Visitor's satisfaction measurement in animal parks: The case of Parc Safari in Québec, Canada

Abstract

The measurement of visitor satisfaction of a zoological park, where wildlife
is free and not in captivity, is an issue that receives growing interest in
recent decades. The postmodern lifestyle we adopt causes this type of park to
beconsidered as a last stand against the urbanization of the area. Through
this study, we attempted to measure visitor satisfaction of a zoological park
located in Quebec that provides a circuit where visitors can get direct
contact with wildlife in its natural environment.
The results of the study demonstrated the importance of the proximity to the
animals in the assessment of visitor satisfaction. However, the price remains
the main explanatory component of satisfaction, followed by the overall
appearance and parkcleanliness.

Full text

TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF
TOURISM
Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 112-132
UDC: 338.48+640(050)!
!
112!
VISITOR’S SATISFACTION MEASUREMENT IN
ANIMAL PARKS: THE CASE OF PARC SAFARI
IN QUÉBEC, CANADA.
Mohamed Reda KHOMSI, Ph.D
Professor
École des sciences de la gestion
Université du Québec à Montréal
Dominic LapointePh.D
Professor
École des sciences de la gestion
Université du Québec à Montréal
The measurement of visitor satisfaction of a zoological park, where wildlife
is free and not in captivity, is an issue that receives growing interest in
recent decades. The postmodern lifestyle we adopt causes this type of park to
beconsidered as a last stand against the urbanization of the area. Through
this study, we attempted to measure visitor satisfaction of a zoological park
located in Quebec that provides a circuit where visitors can get direct
contact with wildlife in its natural environment.
The results of the study demonstrated the importance of the proximity to the
animals in the assessment of visitor satisfaction. However, the price remains
the main explanatory component of satisfaction, followed by the overall
appearance and parkcleanliness.
Keywords: zoo, satisfaction measurement, quantitative analysis visitors.
© University of the Aegean. Print ISSN: 1790-8418, Online ISSN: 1792-6521

Mohamed Reda KHOMSI & Dominic Lapointe !
!
!
113!
INTRODUCTION
Visitor satisfaction of a tourist attraction is an issue that has been
widely studied by researchers, particularly those from the
management sciences. Nevertheless, changing consumer behavior
and the characteristics of the visited object requires a continuous
updating of knowledge in order to clearly define the evolution of the
concept of satisfaction on the one hand, and on a more operational
level, to adapt the tourism product to the expectations of visitors on
the other. As such, this study focuses on measuring Parc Safari’s
visitor satisfaction. Parc Safari is an importanttourist attraction in
Hemmingford, in the province of Québec in Canada. The park is in
operation since 1972 and located 65 km south of Montreal, a few
kilometers from the border with the United States.
Despite! the! large!numberof! research! conductedon! the! subject,
this study presents! somespecific! characteristics.First,it! is, to our
knowledge, the first to deal! with! the! subjectofanimal! parksin!
Quebecand,! on! the! otherhand,!itis! spread! overseveral! yearswhich!
allowsto!observe!the!evolutionof!the!main!trendsin!thetime.!
Amusement parks, an evolving research topic
The popularity ofamusement parks, especially zoos, has
interested many authors over the last five decades. Indeed, in the
1960s, Conway (1969) analyzed the growing importanceof the
recreational function in the zoos at the time where they were mostly
seen as a placefor education and learning. Subsequently, other
authors as Kasmar (1970) Kuehl (1976) and Jones et al (1976)
studied the evolution of the attitude of zoo visitors in view of the
growing interest of the recreational dimension of these new
destinations. From then on, the question of satisfaction became one
of the main concerns of researchers.
Lee (2015) identifies three subjects in the amusements parks
literature, which have attracted the interest of the scientific
community. The first issue is that of visitor’s motivation, whichwas
one of the most studied topics since it evolved from learningto

TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF
TOURISM
Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 112-132
UDC: 338.48+640(050)!
!
114!
entertainment, followed by recreation (Morgan & Hodgkinson,
1999). In this sense, Falk et al (2007) concluded that motivations
condition how visitors proceed in the parks and therefore, a focus on
this issuein order to improve the visitor’s experience is inevitable.
The second issue identified by Lee (2015) as importantto
researchers isthat of the behavior of visitors. Indeed, several authors
(Coe, 1985; Finlay et al 1988 and Davey, 2006) observed a change in
the behavior of visitors in zoos, due mainly to changes in the
relationship between humans and nature in general, and animals in
particular. In a context of postmodernity, zoos, especially those
where the wildlife is not in captivity, are considered a last stand
against the urban sprawl.
Finally, Lee (2015) refers to visitors attitudes towards animals
that were in turn influenced by the human presence (Davey, 2007).
In a context where the primary purpose of amusement parks is
geared more towards recreation, the impact of this change on animal
welfare has become an interesting problem for researchers. Authors
like Finlay et al (1988), conducting comparative field studies in
Georgia, have established a relationship between the perception of
the species by the visitor and the attitude of the latter once in contact
with the wildlife.
Visitor satisfaction, a complex problem
Consumer satisfaction is at the heart of corporate strategies
(Pizam and Ellis, 1999), making it one of the most discussed subjects
in the literature(Yuksel and Yuksel, 2001). Despite the wealth of
research on the subject, there is no consensus on the best way to
measure it, or even define it. The main theories that have adressed
this issues are the expectation gap theory (Parasuraman et al., 1985;
Duke and Persia, 1996; Luk and Layton, 2002), the expection
disconfirmation theory (Oliver, 1980;1997; Pizam and Milman,
1993) and the performance only theory (Tse and Wilton, 1998;
Pizam et al., 1978). This study will focus particularly on the latter.
Indeed, the measurement of gaps between expectations and
perceptions is not sufficient to understand the customer’s satisfaction
with the performance in a tourism context (Bowie and Chang, 2005).
It is the performance of the product and its by-products that make up
the overall tourism experience, which is atthe heart of satisfaction.

