Tourist Behavior in the Cruise Industry Post-COVID-19: An Examination of Service Quality, Corporate Image, and Intentions to Pay and Revisit

Abstract

The COVID-19 outbreak has had detrimental consequences on the cruise industry due to the suspension of commercial cruise trips, and these effects remain apparent in Saudi Arabia. The offered service quality (SQ) in the post-COVID-19 era seems to be a critical element for improving customer experiences and satisfaction, enhancing destination attractiveness, increasing revenue, and maintaining repeat business. The current study aimed to assess the impact of service quality on tourists’ satisfaction and corporate image as well as the intention to pay for cruise trips and revisit the destination among 315 tourists in Saudi Arabia. Service quality was measured using five subscales of the SERVQUAL scale, including reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Tourists’ satisfaction was significantly influenced by four domains of SQ, whereas the intention to pay more, intention to revisit the destination, and corporate image were significantly predicted by ≤3 domains of SQ. The study’s findings can help the cruise industry to improve its offerings and create more personalized and engaging experiences that meet the changing needs of customers in the recovery period after the COVID-19 outbreak.

Full text

Citation: Alonazi, B.S.; Hassan, T.H.;
Abdelmoaty, M.A.; Salem, A.E.; Saleh,
M.I.; Helal, M.Y.; Mohamed, Y.A.;
Abuelnasr, M.S.; Gebreslassie, D.A.;
Aleedan, M.H.; et al. Tourist Behavior
in the Cruise Industry
Post-COVID-19: An Examination of
Service Quality, Corporate Image,
and Intentions to Pay and Revisit.
Sustainability 2023,15, 8623. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su15118623
Academic Editors: Lajos Boros and
Cezar Morar
Received: 25 April 2023
Revised: 14 May 2023
Accepted: 24 May 2023
Published: 25 May 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
sustainability
Article
Tourist Behavior in the Cruise Industry Post-COVID-19:
An Examination of Service Quality, Corporate Image, and
Intentions to Pay and Revisit
Bodur S. Alonazi 1, Thowayeb H. Hassan 1, 2, * , Mostafa A. Abdelmoaty 3, * , Amany E. Salem 1,2,
Mahmoud I. Saleh 2,4 , Mohamed Y. Helal 5,6 , Yasser Ahmed Mohamed 1, Magdy Sayed Abuelnasr 1,
Daniel Alemshet Gebreslassie 7, Mona Hamad Aleedan 8and Salaheldeen H. Radwan 2
1Social Studies Department, College of Arts, King Faisal University, Al Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia;
asalem@kfu.edu.sa (A.E.S.); yamahmoud@kfu.edu.sa (Y.A.M.); mabouelnasser@kfu.edu.sa (M.S.A.)
2Tourism Studies Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University,
Cairo 12612, Egypt; st084542@gsom.spbu.ru (M.I.S.); salah.helal@fth.helwan.edu.eg (S.H.R.)
3StatisMed for Statistical Analysis Services, Giza 12573, Egypt
4Graduate School of Management, Saint Petersburg State University, 199004 Saint Petersburg, Russia
5General Management Department, Institute of Management, Economics, and Finance,
Kazan Federal University, 420008 Kazan, Russia; mykhelal@stud.kpfu.ru
6Hotel Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University,
Cairo 12612, Egypt
7Tourism Management Department, Archaeology and Tourism Institute, Aksum University,
Axum 1010, Ethiopia; daniofaxum@gmail.com
8Educational Leadership Department, Faculty of Education, King Faisal University,
Al Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia; mhaleedan@kfu.edu.sa
*Correspondence: thassan@kfu.edu.sa (T.H.H.); mostafa@statismed.com (M.A.A.)
Abstract:
The COVID-19 outbreak has had detrimental consequences on the cruise industry due to
the suspension of commercial cruise trips, and these effects remain apparent in Saudi Arabia. The
offered service quality (SQ) in the post-COVID-19 era seems to be a critical element for improving
customer experiences and satisfaction, enhancing destination attractiveness, increasing revenue, and
maintaining repeat business. The current study aimed to assess the impact of service quality on
tourists’ satisfaction and corporate image as well as the intention to pay for cruise trips and revisit the
destination among 315 tourists in Saudi Arabia. Service quality was measured using five subscales
of the SERVQUAL scale, including reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy.
Tourists’ satisfaction was significantly influenced by four domains of SQ, whereas the intention to
pay more, intention to revisit the destination, and corporate image were significantly predicted by
≤
3 domains of SQ. The study’s findings can help the cruise industry to improve its offerings and
create more personalized and engaging experiences that meet the changing needs of customers in the
recovery period after the COVID-19 outbreak.
Keywords: cruise; service quality; intention to revisit; satisfaction; perceived image
1. Introduction
In recent times, there has been a significant upsurge in the popularity of cruise travel.
As per the Cruise Line International Association’s (CLIA) statistical data, the global cruise
industry witnessed an influx of nearly 30 million passengers in 2019, generating employ-
ment for 1.8 million people across the globe and contributing over USD 1540 billion to
the global economy. However, the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
in 2020 led to the suspension of commercial cruise operations, thereby dealing a severe
blow to the industry. The ensuing suspension of cruise operations from mid-March to
September 2020 resulted in massive global economic losses of USD 77 billion and job
Sustainability 2023,15, 8623. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118623 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 2 of 21
losses of 518,000 [
1
]. Indeed, the cruise industry is slowly but steadily recovering from the
pandemic’s effects. As the industry prepares for post-COVID operations, it is imperative to
understand how service quality in cruise trips affects tourist satisfaction, corporate image,
intention to pay, and intention to revisit.
In the literature, service quality is often conceptualized as the extent to which the
provided services meet or exceed customer expectations. Accordingly, customer satisfaction
is achieved when the delivered service quality matches or surpasses the expected level
of quality [
2
]. One widely accepted measure of service quality is SERVQUAL, which
assesses quality through various dimensions, including tangibles, responsiveness, reliability,
empathy, and assurance [
3
,
4
]. Prior research has established that perceived on-board
service quality significantly affects passenger satisfaction [
5
]. From another perspective,
in the realm of tourist decision-making processes, destination image has been widely
recognized as a crucial factor [
6
–
8
]. Positive perceptions and impressions of a destination
are likely to influence visitors’ preferences for that particular destination [
8
]. The concept of
destination image has two significant effects on tourist behaviors, namely influencing the
decision-making process and shaping the processes of experiencing (attending), evaluating
(satisfaction), and forming future intentions (revisit and recommend) [
9
,
10
]. Actually,
tourist satisfaction, in turn, has been recognized as a crucial factor in repeat purchase
behavior and positive word-of-mouth recommendations [
11
]. Studies have shown that
satisfaction has been linked to the intention to pay more and destination loyalty among
tourists [
11
]. Moreover, recent studies have highlighted a strong association between
satisfaction and loyalty, indicating that satisfied tourists are more likely to exhibit loyalty
towards a destination [12].
However, there is a dearth of research specifically examining the impact of service
quality on the determinants of tourist satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the cruise
industry, particularly in the context of the post-COVID-19 landscape. Indeed, based on
behavioral theory and existing scholarly literature on perceived crisis management, it
is evident that disasters and crises exert significant impacts on the local economy and
the financial wellbeing of individuals residing in affected areas. Consequently, these
effects have a subsequent influence on the development of attitudes, trust, and behavioral
intentions [
13
,
14
]. An analysis of tourists’ perceptions of cruise travel during the pandemic
revealed that the imposition of travel constraints yielded a positive impact on the negativity
bias, and that perceived crisis management had a positive effect on attitude and trust,
while negativity bias had a negative influence [
15
]. Research conducted in the aftermath of
the pandemic indicated a heightened sense of responsibility and supportiveness among
tourists when embarking on their journeys, specifically via five dimensions, including smart
care, safety, comfort, pricing strategy, and social distancing, which collectively contribute
to shaping tourists’ post-pandemic expectations [
16
]. Another recent investigation in
Asia demonstrated that it is imperative to improve service quality parameters during the
pandemic [
17
]. These included adhering strictly to the stipulated departure and arrival
times outlined in the sailing schedules, optimizing the ratio of crew members to passengers
to ensure personalized attention and service, and the establishment of a comprehensive
training system for cruise personnel [
17
]. Collectively, the impact of the pandemic on
these specific areas of service quality and customer behavior may inform policy to foster
customer loyalty and support the positive image of corporations in the cruise industry [
18
].
In Saudi Arabia, while the scarcity of knowledge of the effect of service quality on
the domains of behavioral intentions and tourist satisfaction remains applicable, studying
the aforementioned behavioral attributes is critical for the cruise industry’s sustainable
growth, improving customer experiences, enhancing destination attractiveness, increasing
revenue, and maintaining repeat business. The Saudi Arabian cruise industry possesses
distinct characteristics that differentiate it from other cruise destinations. Geographically,
Saudi Arabia’s strategic location in the Arabian Peninsula offers access to the Red Sea
and the Arabian Gulf, providing diverse and captivating cruise itineraries. Culturally,
Saudi Arabia’s rich history, vibrant traditions, and religious significance contribute to a

