This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]

On: 03 October 2014, At: 01:47

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary

Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulsc20

Examining the Antecedents of

Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting
a b c
Joohyun Lee , Alan R. Graefe & Robert C. Burns
a
Florida State University , Tallahassee, Florida, USA
b
The Pennsylvania State University , State College, Pennsylvania,
USA
c
West Virginia University , Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
Published online: 27 Sep 2007.

To cite this article: Joohyun Lee , Alan R. Graefe & Robert C. Burns (2007) Examining the
Antecedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting, Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
29:5, 463-481, DOI: 10.1080/01490400701544634

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400701544634

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Leisure Sciences, 29: 463–481, 2007
Copyright
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0149-0400 print / 1521-0588 online

DOI: 10.1080/01490400701544634

Examining the Antecedents of Destination Loyalty

in a Forest Setting

JOOHYUN LEE
Florida State University
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

Tallahassee, Florida, USA

ALAN R. GRAEFE
The Pennsylvania State University
State College, Pennsylvania, USA

ROBERT C. BURNS
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA

Loyalty has become a critical part of leisure research due to increasing competition in
the field and the recognition of the importance of loyal visitors. To further develop loyalty
research, this study looks at the issue of destination loyalty in a forest setting. It specifi-
cally focuses on revealing the formation of attitudinal, conative, and behavioral loyalty
and the relationship between destination loyalty and related concepts that influence the
strength of loyalty: service quality, satisfaction, and activity involvement. Six hypotheses
were tested to represent the relationships among six factors. Forest recreationists who
perceive high service quality tend to have high satisfaction and activity involvement that
lead to destination loyalty. The findings also substantiated the conceptual framework of
loyalty formation.

Keywords activity involvement, destination loyalty, satisfaction, service quality

In the past decade, loyalty has become a critical part of leisure research due to increasing
competition in the field and the recognition of the importance of loyal visitors. Many leisure
organizations including publicly funded agencies struggle to maintain adequate levels of
services and facilities within a limited budget. Therefore, one of the primary objectives of
recreation resource management has become the maximization of user satisfaction within
given constraints (Connelly, 1987; Manning, 1999). This situation has resulted in park and
recreation agencies looking for techniques to promote efficiency in service management as
budget constraints are felt more strongly.
In addition, an increased leisure time constraint (Kelly & Warnick, 1999) has exacer-
bated competition among sectors of the leisure industry. As conflicts of interest between
commercial and public sector resources become significant, public sector managers need
to find an effective way to attract visitors and to promote repeat visits (Kelly & Warnick).
Growing competition, thus, stimulates the increasing interest in leisure service marketing
in public parks and recreation agencies (Barber, 1987).

Received 24 April 2006; accepted 16 October 2006.

Address correspondence to Joohyun Lee, Department of Sport Management, Recreation Management, and
Physical Education, Tully Gym 112, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306. E-mail: jlee@coe.fsu.edu

463
 464 J. Lee et al.

Although the marketing concept of brand and product loyalty has been adapted to
the parks, recreation and tourism field, several issues and limitations have not been fully
considered. First, loyalty has not been clearly defined in its application to various subjects.
For example, distinguishing between the extent of loyalty to programs or to service orga-
nizations, loyalty to the recreation activity or experience, and loyalty to sites or to service
providers is confusing. (Gahwiler & Havitz, 1998). Second, most research on loyalty in the
context of tourism, parks and recreation has focused on activity loyalty and service-provider
loyalty (Gahwiler & Havitz, 1998). Only a few attempts have been made to investigate desti-
nation loyalty. This neglect of the study of destination loyalty is probably due to conceptual
and methodological difficulties and the complexity of application. Third, even though re-
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

searchers have tried to develop models to identify the factors influencing loyalty, there has
been little work done to further advance the theoretical formation of loyalty.
In response to these limitations, our study aims to further the development of loyalty
research by examining the issue of destination loyalty. It specifically focuses on enhancing
an understanding of the relationship between destination loyalty and related concepts that
might influence the strength of loyalty. Although the measurement of service quality and
satisfaction is necessary to validate and better understand measures of consumer loyalty,
little empirical research in the parks and recreation field has been conducted. Despite the
increased attention given to destination loyalty, little work has addressed the role of activity
involvement and place attachment in the decision making process of visitors.
A review of the concepts related to destination loyalty including service quality, sat-
isfaction, activity involvement and place attachment is presented followed by the findings
of our research on destination loyalty. Finally, the implications of our results for different
hypotheses and models for destination loyalty development are evaluated.

Literature Review
Loyalty
The construct of loyalty recently has earned considerable attention in the broad area of
consumer behavior, and the importance of studying loyalty has been recognized more than
ever (Oliver, 1999). The construct of loyalty has evolved within a framework of behavioral,
attitudinal and composite concepts. First, loyalty was defined as an overt behavior or conse-
quence of behavior (Cunningham, 1956). Therefore, it centered on repeat purchase patterns
of the same brand over time. Later, the attitudinal component of loyalty earned attention as
a better way of understanding the underlying psychological phenomenon behind the behav-
ior. Thus, the attitudinal definition of loyalty focused on the position of the object along a
continuum of customer preference (Day, 1969). Then, the composite conceptualization of
loyalty emerged. In this notion, loyalty is viewed as a two-dimensional phenomenon that
is a function of favorable attitudes and behavioral repetition over some period (Jacoby &
Kyner, 1973). This concept allows researchers to categorize the extent of loyalty as high,
spurious, latent and nonexistent (Backman & Crompton, 1991a; Dick & Basu, 1994).
Alternative explanations of loyalty formation have been suggested and tested recently.
Oliver (1999) framed the construct of loyalty in terms of traditional consumer beliefs-
attitude-intention-actual behavior phases. Loyalty can be assessed from the cognitive phase
(i.e., when the consumer faces information), affective phase (i.e., an attitude of liking the
brand), conative stage (i.e., behavioral intention) and action control (i.e., behavioral con-
sistency of repurchase). Therefore, all phases of loyalty contribute to the conceptualization
of loyalty. Based on Oliver’s model, several researchers have suggested that behavioral and
attitudinal loyalty are not enough to explain a complex phenomenon such as loyalty and
 Examining the Antecedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting 465

proposed multi-dimensional loyalty structures (Harris & Goode, 2004; McMullan, 2005;
Rundle-Thiele, 2005).
Several researchers have suggested that the integration of these different stages of
loyalty is not sensitive to the underlying development of the process of loyalty-formation
(Iwasaki & Havitz, 1998). Therefore, the construct of loyalty should be separated from
its psychological component (Amine, 1998). In an explanation of the process of loyalty-
formation, the most important factor distinguishing true loyalty from spurious loyalty is
psychological attachment (Gahwiler & Havitz, 1998; Iwasaki & Havitz, 1998). Therefore,
loyalty should be understood in terms of the role of psychological attachment and other
determinants, and the relationships between them (Iwasaki & Havitz, 1998; Oliver, 1999).
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

