Content uploaded by Fang Meng
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fang Meng on Apr 18, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://jvm.sagepub.com
Journal of Vacation Marketing
DOI: 10.1177/1356766707084218
2008; 14; 41 Journal of Vacation Marketing
Fang Meng, Yodmanee Tepanon and Muzaffer Uysal
Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation: The case of a nature-based resort
http://jvm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/41
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Journal of Vacation Marketing Additional services and information for
http://jvm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jvm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jvm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/14/1/41 Citations
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and
motivation: The case of a nature-based resort
Fang Meng*, Yodmanee Tepanon and Muzaffer Uysal
Received (in revised form): October 2006
Anonymously refereed paper
*School of Human and Consumer Sciences, College of Health and Human Services
Ohio University, Grover Center W324, Athens, OH 45701 USA
Tel: (740) 593–0228; Fax: (740) 593–0289; E-mail: meng@ohio.edu
Fang Meng is an assistant professor in the
Restaurant, Hotel and Tourism Program in the
School of Human and Consumer Sciences at
Ohio University. She received her PhD in Hospi-
tality and Tourism Management at Virginia Poly-
technic Institute and State University. Her current
research interests include destination marketing,
tourist behavior, and international tourism.
Yodmanee Tepanon is a lecturer at the College
of Innovative Education, Thammasat University,
Thailand. She received her PhD from Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, where
she worked in the Department of Hospitality and
Tourism Management. Her research interests
include tourist motivation, sex tourism, quick-
service restaurants, and service quality in the
hospitality and tourism industry.
Muzaffer (Muzzo) Uysal is a professor and as-
sociate dean in the College of Hospitality, Retail
& Sport Management at the University of South
Carolina. Before joining USC, Dr Uysal was a
faculty member at Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University (Virginia Tech) for 15
years. Dr Uysal is a member of the International
Academy for the Study of Tourism, the Academy
of Leisure Sciences, and serves as co-editor of
Tourism Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Journal.In
addition, he sits on the editorial boards of eight
journals, including Journal of Travel Research,
and Annals of Tourism Research as resource
editor. His current research interests center on
tourism demand/supply interaction, tourism
development and marketing, and international
tourism.
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS: attribute importance and per-
formance, motivation, regression analysis,
resort, satisfaction
Measuring tourist satisfaction plays an important
role in marketing tourism products and services.
The purpose of this study is to examine the
relationship between destination attribute impor-
tance and performance, travel motivation, and
satisfaction. It is hypothesized that tourist satis-
faction of a destination is a function of attribute
importance, performance, and travel motivation.
A nature-based resort, serving as a short-term
family vacation destination in South-east Virgi-
nia, was used as the study site for this research.
Factor analyses were employed to identify the
dimensions of the destination attributes on impor-
tance and performance, as well as tourist motiva-
tions. The composite delineated factors were used
as indicators to measure the overall tourist satis-
faction in the regression analysis. The results
revealed that friendly/quality services and lodging
performance are significant factors in determining
the overall satisfaction, whereas food and location
are of significant importance in the satisfaction
evaluation. Travel motivation, ‘family/friend to-
getherness’ in particular, although not a statistical
significant factor, practically explains its influence
Page 41
Journal of Vacation Marketing Volume 14 Number 1
Journal of Vacation Marketing
Vol. 14 No. 1, 2008, pp. 41–56
& SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi
and Singapore.
www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/1356766707084218
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
on the overall tourist satisfaction of a resort
destination.
INTRODUCTION
In the increasingly competitive and saturated
tourism market, tourist satisfaction is a very
important factor to gain better destination
image, attract more consumptions of pro-
ducts and services, and generate repeat busi-
ness and loyalty. A plethora of literatures
have addressed tourist satisfaction and some
examined its relationship with either destina-
tion attributes or motivations. However, the
tourism study primarily investigated these
issues independently and separately.
1
Motivation for travel has been investigated
by researchers from a variety of academic
fields such as sociology, anthropology, and
psychology.
2–5
However, only limited re-
search addressed the interrelationship be-
tween tourist motivation and satisfaction. In
addition to motivation, it was concluded that
tourist satisfaction is also related to destina-
tion attributes, including the attractiveness of
a destination itself and the supporting indus-
try-level attributes.
6
For this research, the authors discussed the
existing literature related to each construct
(i.e., destination attribute importance and
performance, motivation, and satisfaction), as
well as the interrelationships among the con-
cepts. Even though these constructs have
been widely discussed in the literature, satis-
faction is scarcely reviewed and predicted by
combining the impact of three indicators of
destination attribute importance, perform-
ance, and motivation. This current study
intends to offer an integrated approach to
understanding tourist satisfaction by taking
into account both destination attribute and
motivation issues at the same time. In other
words, the study examines the linkage of
destination satisfaction with attribute impor-
tance and performance, and motivation.
The hypothesized model of the study de-
scribes the overall tourist satisfaction as a
function of destination attribute importance,
performance and tourist motivation. The
study combined these three important indi-
cators and revealed the strength of these
indicators in explaining tourist satisfaction
toward a destination. The study specifically
examined the visitors who took vacations to
a nature-based destination in Southwest Vir-
ginia and stayed in the main resort on site.
The resort property, together with its unique
connectivity with the natural surroundings
and outdoor recreational activities offered in
its vicinity, has gained increasing and tre-
mendous popularity as a unique short-term
vacation destination for tourists from the
nearby states and regions.
Destination attribute importance and
performance
Destination attribute plays an important role
in tourists’ evaluation of the attractiveness,
image, and satisfaction of a particular destina-
tion. The existing studies have widely sug-
gested that consumer satisfaction is a
function of both expectations related to cer-
tain important attributes and judgments of
attribute performance.
7–9
The importance-
performance analysis (IPA) was introduced as
a useful technique for evaluating the differ-
ent elements of a marketing program.
10
It is
suggested that product/destination attributes
or features are first identified; then consu-
mers/tourists are asked to rate how impor-
tant are the attributes and how well did the
product or service perform; finally impor-
tance and performance scores for each attrib-
ute are calculated and formed into a four-cell
typology.
11
It should be highlighted that the
attributes captured by the marketing mes-
sages are actually important to visitors.
12
However, many IPA studies have not con-
sidered potential relationships between im-
portance and performance.
13
The concepts
of importance and performance are corre-
lated in the same direction, i.e., ‘consumers
tend to generalize their experience (i.e., feel-
ings arising from perceptions of perform-
ance) in the direction of their evaluation
outcome, especially for important product/
service attributes’, thus it is indicated that a
causal relationship exists between impor-
tance and performance (p. 622).