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 3 of 21
unique cultural context that attracts a specific segment of cruise tourists seeking authentic
experiences [
19
,
20
]. Furthermore, the country has been investing in tourism infrastructure
development, with significant investments in cruise terminals, port facilities, and tourist
attractions [
21
]. Market dynamics in Saudi Arabia are influenced by the growing domestic
tourism market, increasing international tourism interest, and government initiatives such
as Vision 2030, which aims to diversify the economy and boost tourism [
22
]. These factors
collectively make the Saudi Arabian cruise industry an intriguing case for understanding
tourist behavior.
In the post-COVID-19 era, identifying the specific dimensions of service quality that
are critical for ensuring tourists’ attributes can help adapt the industry’s offerings to meet
the new expectations, recover financially, restore confidence in tourists, and ensure the long-
term sustainability. Despite the increasing scholarly attention given to the cruise industry
since 2010 [
11
], research efforts have remained fragmented due to the multidisciplinary
nature and relatively recent emergence of cruise tourism [
23
]. While several quantitative
studies have investigated the dimensions of quality of service, service attributes, and
perceived value [
5
,
24
–
26
], qualitative research focused on specific aspects of cruise lines,
such as brand image and corporate sustainability [
27
–
29
]. Hence, it is necessary to bridge
the research gap concerning the lack of quantitative research in this area, and this could
ideally be attained using a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. The purpose of
this research paper is to analyze the impact of service quality on tourists’ satisfaction and
corporate image as well as their intention to pay for cruise trips and revisit the destination in
the post-COVID-19 era. The findings of this study will contribute to a better understanding
of the relationship between service quality and other constructs, and the study’s insights
will be beneficial for cruise companies, policymakers, and other stakeholders in the tourism
industry to enhance service quality, improve customer satisfaction, and increase revenue in
the post-pandemic era.
Following this introduction, the manuscript is organized as follows: in Section 2,
we present a comprehensive literature review that explores the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on the cruise industry and examines the relationship between service quality and
various aspects of tourist behavior. Specifically, we discuss the influence of service quality
on tourist satisfaction, its impact on corporate image, intentions to pay more (Section 2.4),
and intentions to revisit the destination. Additionally, we explore the role of tourist satisfac-
tion in shaping the corporate image. In Section 3, we provide an overview of the materials
and methods employed in our study. This includes a detailed description of the study
sample and data collection process, the construct measures utilized to assess the study
variables, and the statistical analysis techniques employed. Moving forward, in Section 4,
we present the results of our analysis. First, we describe the characteristics of the respon-
dents. Then, we present the outcomes of the construct reliability and convergent validity
assessments, as well as the outcomes of the discriminant validity assessment. Following the
results, Section 5engages in a thorough discussion of the findings, their implications, and
their alignment with the research objectives. We also address the limitations of our study
in this section, considering potential biases and areas for further investigation. In Section 6,
we provide the conclusions drawn from our research and summarizing the key findings
and their broader implications. Additionally, we discuss future implications for academia
and industry, suggesting potential areas for further research and offering recommendations
for cruise industry practitioners and policymakers.
2. Literature Review
2.1. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Cruise Industry
The cruise industry’s sustainability has garnered significant skepticism, with deliber-
ations focusing on its corporate social responsibility, environmental concerns, economic
contributions, and detrimental impact on port destinations [
30
,
31
]. Given the growing
consumer interest in ethical and environmental considerations pertaining to products and
services [
32
], many researchers argue that sustainable development constitutes a future

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 4 of 21
challenge for the cruise industry [
33
]. To address these concerns, the Cruise Line Interna-
tional Association (CLIA) [
1
] has pledged to engage in partnerships with local governments,
implement staggered arrivals and departures, diversify excursion options, enable shoreside
power usage, and promote local passenger spending at port destinations. However, the
COVID-19 pandemic has placed great stressors on the cruise sector. Indeed, the pandemic
has underscored the rapid transmission of the virus within confined and densely populated
spaces, such as cruise ships. The outbreak highlighted the swift dissemination of the
virus among passengers, leading to its transmission across various countries visited by the
ships [
34
]. Furthermore, Gössling, Scott, and Hall [
35
] emphasized that prospective future
cruise passengers are likely to vividly recall the distressing images of fellow passengers
enduring prolonged quarantines onboard and the reluctance of different ports to allow pas-
sengers to disembark. These experiences undoubtedly present a significant challenge to the
future provision of hospitality services onboard cruise ships. Actually, as the cruise industry
is already grappling with the repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is imperative for
it to enhance its reputation by improving service processes [
29
]. In this regard, endeavors
to elevate service quality, foster innovation in management systems and strategies, and
advance sustainability initiatives can aid in bolstering the industry’s image [36].
Therefore, it is necessary to explore the challenges imposed in the cruise industry
in the post-pandemic era. Manolitzas et al. [
37
] conducted a study utilizing online user-
generated content from CruiseCritics to investigate cruisers’ satisfaction using the Multicri-
teria Satisfaction Analysis Method (MUSA). Their findings revealed that cruise lines excel
in providing satisfactory service and cabins, which are also considered important attributes
by cruisers. This corroborates previous research that has identified service and dining
as crucial criteria for cruisers’ satisfaction [
38
,
39
]. Additionally, the criterion of value for
money was identified as an opportunity for action, suggesting that investments in this area
by cruise companies can significantly enhance overall satisfaction among cruisers [
37
]. Sur-
prisingly, contrary to the findings of other researchers [
38
], enrichment, entertainment, and
fitness recreation were identified as service aspects that, despite not being highly performed
by cruise lines, were not considered important for cruisers’ satisfaction. In a response to
service quality improvement requirements, another study by Ajagunna et al. [40] showed
that several Caribbean islands have made significant investments in upgrading their ports
to cater to the needs of mega cruise ships during the recovery period after the outbreak
given that tourism serves as their primary economic driver. These investments amount
to millions of US dollars, but the timeline for the industry’s recovery remains uncertain
at present.
In contrast to land-based tourism, which can more readily implement prompt reac-
tive measures, the cruise industry demonstrated notable levels of customer loyalty and
resilience during the downturn induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure the health
and safety of passengers, crews, and visited communities, the industry implemented ad-
ditional protocols aimed at enhancing public health on board. The post-pandemic phase
presents an opportune moment for the cruise industry to redefine itself. One approach
to achieve this transformation involves emphasizing its commitment to environmental
regulations and sustainable practices rather than solely focusing on cost reduction and
expanding ship sizes [
41
]. Most cruise ships have devised outbreak prevention plans
tailored to their respective brands, adhering to guidelines set by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) and adopting industry best practices. Transparent and clear
communication is vital to reduce risk perceptions and instill consumer confidence [
18
].
The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the previously unbroken narrative of growth and
success within the cruise sector. The extent to which this disruption will be regarded as
permanent or merely a temporary setback in the industry’s performance hinges on the
industry’s ability to convince passengers and governments that cruising is a safe endeavor,
particularly in terms of physical health. Convincing consumers, especially repeat cruisers,
that the value of cruise ship travel outweighs the perceived risks associated with cruising
will be crucial [42].