Mohamed Reda KHOMSI & Dominic Lapointe !
!
!
115!
This performance would be twofold: an emotional dimension and an
instrumental dimension (Swan and Combs, 1976 in Pizam et al.,
1978). According to these authors, the emotional dimension is
central to the tourist experience e.i. comfort, reputation, sensory
experience; and the instrumental dimension corresponds rather to
physical and operational aspects such as price, availability and
cleanliness. This approach is particularly interesting for us to address
the issue of satisfaction as part of a theme park (Milman, 2010), the
emotional dimensionbeing at the very forefront of the experiential
turn of the tourism Industry (Pine and Gilmore, 1999; Milman,
2010).
The tourist experience is hybrid and complex (Neal and Gursoy,
2008), because it is composed of multiple sub-products and multiple
vendors. In the case of theme parks, the different dimensions of the
experience are found inside the premises (Milman, 2010; Bigné et al,
2005, Baron-Yelle and Clavé, 2014). These different dimensions,
whether emotional or instrumental, combine in a confined space to
create the feeling of satisfaction of the theme park experience
(Milman, 2009). In this context, research on the theme parks and
zoos have already identified a number of predictors of satisfaction.
Andereck and Caldwell (1994), in an evaluation of the
satisfaction of the North Carolina Zoological Park, identified the
following as a predictors of visitor satisfaction: staff, amenities of
the zoo, accessibility of exhibits, ability to view the animals,
educational aspects of the visit, recreational featuresof the visit,
environment of the zoo and the animals. The research concludes that
visitor’s satisfaction diferedlittle in various identified segments (out
of state vacationers and in state visitors).
Milman (2009) focuses on the importance given to different
aspects of the theme parks of Central Florida by visitors. It identifies
seven constructs that theme parks visitors use to evaluate-their
experience: (i) quality and variety of entertainment; (ii) courtesy,
cleanliness, safety and security (fundamental operational issues); (iii)
food variety and value for money; (iv) quality of theming and
design; (v) availability and variety of family-oriented activities; (vi)
quality and variety of rides and attractions; and (vii) pricing and
value for money.

TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF
TOURISM
Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 112-132
UDC: 338.48+640(050)!
!
116!
Finally, Geissler and Ruck (2011) use a ten years customer
satisfaction trackingsurvey at a major US theme park to identify
predictors of satisfaction of the customers with their experience in
the park. Their finding stresses the importance of three main factors:
overall experience park / value, park’s food quality / value / variety,
and park’s cleanliness / atmosphere. Their research, whichusedan
expectation gap model, identified significant predictors of met
expectations that include satisfaction with total cost, variety of
attractions available, and previous visit of the customer to the park.
Furthermore, Geisler and Ruck (2011)research focused on
classical theme parks (Geisler and Ruck, 2011; Milman, 2009) or
zoos (Anderek and Caldwell, 1994). The question of theme parks
with wildlife freedom appears to be in need of assessment, including
issues concerning the experience of contact with animals with
special emotional charge.
Authors who have studied the question of satisfaction in
zoos,identified several issues. As such, it is important to distinguish
between zoos where animals are in captivity and thosewhere wildlife
is free in its natural environment. According to Dengate (1993), the
experience is quite different; therefore the context should be taken
into account in the evaluation. For this author, zoos where animals
are free in their natural environment are an ideal. Indeed, combining
in the same space recreational, educational and conservation
goalsallows visitors a memorable experience. Tribe (2001) goes in
the same direction, and believes that the possibility of coming into
contact with animals, and also with the staff, offers the opportunity
for visitors to use the park in a different manner, and therefore enjoy
the experience differently. Besides Luebke and Matiasek (2013)
confirm this fact, finding intheir study that there is a strong
correlation between seeing the animals and the level of satisfaction.
These researchers also suggestthat zoo promoters promote visibility
and contact with the animal as vital elements in their communication
strategy.
We find these same conclusions in Hughes and Macbeth (2005)
who studied Barna Mia, a site located in south-western Australia, in
which people can observe wildlife in its natural habitat.These authors
conclude that the contact of visitors with animals gives a feeling of
unmatched satisfaction. In the same vein, Packer and
Ballantyne(2002) estimate that the emotional charge felt while