14
More recent researches have addressed this
Page 42
Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
issue on the importance-performance analy-
sis to examine the hotel selection,
15
tour
guiding performance,
16
service quality of
tour operation, destination competitive-
ness,
18
and destination image.
19
With regards
to destination attributes, studies indicate that
the mainstream destination’s attractiveness
attributes, together with generic industry-
level attributes such as human resources,
infrastructure and capital, contribute to the
overall competitiveness of a destination. Re-
searchers suggest that destination competi-
tiveness depends on both destination-specific
attributes and factors influencing the compe-
titiveness of tourism products and services
providers.
20,21
In a study of French tourists’
perceptions (pre- and post-visitation) of cer-
tain destination attributes in Ireland by using
the importance-performance analysis, the
following five attributes were rated by the
tourists as the highest importance: the beauty
of scenery, the welcome of people, the
potential of discovery, good environment,
and tranquility.
22
Motivation
Even though the issue of tourist motivation
is widely examined, research on motivation
for travel, when comparing to other areas in
tourism, e.g. marketing or destination
benchmarking, has been limitedly con-
ducted. Tourist motivation is regarded as
‘the combination of needs and desires that
affect the propensity to travel in a general
sense’ (p. 247).
23
Although evidently there
are tremendous factors influencing tourist
behavior, motivation is still considered a
crucial indicator and force answering why
tourists behave in certain ways.
24
Early research has categorized travel moti-
vation into four types: organized mass tour-
ist, individual mass tourist, the explorer, and
the drifter, differently positioning on a con-
tinuum.
25
Tourist motivation is a result of
internal driving needs to get away from the
mundane environment,
26
the ‘push factors’,
in conjunction with ‘pull factors’, the exter-
nal factors that attract tourists to certain
places.
27
By traveling, individuals escapes in
order to encounter new people, places, and
experiences. To ‘escape’ routine environ-
ment and ‘seek’ for their choices of recrea-
tional opportunities are therefore tourists’
internal driving forces.
28
The rewards sought
by tourists can be personal and/or interper-
sonal: in terms of personal rewards, tourists
achieve self-determination; and social inter-
action with other people is seen as interper-
sonal rewards while traveling.
29
Apparently,
the two concepts, escape-seeking and push-
pull motivation, have subsequently been
considered as the focus of a number of
tourist motivation studies.
Researchers have looked into motivation
of tourists in various tourist settings. It is
suggested that the emergence of three festival
motivation dimensions consistent with those
from Mannell and Iso-Ahola’s study in
1987.
30
These three factors are excitement/
thrills, socialization, and family togetherness.
In another study related to festival motiva-
tion, six motivation factors were recom-
mended as a basic ground of festival
motivation: cultural exploration, novelty/
regression, recover equilibrium (rest and re-
laxation/escape), known group socialization,
external socialization and interaction, and
family togetherness.
31
Motivations to visit
different destinations, for example, the ad-
venture destinations and ecotourism destina-
tions in Nigeria, were explored and
evidently, tourist destination choices are
based on both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors. For
instance, those traveling to parks/ecotourism
attractions are mainly attracted by destination
features and seek for comfort/satisfaction;
while tourists visiting adventure/landform
destinations search for achieving self-actuali-
zation with ‘pull’ associated factors being
secondary motivation.
32
In another study
nine push and nine pull factors were identi-
fied for domestic tourists in Saudi Arabia.
33
The nine uncovered push factors are cultural
value, utilitarian, knowledge, social, eco-
nomical, family togetherness, interest, re-
laxation, and convenience of facilities. On
the other hand, safety, activity, beach/sport
activities, neighbor/outdoor, historical/cul-
tural, religious, budget, leisure, and upscale
are identified as the nine pull motivation
factors.
34
Additionally, four tourist motiva-
Page 43
Meng, Tepanon and Uysal
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
tion factors for visiting Algarve, Portugal,
i.e., adventure/sport, knowledge, escape/so-
cialization, and leisure/recreation, are by
some means in harmony with prior studies.
35
Evidence also supports that push factors pro-
vide major influences on motives to visit
cultural attractions.
36
Satisfaction
Satisfaction is considered a crucial element to
sustain the competitive business in the tour-
ism industry. Measuring tourist satisfaction is
important to successful destination marketing
since it is directly linked to destination
choice, consumption of products and ser-
vices, and repeat business.
37,38
Measuring
satisfaction provides information related to
how well a destination is currently meeting
the tourists’ needs and therefore helps desti-
nation marketers adjust their efforts on im-
proving the quality of products and services,
or offering the products and services that are
really appealing to tourists.
Satisfaction can be defined as ‘a judgment
that a product, or service feature, or the
product or service itself, provides a pleasur-
able level of consumption – related fulfill-
ment, including levels of under or over
fulfillment’ (p. 13).
39
Researchers have
further defined the concept of satisfaction
from various perspectives in different con-
texts. Eleven different definitions of satisfac-
tion are listed in studies dating from 1981 to
1996.
40
Furthermore, many researchers have
attempted to develop theoretical and metho-
dological frameworks to measure customer
satisfaction in a more reliable way.
41
Satisfac-
tion issues have been given so much interest
that more than 15,000 academic and trade
articles have been published on the topic of
customer satisfaction over the past two dec-
ades.
42
Nine theories on customer satisfac-
tion have been introduced in the literature:
(1) expectancy disconfirmation; (2) assimila-
tion or cognitive dissonance; (3) contrast; (4)
assimilation contrast; (5) equity; (6) attribu-
tion; (7) comparison level; (8) generalized
negativity; and (9) value percept,
43
among
which expectancy disconfirmation model
has received the widest acceptance.
44
The expectation-disconfirmation model
proposes that satisfaction is the comparison
of the product expectation and actual per-
formance of the product.
45
In the tourism
industry, tourist satisfaction is based on the
goodness of fit between expectation about a
destination (previous destination image) and
the perceived evaluative experience in the
destination (what tourists see, feel, and
achieve in the destination experience).
46
In
response to the complex nature of the mental
process of satisfaction evaluation and the
diverse theories/models of measuring satis-
faction, it is suggested that the evaluation of
tourist satisfaction needs to be considered in
multiple dimensions and integrated ap-
proaches, since tourists may vary in motiva-
tion for visiting destinations and they may
have different satisfaction levels and
standards.