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 5 of 21
2.2. Service Quality and Its Impact on Tourist Satisfaction
In the marketing literature, service quality is a critical topic since customer satisfaction
and retention directly relate to perceptions of service quality. The association between
service quality and tourist satisfaction has long been established. Soleimani and Eino-
lahzadeh [
43
] reported a strong positive association between service quality and tourist
satisfaction. When it comes to the dimensions of service quality, Jayasinghe reported that
tourism satisfaction and all the dimensions of service quality are strongly correlated [
44
].
Jayasinghe also found that the reliability dimension is the quality dimension with the
strongest association with satisfaction [
44
]. Similarly, in another study, the reliability dimen-
sion had a significant influence on online customer satisfaction, according to Sharma and
Malviya [
45
]. In another study that assessed the association between satisfaction and service
quality, four dimensions, including empathy, responsiveness, assurance, and tangibility,
were found to be predictors of satisfaction [
46
]. It is also necessary to consider people with
disabilities in the provided services to ensure their satisfaction [
47
]. Melian et al. [
48
] sug-
gested that the perceived value of accessibility can significantly influence satisfaction levels.
Therefore, any research focused on understanding the role of accessibility in a destination
should carefully consider this factor. Additionally, from a practical standpoint, prioritizing
accessibility can yield benefits for destinations by enhancing overall visitor experiences.
In general, Zygiaris et al. also emphasized that service quality is a critical factor that
affects satisfaction [
49
]. In addition, Zygiaris et al. added that satisfaction was impacted
by the dimension’s empathy, assurance, reliability, responsiveness, and tangibles [
49
]. In
contrast, a study in Syria reported opposite findings. According to Rahhal, a lack of signif-
icant association was found between empathy and tangibles service quality dimensions
with satisfaction, and only reliability was significantly associated higher satisfaction among
customers [
50
]. Though a few studies reported lack of association between service quality
and satisfaction, the majority of studies support the existence of a relationship between
service quality and satisfaction. Caruana also noted the importance of knowing and assess-
ing the mediating variables that can play a role and affect satisfaction [
19
]. Collectively,
we hypothesize that all the subscales of service quality would increase tourist satisfaction
as follows:
Hypothesis 1a (H1a).
The reliability subscale of service quality significantly increases tourist satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1b (H1b).
The tangibles subscale of service quality significantly increases tourist satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1c (H1c).
The responsiveness subscale of service quality significantly increases
tourist satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1d (H1d).
The assurance subscale of service quality significantlyincreases tourist satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1e (H1e).
The empathy subscale of service quality significantly increases tourist satisfaction.
2.3. Service Quality and Corporate Image
Corporate image is generally defined as the perception individuals have for a brand
based on multiple signals such as their services and products [
51
]. The association between
service quality and corporate or brand image has also been assessed by multiple studies.
In the service quality model used by Yarimoglu [
52
], corporate image was classified as a
dimension of service quality that influences customer perceptions. Jansri et al. explained
that a positive and significant association was found between service quality and corporate
image [
53
]. In addition, corporate image has a significant association with word of mouth,
which is linked with tourist satisfaction [
53
]. As a marketing benchmark, Özkan et al.
argued that corporate image and reputation can be used to evaluate the performance of
an organization [
54
]. Moreover, Özkan et al. added that perceived service quality has an
impact on the corporate image and reputation, and both factors can be used to measure

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 6 of 21
the quality of corporate services [
54
]. Furthermore, Chien and Chi argued that among
the variables that affect service quality and satisfaction, corporate image is an important
mediator. In addition to the direct association between the two variables, a study by Alam
and Noor reported an indirect correlation between service quality and corporate image as
well as an impact on customer loyalty caused by the two factors [
55
]. On the other hand, a
study in Pakistan argued that only service quality impacts customer loyalty, while corporate
image has no significant association [
56
]. Based on the abovementioned observations, we
hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2a (H2a).
The reliability subscale of service quality significantly influences corporate image.
Hypothesis 2b (H2b).
The tangibles subscale of service quality significantly influences corporate image.
Hypothesis 2c (H2c).
The responsiveness subscale of service quality significantly influences
corporate image.
Hypothesis 2d (H2d).
The assurance subscale of service quality significantly influences corporate image.
Hypothesis 2e (H2e). The empathy subscale of service quality significantly influences corporate image.
2.4. Service Quality and Intention to Pay More
Service quality and intention to pay were also among the variables that were assessed
by multiple prior research papers. According to Gadissa, a satisfied customer is likely to be
more tolerant of price increases and willing to pay for benefits they receive [
57
]. Casidy and
Wymer support this finding, as they reported a positive association between satisfaction
from service quality and intention to pay more; however, they argued that the association
between satisfaction and willingness to pay can be impacted by other confounding variables,
such as financial, social, performance, and psychological risks [
58
]. On the other hand, Kim
et al. reported a lack of association between purchase intentions and service quality [
59
];
however, satisfaction was correlated with intentions to pay. Homburg, Koschate, and
Hoyer also found that satisfied customers are willing to pay more for the service, but many
factors can influence this relationship [
60
]. A similar finding was reported by Dawi et al.,
who found a significant association between service quality, customer satisfaction, and
behavioral intentions to pay for services [
61
]. In another study, Keiningham et al. argued
that higher customer satisfaction does not always mean higher financial performance and
described the association between the two variables as being complex [
62
]. According to
Homburg, Koschate, and Hoyer, analyzing the variables that can mediate the relationship
is essential to understand this association, as customers who pay more will result in a
higher profitability [60]. Accordingly, the following hypotheses were developed based on
the aforementioned review:
Hypothesis 3a (H3a).
The reliability subscale of service quality significantly influences the
intention to pay more.
Hypothesis 3b (H3b).
The tangibles subscale of service quality significantly influences the
intention to pay more.
Hypothesis 3c (H3c).
The responsiveness subscale of service quality significantly influences the
intention to pay more.
Hypothesis 3d (H3d).
The assurance subscale of service quality significantly influences the
intention to pay more.
Hypothesis 3e (H3e).
The empathy subscale of service quality significantly influences the intention
to pay more.

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 7 of 21
2.5. Service Quality and Intention to Revisit the Destination
Satisfaction from the quality of services is not only associated with more willingness
to pay, but it has been also linked with the intentions to revisit. In terms of language,
accommodation, hospitality, and activities, service quality significantly impacts destination
image, which influences revisit intention according to Tosun, Dedeo˘glu, and Fyall [
63
]. Boro
argues that SERVQUAL attributes are critical for measuring the association between service
quality and intention to revisit the destination [
64
]. In terms of SERVQUAL attributes, the
results from Boro’s study supported a positive correlation between customer satisfaction
and their intent to revisit [
64
]. Another recent study by Wantara and Irawati assessed
the direct and indirect association between multiple variables, including service quality,
destination image, customer satisfaction, and revisit intention of tourists [
65
]. According
to Wantara and Irawati, providing excellent service and a positive destination image
contributes to tourist satisfaction and increases the likelihood of tourists returning again [
65
].
The study also reported a significant association between the quality of services offered and
tourists’ intentions to revisit [
65
]. Moreover, Soleimani and Einolahzadeh found that travel
agencies of good quality led to a high level of satisfaction and image of a destination, thus
producing a strong tendency to revisit [
43
]. Soleimani and Einolahzadeh also noted that the
relationship between service quality and intention to revisit the destination can mediated
both word of mouth and satisfaction [
43
]. As customer satisfaction is considered to influence
purchase intentions and behavior of travelers, travel agencies should strive to satisfy their
passengers, Soleimani and Einolahzadeh argue [
43
]. Wantara and Irawati argued that
repeat tourism, which is when the current visitor repeats their visit in the future, must be a
target for the tourism sector to increase their profits and growth, as it requires less effort and
is less costly when compared with relying on first-time visitors [
65
]. Though satisfaction is
a major determinant of intentions to revisit a destination, multiple other variables must be
considered and assessed that have the ability to influence tourists’ behavior.
Hypothesis 4a (H4a).
The reliability subscale of service quality significantly influences the
intention to revisit the destination.
Hypothesis 4b (H4b).
The tangibles subscale of service quality significantly influences the
intention to revisit the destination.
Hypothesis 4c (H4c).
The responsiveness subscale of service quality significantly influences the
intention to revisit the destination.
Hypothesis 4d (H4d).
The assurance subscale of service quality significantly influences the
intention to revisit the destination.
Hypothesis 4e (H4e).
The empathy subscale of service quality significantly influences the intention
to revisit the destination.
2.6. The Influence of Tourist Satisfaction on Corporate Image
Since the 1950s, the concept of company image has been recognized as a significant
topic in consumer behavior research [
66
]. Indeed, the tourism image emerges from the
subjective impression as a response to the external environment of the tourism destination,
which acts on the tourists’ brains to influence behavior. Therefore, this subjective domain
is more important than objective reality [
67
,
68
]. Currently, company image continues to
be regarded as an important factor and has garnered attention in the marketing field [
69
].
As Keller [
70
] elucidates, company image refers to a customer’s cognitive perception of
a specific company, as reflected by the relationships that the company has established in
the customer’s memory. Customers develop a positive or negative image of a company
based on their direct or indirect experiences with the company’s products [
71
]. Customers
who possess a favorable image of a company typically have a positive attitude towards

