Status (1-4) 1.85 0.958
Preferred Physical Activity (1-6) 3.06 1.013
Level of Competence (1-4) 2.03 1.000
* Significant at the 0.05 level.
** Significant at the 0.1 level.
69
differed in terms of their demographics and
physical activities.
Univariate F-tests were run for all sets of
groups on the dependent variables to deter-
mine where the differences existed. Signifi-
cant differences between groups on three out
of the five dependent variables were detected
(Table 5). Education, age and family status
(the three demographic variables) were signif-
icantly different in the two satisfaction seg-
ments.
DISCUSSION/IMPLICATIONS
Several studies have used different segmen-
tation approaches to resolve some marketing
issues facing today’s tourism. The purpose of
the present study was to gain a better under-
standing of “short-term” visitors of mountain-
ous destinations in order to improve marketing
strategies. The study takes a useful approach
that could assist marketers in identifying valu-
able segments effectively. Satisfaction can be
used to identify distinct segments of “short-
term” visitors while demographics can assist
in better profiling these segments. Moreover,
the results of the study provide useful infor-
mation to mountainous destinations managers
for improving their services in Greece.
In general, the results of the study are sig-
nificant for theoretical and practical reasons.
The analysis has given some very important
insight into the role of education, age, and
family status on “short-term” visitor satis-
faction. The study confirmed previous find-
ings about the important role demographic
characteristics play when segmenting travel
and tourism markets (Mok & Iverson, 2000;
High Satisfaction Segment F Sign.
Mean Standard Deviation
2.86 1.008 5.490 0.021*
1.93 0.728 4.223 0.043*
1.51 0.869 3.096 0.082**
3.37 0.837 2.484 0.119
1.79 0.796 1.594 0.210
70 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
Chen, 2000; Sung, 2004; Tsiotsou & Vasioti,
2006). However, the results did not confirm
the importance of physical activities in identi-
fying homogenous groups of tourists (Jeffrey
& Xie, 1995; Sung). The study also provides
new insights into the relationship between sat-
isfaction and demographics.
Based on the demographic characteristics
gathered by the study, the profile of “short-
term” visitors of mountainous destinations
seems to be as follows. “Short-term” visitors
are males, 26-35 years old, singles with a uni-
versity degree who work as free agents, prefer
adventure physical activities such as rafting
during their trips and they have visited before
the same mountainous destinations.
The instrument developed to measure “short-
term” visitor satisfaction extracted five factors
and produced satisfactory results. The five-
factor solution explained much of the variance
of the construct (70.3%) and does better than
other instruments developed to measure tour-
ist satisfaction. For example, Shanka and Tay-
lor (2003) extracted a three-factor solution
(three important attributes: physical facilities,
service experience and services provided) that
explained only 60.6% of tourist satisfaction.
Fallon and Schofield’s study (2003) resulted
in five factors (“performance only”: facilita-
tors, secondary attractions, tertiary attractions,
core attractions and transport) that explained
56.54% of the total variance of satisfaction.
Thus, the satisfaction instrument developed in
this study seems to do a better job in predicting
tourist satisfaction than other ones. Of course
improvements could be made to increase pre-
dictability and explain more of the variance of
satisfaction. However, it could be used for fu-
ture studies of “short-term visitors” in similar
tourism settings and it could be tested for
“long-term visitors.”
Cluster analysis produced two distinct seg-
ments: visitors highly satisfied and visitors
less satisfied with a three-day trip to the moun-
tainous region of Hepeiros. The hypothesis
that satisfaction will classify “short-term”
visitors of mountainous destinations was
confirmed. Two distinct segments were iden-
tified: less satisfied and highly satisfied visitors.
These two segments differ in their satisfaction
with the personnel, food, excursions, social-
ization and landscape of the trip. Highly satis-
fied visitors scored high on all five aspects of
satisfaction whereas less satisfied visitors scored
low.
Demographic variables such as education,
age, and family status along with preferred
physical activities and competence level in
these activities were the variables used to
better describe the two satisfaction segments.
However, not all variables contributed signifi-
cantly to the classification of the two satisfaction
segments. Family status, age and education
had a significant contribution whereas pre-
ferred physical activities and competence level
did not contribute significantly.
Statistically significant differences were
found between the means of the two satisfac-
tion segments in relation to family status, age
and educational level. Specifically, single vis-
itors were more satisfied with the trip than
married or married with children visitors and
younger visitors were more satisfied than
older visitors. The group means of the de-
pendent variables show that highly educated
visitors were more satisfied with their trip
whereas visitors with less education were less
satisfied.
Regarding physical activities, the highest
the activity level (rafting, horse riding) being
preferred, the highest the satisfaction level was
and the lowest the activity level (walking) be-
ing preferred, the lower the satisfaction was.
Moreover, the higher the perceived level of
competency in these activities the lower the
satisfaction level and the lower the perceived
level of competency the highest the satisfac-
tion was. However, these last two relation-
ships were not statistically significant.
Thus, the two satisfaction based segments
that were produced from the study could be
profiled as follow. The low satisfaction seg-
ment consists of less educated visitors, mar-
ried or married with children, who are older
than 35 years. The high satisfaction segment
consists of highly educated younger people,
single, who prefer during their vacation more
adventurous physical activities such as raft-
ing.
The implications of the study are several.
Marketers can segment better their market in
order to satisfy the needs of “short-term” visitors
and plan more effective positioning strategies.
Their marketing and promotional strategies
 Rodoula Tsiotsou and Eleytheria Vasioti
should be designed to target young, single, ed-
ucated males that prefer to be involved in high
intensity physical activities during their trip.
Marketers can predict the level of satisfaction
of prospective consumers if family status, age
and education are known. Moreover, market-
ers of mountainous destinations should not
disregard different aspects of the services they
offer such as personnel behavior, quality of
food, landscape, excursions program and so-
cialization opportunities given during the trip.
Market segmentation could benefit tourism
destinations in four ways: (a) it could provide
the base for target marketing; (b) it could assist
in developing more effective marketing mixes
in order to satisfy the needs of specific visitors
segments; (c) it could facilitate destination dif-
ferentiation; and (d) it could provide easier
identification of market opportunities and
threats. Identifying opportunities for develop-
ing new products, designing more effective
marketing strategies, and better allocation of
marketing resources are some only of the ben-
efits targeting well-defined segments of tour-
ists (Satish & Menezes, 2001).
Tourism is expected to continue to grow
due to the increase in leisure time, the rise of
income and life expectancy. Competition will
be intensified in the tourism sector and mar-
keting strategies will become increasingly im-
portant. Travel agencies should continuously
improve their services in order to maintain or
increase consumers’ satisfaction, and to at-
tract new ones. Increasing tourist satisfaction
maximizes consumer retention and decreases
switching behavior. Thus, it will be more diffi-
cult and more expensive for competitors to at-
tract these consumers. As a result, sound
marketing research is necessary as tourism
continues to grow and become more competi-
tive to increase marketing efficiency and ef-
fectiveness.
FUTURE RESEARCH/LIMITATIONS