When these additional factors are taken into consideration, the study of loyalty becomes
more comprehensive.
Many authors insist that a customer’s repeat patronage represents loyalty (Cunningham,
1956; Osman, 1993; Tellis, 1988). Loyalty is related to behavioral consistency and facilitates
real action of repurchasing (Oliver, 1999). Further, a few studies have defined loyalty as
“an intended behavior related to the service or the provider” (Andreassen & Lindestad,
1998, p. 84). The indicators of conative loyalty often have been used as a measurement
of loyalty because general repatronage intentions are supposed to reflect the long-term
construct of actual repeat patronage (Webster & Sundaram, 1998). Moreover, the attitudinal
component of loyalty has been an important indicator with the focus on preference for a given
brand (Dick & Basu, 1994). Attitudinal measures of loyalty can assess additional variances
that behavioral and intentional loyalties do not explain (Backman & Crompton, 1991a).
Therefore, the concept of loyalty can be developed through the integration of attitudinal,
conative and behavioral phases.
The current study of loyalty is derived from various subject areas such as goods,
services, activities and providers. While loyalty pertaining to retail goods and services has
been a focus in the field of marketing, leisure researchers have studied activity, program,
site and service provider (e.g., tourism operator) loyalty. Even though most loyalty-related
research in the field of recreation has concentrated on activity (Backman & Crompton,
1991a, 1991b) and service providers (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Gahwiler & Havitz, 1998;
Howard, Edginton, & Selin, 1988; Morais, Dorsch, & Backman, 2004), some research has
also suggested that loyalty to other subjects may develop. For example, Backman and Shinew
(1994) found that golfers developed loyalty to specific facilities and services (i.e., source
loyalty). Some researchers also suggested that tourists have a commitment to a specific
place or setting (i.e., destination loyalty) (Baloglu, 2001; Kyle et al., 2004; Oppermann,
2000; Williams et al., 1995; Yoon & Uysal, 2005).
Even though a few attempts have been made to explore the application and usefulness of
loyalty toward destinations, studies on destination loyalty and its relation to other constructs
are still lacking (Oppermann, 2000). Since repeat visitation has become a key driving force
in successful recreation and tourism operations, it merits more attention from researchers.

Service Quality and Satisfaction

Several researchers have attempted to uncover the links among service quality, satisfaction
and loyalty (Boulding et al., 1993; Oliver, 1997; Ostrowski, O’Brien, & Gordon, 1993;
Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996) and reported a significant and positive relationship
among these factors. The relations among these concepts are important to forest tourism
because improving service quality and developing higher levels of satisfaction might even-
tually increase the number of repeat visitors who are aware of and appreciative of the forest
(Lee, Graefe, & Burns, 2004).
 466 J. Lee et al.

Oliver (1997) suggested a conceptual model integrating service quality, satisfaction

and loyalty. Relating the direct effects to profitability, he addressed the service quality
⇒ satisfaction ⇒ loyalty sequence. This conceptual sequence is widely accepted among
researchers (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Bloemer, Ruyter, & Peeters, 1998). Further, Cronin
and Taylor (1992) used a structural equation model to show how satisfaction directly affected
consumer loyalty. A significant association between satisfaction and intention was revealed
in various organizations (Bloemer et al., 1998; Hallowell, 1996; Loveman, 1998; Woodside,
Frey, & Daly, 1989). On application to the travel service sector, the modified conceptual
model showed a positive effect of satisfaction on loyalty (Pritchard & Howard, 1997).
Therefore, past research seems to support that service quality and satisfaction are major
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

antecedents of loyalty.
Even though Pritchard, Havitz, and Howard (1992) asserted the importance of loyalty’s
relationship with related constructs such as satisfaction and service quality, no empirical
studies have shown the causal effect of these concepts in the context of parks and recreation.
A few efforts have revealed the antecedents or consequences of loyalty (Iwasaki & Havitz,
2004; Kyle et al., 2004). However these proposed models or relationships did not include
satisfaction or service quality as important factors in the formation of loyalty.

Activity Involvement
Although many studies have shown that involvement is a major antecedent of loyalty, few
attempts have revealed the relationship between loyalty and involvement in different cate-
gories (i.e., relationship between activity involvement and equipment loyalty). Researchers
have suggested that recreation participants develop loyalty to recreation activities (Backman,
1991; Backman & Crompton, 1991a, 1991b; Backman & Veldkamp, 1995), recreation
programs (Howard et al., 1988; Selin et al., 1988; Park, 1996), travel service providers
(Pritchard & Howard, 1993, 1997), recreation equipment (Bloch, Black, & Lichtenstein,
1989) and recreational destinations (Backman & Shinew, 1994).
These different categories of loyalty have been studied independently even though
interrelationships between them have been implied (Gahwiler & Havitz, 1998). For exam-
ple, a structural model proposed a positive relationship between equipment involvement
and recreation commitment (Bloch et al., 1989). Another study revealed a relationship
between source loyalty and activity loyalty (Backman & Shinew, 1994). Therefore, exam-
ining other categorical constructs that have been postulated to influence destination loyalty is
interesting.
Numerous studies suggest a causal relationship between involvement and loyalty within
the same categories (Dimanche, Havitz, & Howard, 1991; Gahwiler & Havitz, 1998; Iwasaki
& Havitz, 2004; Park, 1996; Pritchard & Howard, 1993, 1997). However, the relationships
of involvement and loyalty among different realms (e.g., destination loyalty and activity
involvement) are unexamined even though potential causal relationships are acknowledged
by researchers.
When customers decide whether or not to repeat a trip to a recreation destination, they
consider three conditions: people, place and activity (Clark & Downing, 1985; Williams,
1985). These three components form a dynamic process in selecting or repeating a trip to a
recreational destination. Activity has been an especially important determinant in choosing
and returning to a recreational site. Therefore, one implication may be that involvement in
activity will influence repeat visitation to a place.
According to Backman and Shinew (1994), source loyalty is significantly related to
activity loyalty. Their definition of source loyalty is closely related to destination or site
loyalty. Golfers who are highly loyal to specific golf courses exhibit high loyalty to golf. That
 Examining the Antecedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting 467

is, someone who is highly involved in golf will visit certain golf courses more frequently
than others who show low involvement in golf. Therefore, activity involvement is considered
an antecedent to loyalty to place.