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 8 of 21
the company and its products and services. They also tend to evaluate the company’s
product and service performance favorably and engage in post-purchase behaviors that are
ultimately beneficial to the company [69].
In the marketplace, a company’s distinctive features within its image differentiate
it from its competitors [
72
]. It is commonly understood that company images have func-
tional and symbolic characteristics [
73
]. The competition in the cruise travel industry has
intensified in recent years [
24
,
73
], leading cruise line operators worldwide to focus on
improving their company image within this competitive market environment. A positive
and trustworthy company image has been shown to correlate with customer satisfaction
and favorable behavioral intentions towards the company [
66
,
70
]. Within the cruise indus-
try, Han et al. [
74
] found that service quality, image, and physical environment excellence
were significant drivers of satisfaction and intention, with cruise line quality having the
greatest impact on intention. Han and Hyun [
75
] indicated that a positive overall com-
pany image was associated with an increased desire for cruise travel and repeat cruising
intention. Another study [
76
] identified two separate categories of image congruence:
social image congruence and ideal social image congruence. The study showed that image
congruence was positively related to affect and customer satisfaction. Collectively, we
hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 5 (H5). Tourist satisfaction significantly influences corporate image.
In general, the above hypotheses are summarized below in Figure 1.
Figure 1. A framework of the study hypotheses.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Sample and Data Collection
Our study included tourists that experienced cruise trips after the COVID-19 pandemic.
In selecting our sample, we delegated a market research company in Saudi Arabia to
distribute the survey, and they used online surveys to collect data. We used online surveys
to target tourists from different cruise routes in Saudi Arabia in the most popular cruise
journeys (e.g., Cruise Saudi; http://www.cruisesaudi.com/, accessed on 10 April 2023).
These routes were as follows: Jeddah to Al-Ula, Mecca, Aqaba, Seaday, and Medina. We
distributed the survey from December 2022 to February 2023; after distributing the survey,
we collected 315 tourists out of 340, with a response rate of 92.6%.

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 9 of 21
3.2. Construct Measures
The survey consisted of a total of forty-two items and six scales. The first scale
contained five items about demographic data. The second scale was used to measure
service quality and tourist satisfaction, and it employed the SERVQUAL scale, a widely
used construct measure. The SERVQUAL scale consists of five constructs adapted from
Ladhari [
77
], Parasuraman et al. [
78
], and Babakus and Boller [
79
]. The constructs included
reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. These constructs assess
the quality of services a business or organization provides on cruise trips. The reliability
construct measures how dependable the services meet tourists’ expectations on the cruise.
The tangibles construct considers the physical appearance of the services offered by cruise
members. Responsive measures show how quickly and efficiently the organization or
business addresses tourists’ needs. Assurance assesses how confident tourists feel when
interacting with cruise events during their holidays. Finally, empathy measures how well
cruise service providers understand customer needs and provide personalized service to
tourists. The third scale consisted of six items that measured tourist satisfaction, and it was
adapted from Hassan and Salem [
80
]. Other scales included corporate image (two items),
intention to pay more (three items), and intention to revisit the destination (four items);
these items were adapted from other studies in the literature [17,81].
3.3. Statistical Analysis
Data analysis was carried out using RStudio (R version 4.2.2). We summarized cat-
egorical data as frequencies and percentages. A partial least squares structural equation
modelling technique with bootstrapping was implemented to model the used constructs.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were used to express internal consistency reliability. Ad-
ditionally, rhoC values were used to express composite reliability to address the basic
assumptions of the Cronbach’s alpha testing that denotes equal indicator loadings [
82
],
and rhoA was used as another conservative measure of internal consistency [
83
]. As for
the convergent validity, we used average variance extracted (AVE) as a parameter of as-
sessment of the degree to which each domain could converge to explain the indicators’
variances [
84
]. Regarding the discriminant validity, we compared the AVE square roots
to the correlation between different constructs and used the heterotrait–monotrait ratio
(HTMT) of correlations [
85
]. For the bootstrapped structural mode, we used a 1000 boot-
strap method [
86
], and the results were expressed as beta coefficients and the respective
95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). A p-value of 0.05 indicated statistical significance.
4. Results
4.1. Characteristics of the Respondents
The responses of 315 tourists were analyzed in the current study. More than a half of
them were females (53.7%) and had a high school degree (52.1%). Almost one-third of them
(35.2%) were aged 12 to 30 years. Additionally, 57.5% of the respondents had previously
undergone two to three cruise trips (Table 1).
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.
Parameter Category N(%)
Gender Male 146 (46.3%)
Female 169 (53.7%)
Age (years) ≤20 60 (19.0%)
21 to 30 111 (35.2%)
31 to 40 99 (31.4%)
41 to 50 30 (9.5%)
51 to 60 13 (4.1%)
>60 2 (0.6%)

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 10 of 21
Table 1. Cont.
Parameter Category N(%)
Education level Junior high school (or below) 21 (6.7%)
High school 164 (52.1%)
College or university 95 (30.2%)
Master 26 (8.3%)
Doctorate 9 (2.9%)
Occupation Student 87 (27.6%)
Army, civil service, and education 97 (30.8%)
Service industry 82 (26.0%)
Self-employed 41 (13.0%)
Other 8 (2.5%)
Number of cruise trips taken 1 111 (35.2%)
2 to 3 181 (57.5%)
4 to 5 20 (6.3%)
≥6 3 (1.0%)
4.2. Outcomes of Construct Reliability and Convergent Validity
In the bootstrapped model, three items showed inadequate loadings to their respective
constructs, including one item in the service quality reliability construct and two items in the
intention to revisit construct (Table A1). The final model had excellent reliability indicators
(Table 2). The loadings of the factors to their constructs were all adequate (above 0.50),
and the rhoC and rhoA values were above the recommended threshold of 0.70 [
82
,
83
].
Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged between 0.761 and 0.904. Of note, AVE
values ranged between 0.617 and 0.870, which denotes that the domains explained at least
61.7% of the indicator’s variance that constituted the domain [84].
Table 2. Convergent validity and construct reliability.
Domains/Items BFL VIF Alpha rhoC rhoA AVE
Service Quality (Reliability) 0.859 0.905 0.866 0.707
Rel_1 0.734 1.529
Rel_2 0.900 2.937
Rel_3 0.844 2.466
Rel_4 0.868 2.298
Service Quality (Tangibles) 0.864 0.906 0.878 0.708
Tan_1 0.815 2.492
Tan_2 0.841 2.541
Tan_3 0.889 2.518
Tan_4 0.816 1.808
Service Quality (Responsiveness)
0.815 0.878 0.817 0.644
Resp_1 0.844 1.994
Resp_2 0.776 1.682
Resp_3 0.782 1.587
Resp_4 0.803 1.781
Service Quality (Assurance) 0.896 0.928 0.895 0.764
Assurance_1 0.790 1.670
Assurance_2 0.899 3.148
Assurance_3 0.889 3.404
Assurance_4 0.910 3.734
Service Quality (Empathy) 0.904 0.929 0.905 0.723
Emp_1 0.842 2.651
Emp_2 0.873 3.060
Emp_3 0.853 2.492
Emp_4 0.831 2.264
Emp_5 0.846 2.260