47
One study also examines the
theoretical and methodological contexts of
tourist satisfaction and suggests the need of a
deeper investigation to better understand this
issue.
48
Satisfaction, destination attributes,
and motivation
Studies have found relevant relationships be-
tween tourist motivation and satisfaction of
destination. The results of examining the
correlation between motivation and satisfac-
tion of sightseeing tourists indicated the si-
milarity of motivation and satisfaction
dimensions which produced tourist overall
satisfaction.
49
A study which employs a struc-
tural equation modeling approach to explore
the theoretical and empirical evidence on
the causal relationships among the push and
pull motivations, satisfaction, and destination
loyalty indicated that destination loyalty has
a causal relationship with motivation and
satisfaction.
50
Tourists are more likely to
choose destinations which are believed to
best fulfill their internal needs or push fac-
tors. The model also indirectly revealed the
structural relationship between motivation
and satisfaction, although it was not the main
research objective.
Earlier studies have investigated the ap-
Page 44
Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
proach of determining satisfaction by making
theoretical distinction between instrumental
and expressive attributes.
51–56
Expressive at-
tributes involve core experiences represent-
ing the major intent of an act (e.g., exhibits,
recreation activities, interpretation of pro-
grams offered, etc.), whereas instrumental
indicators serve as actions or behaviors to-
ward facilitating that desired end (e.g., park-
ing, rental services, restrooms, etc.).
57,58
Expressive attributes mainly deal with the
emotion aspects, and expressive experiences
truly motivate and contribute to satisfaction;
whereas instrumental performance is more
cognitively oriented, and the lack of instru-
mental attributes could cause dissatisfaction.
Therefore, the main elements of satisfaction,
the expressive and instrumental attributes in
tourism settings, can be examined within the
context of tourism system representing two
major components of the market place,
namely, demand and supply.
59
A number of
studies also have examined tourist motiva-
tion involved in travel and recreational activ-
ities. However, a limited number of tourism
studies have addressed and examined the
constructs of motivation and satisfaction in
the same context.
60,61
A study proposed and
tested a model looking at tourist satisfaction
as a function of instrumental and expressive
attributes, in which visitor types based on
travel motivation moderates the relationship
between satisfaction and instrumental and
expressive factors. It was indicated that moti-
vation in the model influences relative im-
portance of the two kinds of attributes to
tourist satisfaction.
62
A large number of studies have been con-
ducted to examine the relationship between
tourist satisfaction and destination attribute
importance and performance. Attribute fac-
tors such as attractiveness of facilities and
quality of services have been proven to influ-
ence the tourist contentment. In evaluating
the satisfaction, particularly on the quality of
service, SERVQUAL is a widely accepted
measurement scale.
63
Tourist satisfaction to-
ward hotels has been assessed using SERVQ-
UAL scale for measuring service quality.
64,65
In the budget accommodation sector, clean
rooms and perceived value for money are
considered as the most important factors by
backpacker tourists.
66
A study using the
modified SERVQUAL scale was conducted
to measure the service quality and the overall
tourist satisfaction with tourist products and
services in the nature-based tourism settings,
i.e., Kenya’s national park of wildlife safari.
67
In addition, it has been revealed that destina-
tion competitiveness attributes include a
large variety of components, and 12 factors
were derived from altogether 83 competi-
tiveness indicators based on tourism litera-
ture.
68
Purpose of the research
Although a considerable amount of research
has examined the relationship between tour-
ist satisfaction and motivation, as well as the
interaction between satisfaction and destina-
tion attributes, there is limited investigation
on the interrelationship among the three
concepts of tourist satisfaction, destination
attributes, and motivation. The abundance
of related studies suggested that destination
attributes and motivation could have inte-
grated and/or combined impact on tourist
satisfaction with a particular destination. It
would not present a holistic picture to the
destination marketers if satisfaction concept
was only investigated with either destination
attributes or motivations separately. This
particular study aims to add to the body of
knowledge of tourist satisfaction in that it
attempts to provide conceptual clarification
and linkages between these three constructs
in a nature based destination environment.
The objective of the study is to test whether
the destination attribute importance, per-
formance, and visitor motivations are distinct
indicators that could better measure tourist
satisfaction.
The study describes overall satisfaction as a
function of destination attribute importance,
performance and tourist motivation. The
major question raised in this research is that
to what extent the visitors’ evaluation on
destination attributes (the importance and
performance factors) and tourist motivation
relate to their overall satisfaction. The hy-
Page 45
Meng, Tepanon and Uysal
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
pothesized working model is proposed as
follows:
SAT ¼ f (IMP, PERF, MOT)
where:
SAT ¼ Tourist overall satisfaction of the
destination
IMP ¼ Destination attribute importance
factors
PERF ¼ Destination attribute performance
factors
MOT ¼ Tourist motivation factors
METHODS
Sample
The study site included in the research was a
nature-based resort destination located in
Southwest Virginia. The small-scale resort
destination is a 2,600-acre mountaintop area
with over 150 years which offers outdoor
leisure activity, entertainment, and adven-
ture for family and romantic vacationers.
This area has been gaining increasing popu-
larity and serving as one of the best annual
vacation options in Southwest Virginia due
to its unique natural environment and the
relaxation opportunity of ‘Do it all, or do
nothing at all’. Current visitors mainly origi-
nate from Maryland, Virginia, and other
nearby areas such as North Carolina and
Pennsylvania.
The sample frame for this study mainly
contains the current tourists who visited this
vacation destination and stayed in the major
resort hotel located at the heart of the area.
The resort property serves as the primary
provider for various accommodation types,
food and beverage, and recreational activities
to vacationers of this nature-based destina-
tion. A mailing list of around 700 visitors
was obtained from the resort. The size of the
mailing list was a function of the size and
usefulness of the database kept by the resort.
A survey instrument for the current visitors
was developed and mailed to the entire
population of the current visitors in April
and May 2002. A follow-up letter was sent
to those who did not respond within two
weeks. As a result, a total of 177 useable
responses were received for the current visi-
tor survey (102 from last year visitors and 75
from the last 3–5 years visitors), giving a
response rate of over 25 per cent (177/699).
Survey instruments
The survey instrument consisted of four sec-
tions: (1) General Travel Behavior; (2) Most
Recent Trip to the resort destination and its
vicinity; (3) Market Potential for Develop-
ment and Construction at the resort; and (4)
Respondent Demographic Characteristics.