Place Attachment
Two issues are related to psychological commitment to place. First, is attitudinal loyalty
different from psychological attachment? Definitional confusion exists between attitudinal
loyalty and psychological commitment (Pritchard, Havitz, & Howard, 1999). Dick and
Basu (1994) indicated that psychological antecedents precede attitude (i.e., commitment
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

influences attitudinal loyalty). Similarly, other researchers contend that commitment is

different from attitude by defining commitment as “an enduring desire to continue an
attachment . . . the attitudinal domain of this attachment is best understood in symbolic terms
(i.e., customer identification)” (Pritchard et al., 1999, p. 334). However, most empirical
studies have proved that these concepts can be used interchangeably (Backman & Crompton,
1991a, 1991b; James, 2001; Park, 1996; Pritchard & Howard, 1993).
Second, can place attachment replace commitment when it is applied to a place or
destination? The definition of commitment refers to emotional or psychological attachment
to a brand (Jacoby & Kyner, 1973) and the definition of place attachment is emotional at-
tachment to a place (Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996). Therefore, psychological commitment
to a specific place can be replaced by place attachment.
Even though a few studies have used the theory of place attachment as a basis for the
operationalization of psychological commitment or attitudinal loyalty, this conceptualiza-
tion describes the psychological perspective influencing loyalty in terms of destination and
place (Kyle, et al., 2004). Adopting this logic allows researchers to avoid some of the opera-
tional difficulties in the measurement of destination loyalty as well as to develop appropriate
models incorporating hypothesized relationships among several constructs.
Many researchers have indicated that place attachment (i.e., psychological commitment
to place) plays a formative role in explaining behavioral and conative phenomena. Iwasaki
and Havitz (2004) insisted that psychological attachment is an antecedent of behavioral
loyalty. Similarly, Kyle et al. (2004) developed a model of loyalty formation and proved the
antecedent role of place attachment to behavioral loyalty. In past studies, place attachment
can be differentiated in terms of repeat visitors to the destination and “true” loyal visitors.
When visitors develop high commitment to a place, they are less likely to change their
destination when they find alternatives. On the other hand, visitors who do not have high
place attachment are more likely to change their decision to revisit a site. Therefore, place
attachment can be considered an important concept to explain destination loyalty.

Model Development
Three ideas entered in the model development for our study:

1. Oliver’s (1999) model of loyalty formation was one of the bases of theoretical framework
of this study. Loyalty was split into three constructs: attitudinal, conative and behavioral
loyalty. These loyalty constructs were assumed to be related and the causal relationship
among the constructs was explained from the previous literature (Oliver, 1997; 1999).
In essence, visitors become loyal in an attitudinal sense, and later in conative manner,
and finally in a behavioral action (Oliver, 1999).
2. Oliver (1997) proposed that service quality is an antecedent of satisfaction, and satisfac-
tion is expected to directly affect loyalty. Empirical evidence supports the mediating role
of satisfaction (Brady & Robertson, 2001; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Anderson, Fornell,
 468 J. Lee et al.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

FIGURE 1 Proposed conceptual model.

& Lehmann, 1994; Gotlieb, Grewal, & Brown, 1994; Rust & Oliver, 1994). Although
this process is well accepted in the field of marketing, it is not sufficient to explain the
complex formation of destination loyalty. In particular, visitors to a particular destina-
tion may make a decision to repeat their visit considering place and activity (Clark &
Downing, 1985; Williams, 1985). Therefore, activity involvement may have an influence
on loyalty (Backman & Malinovski, 1995).
3. Building on the theory from Kyle et al.’s (2004) evidence of the conceptual similar-
ity among psychological commitment, resistance to change and place attachment, our
study claims that place attachment and resistance to change are measures of attitudinal
loyalty. Since service quality is considered an objective judgment, and satisfaction and
activity involvement are subjective evaluations, it is assumed that activity involvement
and satisfaction may play mediating roles between service quality and loyalty (Amine,
1998; Oliver, 1993). Therefore, two constructs were assumed to directly influence the
function of loyalty: satisfaction and activity involvement. Further, these two constructs
were assumed to be influenced by service quality. Hence, service quality is the only
exogenous variable and the other constructs are endogenous variables in the model. The
rationale supporting the hypotheses is developed in Figure 1.

Methods
Data Collection
Our study was conducted with visitors in the Umpqua National Forest in southwestern Ore-
gon. A stratified sampling technique was employed to ensure a degree of representativeness
(Babbie, 2004). To accomplish this representation, the recreational areas were segmented
into 12 sampling sites based on consultation with the forest managers. On-site interviews
were used to gather information from visitors. The population consisted of visitors who had
previous experience at the destination. Without having previous experience, it is assumed
to be impossible to develop loyalty toward an object or place. Hence, determining whether
the population used in the study had a history of visiting the specific destination previously
was necessary. Only visitors with past experience (i.e., at least 1 visit) were selected for data
analysis. From the 395 respondents, 359 were used after excluding the respondents without
 Examining the Antecedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting 469

previous experience. Males comprised about 53% of the sample; females, 47%. The most
highly represented age group was 41 to 50 year olds, which comprised about 27% of the
total sample. The sample was ethnically homogenous with 93% Caucasian respondents.

Survey Instrument
The survey was developed based on several constructs. Items that addressed the construct of
loyalty included the three stages of loyalty. Behavioral loyalty was obtained by computing
the total number of visits to recreational destinations the visitor makes annually. Frequency
is one of the most commonly used methods to measure behavioral loyalty (Iwasaki & Havitz,
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

2004; Park, 1996; Pritchard & Howard, 1997). Attitudinal loyalty toward a destination was
obtained using place attachment and psychological commitment items. The items especially
focused on resistance to change (Pritchard et al., 1999) and psychological and functional
aspects of place attachment (Moore & Graefe, 1994; Williams et al., 1995). Conative loyalty
was another variable used to evaluate the construct of loyalty. The items focused on word-
of-mouth and visitors’ returning intention (Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998; Morais, 2000;
Singh & Sirdeshmukh, 2000).
Respondents were asked to report their level of activity involvement in major activities
in the destination. Items drawn from three dimensions of activity involvement were used in
this study: importance, enjoyment and self expression (Havitz & Dimanche, 1997).
Although several researchers have used single statements to assess satisfaction (Cronin
& Taylor, 1992; Howat, Murray, & Crilley, 1999), a multi-dimensional measurement has
been advocated as a more appropriate solution to adequately reflect the complicated con-
cept (Graefe & Fedler, 1986; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1994; Vaske, Donnelly,
& Williamson, 1991). Thus, the items in the overall satisfaction scale were adapted and
modified from a previous study by Graefe and Fedler (1986).
Items measuring service quality were adapted and modified from previous studies
(Hodgson, 1999; Jaten & Driver, 1998). Even though many researchers favor the dis-
confirmation measurement of service quality (Crompton, MacKay, & Fesenmaier, 1991;
Novatorov et al., 1998; Wright, Duray, & Goodale, 1992), a performance-only scale has
been supported due to better reliability and validity (Burns, Graefe, & Absher, 2003; Chil-
dress & Crompton, 1997; Crompton & Love, 1995; Cronin & Taylor, 1994; Teas, 1994).
Accordingly, our study measured service quality through a performance-only measurement
by asking the extent to which respondents perceived service quality within five domains.
All of the items except the behavioral loyalty items were measured using a 5-point
Likert scale where 1 equals “Strongly Disagree,” 3 equals “Neither Agree nor Disagree”
and 5 equals “Strongly Agree.” Each measure is reported in Table 1.

Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using a structural equation model (SEM). SEM is “the pattern of
a series of interrelated dependence relationships simultaneously between a set of latent
(unobserved) constructs, each measured by one or more manifest (observed) variables”
(Reisinger & Turner, 1999, p. 71). The objectives of SEM are to represent unobserved
latent variables in the relationships and account for measurement error in the estimation
process, and to estimate multiple and interrelated relationships (Hair et al., 1995). The first
objective was achieved by estimating a measurement model. The second objective was
accessed by a path diagram (i.e., structural model) based on the measurement model. Both
the measurement model and structural model in this study were established with covariance
matrices with the maximum likelihood estimation procedure.
 470 J. Lee et al.

TABLE 1 Factor Loadings, Reliabilities and Means

Items α Loadings Error variance t-value Mean

Loyalty
Attitudinal Loyalty .89
This place means a lot to me .83 .56 — 4.24
I enjoy recreating at this place more .81 .59 13.68 3.62
than any other place
I am very attached to this place .91 .42 16.32 3.77
It would be difficult to change my .65 .76 10.04 3.40
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

beliefs about this place

Even if close friends recommended .73 .68 11.90 3.87
another place, I would not change
my preference for this place
I would not easily change my selection .84 .54 12.24 3.85
of this place as a recreation site
Conative Loyalty .91
I would recommend this place to .94 .34 — 4.27
people who seek my advice
I would tell other people positive .96 .27 18.66 4.37
things about this place
I would recommend this place to my .75 .66 19.49 4.42
friends
I would visit this place again .71 .71 11.73 4.59
Behavioral Loyalty∗
In a typical year, how many days do 10.4
you spend recreating at this place?
Activity Involvement .89
[Activity] at this place is very .79 .62 — 4.43
important to me
I have a strong interest in [Activity] at .84 .55 12.95 4.36
this place
When I participate in [Activity] at this .84 .55 12.98 4.29
place it is a bit like giving a gift to
myself
For me, [Activity] at this place is a real .76 .66 11.45 4.49
pleasure
When I participate in [Activity] at this .70 .71 10.47 4.26
place, I can really be myself
[Activity] at this place says a lot about .64 .77 9.47 3.87
who I am
Satisfaction .74
I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to this .88 .48 — 4.55
place
My trip to this place was well worth .87 .49 15.38 4.44
the money I spent to take it
I was disappointed with some aspects .45 .89 7.35 4.31
of my visit to this place∗∗
(Continued on next page)
 Examining the Antecedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting 471

TABLE 1 Factor Loadings, Reliabilities and Means (Continued)

Items α Loadings Error variance t-value Mean

Service Quality .82

Health and cleanliness .76 .65 — 3.72
Safety and security .70 .72 9.33 3.91
Condition of facilities .66 .75 8.87 3.74
Responsiveness of staff .71 .70 9.54 4.02
Recreation setting .61 .79 8.24 4.50
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

∗
Interval variable.
∗∗
Reverse coded.

SEM includes two kinds of fit-indices. First, absolute fit indices assess the overall fit
of the model. A chi-square statistical measure indicates the poorness of fit. The larger the
value, the worse the fit is. However, the chi-square increases with sample size. When sample
size is fairly large, a model can be easily rejected (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Therefore,
a ratio of chi-square to the degrees of freedom (χ 2 /df) was used as an indicator of model
fit. According to Carmines and McIver (1981), a ratio of three or less represents a good fit.
CFI and NNFI indicate how much better the hypothesized model fits compared to the base
model. A value greater than .90 indicates an acceptable fit with the data (Hu & Bentler,
1999). SRMR and RMSEA measure the poorness of fit. A value smaller than .08 indicates
a good fit. The EQS 6.1 software package was used to analyze the models.

Reliability and Validity

Results of reliability analyses showed that all of the scales obtained high Cronbach’s al-
pha values. Attitudinal loyalty consisted of six items showing a reliability score of .89.
The conative loyalty factor included four items with a Cronbach’s alpha of .91. Activity
involvement was measured with a six-item index and recorded a reliability value of .89.
Satisfaction included three items obtaining a reliability coefficient of .74. Even though one
item representing satisfaction was lower than others (i.e., factor loading of .45), it was cho-
sen to be included. Disappointment was an importance aspect of the satisfaction measure
(Graefe & Fedler, 1986), and it did not significantly lower the reliability. Service quality
consisted of five items with a reliability value of .82. All of the factors indicated acceptable
internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978).
Convergent validity was assessed through a confirmatory factor analysis. If the factor
loadings between items and their respective factors are statistically significant, convergent
validity can be achieved (Dunn, Seaker, & Waller, 1994; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Referring
to Table 1, the t-values of all variables were significant since a t-value greater than 1.96
is statistically significant at the .05 level. The parameter estimates for the loadings ranged
from .49 to .96.
Discriminant validity was examined by checking the correlation among latent variables.
If the correlations between factors are significantly less than one, discriminant validity is
evident (Burnkrant & Page, 1982). As a result, high correlation between conative loyalty and
satisfaction (.74) raised the concern that this estimate does not differ significantly from one
(see Table 1). Therefore, a second test of discriminant validity was examined by comparing
an existing model (χ 2 = 480.21, df = 242, p <.001) in which all five latent variables were
allowed to correlate, with one in which conative loyalty and satisfaction were treated as
unidimensional (χ 2 = 733.25, df = 269, p <.001). Discriminant validity can be achieved
 472 J. Lee et al.

TABLE 2 Model Fit-Indices

χ2 df NNFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

Measurement model 480.21∗ 242 .92 .93 .06 .07

Structural model 520.59∗ 262 .91 .92 .07 .07
∗
p < 0.001.

if the existing model yields a significantly better fit to the data than the alternative (Bagozzi,
1980). The results demonstrated discriminant validity because the fit of the existing model
was significantly superior to the other model (χ 2 = 253.04, df = 27, p <.001).
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

The purpose for assessing the measurement model using CFA was to achieve additional
evidence of validity of the constructs. The results of the measurement models are presented
in Table 2. Overall fit of the data resulted in a chi-square statistic of 480.21 (df = 242,
p <.001). The χ 2 statistic was significant but may have been inflated due to its sensitivity
to sample size (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The χ 2 /df ratio was 1.98 and represented a
good fit. The results indicated a good fit to the data as NNFI and CFI were .92 and .93,
respectively. Also, SRMR and RMSEA were .06 and .07, respectively.