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 11 of 21
Table 2. Cont.
Domains/Items BFL VIF Alpha rhoC rhoA AVE
Tourist Satisfaction 0.876 0.906 0.878 0.617
Satisfaction_1 0.778 1.886
Satisfaction_2 0.803 2.073
Satisfaction_3 0.773 1.827
Satisfaction_4 0.768 1.820
Satisfaction_5 0.778 1.941
Satisfaction_6 0.805 1.996
Corporate Image 0.761 0.893 0.767 0.807
Img_1 0.910 1.606
Img_2 0.886 1.606
Intention to Pay More 0.846 0.907 0.847 0.764
Pay_1 0.879 2.234
Pay_2 0.881 2.330
Pay_3 0.860 1.800
Intention to Revisit 0.851 0.931 0.852 0.870
Vis_1 0.936 2.212
Vis_2 0.929 2.212
Alpha: Cronbach’s alpha; AVE: average variance extracted; VIF: variance inflation factor; BFL: bootstrapped
factor loading.
4.3. Outcomes of the Discriminant Validity
Regarding the discriminant validity, the values of the square roots of AVE were com-
pared to those of the shared variance between constructs as indicated by the inter-domain
correlation. As shown in Table 3, the square roots of AVE were higher than the correlations
between domains. Additionally, the bootstrapped HTMT values and the respective 95%
CIs did not exceed 1 (Table A2), which confirms the discriminant validity [85].
Table 3. Outcomes of the discriminant validity.
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Tourist Satisfaction 0.786
2. Service Quality (Reliability) 0.670 0.841
3. Service Quality (Tangibles) 0.772 0.622 0.841
4. Service Quality (Responsiveness) 0.739 0.641 0.770 0.803
5. Service Quality (Assurance) 0.728 0.614 0.749 0.736 0.874
6. Service Quality (Empathy) 0.633 0.631 0.811 0.799 0.796 0.850
7. Corporate Image 0.781 0.560 0.656 0.649 0.705 0.662 0.898
8. Intention to Pay More 0.732 0.693 0.693 0.736 0.744 0.744 0.787 0.874
9. Intention to Revisit 0.767 0.644 0.690 0.707 0.694 0.750 0.715 0.756 0.933
The square roots of AVE are on the diagonal, and inter-domain correlations are on the lower triangle.
4.4. Structural Model
In the structural model, there was no risk of multicollinearity between different indi-
cators since variance inflation factors (VIFs) were all below the threshold of 5 (Table 2) [
87
].
Results of the structural models showed that tourist satisfaction was independently asso-
ciated with four domains of service quality, including the reliability (Beta = 0.14, 95% CI,
0.05 to 0.23, p= 0.001), responsiveness (Beta = 0.16, 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.28, p= 0.005), as-
surance (Beta = 0.20, 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.33, p= 0.001), and empathy (Beta = 0.36, 95% CI,
0.23 to 0.49,
p< 0.0001
). Notably, corporate image was significantly predicted by only one
service quality construct (assurance, Beta = 0.27, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.42, p= 0.002) and by
tourist satisfaction (Beta = 0.62, 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79, p< 0.0001). The intention to pay
more was independently associated with the three domains of service quality, including
reliability (Beta = 0.29, 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.41, p< 0.0001), assurance (Beta = 0.24, 95% CI, 0.09

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 12 of 21
to 0.39, p= 0.002), and empathy (Beta = 0.23, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.40, p= 0.005), whereas the
intention to revisit the destination was predicted by reliability (Beta = 0.22, 95% CI, 0.11 to
0.34, p< 0.0001) and empathy (Beta = 0.35, 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.57, p= 0.001, Table 4).
Table 4. Results of the structural models.
Relationship t Value Beta (95%CI) p-Value Hypothesis Status
Tourist Satisfaction
Rel →Sat 3.163 0.144 (0.054 to 0.232) 0.001 H1a Accept
Tan →Sat 1.668 0.117 (−0.025 to 0.253) 0.058 H1b Accept
Resp →Sat 2.59 0.160 (0.045 to 0.284) 0.005 H1c Accept
Assurance →Sat 3.132 0.202 (0.078 to 0.333) 0.001 H1d Accept
Emp →Sat 5.298 0.359 (0.230 to 0.491) <0.0001 H1e Accept
Corporate Image
Rel →Img 0.722 0.040 (−0.076 to 0.141) 0.235 H2a Reject
Tan →Img 1.486 0.114 (−0.030 to 0.271) 0.069 H2b Reject
Resp →Img −1.155 −0.096 (−0.256 to 0.074) 0.876 H2c Reject
Assurance →Img 2.933 0.268 (0.067 to 0.423) 0.002 H2d Accept
Emp →Img −1.382 −0.108 (−0.252 to 0.062) 0.916 H2e Reject
Sat →Img 7.168 0.619 (0.448 to 0.785) <0.0001 H5 Accept
Intention to Pay
More
Rel →Pay 4.595 0.287 (0.157 to 0.407) <0.0001 H3a Accept
Tan →Pay 0.573 0.049 (−0.126 to 0.203) 0.283 H3b Reject
Resp →Pay 1.498 0.134 (−0.023 to 0.325) 0.068 H3c Reject
Assurance →Pay 2.975 0.239 (0.086 to 0.389) 0.002 H3d Accept
Emp →Pay 2.562 0.226 (0.059 to 0.404) 0.005 H3e Accept
Intention to Revisit
Rel →Vis 3.513 0.218 (0.105 to 0.344) <0.0001 H4a Accept
Tan →Vis 1.001 0.093 (−0.091 to 0.274) 0.159 H4b Reject
Resp →Vis 1.511 0.128 (−0.036 to 0.286) 0.066 H4c Reject
Assurance →Vis 1.294 0.103 (−0.049 to 0.249) 0.098 H4d Reject
Emp →Vis 3.234 0.352 (0.143 to 0.572) 0.001 H4e Accept
5. Discussion and Limitations
As a result of the heterogeneous, intangible, and perishable nature of services, it is an
ambiguous and complex concept that is defined differently among individuals. Regardless,
the importance of recognizing service quality factors that contribute to customer satisfaction
is evident from our findings. Service quality factors have been extensively assessed in
prior papers, and their results show inconsistent findings. The current study reported a
positive association between reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy with the
tourist satisfaction. Similar to our findings, a paper reported that customer satisfaction
and the six aspects of service quality are strongly correlated, with the highest impact
caused by tangibility, reliability, and responsiveness [
88
]. In another study by Thi et al.,
tangibles and responsiveness were the only factors that were reported to be significantly
associated with service quality [
89
]. These inconsistencies are inevitable considering the
use of different structural models in the studies that examined the effect of service quality
aspects. In addition, service quality has been classified into a wide range of dimensions
other than the ones examined in the current study, leading to different measurements of
service quality [
52
]. Yarimoglu also explains that some of the service quality measures
identified and used in prior studies depend on their impact on the physical environment,
processes, and people elements [
52
]. Moreover, Kerdpitak and Heuer argued that service
quality significantly contributes to changes in tourist satisfaction, along with other factors
such as trust and personnel relationships [90].
As for the corporate image, Aydin and Özer found that consumers’ perceptions of
corporate image are influenced by their perceptions of quality-of-service providers [
91
].

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 13 of 21
Similarly, Cheng et al. explained that tourists who are pleased with a hotel’s service are
more likely to be satisfied with their stay, leading to a positive image of the hotel in the
community [
92
]. The current study, however, reported assurance as the only service quality
aspect influencing tourists’ image of the corporation. Quality assurance is vital to provide
customer service, as it identifies recurring problems in customer interactions and provides
tools for improving service quality. Thus, it can explain the significant association found in
this study.
Importantly, Yu et al. [
93
] found that service quality has direct as well as indirect
associations with intention to repurchase by impacting customer satisfaction, which is
similar to our findings. Similarly, Slack, Singh and Sharma found that the empathy di-
mension had positive effects on multiple variables, including satisfaction and customer
repurchase intention [
94
]. Hoch and Deighton explained that when a customer experiences
high-quality service and a positive experience, he or she will willingly pay a higher price
because of his favorable behavior toward the service provider [
95
]. The ability to provide
care and personalization to each customer is an essential component of empathy, and
therefore, higher empathy leads to higher satisfaction and willingness to pay. In contrast,
Kim et al. reported a lack of significant association between all service quality dimensions
with intention to purchase, though service quality dimensions were significantly associated
with satisfaction, and satisfaction was significantly associated with the intention to pur-
chase [
59
]. When it comes to the relationship between service quality dimensions with the
intention to revisit, two dimensions, including reliability and responsiveness, were found
to be significantly associated.
When it comes to the relationship of the service quality and intention to revisit, the
current study reported that reliability and empathy were significantly associated with the
intention to revisit. In another study in Malaysia [
96
], tangibles, assurance, and empathy
were associated with significantly higher intentions to revisit, although reliability was not
significantly associated. According to the study by Soleimani and Einolahza-deh, a good
travel agency increases satisfaction and image of a destination, which ultimately leads to the
desire to revisit [
43
]. In addition, a company’s service quality directly affects the customer’s
satisfaction, and word-of-mouth is directly related to customer satisfaction and revisit
intention [
43
]. Soleimani and Einolahzadeh argued that it is clear that word-of-mouth is
directly and positively related to customer satisfaction, which leads to customers buying
more, purchasing more frequently, trying new services, and providing honest suggestions
for improvement [
43
]. It has also been confirmed by Liu and Lee that the mechanism
of perceived quality is a cognitive response to the price of a service combined with a
non-monetary price reaction of satisfaction that determines whether a person will visit
a place [97].
When it comes to limitations, there is a likelihood of response bias caused by the
participants. Since the current study used questionnaires as a data collection method, it
is possible that respondents are hesitant to provide accurate information when filling out
the questionnaires. Importantly, while the study’s findings contribute to understanding
these relationships in the context of the post-COVID-19 era and the cruise industry in
Saudi Arabia, they do not necessarily provide significant theoretical contributions beyond
what is already known in other regions. Furthermore, the study focused solely on the
impact of service quality on tourists’ satisfaction, corporate image, and intentions to pay
and revisit, without considering other factors that may also influence these outcomes, such
as price, destination attributes, and demographic variables. Based on the above limitations,
it seems plausible to conducting longitudinal studies that track tourists’ behavior and
perceptions over time would provide a more robust understanding of the long-term effects
of the COVID-19 pandemic on the cruise industry. This design would allow researchers to
examine changes in service quality, customer satisfaction, and intentions to pay and revisit
over the recovery period and beyond. Furthermore, complementing quantitative analysis
with qualitative methods, such as interviews or focus groups, in a mixed-methods approach
would provide richer insights into tourists’ experiences, perceptions, and motivations in