Mohamed Reda KHOMSI & Dominic Lapointe !
!
!
117!
visiting zoos where wildlife is in its natural environment is more
important than that of places where animals are in captivity. Based
on a study of four marine sites, of which two includes wildlife that is
free to roam, the authors estimate that visitors arrive tosimilar levels
of learning about the environment. However, in the experiment, the
results are conflicting. Thus, visitors to parks where wildlife are free
give importance to learning aspects of their visits. In contrast,
visitors to parks where wildlife is in captivity are more interested in
fun and social aspects of their visits. This difference reflects the
perception that each category of visitors has towards wildlife.
Visitors of zoos and aquariums consider these as a space for social
interaction with family and friends, while they regardwildlife tours
as an opportunity to learn about nature. According to the authors,
this is due to close contact with the animals in the wildlife tour. Five
months after their visit, visitors still remember those moments.
For other authors, contact with animals is not the only indicator
in the assessment of visitor satisfaction in zoos where wildlife can be
observed in its natural environment. For Roest et al (1997), the
feeling of satisfaction or dissatisfaction results from the comparison
between the costs and benefits of the act of purchase made by the
visitor. As such, Churchill and Surprenant (1982) consider that it is
the benefits gained through experience that will be decisive in the
construction of satisfaction, whileRoss and Iso-Ahola (1991) and
Geva and Goldman (1991) believe that the cost is the determining
factor in the definition of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the visitor.
Other authors, such as Oliver (1981) and Tse and Wilton (1988),
emphasize the regularity of the service throughout the visitor
experience in the park. In contrast, Darby and Kani (1973) point out
that the feeling of satisfaction should not be summed up as
includingonly field experience. According to these authors, the
construction of an opinion begins with the research phase
(construction needs and expectations), continues withthe field
experience, and remainsuntil after the end of the visit park. Other
authors have studied elements that are often considered as
accessories in the evaluation of customer satisfaction. These
especially include the cleanliness of the toilets, the availability of
parking spaces and the quality of food available on site.Even if they
may seem secondary, these services can help alter the overall

TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF
TOURISM
Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 112-132
UDC: 338.48+640(050)!
!
118!
satisfaction vis-à-vis the park in those cases where the benefit of the
service is below the expectations of visitors (Jensen, 2007).
Methodology
Measurement of the the satisfaction variable
Especially in a zoo where wildlife lives in its natural
environment, studies that have addressed the issue of satisfaction
have identified several indicators to measure visitor satisfaction of
the park. In this vein, based on the work of Roest et al (1997),
Hughes (2005), Packer and Ballantyne (2012) and Lee (2015), a
clustering of measurement indicators in three dimensions was
performed. According to the results, the first dimension includes all
theemotional indicators insofar they represent the visitor’s
experience in the park. As such, it is necessary to distinguish the
indicators that fall within the contact with staff on the one hand, and
those under the contact with the animals. Concerningthis last point,
visitors will assess the level of closeness with the animals, the ability
to touch them, the possibility of viewing wildlife, the appearance of
the animals and ultimately the quality of the natural environment in
which animals evolve. In terms of the quality of contact with staff,
visitors will assess the quality of care, the communication skills, the
support and assistance provided by the staff,and the moments of
interactionwith the park’spersonnel.
The second dimension refers to the indicators of accessibility
tothe park. Indeed, the price and the distance before arriving at the
zoo are the two main indicators to measure the visitor’s satisfaction
with the accessibility. The price variable is composed of park entry
fees, expenses incurred in traveling to the park, and eventually all the
money spent onsite. In terms of visitplanning, visitors will analyze
the convenience of the observation route, the quality of facilities, the
quality of infrastructure and visitor services (including toilets,
catering and parking) and finally the security for the visitors.
The last dimension in the measurement ofsatisfactionis the
informationalaspect. It refers to the communication efforts put forth
by the park through displays, the staff, promotional materials, or any
other communication medium intended to disseminate information
among visitors. In particular, visitors will be sensitive to news that