The four sections collectively included spe-
cific questions focusing on demographic
characteristics of visitors (age, income, occu-
pation, community type, gender), trip
characteristics (frequency of visit, length of
stay, activities engaged in during visit, travel
group, origin of visitors), and visitor behav-
ior based on motivations, benefits-sought,
likes and dislikes, additions desired, prefer-
ence attributes and the like. The question-
naire also included scaled attributes dealing
with behavioral issues such as reasons for
visiting the resort, on-site preferences, per-
ceived barriers, and suggestions for new pro-
duct additions and enhancement. Visitors
were asked to rate the perceived importance
of these attributes in choosing the resort as
their vacation destination and evaluate the
services and activities there.
A list of 48 resort destination attribute
items were provided based on the related
literature and were modified to apply to the
specific nature resort characteristics of the
study site and the target population. A four
point Likert-type scale was used as the re-
sponse format for the attribute importance
with assigned values ranging from 1 being
‘not at all important’ to 4 ‘very important’,
whereas the performance variables be as-
signed as 1 being ‘not at all satisfied’ to 4
‘very satisfied’. A five point Likert-type scale
was used as the response format for the 12
motivation variables, with assigned values
ranging from 1 being ‘not at all important’ to
5 ‘very important.’ The motivation list was a
function of the nature of the destination
itself. It is acknowledged that motivation and
other constructs may not have an exhaustive
Page 46
Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
list of items. However, since all the con-
structs explained almost 60 per cent of the
variance (see the following research findings
of factor analyses), it is appropriate to make
the inferences and implication on the study.
Three different questions were developed
to examine the overall tourist satisfaction of
the resort destination. These are: 1) Was the
trip worth your time and effort? (1 ¼ ‘defi-
nitely not worth’, and 5 ¼ ‘definitely well
worth’); 2) Was the value you received from
your visit worth the price? (1 ¼ ‘definitely
not worth’, and 5 ¼ ‘definitely well worth’);
3) How satisfied were you with your visit to
the resort? (1 ¼ ‘not satisfied at all’, and 5 ¼
‘very satisfied’).
Data analysis
The analysis of the study consisted of three
major steps. First, resort destination attribute
importance and performance factors were
identified based on tourists’ rating of their
perceived importance and satisfaction on the
selected attributes items. The grouping of
these measurements was based on the pre-
vious relevant literature and adapted to this
specific resort destination. Second, the 12
motivation items were factor analyzed utiliz-
ing a principal components analysis with
varimax rotation procedure in order to iden-
tify the tourist motivation dimensions. In the
final step, the above delineated and operatio-
nalized independent factors that were hy-
pothesized to influence satisfaction were
analyzed using multiple regression with or-
dinary least squares. Specifically, the factors
that estimate satisfaction were introduced
progressively into the model to obtain the
most satisfactory results.
FINDINGS
A total of 177 responses were collected and
analyzed for the current visitor survey. De-
mographic characteristics of the current visi-
tor market were investigated with regards to
their age, gender, education, income, profes-
sion, and travel party, etc. Missing values,
outliers, and distribution of all measured
variables were examined to purify the data
and reduce systematic errors. The visitors to
the nature-based resort mostly originated
from Maryland (46.3 per cent) and Virginia
(37.3 per cent). Most of the respondents (83
per cent) had college or graduate degrees.
Almost half of the respondents (48.5 per
cent) were managers, owners, or industry
professionals, while 24.2 per cent were edu-
cators and 18.8 per cent of the respondents
had retired. Almost 98 per cent of the re-
spondents were Caucasians, and 52.4 per
cent of the visitors were female and 47.6 per
cent were male. The nature-based resort
destination mainly attracts families and cou-
ples as the major market – 86.4 per cent of
the visitors were married, only 3 per cent of
the respondents were single (never married).
Children accompanied most of the younger
couples as visitors, and older visitors had
their spouse with them. Most of the respon-
dents had middle- or upper-level of house-
hold income: 27.8 per cent of the visitors’
income was between $60,000 and $99,999;
36.8 per cent of the visitors’ income ranged
from $100,000 to $139,000, and 27.8 per
cent earned income in excess of $140,000
(Table 1).
In order to identify the underlying dimen-
sions of the resort destination attribute im-
portance and performance variables and for
the purpose of reducing the number of vari-
ables in the attributes constructs, two factor
analyses were performed utilizing principal
components analysis with varimax rotation.
69
Due to the large number of the resort level
attribute importance items, only the first 14
variables which have the highest mean scores
were selected to apply to the factor analysis.
The data were first assessed for the appropri-
ateness of running factor analysis. The corre-
lation matrix revealed a substantial number
of variables correlated at the 0.30 level or
above. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was
0.722, and the Barlett Test of Sphericity was
statistically significant at 0.000 level. There-
fore, the data was suitable for the proposed
statistical procedure of factor analysis.
70
Four
factors of destination attribute importance
were derived to represent the data and were
retained for further analysis: Friendliness &
Accessibility (IMP1); Food & Location
Page 47
Meng, Tepanon and Uysal
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
(IMP2); Natural Scenery & Activity (IMP3);
and Lodging (IMP4). All the factor loadings
except one item ‘types of amenities in
rooms’ were above 0.50. The four impor-
tance factors explained 61.70 per cent of the
total variance. The reliability coefficients
(Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from 0.600 (Nat-
ural Scenery & Activity) to 0.799 (Friendli-
ness & Accessibility), indicating satisfactory
reliability result (Table 2). The destination
attribute importance factor explaining the
highest percentage of the total variance
(31.15 per cent) was Friendliness & Accessi-
bility, followed by Food & Location (12.77
per cent), Natural Scenery & Activity (10.26
per cent), and Lodging (7.53 per cent).
The factor analysis results showed that the
factors identified here are more resort prop-
erty oriented. It is important to mention that
the nature of the destination attributes re-
flected the characteristics of resort property
that were used as the anchor point to evalu-
ate the items, although these attributes may
not necessarily represent the place as the
destination level. That is to say, on one hand,
the scale of the attribute importance reflected
the property issues to a large extent due to
the nature of the resort destination; on the
other hand, respondents also tended to put
more value on the hotel property issues
when evaluating the importance of a variety
of resort attributes. Therefore, the result,
even if explaining 60 per cent of the total
variance, may not be generalized to all types
of destinations in general, but reflects the
resort level of destination. This is a limitation
of the research.