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 14 of 21
the post-COVID-19 cruise industry. Future studies could also explore additional variables
that may influence tourist behavior in the cruise industry post-COVID-19. For example,
factors such as pricing strategies, safety measures, entertainment options, environmen-
tal sustainability, or destination marketing efforts could be incorporated to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of tourists’ decision-making processes. Finally, while the
relationships examined in the current study are well-established, future research could
consider adopting alternative theoretical frameworks or models to analyze tourist behavior
in the post-COVID-19 cruise industry. Exploring new theoretical perspectives may reveal
novel insights and contribute to theoretical advancements in the field.
6. Conclusions and Future Implications
The quality of service affects the decision-making process of tourists as well as tourists’
loyalty and intention to pay more or repeat the visit. Therefore, understanding the nature
of services provided is essential for measuring service quality and its dimensions effectively.
In addition, the service industry must rely heavily on providing superior service quality
to succeed in the long run. The current study reported an impact of different service
quality dimensions on tourist satisfaction, corporate image, intention to pay more, and
intention to revisit. The effect of the service quality dimensions was most notable on tourists’
satisfaction, followed by the intention to pay more, the intention to revisit, and, lastly, the
corporate image. While not all the service quality aspects were significantly associated
with each domain, the current findings show the importance of service quality dimensions
on the tourist experience and satisfaction as well as impacting the different factors that
affect tourism. The current study adds to the existing literature due to the scarcity of
research papers that explore the relationship of each quality dimension with indicators
for measuring competitiveness like satisfaction, corporate image, and others. Moreover,
service quality has been understudied in Saudi Arabia when it comes to satisfaction and
purchase intentions for non-profit organizations. Thus, the current study is important for
the future vision of Saudi Arabia that involves massive movements and developments in
the tourism sector.
Practically, the study’s findings emphasize the critical role of service quality in in-
fluencing tourists’ satisfaction and intentions. Cruise industry stakeholders can use this
information to prioritize service quality improvements in areas identified as significant
predictors of satisfaction and intentions, such as reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, as-
surance, and empathy. Implementing training programs, investing in infrastructure and
amenities, and adopting effective service delivery processes can help enhance service
quality and ultimately improve customer experiences. It is also important to address
the creation of personalized and engaging experiences for cruise tourists. Industry prac-
titioners can utilize the findings to develop tailored offerings that cater to the diverse
preferences and expectations of post-COVID-19 tourists. This may involve providing cus-
tomized itineraries, innovative onboard activities, and interactive digital platforms that
allow tourists to personalize their cruise experience. From another perspective, cruise
companies should prioritize building a positive corporate image by consistently deliv-
ering high-quality services, fostering customer trust and loyalty, and demonstrating a
commitment to health and safety measures.
Since tourism aspects are impacted by multiple direct and indirect factors, the findings
will encourage more studies that further explore the impact of service quality dimensions
on each factor separately using different quality models, to understand the impact on each
factor, and suggest improvements that attract more tourists in the future. In addition, more
studies should explore the effect of mediating variables like demographics on decision
tourist decision making. When it comes to decision makers, the findings will help them to
focus on improving tourists’ satisfaction by focusing on the interactions between tourists
and employees, by focusing on service encounters and processes, and by focusing on the
physical environment elements to attain the optimal service quality that customers expect.
Customers’ intention to utilize cruise services in the post-COVID-19 period is contingent

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 15 of 21
upon their trust in effective pandemic management. Notably, passengers prioritize financial
and health management strategies over other relational-bonding approaches, recognizing
their greater impact. Consequently, it is crucial for cruise operators to diligently implement
comprehensive precautions before, during, and after cruise journeys to alleviate customer
concerns [
98
]. From a managerial standpoint, it is evident that cruise companies will incur
higher costs as a result of the new COVID-19 requirements [
99
]. Moreover, the reputation
of cruise companies [
100
] and their communication efforts following a crisis [
13
] will play
a pivotal role in the recovery of the cruise industry.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, B.S.A., T.H.H., S.H.R. and M.H.A.; methodology, Y.A.M.,
A.E.S. and M.S.A.; software, T.H.H., M.A.A. and M.Y.H.; validation, A.E.S., M.S.A. and M.I.S.; formal
analysis, M.I.S., B.S.A. and Y.A.M.; investigation, T.H.H., M.A.A. and A.E.S.; resources, S.H.R., D.A.G.
and M.Y.H.; data curation, A.E.S., M.S.A. and B.S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, T.H.H.,
Y.A.M. and T.H.H.; writing—review and editing, M.I.S., D.A.G., S.H.R. and M.H.A.; visualization,
Y.A.M., M.S.A. and M.A.A.; supervision, B.S.A., D.A.G. and M.Y.H.; project administration, S.H.R.,
M.I.S. and Y.A.M.; funding acquisition, M.A.A., M.Y.H. and D.A.G. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for
Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [Grant No. 3300]
through its KFU Research Summer initiative. The researchers are supported by a full Ph.D. scholarship
under the joint executive program between the Arab Republic of Egypt and Saint Petersburg State
University for the fourth author (M.I.S.) number EGY-0026/20 and Kazan federal University for the
third author Egy.6572/19 (M.Y.H.).
Institutional Review Board Statement:
This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Deanship of Scientific Research Ethical Committee,
King Faisal University.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available on request due to privacy/ethical restrictions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. Description of the items and constructs used in the current study.
Construct Item Code Item
Service Quality (Reliability)
Rel_1 Itinerary and departure/arrival time compliance: When the cruise
ship promises to do something by a certain time, it does so.
Rel_2 When customers have problems, the cruise ship is sympathetic
and reassuring.
Rel_3 Cruise ship is dependable.
Rel_4 Cruise onboard programs are on time: Cruise ship provides its
services at the time it promises to do so.
Rel_5 Cruise ship keeps its records accurately.
Service Quality (Tangibles)
Tan_1 Ship facts: Cruise ship’s facilities have up-to-date equipment.
Tan_2 Ship’s interior style, cabin, cleanness: Cruise ship’s facilities are
visually appealing.
Tan_3 Crew members’ appearance: Crew members are well-dressed
and appear neat.
Tan_4
Service materials, other cruise guests: The appearance of the
physical facilities of cruise ship is in keeping with the type of
services provided.