Mohamed Reda KHOMSI & Dominic Lapointe !
!
!
119!
expose the park’sefforts for wildlife conservation, natural
environment, animal welfare and the species specificity.
Theanalysis confirmed the emotional and instrumental
dimensions of satisfaction found in other studies, although the latter
is relabeledas accessbility dimension.Furthermore, a new aspect is
added that takes into account the informational and educational
aspects of animal parks, which according to the literature on animal
parksare central to the experience.
Method
The study conducted with the Safari Park was designed to
identify the satisfaction components of visitors to the park, with the
aim to improve the visitor’s experience. A web questionnaire
consisting of 45 questions grouped into three themes was designed
based on the literature. The first conventional theme was aimed at
obtaining the profile the visitors in orderto understand who isthe
typical park visitor. The second part of the questionnairewas
intended toevaluate the visitor’s satisfaction vis-à-vis their
experience in the park, with particular relevance to the main
attraction, Safari Adventure. The last topic that was submitted to the
respondents was related to the identification of elements that could
enhance the visitor’s experience, by asking respondents to ratea list
of projects under development in the Safari Park.
The questionnaire administration was done online tovisitors who
had agreed to participate and provided their email address. These
individualsreceived three days after their visit a message containing
a link to the questionnaire developed with the platform
SurveyMonkey. The study began at the end of May 2014 and
spanned until the second week of October. To improve the
representativeness of the sample, the emails of individualswho
visited the park earlyin the week, in the middle of the week or on the
weekend were collected, since the traffic level is significantly
different in various days of the week, with a peak on weekends,
especially if the weather conditions are appropriate. In total, 4072
email addresseswere collected, of which 3599 were valid. At the end
of the survey 1203 completed questionnaire were received, which
equals a response rate of 33%.

TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF
TOURISM
Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 112-132
UDC: 338.48+640(050)!
!
120!
The sample consists of 67% women and 33% men. In most cases,
the respondent’s mother tongue is French (85%), followed by
English and Arabic. Demographically, 70% of the respondents are in
the age group between 25-44 and half of them(50%) have a
university degree. As for the income level, 31% of the sample earn a
household income of over $100,000, followed at 20% by those
recording a family income between $60,000 and $80,000. In terms of
geographical origin, 68% of the visitors make a tripof less than 2
hours to get to the park, against 18% who require more than two
hours. Only9% of the respondents choose to take a tourist
accommodation in the region. The following table summarizes the
main characteristics of thesample.
Table 1: Respondent’sdemographicCharacteristics
Demographiccharacteristics
Percentage
Gender
Male
Female
33 %
67 %
Mother tongue
French
English
Other
85 %
3 %
12 %
Age group
18-24 years old
25-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-years old or more
7 %
34 %
36 %
23 %
Last diploma obtained
Elementary school
Secondary school
1 %
12 %

Mohamed Reda KHOMSI & Dominic Lapointe !
!
!
121!
Professional training
University Diploma
13 %
49 %
Family income
Less then 20.000 $
Between 20.001 $ and 40.000 $
Between 40.001 $ and 60.000 $
Between 60.001 $ and 80.000 $
Over80.001 $
4 %
10 %
17%
20 %
49 %
As for the visit, 83% of the respondents came with their family,
73% represent parents with their children and 10% are grandparents
with their grandchildren. Of these families, 87% visited the park with
at least one child, 59% with at least two children, and 21% with at
least three children. The main motivation of park visitors (38% of the
respondents) is being close to the animals andbeing able to touch
them. However, 31% chose the park to benefit in the same day from
three activities offered by the park (animals, water games and rides).
3. Analysis of Results
To measure visitor satisfaction, respondents were requested to
answer two questions. First, visitors were asked to rate their
satisfaction with various attractions and services offered by the park
using a measurement scale ranging from unacceptable to excellent.
The reliability of the satisfaction scale was assessed using Cronbach
Alpha considered the first tool to define the strength of the analysis
(Hair et al, 2009). The value of this coefficient is.883, which is
above the minimum threshold of 0.70 generally accepted in the
scientific community (Université de Sherbooke, 2015).
The next step was to conduct a principal component factor
analysis using a Varimax orthogonal rotationon the variables
measuring satisfaction . The review of the index Kayser-Meyer-
Olkin (KMO) indicates a high level of significance (KMO = 0.852),
the results show that 12 components can explain 60% of the
variance, as seeninTable 2. These are: food,thevarioussiteswhere

TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF
TOURISM
Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 112-132
UDC: 338.48+640(050)!
!
122!
animalscan be seen(with the exception of safariAdventure),
cleanliness, thedifferent shopsin thePark, thevarious services
offered,entertainmentactivities available, information presentedto
visitors at different times duringthe visit,aquatic areas,
variableprices, signagein the park, the staff’s provisionof service to
the visitorsand contact withanimals.
Table 2: Components)to)assess)Parc)Safari’s)visitor)satisfaction))
Components
Factor
loading
Eigenvalue
% variance Cumulative variance
Component 1 : Food
Food price
Value food
Variety of menus
Resto de la Savane
Restaurant l’Explorateur
.858
.847
.810
.638
.522
7.893
17.939 17.939
Component 2: Visibility!ofanimals!in!captivity
Farm five continents
Deer Trail
Tunnel lions
Terrace Afrika
Olduvai Gateway
Plain cheetahs
.719
.711
.686
.656
.654
.643
3.511
7.981 25.919
Component 3: cleanliness
Cleanliness of park
General appearance
.813
.729
2.379
5.407 31.326