A second factor analysis was performed to
Table 1: Demographic profile of the current visitors
Variable Frequency* Percentage**
Gender
Male 81 47.6
Female 89 52.4
Marital status
Single/never married 5 3.0
Married 146 86.4
Divorced/widowed/separated 18 10.7
Education (years of school completed)
12 or less (high school or less) 9 5.4
13–15 (some college) 19 11.5
16–19 (college degree) 109 66.0
20 and above (graduate degree) 28 17.0
Ethnic group
Caucasian 160 97.6
African American 3 1.8
Hispanic 1 0.6
Household income
Less than $60,000 10 7.6
$60,000–$99,999 37 27.8
$100,000–$139,999 49 36.8
$140,000 and more 37 27.8
Occupation
Retired 31 18.8
Professional/owner/manager 80 48.5
Educator 40 24.2
Other 14 8.5
Note: *May not add up to the total number of respondents due to missing data.
**May not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Page 48
Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
reveal the underlying dimensions of the des-
tination attribute performance variables. Si-
milarly, due to the large number of the
destination attribute items, 18 variables were
selected to apply to the factor analysis. For
assessing the appropriateness of running fac-
tor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value
was 0.721, and the Barlett Test of Sphericity
was statistically significant at 0.000 level,
indicating that the data was suitable for the
specific analysis. Four factors of destination
attributes satisfaction were derived: Friendly
Services/Quality (PERF1); Outdoor Activ-
ities (PERF2); Lodging (PERF3); and Nat-
ural Scenery (PERF4). Most of the factor
loadings were above 0.50. The four perform-
ance factors explained a total of 59.48 per
cent of the variance. The reliability coeffi-
cients (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from 0.731
(Lodging) to 0.856 (Friendly Services/Qual-
ity), while the fourth factor ‘Natural Scenery’
had a coefficient value of 0.491 (Table 3).
The destination attribute performance factor
explaining the highest percentage of the total
variance (28.20 per cent) was Friendly Ser-
vices/Quality, followed by Outdoor Activ-
ities (14.19 per cent), Lodging (10.34 per
cent), and Natural Scenery (6.76 per cent).
It is revealed that at the resort destination,
friendly and quality service, together with
the variety of outdoor activities and natural
scenery, will contribute to the evaluation of
the overall performance of the destination.
The findings are not surprising due to the
fact that resort vacationers, especially the
family and couple vacationers, usually spend
more time at the hotel property and engage
themselves in various leisure activities in the
natural environment.
In order to examine the function of tourist
motivation on measuring the overall satisfac-
tion of the destination, the study identified
Table 2: The result of factor analysis on destination attribute importance
Factors Factor loading Eigenvalue
Explained
variance
Reliability
coefficient
Factor 1: Friendliness & accessibility 4.360 31.15% 0.799
Reservation personnel friendliness 0.799
Office personnel friendliness 0.795
Housekeeping personnel friendliness 0.713
Easy of accessibili ty on premises 0.660
Factor 2: Food & location 1.787 12.77% 0.710
Quality of food 0.750
Dining/restaurant personnel friendliness 0.639
Location 0.635
Cleanliness of the place 0.566
Factor 3: Natural scenery & activity 1.436 10.26% 0.600
The lake and its surroundings 0.816
Outdoor activities in general 0.717
Scenery of the place 0.705
Factor 4: Lodging 1.054 7.53% 0.631
Hotel rooms 0.883
Main lodge 0.634
Types of amenities in rooms 0.437
Total variance explained 61.70%
Note: Destination attributes importance: 1 ¼ not at all important and 5 ¼ very important
Extraction method – principal component analysis
Rotation method – Varimax with Kaiser normalization
KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy) ¼ 0.722
Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p ¼ 0.000
Page 49
Meng, Tepanon and Uysal
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
the tourist motivation dimensions for travel.
The 12 travel motivation items were factor
analyzed. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value
was 0.644, and the Bartlett’s Test of Spheri-
city was statistically significant at 0.000 level.
One variable ‘How much I spend’ had a
loading value of less than 0.40, thus was
excluded from the table. The result of factor
analysis revealed four motivation dimen-
sions, which accounted for 58.04 per cent of
the total variance. All the factor loadings
were above 0.50. The motivation factors
were labeled as Activities for Seeing and
Doing (MOT1); Relaxation/Familiarity
(MOT2); Family/Friends Togetherness
(MOT3); and Novelty/Romance (MOT4).
The motivation factor explaining the highest
percentage of the total variance (20.88 per
cent) was Activities for Seeing and Doing,
followed by Relaxation/Familiarity (16.58
per cent), Family/Friend Togetherness
(11.57 per cent), and Novelty/Romance
(9.01 per cent) (Table 4).
The construct ‘Overall Tourist Satisfac-
tion’ (SAT) was generated based on three
related Likert-scale indicators: worth time
and effort, worth price, and visiting experi-
ence satisfaction. The included items were
computed to create a composite factor and
saved as the latent construct, of which the
reliability value of the overall satisfaction
construct was 0.841. All the constructs ap-
plied in the regression model were listed in
Table 5.
Table 3: The result of factor analysis on destination attribute performance
Factors Factor loading Eigenvalue
Explained
variance
Reliability
coefficient
Factor 1: Friendly services/quality 5.07 5 28.20% 0.856
Reservation personnel friendliness 0.863
Office personnel friendliness 0.839
Housekeeping personnel friendliness 0.795
Maintenance personnel friendliness 0.778
Dining/Restaurant personnel
friendliness
0.745
Easy of accessibility on premises 0.588
Cleanliness of the place 0.558
Quality of food 0.444
Factor 2: Outdoor activities 2.554 14.19% 0.709
Wilderness day camp 0.869
Mountain biking 0.846
Horseback riding 0.772
Scenic boat rides 0.406
Factor 3: Lodging 1.861 10.34% 0.731
Hotel rooms 0.877
Types of ameni ties in rooms 0.842
Main lodge 0.538
Factor 4: Natural scenery 1.216 6.76% 0.491
The lake and its surroundings 0.760
Scenery of th e place 0.520
Outdoor activities in general 0.484
Total variance explained 59.48%
Note: Destination attribute s performance: 1 ¼ not at all satisfied and 5 ¼ very satisfied.
Extraction method – principal component analysis
Rotation method – varimax with Kai ser normalizat ion
KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy) ¼ 0.721
Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p ¼ 0.000
Page 50
Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
As the final step, the composite factors
(i.e., sub-constructs) of Destination Attri-
butes Importance (IMP), Performance
(PERF), and Tourist Motivation (MOT)
were treated as indicators to measure the
construct Overall Tourist Satisfaction (SAT).