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 16 of 21
Table A1. Cont.
Construct Item Code Item
Service Quality (Responsiveness)
Resp_1 They tell customers exactly when services will be performed.
Resp_2 Receive prompt service from crew members.
Resp_3 Crew members are always willing to help customers.
Resp_4 Crew members are too busy to respond to customer
requests promptly.
Service Quality (Assurance)
Assurance_1 Customers can trust crew members.
Assurance_2 Announcements for safety and lifeboat drills: Customers feel safe
in their transactions with crew members.
Assurance_3 Crew members are polite.
Assurance_4 Crew members get adequate support from cruise lines to do their
jobs well.
Service Quality (Empathy)
Emp_1 These cruise lines give customers individual attention.
Emp_2 Crew members of cruise lines give customers personal attention.
Emp_3 Crew members of cruise lines know what customers need.
Emp_4 These cruise lines have customer’s best interests at heart.
Emp_5 These cruise lines have operating hours convenient to all
their customers.
Tourist Satisfaction
Satisfaction_1 The duration of the cruise trip was adequate for me to explore the
attractions I wanted to explore.
Satisfaction_2 The cruise ship serves my needs and expectations.
Satisfaction_3 The safety precautions and measures are adequately taken before
the cruise.
Satisfaction_4 The quality of the food and services provided on board the cruise
satisfied my needs.
Satisfaction_5 The quality of service that I received was higher than I expected.
Satisfaction_6 The quality of service that I received was as I imagined.
Corporate Image Img_1 Has a good reputation in the eyes of tourists.
Img_2 Has a good image in the minds of passengers.
Intention to Pay more
Pay_1 I would be willing to pay more money for additional activities
on a cruise.
Pay_2 I do not have a maximum amount of money I would be willing to
spend on additional activities on a cruise.
Pay_3 I intend to pay extra money for tourism activities on the cruise.
Intention to Revisit
Vis_1 I want to visit the cruise line within the next two years.
Vis_2 The possibility for me to use the cruise line soon is high.
Vis_3 The cruise line could be my next vacation place.
Vis_4 I intend to travel on the cruise line sometime during my
next vacation.
Appendix B
Table A2. Outcomes of the Model Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio.
Domain B-HTMT Values (95% CI)
Satisfaction →Rel 0.769 (0.681 to 0.842)
Satisfaction →Tan 0.866 (0.806 to 0.914)