Hypotheses Tests
Based on the literature, loyalty was split into three constructs: attitudinal, conative and
behavioral loyalty. These loyalty constructs were assumed to be related and the causal rela-
tionship among the constructs was explained in the previous literature (Oliver, 1997, 1999).
In essence, visitors become loyal in an attitudinal sense, and later in a conative manner,
and finally in a behavioral action (Oliver, 1999). These paths among loyalty constructs are
depicted in Figure 1. As a mediator, two constructs were assumed to influence the function
of loyalty: satisfaction and activity involvement. Further, these constructs were assumed to
be influenced by service quality. Hence, service quality was the only exogenous variable,
and the other constructs were endogenous variables in the model. A mediating effect occurs
when a variable “accounts for the relation between the predictor and the criterion” (Baron
& Kenny, 1986, p. 1176). Satisfaction and activity involvement (i.e., mediators) explained
the relation between service quality (i.e., predictor) and loyalty (i.e., criterion).
The results of the structural equation modeling indicated a relatively poor fit to the data.
Therefore, the next stage was to identify specification errors and produce a new model that
better fits the data. A Wald test indicated that two paths should be deleted. Accordingly, paths
between activity involvement and conative loyalty and between satisfaction and behavioral
loyalty were deleted. After following the recommended suggestions, the new structural
equation model is depicted as Figure 2. Overall fit resulted in a chi-square statistic of
520.59 (df = 262, p < .001). The χ 2 /df ratio was 1.99. The results indicated an acceptable
fit to the data, as NNFI and CFI were .91 and .92, respectively. Also, SRMR and RMSEA
were equally .07.
Six hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 1: The level of service quality is directly and positively related to activity
involvement. H1 anticipated the effect of service quality on activity involvement. The ex-
amination of the path supported the hypothesis (see Figure 2). Table 3 shows that service
quality appeared to directly and positively influence activity involvement (β = .51).
Hypothesis 2: The level of service quality is directly and positively related to satis-
faction. H2 proposed a direct and positive effect of service quality on satisfaction. Results
 Examining the Antecedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting 473
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

FIGURE 2 Structural model among service quality, activity involvement, satisfaction and
destination loyalty.

were consistent with the proposition. As shown in Table 3, service quality appeared to
directly influence satisfaction (β = .73).

Hypothesis 3: The level of activity involvement is positively related to loyalty. The

assessment of detailed paths in the model suggested that H3 was supported. Activity in-
volvement did appear to significantly influence two of the loyalty constructs (see Figure 2).
Table 3 shows that the effect of activity involvement on attitudinal loyalty was positive and
direct (β = .50). Similarly, activity involvement influenced behavioral loyalty positively
and directly (β = .40). Table 4 shows that the indirect effect of activity involvement on
behavioral loyalty through attitudinal and conative loyalty was also significant (β = .50
× .42 × .74 = .16), resulting in a total effect of .56. Even though the effect of activity
involvement on conative loyalty was not considerable, an indirect effect emerged (β = .21).

TABLE 3 Estimates for the Structural Model

Paths β R2

Predictor of activity involvement .26

Service quality → Activity involvement .51
Predictor of satisfaction .54
Service quality → Satisfaction .73
Predictors of attitudinal loyalty .44
Activity involvement → Attitudinal loyalty .50
Satisfaction → Attitudinal loyalty .29
Predictors of conative loyalty .66
Satisfaction → Conative loyalty .53
Attitudinal loyalty → Conative loyalty .42
Predictors of behavioral loyalty .97
Activity involvement → Behavioral loyalty .40
Conative loyalty → Behavioral loyalty .74
 474 J. Lee et al.

TABLE 4 Direct, Indirect and Total Effects

Service Activity Attitudinal Conative

quality involvement Satisfaction loyalty loyalty

Activity involvement
Direct .51
Indirect
Total .51
Satisfaction
Direct .73
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

Indirect
Total .73
Attitudinal loyalty
Direct .50 .29
Indirect .46
Total .46 .50 .29
Conative loyalty
Direct .53 .42
Indirect .11 .21 .12
Total .11 .21 .65 .42
Behavioral loyalty
Direct .40 .74
Indirect .71 .16 .48 .31
Total .71 .56 .48 .31 .74

Hypothesis 4: The level of satisfaction is positively related to loyalty. The examination

of specific paths in the model suggested that H4 was supported. The paths postulated a direct
effect between satisfaction and attitudinal loyalty, and between satisfaction and conative
loyalty (see Figure 2). Table 3 indicates that the effect of satisfaction on attitudinal loyalty
was positive and direct (β = .29). Similarly, satisfaction influenced conative loyalty directly
(β = .53) and indirectly (β = .12), resulting in a total effect of .65 (see Table 4). On the other
hand, the model postulated no direct effect of satisfaction on behavioral loyalty. Instead,
behavioral loyalty was influenced by satisfaction indirectly through attitudinal and conative
loyalty (β = .48).
Hypothesis 5: Activity involvement and satisfaction mediate the relationship between
service quality and loyalty. The model shown in Figure 2 postulating a mediating effect
of activity involvement and satisfaction on destination loyalty was supported. Through
these two constructs, the indirect effect of service quality on loyalty became prominent.
The indirect effects of service quality on attitudinal loyalty and conative loyalty were .46
and .11, respectively. Service quality also indirectly influenced behavioral loyalty through
activity involvement and satisfaction by .71 (see Table 4).
Hypothesis 6: Loyalty formation exists among attitudinal, conative, and behavioral
loyalty. Based on the proposed model, we anticipated that attitudinal loyalty would influ-
ence conative loyalty and conative loyalty would influence behavioral loyalty (see Figure
2). First, the level of attitudinal loyalty was directly and positively related to conative loy-
alty (β = .42). Second, the hypothesis predicted that conative loyalty would positively and
directly influence behavioral loyalty (see Figure 2). The effect of conative loyalty on behav-
ioral loyalty was positive and significant (β = .74). This result supported Oliver’s (1999)
 Examining the Antecedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting 475

loyalty formation in that visitors develop loyalty following an affect → intention pattern
and express loyalty through behavior.
The strength of association between the predictors and each of the latent variables
was assessed by the squared multiple correlation coefficient (R 2 ). The findings reported in
Table 3 show that service quality explained 26% of the variance of activity involvement
and 54% for satisfaction. For destination loyalty, satisfaction and activity involvement
explained about 44% of the variance in attitudinal loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty and satisfaction
accounted for 66% of the variance in conative loyalty. Finally, most variance in behavioral
loyalty was explained by conative loyalty and activity involvement (R 2 = .97).
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