Mohamed Reda KHOMSI & Dominic Lapointe !
!
!
123!
Clean toilets
.681
Component 4 : Shopping
Shop toys
Arts shop
Beach shop product
.834
.811
.771
2.263
5.142 36.468
Component 5: Services offerd by the Park
Safari Expédition
Information booth
ATM Availability
Smooking area
Educational presentations
.639
.553
.510
.506
.372
1,791
4.071 40.540
Component 6 : Entertainment activities
Mechanical rides
Skill games
Nairobi Park
Show
.719
.591
.590
.511
1.558
3.542 44.081
Component 7 : Information for visitors
Radio Safari
Safari Mag
Information on animals
.751
.661
.644
1.279
2.907 46.99
Component 8 : Water sector
Acquaparc Safari
Tube downhill
Creameries
Availability Pikes picnic areas
.802
.672
.460
.445
1.239
2.815 49.80

TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF
TOURISM
Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 112-132
UDC: 338.48+640(050)!
!
124!
Component 9 : Price
Value of the day
Admission price
.770
.768
1.166
2.650 52.454
Component 10 : Signage
Map reading ease
Signage
.762
.625
1.093
2.484 54.938
Component 11 : Quality of the service
personnel
Quality of information provided by the staff
Courtesy of staff
.723
.630
1.076
2.445 57.382
Component 12 : Contact with animals
Box of foods for animal
Ticketing Wait Times
Tours of animals
Safari Adventure
.712
.419
.402
.375
1.007
2.445 59.672
Oncethe maincomponents were identified, the weightof each
componentin explainingoverall satisfaction was
assessed.Accordingly,linearregression analysis ofthe 12components
with respect tothe main variable was performed. For this test, 12
newvariables that reflectthe average of theattributesthat
formedeachcomponent were created.According to the results(see
Table3),4 componentsexplain42% (R2 = .422) of the variation of
thesatisfaction model. The integration ofthe other componentsdoes
not significantly altertheperformance of the modeland thereforewe
limited theanalysis to thesecomponents and theirattributes.The
results as seen inTable 3show thatthe price componentis the most
importantcoefficient(Beta=.666), followed by cleanliness,contact
with animalsand the visibilityof animalsin captivity.

Mohamed Reda KHOMSI & Dominic Lapointe !
!
!
125!
Table 3: Result of regression analysis of overall satisfaction /
components
!
Components
Non-standardized
coefficients (B)
standardized!
coefficients
(Beta)
Sig.
Price
.666
.442
.000
cleanliness
.389
.197
.000
Contact with animals
.205
.154
.000
Visibility!ofanimals!in!captivity
.178
.138
.000
To completethe statistical analysis, an textual dataanalysis was
carried out using Nvivo in order to review
the694commentsrecorded.The analysiswas used to identifythe
wordsthat come up mostoften, andfrom there, the creation of
themesgroupsthat werelinked tothe concept ofoverall satisfaction.As
such,the researchidentified threethemes: the price, contact with
animals andservices and attractionsofferedby the Park.When
compared with thosecomponentsthat emerged fromthe
quantitativeanalysis, it is interesting to note that price andcontact
with animals appear to be common to both analyses.
In termsof price,the statistical analysisindicatesthat this factorhas
twoattributes,which are the entrance feeto the park andthevalueof
aday at the park. The correlation between thesetwo attributesis also
significantwith a value of.721,which indicates the importanceof this
factorin explainingthe overall satisfaction ofpark
visitors.Accordingly, the visitorsbelieve thatthe price paid istoo
expensive comparedto the overall experience. This perception
ismorepronouncedif we take intoaccount thefees paidfor access
tocertainrides andwater parkactivities.This viewpointis more

TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF
TOURISM
Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 112-132
UDC: 338.48+640(050)!
!
126!
prevalent amongthose customerswhovisitedthe parkat the beginning
orend of the season,when someareas of the parkwere closed.On this
topic, the visitors suggestthatpricesare modulated based onthe timeof
the visit andon the attractionsthatvisitorswishto access.For example,
they suggest that visitors who wish to makeonlythe
SafariAdventurecircuit couldpay a different price,comparatively to
thosewho wish to travelonlyto the water parkor to benefitfully from
theirday witha tour oftheall theattractions offeredby the
park.Withrespect to thetime of the visit, respondents felt that
thevisitors who cometo the parkat the beginning orend of the
seasonmust receivea discount,aswater parkareasandridesare
closed,and onlyanimal areasare opento visitors.
The secondcommon issue that arose from the statistical
analysisand the examinationoftextual datais thecontactwith
animals.In of theregression analysisthis factoris positionedin third
place,just behind thecleanlinessfactor,witha non-standardized
coefficient (B)equal to.205.The main component ofthis
factor(B=0.522) includesthe observationcircuitof wildlifein freedom
thatoffers the opportunity forvisitorsto get indirect contactwith
animalsthat circulate intheir natural environment,while thevisitor isin
thevehicle. This attractionis of paramountimportanceto
developerssinceit is the main attraction of the Parc Safariandhas a
directimpact on the levelof visitor satisfaction. As such,the analysis
oftextual dataindicates thatthe time spentinside the circuitis an
important factorfor the visitors. In fact, 73% of thosethatspentover
two hoursat the SafariAdventure,ascribea satisfactionscore between6
and 8,while 60%of those whospent lessthan an hour anda half onthe
circuitshowa satisfaction scorebetween 8 and 10.This is explainedby
the fact thatif visitorsspend a significanttimeonthe circuitthey no
longer havethe time to visitotherareas of the parkdue to lack of
timeor fatigue.
Finallybeyond thecommon elementsofthestatistical andtextual
analysis, the cleanliness componentis positioned asthesecond largest
afterthe price.The latterhas threeattributes,the park’s cleanliness, the
toilets andthe overall appearanceof the park.However,it is the
latterattribute thatismostimportant to thevisitor in theassessment of
overallsatisfaction (B = .526) even though the issuedid not come
outsignificantlyin the respondents' comments.As explainedabove,
this may bedueto the fact thatvisitors consideracceptablethe