Future research on tourism should focus in
longitudinal approaches in measuring custom-
ers’ satisfaction changes and in the relation-
ship between satisfaction and activities offered
during a trip. Market segmentation is neces-
sary in order to identify and target the appro-
71
priate segments in tourism (a priori) and to
identify different components and properties
and to group consumers according to their dif-
ferent satisfaction perspectives (post-purchas-
ing). Finally, a better instrument measuring
satisfaction in tourism services needs to be de-
veloped to explain more of the variance in the
construct and taking into account the unique
aspects of the tourism market. Moreover, a
replication of this study with a larger sample
size and using “long-term” visitors is recom-
mended.
This study was intended to produce mean-
ingful data that would provide a tool and data
source on which quality marketing efforts in
tourism services could be based. However, the
sample used limits our ability to generalize its
findings to a large population. The results of
the study reflect only the visitors studied. Gen-
eralizations of the findings should be made
with caution.
REFERENCES
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster
analysis: Quantitative applications in the social sci-
ence series. London: Sage.
Andereck, K. L., & Caldwell, L. L. (1994). Variable
selection in tourism market segmentation models.
Journal of Travel Research, 33(2), 40-46.
Astic, G., & Muller, T. E. (1999). Delighting the senior
tourist. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatis-
faction and Complaining Behavior, 12, 71-80.
Baloglu, S., Pekcan, A., Chen, S., & Santos, J. (2003).
The relationship between destination performance,
overall satisfaction and behavioral intention for dis-
tinct segments. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hos-
pitality and Tourism, 4(3/4), 149-165.
Bigne, E. J., & Andreu, L. (2004). Emotions in segmen-
tation: An empirical study. Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 31(3), 682-696.
Chen, J. S. (2000). Norwegians’ preferences for U.S.
lodging facilities: Market segmentation approach.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 9(4), 69-82.
Chen, J. S. (2003). Market segmentation by tourists’
sentiments. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(1),
178-193.
Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An in-
vestigation into the determinants of consumer sat-
isfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4),
491-504.
Dolnicar, S., & Leisch, F. (2004). Segmenting markets
by bagged clustering. Australasian Marketing Jour-
nal, 12(1), 51-65.
72 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL & TOURISM MARKETING
Ekinci, Y. (2003). Which comparison standard should
be used for service quality and customer satisfac-
tion? Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality
and Tourism, 4 (3/4), 61-75.
Erevelles, S., & Leavitt, C. (1992). A comparison of cur-
rent models of consumer satisfation/dissatisfaction.
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction
and Complaining Behavior, 5, 104-114.
Fallon, P., & Schofield, P. (2003). “Just trying to keep
the customer satisfied”: A comparison of models
used in the measurement of tourist satisfaction. Jour-
nal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism,
4(3/4), 77-96.
Folkes, V. S. (1984). Consumer reactions to product
failure: An attributional approach. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 10(4), 398-409.
Frochot, I. (2005). A benefit segmentation of tourists in
rural areas: A Scottish perspective. Tourism Man-
agement, 26(3), 335-346.
Frochot, I., & Morrison, A. M. (2000). Benefit seg-
mentation: A review of its applications to travel and
tourism research. Journal of Travel & Tourism Mar-
keting, 9(4), 21-45.
Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2000). Defining consumer
satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science Review.
Retrieved December 12, 2004, from www.amsreview.
org/articles/giese01-2000.pdf
Glynia, E., Lytras, P., & Maras, D. (2004). Animation:
Recreation and sport in tourism. Athens: Interbooks.
Huh, J., & Uysal, M. (2003). Satisfaction with cul-
tural/heritage sites: Virginia historic triangle. Jour-
nal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism,
4(3/4), 177-194.
Hurst, F. (1994). En route surveys. In J. R. B. Ritchie &
C. R. Goeldner (Eds.), Travel, tourism, and hospitality
research: A handbook for managers and researchers
(2nd ed., pp. 453-471). New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Jeffrey, D., & Xie, Y. (1995). The UK market for tour-
ism in China. Annals for Tourism Research, 22(4),
857-876.
Knutson, B. J., Singh, A. J., Yen, H., & Bryant, B. E.
(2003). Guest satisfaction in the U.S. lodging indus-
try: Using the ACSI model as a service quality score-
board. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality
and Tourism, 4(3/4), 97-118.
Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing management. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Kozak, M., Bigne, E., & Andreu, L. (2003). Limitations
of cross-cultural customer satisfaction research and
recommending alternative methods. Journal of Qual-
ity Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3/4),
37-59.
Lee, J., Graefe, A. R., & Burns, R. C. (2004). Service
quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intention among
forest visitors. Journal of Travel & Tourism Market-
ing, 17(1), 73-82.
McQuitty, S., Finn, A., & Wiley, J. B. (2000). Systemat-
ically varying consumer satisfaction and its implica-
tions for product choice. Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence Review. Retrieved December 12, 2004, from
www.amsreview.org/articles/mcquity10-2000.pdf
Mok, C., & Iverson, T. J. (2000). Expenditure-based
segmentation: Taiwanese tourists to Guam. Tourism
Management, 21(3), 299-305.
Morgan, M. J., Attaway, J. S., & Griffin, M. (1996). The
role of product/service experience in the satisfaction
formation process: A test of moderation. Journal of
Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complain-
ing Behavior, 9, 104-114.
National Institute for Tourism Research and Predictions.
(2001, November 20). Winter tourism in Greece:
Analysis–Conclusions–Recommendations (press re-
lease). Retrieved December 16, 2004, from http://
www.itep.gr
National Institute for Tourism Research and Predic-
tions. (2004). Retrieved December 16, 2004, from
http://www.itep.gr
Neal, J. D. (2003). The effect of length of stay on travel-
ers’ perceived satisfaction with service quality. Jour-
nal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism,
4(3/4), 167-176.
Noe, F. P., & Uysal, M. (2003). Social interaction link-
ages in the service satisfaction model. Journal of
Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3/4),
7-22.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the anteced-
ents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469.
Oliver, R. L., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1988) Response deter-
minants in satisfaction judgments. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 14(4), 495-507.
Petrick, J. F. (2002) Experience use history as a segmen-
tation tool to examine golf travelers’ satisfaction,
perceived value and repurchase intentions. Journal
of Vacation Marketing, 8(4), 332-342.
Pizam, A., Jeong, G. H., Reichel, A., van Boemmel, H.,
Lusson, J. M., Steynberg, L., et al. (2004). The rela-
tionship between risk-taking, sensation-seeking, and
the tourist behavior of youth adults: A cross-cultural
study. Journal of Travel Research, 42(3), 251-260.
Satish, C., & Menezes, D. (2001). Applications of multi-
variate analysis in international tourism research:
The marketing strategy perspective of NTOs. Jour-
nal of Economic and Social Research, 3(1), 77-98.
Sellick, M. C. (2004). Discovery, connection, nostalgia:
Key travel motives within the senior market. Journal
of Travel & Tourism Market, 17(1), 55-71.
Shanka, T., & Taylor, R. (2003). An investigation into
the perceived importance of service and facility at-
tributes to hotel satisfaction. Journal of Quality As-
surance in Hospitality and Tourism, 4(3/4), 119-134.
Sung, H. Y. (2004). Predicting the likelihood of select-
ing different adventure trip types: A product-driven
approach for segmenting the U.S. adventure travel
market. Retrieved November 15, 2004, from www.
ttra.com/pub/uploads/017.pdf.
 Rodoula Tsiotsou and Eleytheria Vasioti 73