Discussion
This study represents the first attempt to test and validate a model of forest visitors’ loyalty
to destination. The study proposed and tested relationships of factors contributing to the
development of destination loyalty that had not previously been examined. These factors
had been investigated in past research but mostly independently or through correlation.
No studies clarified the structural relationships among these factors. Hence, this study
contributed to the literature on loyalty and applied the use of its theoretical frameworks by
researchers in nature-based tourism.
The model developed in this study was based on constructs grounded in theory and
especially antecedents of loyalty that were not empirically studied. Therefore, the analy-
sis of the model suggested several results of both an empirical and an exploratory nature.
First, the findings supported a structural model of the relationships between service quality,
satisfaction and loyalty (Oliver, 1997). Figure 2 illustrates the structural model of those
relationships. As predicted, perceptions of service quality influenced satisfaction, and sat-
isfaction was associated with loyalty. The strength of association of these relationships
was high and positive. Forest recreationists who perceived high service quality tended to
have high satisfaction that led to the development of high loyalty. This result supported the
statement that high loyalty is “consistent with theories of risk aversion and the importance
of past satisfactory holiday experiences in determining destination choice” (Ryan, 1995,
p. 210). High satisfaction may lead to actual repeat visits or a preference in destination
choice.
Second, the findings of this study substantiated the conceptual framework of loyalty
formation (Oliver, 1999). As predicted, loyalty is formed from an attitudinal stage and
conative manner and, finally, in behavioral action. The strength of association of attitudinal
loyalty and conative loyalty was high and positive. Forest recreationists who developed a
preference and commitment for a destination tended to have high intention to revisit and
give positive word-of-mouth to others. Similarly, conative loyalty appeared to be highly
and positively related to behavioral loyalty.
Third, the rest of the relations tested in this study were exploratory in nature. Even
though the potential relations were proposed in an isolated and conceptual approach, no
studies facilitated these additional variables into the model. Figure 2 depicts the relationship
between service quality and activity involvement. Results showed that forest visitors who
perceived higher service quality tended to have higher activity involvement. Through the
analysis of the causal model, exploratory relations between activity involvement and loyalty
were also supported. A forest recreationist who is highly involved in activity in a particular
destination would experience a direct influence of the activity involvement on the function
of loyalty formation. Another point regarding the analysis of the model is that treating
place attachment, psychological commitment, and attitudinal loyalty as identical would
be safe. Even though some past research maintained a difference between psychological
 476 J. Lee et al.

attachment and the attitudinal domain of commitment (Pritchard et al., 1999), most studies
support homogeneous characteristics of these terms (Backman & Crompton, 1991a, 1991b;
James, 2001; Kyle et al., 2004; Park, 1996; Pritchard & Howard, 1993).

Implications for Practice

Forests have been important tourist destinations to visitors who want to enjoy natural sur-
roundings as well as recreational activities. As visits to the forests have been increasing
significantly (National Forest Foundation, 2006), forest managers feel the need to under-
stand visitors’ perceptions of recreation sites and the quality of services provided therein.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

Forest managers who are able to determine what criteria recreationists use in repeating
visits are in a better position to enhance their management of forest destinations to satisfy
visitors. In addition, understanding recreationists’ loyalty would be helpful for developing
communication strategies since loyal visitors tend to be more interested in and appreciative
of the place (Mitchell, Carroll, & McLaughlin, 1993). Therefore, the findings of this study
could offer insightful suggestions for practitioners.
The results of the current investigation suggest that forest managers need to understand
recreationists’ perception of service quality, satisfaction and activity involvement to better
predict their destination loyalty. Results further suggest that practitioners should understand
the variables that are related to each factor.
One of the key findings of this study is the support for the theorized role of service quality
in loyalty research. Some researchers believed that customer service research could have
a direct application to forest recreation and tourism (Absher, 1998). Even though several
concepts from consumer behavior research have been adapted to increase our understanding
of recreational tourism behavior in different settings, the application of service quality
concepts was not common in nature-based tourism such as in forests, national parks, and
protected areas. Because managers have some control over service quality delivery, the study
has practical implications. Given the results related to service quality, forest managers can
aim their efforts at specific attributes that increase visitor satisfaction and, consequently, their
loyalty to a destination. Satisfaction is considered to be a global and subjective evaluation
experienced by visitors, and it is not easy to manage individuals’ emotional responses.
On the other hand, practitioners can relatively easily figure out where quality needs to be
improved. Providing better quality in specific attributes should also increase satisfaction and
thereby influence preference for the destination, positive behavioral intentions and repeat
visits. Consequently, our study has provided evidence that practitioners seeking increased
loyalty from recreationists should invest more attention to enhancing aspects of service
quality such as safety, security, cleanliness, kindness, facilities and recreational settings.
In addition to providing an explanation of how to increase high levels of loyalty among
forest recreationists, this study has also stressed the significance of managing the emotional
level of forest visitors. The findings suggest that practitioners should provide quality service
as a means of improving activity involvement. The most effective method for increasing the
level of loyalty seemed to be enlarging recreationists’ emotional judgment (e.g., satisfaction
and activity involvement) by way of improving service quality. For example, providing
bicycle paths near the lake area would increase visits by people who bicycle for recreation.
As recreationists grow to enjoy bicycling near the lake, they are more likely to develop an
attachment to the area. Consequently, they would feel attitudinally and behaviorally loyal
to the place and actually visit again. Hence, these findings suggest that managers should
consider the emotive nature of visitors.
Regarding the formation of destination loyalty, our study suggests that managers need
to be aware of the practical differences between conative loyalty and behavioral loyalty.
 Examining the Antecedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting 477

Unlike brand loyalty, destination loyalty displays more complexity and variability. Even
though our study strongly supported the relationship between intention and actual behavior,
visitors may change their minds due to unpredictable factors such as financial problems,
availability of partners, or weather. In addition, novelty seeking motivation in pleasure travel
intervenes to affect repeat visitation to a different destination. Increasing conative loyalty
would attract repeat visitation, but it is still possible that intent may not necessarily guide
actual behavior when it comes to destination choice.