Mohamed Reda KHOMSI & Dominic Lapointe !
!
!
127!
appearanceand cleanlinessof the park, whichis within the
minimumexpected from the park, and therefore does not represent a
dissatisfaction factor.
Conclusions
The analysis ofboth quantitative andqualitative datadetermines
that the priceremainsthe central elementin the assessment ofvisitor
satisfaction. This echoesthe findings ofRoestet al (1997), Ross and
Iso-Ahola(1991) andGevaand Goldman(1991),which noted that
thecost isa determining factorin the definition ofvisitor satisfactionof
azoo.As such,the dimensionof accessibilityidentifiedintheliterature
asone of the three-dimension ofvisitor satisfaction,canbe
recognizedas the main dimension in thisresearch. In thisregard,it is
necessary to notethat this pricefactor does notonlyrefer to
theadmission fees to thepark, but italso includes allcoststo getto and
allthe money spenton, thezoosite. Moreover, in their
comments,visitorspropose thatthe charges for accessto the parkare
adjustedby taking into account the choicesof the activitiesthat
visitorswish to practice.If it is generally admited that in the 21st
century consumption has taken a turn away from goods and services
towards experiences (Pine and Gilmore, 1999), and that theme parks
are a paramount example of this turn (Milman, 2010),the research’s
findings reified the importance of the instrumental dimension of the
performance of a theme park, which in this studywas labelled as the
accessibility dimension of satisfaction. According to the research, no
matter how good and satisfying is the experience obtained at the
park, if the accessibility is not there, especially market accessibility
via pricing, the customers may not be satisfied.
The question ofthe importance of pricein the evaluationof the
Parc Safari’svisitors’s satisfaction alsofollowsthe conclusions of
Milman(2009).This author,who led a survey of Central Florida’s
residents, domestic and international tourists, concludes that price is
a dimension more important to residents as compared to tourists.In
our case,thesame conclusion is reached, since 68% of the visitors
make a tripof less than 2 hours to get to the park, compared to only
9% of the respondents who chose to take a tourist accommodation in
the region. In this sense, the originalityof this articlelies inthe
redefinitionof the attributes ofsatisfaction.Unlike many studies on the

TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF
TOURISM
Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 112-132
UDC: 338.48+640(050)!
!
128!
same subject, this research has shown that the experiential dimension
is not necessarily always the most important one. In our case, two
functional attributes (price and cleanliness) are most significant for
visitors, and especially the resident. For this reason, future studies
should use the visitors’ postcode in order to map the flow of
peopleand to define a satisfaction attributes grid by segments of
visitors.
In line with the literature, the startingassumptionof this study was
that the main motivationof park visitorsisthe willto make contactwith
the animalsand to be able totouch them.This assumption
wasvalidatedsince, aswe pointed outearlier,38% ofvisitors choosethe
parkfor this reason.This reflectsthe importance ofthe emotional
dimensionthat emergedinboththe quantitativeand qualitative
analysis,since visitorsconsider thisas an importantdimensionin
assessingoverall satisfaction.This is alsothe same pointraised by
severalauthors (Dengate, 1993; Tribe,2001;LuebkeandMatiasek,
2013;Hughes andMacbeth,2005;PackerandBallantyne,2002),who felt
thatthis emotionaldimensionis especiallyvital in the analysisof
satisfactionin zooswhere wildlife isfree.
The findingsconfirmthe importance of contactwith the animalsin
the assessmentof the overallvisitor satisfactionand determines the
weight thatSafariAdventure holds,as the mainattraction inthe parkto
whichdevelopersshould pay particularattention to.Inthe analysis
ofqualitative data, someareas for improvementthat mayenhance the
customer experienceand thereforesatisfaction were identified.In this
regard,the signalingwithin the circuitto encourageusersto
respecttraffic rules was one of the proposals made by the
respondents.In this spirit,some visitorsevenproposedthat thepark’s
staff be involved whensome visitorsslowtraffic flowandimpair the
quality ofthe user’s experienceinside thecircuit.The second
elementthat recurs invisitor commentsregardingthe
SafariAdventureis the lack ofproximity tocertain species.Indeed,
some animals are less likely toapproach thevisitors,which
accentuates thefeeling of onlyvery few animalsbeing present inthe
circuit.
Also, contrary to what emergedinthe literature review, visitors do
not seem topayattention to theinformational dimensionin the
assessment ofoverall satisfactionwith their experienceat the
park.Indeed, despitethe actions ofthe SafariParkin recent yearsto