Sung, H. Y., Morrison, A. M., & O’Leary, J. T. (2000).
Segmenting the adventure travel market by activi-
ties: From the North American industry providers’
perspective. Journal of Travel & Tourism Market-
ing, 9(4), 1-20.
Tian-Cole, S., & Cromption, J. L. (2003). A conceptual-
ization of the relationships between service quality
and visitor satisfaction, and their links to destination
selection. Leisure Studies, 22(1), 65-80.
Tsiotsou, R. (in press). Using visit frequency to segment
ski resort customers. Journal of Vacation Marketing.
Tsiotsou, R., & Vasioti, E. (2006). Using demographics
and leisure activities to predict satisfaction with tour-
ism services in Greece. Journal of Hospitality & Lei-
sure Marketing, 14(2), 69-82.
Tureckova, U. R. O. (2002). Segmenting the tourism
market using perceptual and attitudinal mapping. Ag-
ricultural Economy, 48(1), 36-48.
Vacations hobbies: What the tourists prefer. (2004, Au-
gust 12). Ethnos, p. 42.
Webb, D., & Hassall, K. (2002). Measuring visitor satis-
faction with Western Australia’s conservation estate.
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction
and Complaining Behavior, 15, 81-98.
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based af-
fective responses and postpurchase processes. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 258-270.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the
effects of motivation and satisfaction on destination
loyalty. Tourism Management. 26(1), 45-56.
Yuksel, A., & Yuksel, F. (2002). Measurement of tourist
satisfaction with restaurant services: A segment-based
approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), 52-68.
SUBMITTED: January 10, 2005
FIRST REVISION SUBMITTED:
March 2, 2005
SECOND REVISION SUBMITTED:
July 12, 2005
ACCEPTED: July 23, 2005
REFEREED ANONYMOUSLY