The regression analysis results showed that
30.1 per cent of the variation in overall
satisfaction was explained by the variables
included in the model (Table 6). Both
Friendly Service/Quality (PERF1) and Lod-
ging (PERF3) indicated statistical signifi-
cance at the.001 probability level, whereas
Food & Location (IMP2) and Family/
Friends Togetherness (MOT3) have the p
value of 0.068 and 0.096 respectively
Table 4: Underlying dimensions of motivation items
Factors Factor loading Eigenvalue
Explained
variance
Reliability
coefficient
Factor 1: Activities for seeing and doing 2.435 20.88% 0.570
Having a variety of activities 0.769
Having a lot of physical things to do 0.714
Taking a carefully and completely planned trip 0.590
Fun and enjoyment 0.557
Having a restful and relaxing trip 0.517
Factor 2: Relax ation/familiarity 1.633 16.58% 0.436
Having time by myself 0.765
Visiting familiar places 0.723
Factor 3: Family/fr iend togetherness 1.302 11.57% 0.622
Being with family members 0.843
Visiting friends and relatives 0.690
Factor 4: Novelty/romance 1.102 9.01% 0.170
Visiting new places 0.736
Romance or a romantic setting 0.533
Total variance explained 58.04%
Note: Motivations – 1 ¼ not at all important and 5 ¼ very imp ortant
‘How much I spend’ had a loading value of less than 0.40 thus was excluded
Extraction method – principal component analysis
Rotation method – varimax with Kaiser normalization
KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy) ¼ 0.644
Bartlett’s test of sphericity: p ¼ 0.000
Table 5: Construct and indicators measured for the research model
Overall tourist satisfaction
(SAT)
Destination attributes
importance (IMP)
Destination attributes
performance (PERM) Tourist Motivation (MOT)
Worth time and effort
(SAT1)
Worth price (SAT2)
Visiting experience
satisfaction (SAT3)
Friendliness &
accessibility (IMP1)
Food & location (IMP2)
Natural scenery &
activity (IMP3)
Lodging (IMP4)
Friendly services/quality
(PERF1)
Outdoor activities
(PERF2)
Lodging (PERF3)
Natural scenery
(PERF4)
Activities for seeing and
doing (MOT1)
Familiarity (MOT2)
Family/friends
Togetherness (MOT3)
Novelty/romance
(MOT4)
Page 51
Meng, Tepanon and Uysal
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
(p,0.10). Therefore, PERF1, PERF3,
IMP2, and MOT3 are considered important
indicators in determining the overall satisfac-
tion level. The highest beta coefficients
scores were PERF1 (ß¼0.354) and PERF3
(ß¼0.364), indicating that friendly and qual-
ity services and good lodging facilities would
significantly impact tourists’ overall satisfac-
tion toward the destination. Meanwhile,
tourists put food and location as a significant
indicator for the satisfaction of the destina-
tion (ß¼-0.123). Motivation factors,
although not highly statistical significant, also
indicated practical impact on tourists’ satis-
faction (ß¼ -0.095).
APPLICATION OF RESULTS
The findings of the study revealed partial
support that destination attribute impor-
tance, performance and tourist motivation
collectively provide some measurement of
the overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction of
the destination. It appears that the factors
representing a judgment about friendly and
quality services and lodging facilities are key
indicators of tourists’ overall satisfaction.
Food and location are also of the significant
importance in terms of the resort destination
attributes contributing to the tourist satisfac-
tion. In this specific study, the results implied
that visitor satisfaction at nature-based resort
destinations might not necessarily depend
upon other elements such as outdoor activ-
ities and natural scenery, but is more depen-
dent on the provision of elements such as
friendly service and quality lodging facilities.
This observation provides some insights on
the relative importance of satisfaction factors
and will be of help for resort destination
planners and promoters when proposing the
marketing strategies to the potential and
current visitors publicly. The results indi-
cated that in addition to the traditional,
general focus on the attributes which every
destination tries to achieve, resort destination
marketing and management may require
more attention on the property components
of the resort, plus attractive leisure activities
and unique natural environment. It is sug-
gested that the degree to which managers
control the performance of various types of
destination attributes will eventually influ-
ence visitors’ overall satisfaction and the
corresponding development of successful
programs, facilities, and management and
monitoring mechanism.
The research findings indicate that tour-
Table 6: Results of regression analysis
Std Error Std Beta Coefficients t-value Sig. level
(constant) 0.712 2.297 0.023
PERF1 0.123 0.354 5.187 0.000
PERF2 0.104 –0.087 –1.529 0.128
PERF3 0.103 0.364 5.948 0.000
PERF4 0.114 –0.003 –0.040 0.968
IMP1 0.099 –0.043 –0.601 0.549
IMP2 0.127 –0.123 –1.834 0.068
IMP3 0.089 0.001 0.012 0.990
IMP4 0.084 –0.060 –0.990 0.323
MOT1 0.058 0.091 1.557 0.121
MOT2 0.043 0.053 0.915 0.361
MOT3 0.041 –0.095 –1.673 0.096
MOT4 0.039 –0.050 –0.883 0.378
Note: The model statistics: Adjusted R
2
¼ 0.301; F change ¼ 9.707; p ¼0.000
PERF ¼ destination attribute performance; IMP ¼ destination attribute importance
MOT ¼ motiv ation
Page 52
Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
ists’ evaluation of the destination attributes
performance (especially the friendly, quality
service and lodging facilities) is still the most
important indicator of the overall tourist
satisfaction of the resort destination. The
other two factors, destination attribute im-
portance and tourist motivation, although
not demonstrating high statistical significance
at this point, still indicated considerable prac-
tical importance with regards to the nature
of the empirical study. Tourism scholars and
industry practitioners should be aware that
there is a need to further examine the impact
of motivation and attribute importance,
along with the destination attribute perform-
ance, on tourists’ overall satisfaction. This
study hopefully would give resort destination
marketing managers a more holistic picture
of tourists’ satisfaction that both motivation
and attribute issues should be given attention
and consideration. In other words, resorts
need to combine all kinds of factors to
achieve tourist satisfaction, for example, of-
fering the appealing aspects of the location,
foods, and family/friend togetherness value,
as well as various attribute aspects, to attract
more visitors, create greater satisfaction, and
generate repeated business.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that attribute impor-
tance, performance, and motivation serve as
a function of measuring tourist satisfaction,
and collectively influence the degree of
overall satisfaction of a resort destination.