Mohamed Reda KHOMSI & Dominic Lapointe !
!
!
129!
demonstrateits commitment to theprotection of wildlife, this does not
emergeas a significantfactor of satisfaction, neither inthe quantitative
analysisnorin the qualitative one. In spite of thisfinding, it is not
possible toconclude thatpark visitorsare insensitiveregarding this
dimensionand thereforefurther attentionto this componentshould be
giveninthe next survey.Furthermore, aline of researchfor the
nextstudyconcerns whatJensen(2007)called
secondaryservices.Indeed, in this research, thecleanliness of the
toilets, the parking availability, the quality of food andthe
availability ofpicnicspacesonly marginallyinfluence the visitor’s
satisfaction.In this regard, authors such as
SprengandMackoy(1996),Mittal,Kumar andTsrios(1999)
andNamkungandJang(2010) estimate that one must
distinguishbetween satisfactionand dissatisfactionthat arecompletely
opposedconcepts. Indeed,the reaction ofa satisfiedor lesssatisfied
customerwill not be the same as that of a dissatisfiedcustomer.In the
lattercase,a consumerwill not repeat the purchasewithouttalking
about it.In contrast, the customer that is lesssatisfied with a productor
service, butattached toa brand,willacknowledge itandtalkabout it.
Accordingly,we believe that thesecondary servicesraised
byJensen(2007) must be measuredusing the samegridasthat usedto
assessvisitor satisfactionin this research and therefore future studies
should take this issue into consideration.
References
Andereck, K.L. and L.L. CALDWELL (1994). Variable Selection in
Tourism Market Segmentation Models.Journal of Travel Research, Vol.
33 No.2, pp. 40-46
Baron-Yelle, N. and S.A. Clavé (2014). Leisure parks: components and
creators of the new urban landscapes? . Loisir et Société / Society and
Leisure, Vol. 37 No.1, pp. 18-37
Bigné, J.E. et al. (2005). The theme park experience: An analysis of
pleasure, arousal and satisfaction.Tourism ManagementVol 26, pp. 833–
844
Bowie D. and Chang, J.c. (2005). Tourist satisfaction: A view from a mixed
international guided package tour .Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol.
11 No.4, pp 303-322
Churchill, G. A., and C. Surprenant. (1982). An Investigation into the
Determinants of Customer Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research,

TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF
TOURISM
Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 112-132
UDC: 338.48+640(050)!
!
130!
Vol.19, pp. 491-504.
Coe, J. (1985). Design and perception: making the zoo experience real. Zoo
Biology, Vol. 4 No.2,pp. 197-208.
Conway, W. (1969). Zoos: Their changing roles. Science, Vol 163, pp. 48-
52.
Darby, M. R., and E. Karni. (1973). Free Competition and Optimal Amount
of Fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 67-86.
Dengate, H. (1993). Toronga Zoo Guidebook. Sydney.Bartel Publication.
Davey, G. (2006). Visitor behavior in zoos: a review. Anthrozoos, Vol, 19.
No.2, pp. 143-157.
Davey, G. (2007). Visitors' effects on the welfare of animals in the zoo: a
review. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, Vol. 10, No.2, pp.
169-183.
Duke, C. R and Persia, A. M. (1996), “Performance-Importance Analysis of
Escorted Tour Evaluations” in Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, 5 (3) : 207-223
Dunn Ross, E. L., and S. E. Iso-Ahola. (1991).Sightseeing Tourists’
Motivation and Satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 18, pp.
226-237.
Falk, J. H., Reinhard, E. M., Vernon, C. L., Bronnenkant, K., Heimlich, J.
E., & Deans, N. L. (2007). Why zoos and aquariums matter: Assessing
the impact of a visit to a zoo or aquarium. Silver Springs, MD:
Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
Finlay, T., James, L. R., & Maple, T. L. (1988). People's perceptions of
animals: the influence of zoo environment. Environment and Behavior
Vol 20, No.4, pp 508-528.
Geissler, G.L. and C.T. Rucks (2011). The overall theme park experience: A
visitor satisfaction tracking study.Journal of Vacation Marketing,
Vol.17, No.2, pp 127–138.
Geva, A., and A. Goldman. (1991). Satisfaction Measurement in Guided
Tours. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol.18, pp. 177-185.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., and Anderson, E (2009). Multivariate Data
Analysis. Prentice Hall.
Hughes, M. & Macbeth, J (2005). Can a Niche-Market Captive-Wildlife
Facility Place a Low Profile Region on the Tourism Map? An Example
from Western Australia. Tourism Geographies, Vol.7, No.4, pp. 424-
443.
Jensen, J. M. (2007). An empirical investigation of the relationships between
hygiene factors, motivators, satisfaction, and response among visitors to
zoos and aquaria. Tourism Review International, Vol 11, No. 3, pp. 307-
316.
Jones, G.R., J.C. Coe, and D.R. Paulson. (1976). Woodland park zoo : long
range plan, developpement guideline and exhibit scenarios. Jones &