doi:10.1300/J073v20n01_05

For FACULTY/PROFESSIONALS with journal subscription

recommendation authority for their institutional library . . .
If you have read a reprint or photocopy of this article, would you like to
make sure that your library also subscribes to this journal? If you have
the authority to recommend subscriptions to your library, we will send you
a free complete (print edition) sample copy for review with your librarian.
1. Fill out the form below and make sure that you type or write out clearly both the name
of the journal and your own name and address. Or send your request via e-mail to
docdelivery@haworthpress.com including in the subject line “Sample Copy Request”
and the title of this journal.
2. Make sure to include your name and complete postal mailing address as well as your
institutional/agency library name in the text of your e-mail.
[Please note: we cannot mail specific journal samples, such as the issue in which a specific article appears.
Sample issues are provided with the hope that you might review a possible subscription/e-subscription with
your institution's librarian. There is no charge for an institution/campus-wide electronic subscription
concurrent with the archival print edition subscription.]

Please send me a complimentary sample of this journal:

(please write complete journal title here–do not leave blank)

I will show this journal to our institutional or agency library for a possible subscription.
Institution/Agency Library: ______________________________________________
Name: _____________________________________________________________
Institution: __________________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________________
City: ____________________ State: __________ Zip: ____________________
Return to: Sample Copy Department, The Haworth Press, Inc.,
10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580

View publication stats