Comparatively, destination attributes, espe-
cially the performance on quality and
friendly service and lodging facilities, have
more impact on tourists’ mental perceptions
of their visiting experience than the cate-
gories of attribute importance and their mo-
tivations. In other words, the level of tourist
satisfaction with a resort destination is mainly
driven by two forces – the level of friendli-
ness and quality of service (ß¼0.354), and
the degree to which the tourists are satisfied
with the lodging facility (ß¼0.364). Food
and location of the destination is also of
significant importance to the tourist satisfac-
tion (ß¼-0.123), whereas the motivation of
being together with family and friends (ß¼
-0.095) also influences the satisfaction level
of the destination. In its simplest form, tour-
ist satisfaction is determined by what people
want to explore in the destination (the moti-
vation) and what the destination could offer
and how well the destination could meet
these desires (the destination attribute impor-
tance and performance). The quality and
availability of tourism supply resources are
critical elements in meeting the needs of the
ever-changing and growing tourism market.
From the research findings of this study, it
can be concluded that resort destination
management should, in addition to the nat-
ural resources management, pay much atten-
tion to monitor visitors’ satisfaction with
service quality and food/lodging facilities,
and promote the value of family and friends
togetherness to maintain a sustained and
expanding business. A resort destination has
its unique operational characteristics and
environmental context, and tourists tend to
seek pure relaxation and be more family-
oriented. The current research aims to sug-
gest a combined consideration of different
components or indicators that may influence
tourists’ satisfaction and to propose an
integrated approach of linking destination
attribute offerings with visitor motivation
factors.
Finally, there are several issues associated
with the limitations of the study that should
be discussed to provide a guide for future
research. The research data were collected
in a specific setting – a nature-based resort
in Southwest Virginia in the U.S., which
practically hinders the generalization of the
research findings. The generalization issue
could be better solved with further replica-
tion in other settings that have different
destination attributes and motivation per-
spectives. Furthermore, it would be more
meaningful to answer the question ‘are
there any other influential factors that
should be included to give a more holistic
picture of measuring tourist satisfaction?’
Future studies should seek opportunities to
evaluate the impact of motivation and desti-
nation attribute importance and perform-
ance on tourist satisfaction, therefore,
Page 53
Meng, Tepanon and Uysal
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
further validate and extend the constructs
that are reliable indicators of tourist satisfac-
tion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to express appreciation to
Dr. John Williams and the Mary Moody
Northern Endowment, Galveston, Texas.
The paper was written based on a larger
funded project carried out by Dr. Muzaffer
Uysal and Dr. John Williams.
REFERENCES
(1) Yoon, Y. and Uysal, M. (2005) ‘An Exam-
ination of the Effects of Mot ivation and
Satisfaction on Destination Loyalty: A
Structural Model’, Tourism Management
26(1): 45–56.
(2) Cohen, E. (1972) ‘Toward a Sociology of
International Tourism’, Social Research
39(1): 164–82.
(3) Gnoth, J. (1997) ‘Tourism Motivation and
Expectation Formation’, Annals of Tourism
Research 24(2): 283–304.
(4) Dann, G. (1977) ‘Anomie, Ego-enhance-
ment and Tourism’, Annals of Tourism Re-
search 4(4): 184–94.
(5) Crompton, J.L. (1979) ‘Motivation for
Pleasure Vacation’, Annals of Tourism Re-
search 6(4): 408–24.
(6) Crouch, G.I. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1999)
‘Tourism, Competitiveness, and Social
Prosperity’, Journal of Business Research 44:
137–52.
(7) Martilla, J.A. and James, J.C. (1977) ‘Im-
portance-Performance Analysis’, Journal of
Marketing 41: 77–9.
(8) Guadagnolo, F. (1985) ‘The Importance-
Performance Analysis: An Evaluation and
Marketing Tool’, Journal of Park and Recrea-
tion Administration 2: 13–22.
(9) Oliver, R.L. (1997) Satisfaction: A Behavioral
Perspective on the Consumer. Irwin: McGr aw-
Hill.
(10) Martilla and James, ref. 7 above.
(11) Martilla and James, ref. 7 above.
(12) O’Leary, S. and Deegan, J. (2005) ‘Ireland’s
Image as a Tourism Destination in France:
Attribute Importance and Performance’,
Journal of Travel Research 43(3): 247–56.
(13) Oh, H. (2001) ‘Revisiting Importance-
Performance Analysis’, Tourism Management
22(6): 617–27.
(14) Oliver, ref. 9 above.
(15) Chu, R.K.S. and Choi, T. (2000) ‘An Im-
portance-Performance Analysis of Hotel Se-
lection Factors in the Hong Kong Hotel
Industry: A Comparison of Business and
Leisure Travelers’, Tourism Management
21(4): 363–77.
(16) Zhang, H.Q. and Chow, I. (2004) ‘Appli-
cation of Importance-Performa nce Model
in Tour Guides’ Performance: Evidence
from Mainland Chinese Outbound Visitors
in Hong Kong’, Tourism Management 25(1):
81–91.
(17) Hudson, S., Hudson , P. and Miller, G.A.
(2004) ‘The Measurement of Service Qual-
ity in the Tour Operating Sector: A Meth-
odological Comparison’, Journal of Travel
Research 42(3): 305–12.
(18) Enright, M.J. and Newton, J. (2004) ‘Tour-
ism Destination Competitiveness: A Quan-
titative Approach’, Tourism Management
25(6): 777–88.
(19) O’Leary and Deegan, ref. 12 above.
(20) Crouch and Ritchie, ref. 6 above.
(21) Enright and Newton, ref. 18 above.
(22) Guadagnolo, ref. 8 above.
(23) O’Leary and Deegan, ref. 12 above.
(24) Crompton, ref. 5 above.
(25) Cohen, ref. 2 above.
(26) Iso-Aho la, S.E. (1982) ‘Toward a Social
Psychological Theory of Tourism Motiva-
tion: A Rejoinder’, Annals of Tourism Re-
search 9: 256–62.
(27) Dann, ref. 4 above.
(28) Mannell, R.C. and Iso-Ahola, S. (1987)
‘Psychological Nature of Leisure and Tour-
ism Experience’, Annals of Tourism Research
14: 314–31.
(29) Mannell and Iso-Ahola, ref. 28 above.