Mohamed Reda KHOMSI & Dominic Lapointe !
!
!
131!
Jones for SeatleDepartement of Parks and Recreation.
Kasmar, J.V. (1970). The developpement of usable lexicon of environmental
descriptor. Environement and Behavior, Vol 12, pp. 153-169.
Kuehl, P.G. (1976). An analysis of visitor socioeconomic Behavioral, and
attitudinal Characteristics at the national zoological park. Washington
DC, National Zoological Park.
Lee, H.S. (2015). Measurement of visitors' satisfaction with public zoos in
Korea using importance-performance analysis. Tourism management,
Vol. 47, pp. 251-260.
Luk, S.T.K and R. Layton, (2002). Perception Gaps in Customer
Expectations: Managers Versus Service Providers and Customers.The
Service Industries Journal, Vol. 22, No 2, pp. 109-128.
Luebke, J. F., &Matiasek, J. (2013). Design and perception: making the zoo
experience real. Zoo Biology, Vol.32, pp. 407-416.
Milman,A. (2009). Evaluating the Guest Experience at Theme Parks: An
Empirical Investigation of Key Attributes.International Journal OF
Tourism ResearchVol. 11, pp. 373–387
Milman,A. (2010). The global theme park industry.Worldwide Hospitality
and Tourism Themes, Vol. 2, No 3, pp. 220-237
Mittal, V., P. Kumar, and M. Tsrios. (1999). Attribute-level performance,
satisfaction, and behavioral intentions over time: A consumption-system
approach. Journal of Marketing,Vol.63, No. 4, pp. 88-101.
Morgan, J. M., & Hodgkinson, M. (1999). The motivation and social
orientation of visitors attending a contemporary zoological park.
Environment and Behavior,Vol.31, No.2 , pp. 227-239.
Namkung, Y. Janng, S. (2010). Service Failures in Restaurants : Which
Stage of Service Failure Is the Most Critical? Cornel Hospitality
QuarterlyVol.51, No.3, pp. 323-343.
Neal, J.D. and D. Gursoy (2008). A Multifaceted Analysis of Tourism
Satisfaction.Journal of Travel Research,Vol.47, pp. 53-62
Oliver, R. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequents of
satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17, No. 4,
pp. 460-469.
Oliver, R. L. (1981) Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Processes
in Retail Settings. Journal of Retailing, Vol.57, No.3, pp. 25-48.
Oliver, R.(1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer.
New York, McGraw-Hill.
Packer, J., & Ballantyne, R. (2002). Motivational factors and the visitor
experience: a comparison of three sites. Curator,Vol.45, No.3, pp.183-
198.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is
theatre & every business a stage. Harvard Business Press.

TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF
TOURISM
Volume 11, Number 4, pp. 112-132
UDC: 338.48+640(050)!
!
132!
Pizam, A. and T. Ellis (1999). Customer satisfaction and its measurement in
hospitality enterprises ».International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol.11, No.7, pp. 326-339
Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1993). Predicting satisfaction among first time
visitors to a destination by using the expectancy disconfirmation
theoryInternational Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol.12, No.2,
pp. 197-209.
Pizam, A. et al. (1978). Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with destination
area.Annals of Tourism Research, Vol.5, No.3, pp. 314-322.
Tribe, A. (2001) Captive wildlife tourism in Australia. Gold Coast,
Australia: CRC Sustainable Tourism.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L.(1985). A conceptual model
of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of
Marketing, Vol49, pp.41-50.
Roest, H. Pieters, R. & Koelemeijer, K.(1997). Satisfaction with amusement
Parks. Annals of tourism Research. Vol. 24, No.4, pp. 1001-1005.
Spreng, R. A., and R. D. Mackoy. (1996). An empirical examination of a
model of perceived service quality and satisfaction. Journal of
Retailing.Vol.72, No.2, pp. 201-14.
Swan, J. E. and L.J. Combs(1976). Product Performance and Consumer
Satisfaction: A New Concept. Journal of Marketing.Vol.40, pp. 25-33.
Tse, D. K., and P. C. Wilton.(1988). Models of Consumer Satisfaction
Formation: An Extension. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.25, pp.
204-212.
Université de Sherbrooke (2015). Spss 17
[http://spss.espaceweb.usherbrooke.ca/] Accessed June 18, 2015.
Yuksel, A., & Yuksel, F. (2001). The expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm:
a critique. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research.Vol.25,
No.2, pp.107-131.
! !
!