Recommendations for Further Study

Our study offers suggestions for future research regarding questions that remain to be
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

addressed in examining these relationships. First, more work is needed on the elaboration
of the model. The study examined the possibility of adapting theorized models from other
disciplines to the field of forest tourism. It also included several possible relationships to
investigate the relative and disparate effects of the variables. Although the proposed model
demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data, it should be viewed as a preliminary stage of the
model’s development. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to develop hypotheses
regarding other possible relations, the examination of the effects of factors such as image,
motivations and values that may influence loyalty should be incorporated into the model for
a better understanding of tourists’ decision-making processes. In addition, the present study
suggested that controlling for socioeconomic variables, especially age-group differences,
is advisable for the investigation of the model.
Second, the replication of the model under different circumstances in different areas
may lead to a wide variation in findings. Hence, future study should test a model with a
different sample in various destinations. Visitors in highly developed areas may develop
different perceptions from visitors in less-developed areas regarding loyalty and its asso-
ciation with other factors. In the less-developed areas, visitors do not expect high quality
services. Rather, they may be attached to the area due to the activities they can get involved
in. Therefore, the absence of certain services and amenities may not significantly decrease
loyalty in less-developed areas. In addition, destination loyalty might be closely related to
sociopsychographic characteristics (Oppermann, 2000). The demographic variables, user
groups and activity preferences would also have different effects on forest recreationists’
perception of destination loyalty. For example, young visitors who enjoy snowboarding
may differ from young people who visit the forest for its natural beauty and relaxation.
Third, more qualitative work is needed to define and assess the construct of destination
loyalty in forest settings. Since the concept of recreation and tourism in a forest setting
may not be amenable to a marketing perspective, direct adaptation of the concepts may be
precarious. Qualitative research to address the meanings of destination loyalty would be
instructive for further study.
Finally, additional research is needed to further refine measures for the variables. Al-
though proven to have acceptable reliability and validity, they should be considered as
groundwork rather than established measures. In particular, behavioral loyalty with single-
item measures in the present study may raise questions regarding reliability and validity.
Even though single-item factors were demonstrated to be acceptable measures (Pritchard &
Howard, 1997), multiple-item measures may offer stronger support for the overall validity
of the construct. Therefore, we suggest that further research should improve measurement
by using factors with multiple items.

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the U.S. Forest Service, region 6, for its financial support.
 478 J. Lee et al.

References
Absher, J. D. (1998). Customer service measure for national forest recreation. Journal of Parks and
Recreation Administration, 16(3), 31–42.
Amine, A. (1998). Consumers’ true brand loyalty: The central role of commitment. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 6, 305–319.
Anderson, E., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. (1994). Consumer satisfaction, market share, and prof-
itability: Finding from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), 53–66.
Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Andreassen, T. & Lindestad, B. (1998). The effect of corporate image in the formation of customer
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

loyalty. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 82–92.

Babbie, E. R. (2004). The practice of social research (10th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Co.
Backman, S. (1991). An Investigation of the relationship between activity loyalty and perceived
constraints. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(4), 332–344.
Backman, S. & Crompton, J. L. (1991a). Differentiating between high, spurious, latent, and low
loyalty participants in two leisure activities. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
9(2), 1–17.
Backman, S. & Crompton, J. L. (1991b). The usefulness of selected variables for predicting activity
loyalty. Leisure Sciences, 13, 205–220.
Backman, S. & Malinovski, J. (1995). Exploring tourist attachment to a destination community. Ab-
stracts from the 1995 Symposium on Leisure Research, National Recreation and Park Association,
San Antonio, TX.
Backman, S. & Shinew, K. (1994). The composition of source and activity loyalty within a public
agency’s golf operation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 12(3), 1–18.
Backman, S. & Veldkamp, C. (1995). Examination of the relationship between service quality and
user loyalty. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13(2), 29–41.
Bagozzi, R. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Baker, D. A. & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of
Tourism Research, 27(3), 785–804.
Baloglu, S. (2001). An investigation of a loyalty typology and the multidestination loyalty of inter-
national travelers. Tourism Analysis, 6, 41–52.
Barber, E. (1987). Customer service: The competitive edge. Journal of Park and Recreation Admin-
istration, 7(4), 10–20.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycho-
logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bloch, P., Black, W., & Lichtenstein, D. (1989). Involvement with the equipment component of sport:
Links to recreational commitment. Leisure Sciences, 11, 187–200.
Bloemer, J., Ruyter, K., & Peeters, P. (1998). Investigating drivers of bank loyalty: The complex
relationship between image, service quality and satisfaction. International Journal of Bank Mar-
keting, 16(7), 276–286.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. (1993). A dynamic process model of service qual-
ity: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (February),
7–27.
Brady, M. K. & Robertson, C. J. (2001). Searching for a consensus on the antecedent role of service
quality and satisfaction: An exploratory cross-national study. Journal of Business Research, 51,
53–60.
Burnkrant, R. E. & Page, T. J. (1982). An examination of the convergent, discriminant, and pre-
dictive validity of Fishbein’s behavioral intention model. Journal of Marketing Research, 19
(November), 550–561.
Burns, R. C., Graefe, A. R., & Absher, J. D. (2003). Alternate measurement approaches to recre-
ational customer satisfaction: Satisfaction-only versus gap scores. Leisure Sciences, 25, 363–
380.
 Examining the Antecedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting 479

Carmines, E. G. & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of
covariance structures. In G. W. Bohmstedt & E. F. Borgatta (eds.), Social Measurement: Current
Issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 65–115.
Childress, R. D. & Crompton, J. L. (1997). A comparison of alternative direct and discrepancy
approaches to measuring quality of performance at a festival. Journal of Travel Research, 36(3),
43–57.
Clark, R. & Downing, K. (1985). Why here and not there: The conditional nature of recreation choice.
Proceedings of Symposium on Recreation Choice Behavior. USDA Forest Service Technical
Report INT-184, 61–70.
Connelly, N. (1987). Critical factors and their threshold for camper satisfaction at two campgrounds.
Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 159–173.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

Crompton, J. L. & Love, L. L. (1995). The predictive validity of alternative approaches to evaluation
quality of a festival. Journal of Travel Research, 34(2), 11–24.
Crompton, J. L., MacKay, K. J., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1991). Identifying dimensions of service quality
in public recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9(3), 15–17.
Cronin, J. J. & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension.
Journal of Marketing, 56 (July), 55–68.
Cronin, J. J. & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling performance-based
and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58
(January), 125–131.
Cunningham, R. (1956). Measurement of brand loyalty. The Marketing Revolution: Proceedings
of the thirty-seventh Conference of the American Marketing. Chicago: American Marketing
Association, 39–45.
Day, G. S. (1969). A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research,
9(3), 29–35.
Dick, A. S. & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–103.
Dimanche, F., Havitz, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1991). Testing the involvement profile scale in the
context of selected recreational touristic activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(1), 51–66.
Dunn, S., Seaker, R., & Waller, M. (1994). Latent variables in business logistics research: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Business Logistics, 2, 145–172.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 39–50.
Gahwiler, P. & Havitz, M. (1998). Toward a relational understanding of leisure social worlds, involve-
ment, psychological commitment, and behavioral loyalty. Leisure Sciences, 20, 1–23.
Gotlieb, J., Grewal, D., & Brown, S. (1994). Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality: Comple-
mentary or divergent constructs? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (December), 875–885.
Graefe, A. & Fedler, A. (1986). Situational and subjective determinants of satisfaction in marine
recreation fishing. Leisure Sciences, 8, 395–431.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th
ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.
Hallowell, R. (1996). The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability:
An empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(4), 27–42.
Harris, L. & Goode, M. (2004). The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: A study of
online service dynamics. Journal of Retailing, 80, 139–158.
Havitz, M. & Dimanche, F. (1997). Leisure involvement revisited: Conceptual conundrums and mea-
surement advances. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(3), 245–278.
Hodgson, R. W. (1999). A survey of Shasta Lake campers. Unpublished Technical Report. California
State University, Chico, CA.
Howard, D., Edginton, C., & Selin, S. (1988). Determinants of program loyalty. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 6(4), 41–51.
Howat, G., Murray, D., & Crilley, G. (1999). The relationships between service problems and per-
ceptions of service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions of Australian public sports and
leisure center customers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 17(2), 42–64.
 480 J. Lee et al.

Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 11–55.
Iwasaki, Y. & Havitz, M. (1998). A path analytic model of the relationships between involvement,
psychological commitment, and loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(2), 256–280.
Iwasaki, Y. & Havitz, M. (2004). Examining relationships between involvement, psychological com-
mitment and loyalty to a recreation agency. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(1), 45–72.
Jacoby, J. & Kyner, D. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journal of Marketing
Research, 10(1), 1–9.
James, J. (2001). The role of cognitive development and socialization in the initial development of
team loyalty. Leisure Sciences, 23, 233–261.
Jaten, A. & Driver, B. L. (1998). Meaningful measures for quality recreation management. Journal
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(3), 43–57.

Kelly, J. & Warnick, R. (1999). Recreation trends and markets. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., & Bacon, J. (2004). Predictors of behavioral loyalty among hikers
along the Appalachian trail. Leisure Sciences, 26, 99–118.
Lee, J., Graefe, A., & Burns, R. (2004). Service quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intention among
forest visitors. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 17(1), 73–82.
Loveman, G. (1998). Employee satisfaction, customer loyalty, and financial performance: An empir-
ical examination of the service profit chain in retail banking. Journal of Service Research, 1(1),
18–31.
Manning, R. (1999). Studies in outdoor recreation: Search and research for satisfaction (2nd ed).
Corvallis, OR: OSU Press.
McMullan, R. (2005). A multiple-item scale for measuring customer loyalty development, Journal
of Services Marketing, 19(7), 470–481.
Mitchell, M., Carroll, M., & McLaughlin, W. (1993). Forest places of the heart. Journal of Forestry,
91(4), 32–37.
Moore, R. & Graefe, A. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: The case of rail trail users. Leisure
Sciences, 16, 17–13.
Morais, D. (2000). Reconceptualization of loyalty under a resource investment perspective: A study of
group leaders in the leisure service industry. Unpublished dissertation thesis, Clemson University,
Clemson, SC.
Morais, D., Dorsch, M., & Backman, S. (2004). Can tourism providers buy their customers’ loyalty?
Examining the influence of customer-provider investments on loyalty. Journal of Travel Research,
42, 235–243.
National Forest Foundation (2006). Recreation. Retrieved March 22, 2006, from http://www.
natlforests.org/consi 02 rec.html
Novatorov, E. V., Kim, S., Wall, K., & Crompton, J. L. (1998). The index of recreation marketing
excellence: An audit instrument for measuring the effectiveness of marketing efforts at a student
recreation center. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(3), 58–80.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1993). A conceptual model of service quality and service satisfaction: Compatible goals,
different concepts. In T. Swartz, D. Bowen, & S. Brown (eds.). Advances in Services Marketing
and Management: Research and Practice, Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Boston, MA: Irwin
McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special), 33–44.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39(3), 78–84.
Osman, M. Z. (1993). A conceptual model of retail image influences on loyalty patronage behavior.
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 3, 149–166.
Ostrowski, P., O’Brien, T., & Gordon, G. (1993). Service quality and customer loyalty in the com-
mercial airline industry. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 16–24.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1994). A reassessment of expectation as comparison
standard in measuring service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58 (January), 111–124.
Park, S. (1996). Relationship between involvement and attitudinal loyalty constructs in adult fitness
programs. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(4), 233–250.
 Examining the Antecedents of Destination Loyalty in a Forest Setting 481

Pritchard, M., Havitz, M., & Howard, D. (1992). Loyalty measurement: A critical examination and
theoretical extension. Leisure Sciences, 14, 155–164.
Pritchard, M., Havitz, M., & Howard, D. (1999). Analyzing the commitment loyalty link in service
contexts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3), 333–348.
Pritchard, M. & Howard, D. (1993). Measuring loyalty in travel services: A multi-dimensional ap-
proach. World Marketing Progress, 6, 115–119.
Pritchard, M. & Howard, D. (1997). The loyal traveler: Examining a typology of service patronage.
Journal of Travel Research, 36(1), 2–10.
Reisinger, Y. & Turner, L. (1999). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Application in tourism.
Tourism Management, 20, 71–88.
Rundle-Thiele, S. (2005). Exploring loyalty qualities: Assessing survey-based loyalty measures. Jour-
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 01:47 03 October 2014

nal of Services Marketing, 19(7), 492–500.

Rust, R. T. & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: New direction in theory and practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Ryan, C. (1995). Learning about tourists from conversations: The over-55s in Majorca. Tourism
Management, 16, 207–216.
Selin, S., Howard, D., Udd, E., & Cable, T. (1988). An analysis of consumer loyalty to municipal
recreation programs. Leisure Sciences, 10, 217–223.
Singh, J. & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction and
loyalty judgments. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 150–167.
Teas, R. K. (1994). Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: An assessment
of a reassessment. Journal of Marketing, 58 (January), 132–139.
Tellis, G. (1988). Advertising exposure, loyalty, and brand purchase: A two-state model of choice.
Journal of Marketing Research, 25(May), 204–212.
Twigger-Ross, C. & Uzzell, D. (1996). Place and identity process. Journal of Environmental Psychol-
ogy, 16, 205–220.
Vaske, J., Donnelly, M., & Williamson, B. (1991). Monitoring for quality control in state park man-
agement. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9(2), 59–72.
Webster, C. & Sundaram, D. (1998). Service consumption criticality in failure recovery. Journal of
Business Research, 41, 153–159.
Williams, D. R. (1985). A developmental model of recreation choice behavior. In Proceedings of
Symposium on Recreation Choice Behavior. USDA Forest Service Technical Report INT-184,
31–37.
Williams, D. R., Anderson, S. B., McDonald, C. D., & Patterson, M. E. (1995). Measuring place
attachment: More preliminary results. Abstract from the 1995 Symposium on Leisure Research.
National Recreation and Park Association, San Antonio, TX.
Woodside, A., Frey, L., & Daly, R. (1989). Linking service quality, customer satisfaction and behav-
ioral intention. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 9 (December), 5–17.
Wright, B., Duray, N., & Goodale, T. L. (1992). Assessing perceptions of recreation center service
quality: An application of recent advancements in service quality research Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration, 10(3), 33–47.
Yoon, Y. & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction on desti-
nation loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26, 45–56.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service
quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46.