(30) Uysal, M., Gahan, L. and Martin, B. (1993)
‘An Examination of Event Motivations: A
Case Study’, Festival Management and Event
Tourism 1(1): 5–10.
(31) Crompton, J.L. and Mckay, S.L. (1997)
‘Motivation of Visitors Attending Festival
Events’, Annals of Tourism Research 24(2):
425–39.
(32) Awaritefe, O.D. (2004) ‘Motivation and
Other Consideration in Tourist Destination
Choice: A Case Study of Nigeria’, Tourism
Geographies 6(3): 303–30.
(33) Bogari, N., Crowther, B. and Marr, G.N.
(2004) ‘Motivation of Domestic Tourism:
The Case of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’,
Page 54
Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tourism Analysis 8: 131–41.
(34) Bogari et al., ref. 33 above.
(35) Correia, A. and Crouch, G.I. (2004) ‘Tou r-
ist Perceptions Of and Motivation For Vis-
iting Algarve, Portugal’, Tourism Analysis 8:
165–9.
(36) Richards, G. (2002) ‘Tourism Attraction
System: Exploring Cultural Behavior’,
Annals of Tourism Research 29(4): 1048–64.
(37) Kozak, M. and Rimmington, M. (2000)
‘Tourist Satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain,
as an Off-Season Holiday Destination’, Jour-
nal of Travel Research 38(3): 260–9.
(38) Wong, J. and Law, R. (2003) ‘Differences
in Shopping Satisfaction Levels: A Study of
Tourists in Hong Kong’, Tourism Manage-
ment 24(4): 401–10.
(39) Oliver, ref. 9 above.
(40) Millan, A. and Esteban, A. (2004)
‘Development of a Multiple-Item Scale for
Measuring Customer Satisfaction in Travel
Agencies Services’, Tourism Management
25(5): 533–46.
(41) Wong and Law, ref. 38 above.
(42) Peterson, R.A. and Wilson, W.R. (1992)
‘Measuring Customer Satisfaction: Fact and
Artifact’, Journal of Academy of Marketing
Science 20(1): 61–71.
(43) Oh, H. and Parks, S. (1997) ‘Customer
Satisfaction and Service Quality: A Critical
Review of the Literature and Research
Implication for the Hospitality Industry’,
Hospitality Research Journal 20(3): 35–62.
(44) Wong and Law, ref. 38 above.
(45) Oliver, R.L. (1980) ‘A Cognitive Model of
the Antecedents and Consequences of Satis-
faction Decisions’, Journ al of Marketing Re-
search 17: 46–9.
(46) Chon, K. (1989) ‘Understanding Recrea-
tional Travelers’ Motivation, Attitude and
Satisfaction’, The Tourism Review 44(1):
3–7.
(47) Yoon and Uysal, ref. 1 above.
(48) Bowen, D. and Clarke, J. (2002) ‘Reflec-
tions on Tourist Satisfaction Research: Past,
Present and Future’, Journal of Vacation Mar-
keting 8(4): 297–308.
(49) Ross, E.L.D. and Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1991)
‘Sightseeing Tourists’ Motivation and Satis-
faction’, Annals of Touri sm Research 18(2):
226–37.
(50) Yoon and Uysal, ref. 1 above.
(51) Swan, J. and Combs, L. (1976) ‘Product
Performance and Consumer Satisfaction’,
Journal of Marketing Research 40: 25–33.
(52) Noe, F. (1987) ‘Measurement Specification
and Leisure Satisfaction’, Leisure Sciences
9(3): 163–72.
(53) Noe, F. (1999) Tourist Service Satisfaction:
Hotel, Transportation, and Recreation. Cham-
paign, Illinois: Sagamore.
(54) Jurowski, C., Cumbow, M., Uysal, M. and
Noe, F. (1996) ‘The Effects of Instrumental
and Expressive Factors on Overall Satisfac-
tion in a Park Environment’, Journal of En-
vironmental Systems 24(1): 47–67.
(55) Noe, F. and Uysal, M. (1997) ‘Evaluation
of Outdoor Recreational Settings: A
Problem of Measuring User Satisfaction’,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
4(4): 223–30.
(56) Uysal, M. and Noe, F. (2003) ‘Satisfaction
in Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Set-
tings’, in E. Laws (eds) Case Studies in Tour-
ism Marketing, pp. 140–58. London:
Continuum.
(57) Noe, ref. 52 above.
(58) Uysal and Noe, ref. 56 above.
(59) Uysal, M. and Williams, J. (2004) ‘The
Role of Expressive and Instrumental Factors
in Measuring Visitor Satisfaction’, in G.I.
Crouch, R. Perdue, H.J.P. Timmermans
and M. Uysal (eds) Consumer Psychology of
Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure (CPTHL),
pp. 227–44. London: CABI.
(60) Yoon and Uysal, ref. 1 above.
(61) Uysal and Williams, ref. 59 above.
(62) Uysal and Williams, ref. 59 above.
(63) Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry,
L.L. (1988) ‘SERVQUAL: A Multiple-
Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Per-
ceptions of Service Quality’, Journal of
Retailing 64(1): 12–37.
(64) Parasuraman et al., ref. 63 above.
(65) Thanika, D.J. (2004) ‘Exploring Interna-
tional Tourists’ Perception of Hotel Opera-
tions by Using a Modified SERVQUAL
Approach – A Case Study of Mauritius’,
Managing Service Quality 14(5): 350–64.
(66) Nash, R., Thyne, M. and Davies, S. (2005)
‘An Investigation into Customer Satisfac -
tion Levels in the Budget Accommodation
Sector in Scotland: A Case Study of Back-
packer Tourists and the Scottish Youth
Hostels Association’, Tourism Management
27(3): 517–24.
(67) Akama, J.S. and Kieti, M.D. (2003) ‘Meas-
uring Tourist Satisfaction with Kenya’s
Wildlife Safari: A Case Study of Tsavo West
National Park’, Tourism Management 24(1):
Page 55
Meng, Tepanon and Uysal
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
73–81.
(68) Dwyer, L., Meller, R., Livaic, Z., Edwards,
C. and Kim, C. (2004) ‘Attributes of Desti-
nation Competitiveness: A Factor Analysis’,
Tourism Analysis 9: 91–101.
(69) Hair, Jr., J. F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham,
R.L. and Black, W.C. (2002) Multivariate
Data Analysis (6th Edition). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
(70) Hair et al., ref. 69 above.
Page 56
Measuring tourist satisfaction by attribute and motivation
at THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY on August 28, 2009 http://jvm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