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 17 of 21
Table A2. Cont.
Domain B-HTMT Values (95% CI)
Satisfaction →Resp 0.941 (0.898 to 0.985)
Satisfaction →Assurance 0.897 (0.842 to 0.942)
Satisfaction →Emp 0.933 (0.893 to 0.968)
Satisfaction →Img 0.950 (0.881 to 1.024)
Satisfaction →Pay 0.961 (0.917 to 1.005)
Satisfaction →Vis 0.885 (0.816 to 0.945)
Rel →Tan 0.700 (0.602 to 0.782)
Rel →Resp 0.762 (0.665 to 0.849)
Rel →Assurance 0.693 (0.575 to 0.798)
Rel →Emp 0.713 (0.618 to 0.792)
Rel →Img 0.685 (0.557 to 0.790)
Rel →Pay 0.808 (0.702 to 0.897)
Rel →Vis 0.753 (0.664 to 0.838)
Tan →Resp 0.901 (0.832 to 0.956)
Tan →Assurance 0.829 (0.763 to 0.889)
Tan →Emp 0.899 (0.846 to 0.946)
Tan →Img 0.797 (0.695 to 0.891)
Tan →Pay 0.788 (0.700 to 0.861)
Tan →Vis 0.786 (0.704 to 0.864)
Resp →Assurance 0.976 (0.936 to 1.014)
Resp →Emp 0.929 (0.886 to 0.970)
Resp →Img 0.824 (0.730 to 0.910)
Resp →Pay 0.885 (0.813 to 0.946)
Resp →Vis 0.848 (0.773 to 0.915)
Assurance →Emp 0.880 (0.828 to 0.926)
Assurance →Img 0.851 (0.756 to 0.931)
Assurance →Pay 0.849 (0.779 to 0.910)
Assurance →Vis 0.789 (0.708 to 0.864)
Emp →Img 0.796 (0.703 to 0.882)
Emp →Pay 0.846 (0.784 to 0.904)
Emp →Vis 0.855 (0.788 to 0.915)
Img →Pay 0.977 (0.907 to 1.049)
Img →Vis 0.887 (0.787 to 0.976)
Pay →Vis 0.887 (0.814 to 0.955)
B-HTMT: bootstrap mean heterotrait–monotrait ratio; CIs: confidence intervals.
References
1.
CLIA State of the Cruise Industry Outlook. Available online: https://cruising.org/-/media/research-updates/research/2021
-state-of-the-cruise-industry_optimized.ashx (accessed on 4 April 2023).
2. Grönroos, C. A service quality model and its marketing implications. Eur. J. Mark. 1984,18, 36–44. [CrossRef]
3.
Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service
quality. J. Retail. 1988,64, 12–40.
4.
Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J.
Mark. 1985,49, 41–50. [CrossRef]
5.
Petrick, J.F. The roles of quality, value, and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’ behavioral intentions. J. Travel Res.
2004
,
42, 397–407. [CrossRef]
6.
Nguyen Viet, B.; Dang, H.P.; Nguyen, H.H. Revisit intention and satisfaction: The role of destination image, perceived risk, and
cultural contact. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020,7, 1796249. [CrossRef]
7.
´
Culi´c, M.; Vujiˇci´c, M.D.; Kalini´c, ˇ
C.; Dunji´c, M.; Stankov, U.; Kovaˇci´c, S.; Vasiljevi´c, Ð.A.; An ¯
delkovi´c, Ž. Rookie Tourism
Destinations—The Effects of Attractiveness Factors on Destination Image and Revisit Intention with the Satisfaction Mediation
Effect. Sustainability 2021,13, 5780. [CrossRef]
8.
Chan, W.-C.; Wan Ibrahim, W.H.; Lo, M.-C.; Mohamad, A.A.; Ramayah, T.; Chin, C.-H. Controllable drivers that influence tourists’
satisfaction and revisit intention to Semenggoh Nature Reserve: The moderating impact of destination image. J. Ecotourism
2022
,
21, 147–165. [CrossRef]
9.
Bigné, J.E.; Sánchez, M.I.; Sánchez, J. Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour: Inter-relationship. Tour.
Manag. 2001,22, 607–616. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 18 of 21
10.
Lee, C.-K.; Lee, Y.-K.; Lee, B. Korea’s destination image formed by the 2002 World Cup. Ann. Tour. Res.
2005
,32, 839–858.
[CrossRef]
11.
Mechinda, P.; Serirat, S.; Gulid, N. An examination of tourists’ attitudinal and behavioral loyalty: Comparison between domestic
and international tourists. J. Vacat. Mark. 2009,15, 129–148. [CrossRef]
12.
Nilplub, C.; Khang, D.B.; Krairit, D. Determinants of destination loyalty and the mediating role of tourist satisfaction. Tourism
Analysis 2016,21, 221–236. [CrossRef]
13.
Liu, B.; Pennington-Gray, L.; Krieger, J. Tourism crisis management: Can the Extended Parallel Process Model be used to
understand crisis responses in the cruise industry? Tour. Manag. 2016,55, 310–321. [CrossRef]
14.
Liska, A.E. A critical examination of the causal structure of the Fishbein/Ajzen attitude-behavior model. Soc. Psychol. Q.
1984
,
47, 61–74. [CrossRef]
15.
Pan, T.; Shu, F.; Kitterlin-Lynch, M.; Beckman, E. Perceptions of cruise travel during the COVID-19 pandemic: Market recovery
strategies for cruise businesses in North America. Tour. Manag. 2021,85, 104275. [CrossRef]
16.
Orden-Mejía, M.; Carvache-Franco, M.; Huertas, A.; Carvache-Franco, W.; Landeta-Bejarano, N.; Carvache-Franco, O. Post-
COVID-19 Tourists’ Preferences, Attitudes and Travel Expectations: A Study in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 2022,19, 4822. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17.
Yoon, Y.; Cha, K.C. A Qualitative Review of Cruise Service Quality: Case Studies from Asia. Sustainability
2020
,12, 8073.
[CrossRef]
18.
Holland, J.; Mazzarol, T.; Soutar, G.N.; Tapsall, S.; Elliott, W.A. Cruising through a pandemic: The impact of COVID-19 on
intentions to cruise. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2021,9, 100328. [CrossRef]
19.
Rehman, A.U.; Abbas, M.; Abbasi, F.A.; Khan, S. How Tourist Experience Quality, Perceived Price Reasonableness and Regener-
ative Tourism Involvement Influence Tourist Satisfaction: A study of Ha’il Region, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability
2023
,15, 1340.
[CrossRef]
20.
Hassan, T.H.; Salem, A.E.; Abdelmoaty, M.A. Impact of Rural Tourism Development on Residents’ Satisfaction with the Local
Environment, Socio-Economy and Quality of Life in Al-Ahsa Region, Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2022
,19,
4410. [CrossRef]
21.
The Maritime Executive Saudi Arabia Aims to Attract Cruise Ships with New Port Investments. Available online: https://
maritime-executive.com/article/saudi-arabia-aims-to-attract-cruise-ships-with-new-port-investments (accessed on 14 May 2023).
22.
Cruise Industry News Cruise Saudi Joins Saudi Tourism Forum. Available online: https://cruiseindustrynews.com/cruise-
news/2023/03/cruise-saudi-joins-saudi-tourism-forum/ (accessed on 14 May 2023).
23.
Papathanassis, A.; Beckmann, I. Assessing the ‘poverty of cruise theory’hypothesis. Ann. Tour. Res.
2011
,38, 153–174. [CrossRef]
24.
Chua, B.-L.; Lee, S.; Goh, B.; Han, H. Impacts of cruise service quality and price on vacationers’ cruise experience: Moderating
role of price sensitivity. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015,44, 131–145. [CrossRef]
25.
Li, X.; Petrick, J.F. Towards an integrative model of loyalty formation: The role of quality and value. Leis. Sci.
2010
,32, 201–221.
[CrossRef]
26.
Monferrer, D.; Segarra, J.R.; Estrada, M.; Moliner, M.Á. Service quality and customer loyalty in a post-crisis context. Prediction-
oriented modeling to enhance the particular importance of a social and sustainable approach. Sustainability
2019
,11, 4930.
[CrossRef]
27.
Jones, P.; Hillier, D.; Comfort, D. The two market leaders in ocean cruising and corporate sustainability. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp.
Manag. 2017,29, 288–306. [CrossRef]
28.
Bryce, K.R. The role of social media in crisis management at Carnival Cruise Line. J. Bus. Case Stud. (JBCS)
2014
,10, 231–238.
[CrossRef]
29. Kwortnik, R.J. Shipscape influence on the leisure cruise experience. Int. J. Cult. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2008,2, 289–311. [CrossRef]
30.
Di Vaio, A.; Varriale, L.; Lekakou, M.; Stefanidaki, E. Cruise and container shipping companies: A comparative analysis
of sustainable development goals through environmental sustainability disclosure. Marit. Policy Manag.
2021
,48, 184–212.
[CrossRef]
31.
Renaud, L. Reconsidering global mobility–distancing from mass cruise tourism in the aftermath of COVID-19. Tour. Geogr.
2020
,
22, 679–689. [CrossRef]
32.
Hennigs, N.; Schmidt, S.; Wiedmann, K.-P.; Karampournioti, E.; Labenz, F. Measuring brand performance in the cruise industry:
Brand experiences and sustainability orientation as basis for value creation. Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manag.
2017
,23, 189–203.
[CrossRef]
33.
Könnölä, K.; Kangas, K.; Seppälä, K.; Mäkelä, M.; Lehtonen, T. Considering sustainability in cruise vessel design and construction
based on existing sustainability certification systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,259, 120763. [CrossRef]
34.
Castillo-Manzano, J.I.; Castro-Nuño, M.; Pozo-Barajas, R. Addicted to cruises? Key drivers of cruise ship loyalty behavior through
an e-WOM approach. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022,34, 361–381. [CrossRef]
35.
Gössling, S.; Scott, D.; Hall, C.M. Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. J. Sustain. Tour.
2021
,
29, 1–20. [CrossRef]
36.
Li, H.; Zhang, P.; Tong, H. The labor market of Chinese cruise seafarers: Demand, opportunities, and challenges. Marit. Technol.
Res. 2020,2, 243–259. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 19 of 21
37.
Manolitzas, P.; Glaveli, N.; Palamas, S.; Grigoroudis, E.; Zopounidis, C. Improving customer experience in the cruise industry in
the post pandemic era. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2022,9, 2143309. [CrossRef]
38.
Zhang, Z.; Ye, Q.; Song, H.; Liu, T. The structure of customer satisfaction with cruise-line services: An empirical investigation
based on online word of mouth. Curr. Issues Tour. 2015,18, 450–464. [CrossRef]
39. Krieger, B.; Moskowitz, H.; Rabino, S. What customers want from a cruise vacation: Using internet-enabled conjoint analysis to
understand the customer’s mind. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 2005,13, 83–111. [CrossRef]
40.
Ajagunna, I.; Ilori, M.O.; McLean, E. An analysis of post-pandemic scenarios: What are the prospects for the Caribbean cruise
industry? Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 2022,14, 91–98. [CrossRef]
41.
Muritala, B.A.; Hernández-Lara, A.-B.; Sánchez-Rebull, M.-V.; Perera-Lluna, A. #CoronavirusCruise: Impact and implications of
the COVID-19 outbreaks on the perception of cruise tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022,41, 100948.
42.
Tapsall, S.; Soutar, G.N.; Elliott, W.A.; Mazzarol, T.; Holland, J. COVID-19’s impact on the perceived risk of ocean cruising: A
best-worst scaling study of Australian consumers. Tour. Econ. 2022,28, 248–271. [CrossRef]
43.
Soleimani, A.G.; Einolahzadeh, H. The influence of service quality on revisit intention: The mediating role of WOM and
satisfaction (Case study: Guilan travel agencies). Cogent Soc. Sci. 2018,4, 1560651.
44.
Jayasinghe, P. Impact of service quality dimensions on tourist satisfaction (Case study on Passikuda hotels). Int. J. Adv. Res. Innov.
Ideas Educ. 2020,7, 520–534.
45.
Sharma, G.; Malviya, S. Internet banking service quality and its impact on customer satisfaction in Indore district of Madhya
Pradesh. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Invent. 2014,3, 2319–8028.
46.
Kitapci, O.; Taylan Dortyol, I.; Yaman, Z.; Gulmez, M. The paths from service quality dimensions to customer loyalty. Manag. Res.
Rev. 2013,36, 239–255. [CrossRef]
47.
Dimou, I.; Velissariou, E. Tourism and Accessibility. A satisfaction survey on tourists with disabilities in the Island of Crete. In
Proceedings of the 11th Management of Innovative Business, Education & Support Systems, Heraklion, Greece, 22–24 June 2016.
48.
Melian, A.; Prats, L.; Coromina, L. The perceived value of accessibility in religious sites–do disabled and non-disabled travellers
behave differently? Tour. Rev. 2016,71, 105–117. [CrossRef]
49.
Zygiaris, S.; Hameed, Z.; Ayidh Alsubaie, M.; Ur Rehman, S. Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Post Pandemic
World: A Study of Saudi Auto Care Industry. Front. Psychol. 2022,13, 842141. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50.
Rahhal, W. The effects of service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction: An empirical investigation in Syrian mobile
telecommunication services. Int. J. Bus. Manag. Invent. 2015,4, 81–89.
51. Chun, R. Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2005,7, 91–109. [CrossRef]
52. Yarimoglu, E.K. A review on dimensions of service quality models. J. Mark. Manag. 2014,2, 79–93.
53.
Jansri, W.; Hussein, L.A.; Loo, J.T.K. The effect of service quality on revisit intention in tourist beach. GeoJ. Tour. Geosites
2020
,
29, 472–487. [CrossRef]
54.
Özkan, P.; Süer, S.; Keser, ˙
I.K.; Kocakoç, ˙
I.D. The effect of service quality and customer satisfaction on customer loyalty. Int. J.
Bank Mark. 2019,38, 384–405. [CrossRef]
55.
Alam, M.M.D.; Noor, N.A.M. The Relationship Between Service Quality, Corporate Image, and Customer Loyalty of Generation
Y: An Application of S-O-R Paradigm in the Context of Superstores in Bangladesh. SAGE Open
2020
,10, 215824402092440.
[CrossRef]
56.
Ishaq, I. Perceived value, service quality, corporate image and customer loyalty: Empirical assessment from Pakistan. Serb. J.
Manag. 2012,7, 25–36. [CrossRef]
57.
Gadissa, B. Service Quality and Tourists Satisfaction the Case of Seven Travel Agents in Addis Ababa. Ph.D. Thesis, St. Mary’s
University, Winona, MN, USA, January 2018.
58.
Casidy, R.; Wymer, W. A risk worth taking: Perceived risk as moderator of satisfaction, loyalty, and willingness-to-pay premium
price. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016,32, 189–197. [CrossRef]
59.
Kim, W.; Park, H.-S.; Choi, W.; Jun, H. The Relationships between Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Purchase Intention of
Customers at Non-Profit Business. Int. J. Bus. Mark. Manag. 2017,2, 12–19.
60.
Homburg, C.; Koschate, N.; Hoyer, W.D. Do Satisfied Customers Really Pay More? A Study of the Relationship between Customer
Satisfaction and Willingness to Pay. J. Mark. 2005,69, 84–96. [CrossRef]
61.
Dawi, N.; Jusoh, A.; Streimikis, J.; Mardani, A. The influence of service quality on customer satisfaction and customer behavioral
intentions by moderating role of switching barriers in satellite pay TV market. Econ. Sociol. 2018,11, 198–218. [CrossRef]
62.
Keiningham, T.; Gupta, S.; Aksoy, L.; Buoye, A. The High Price of Customer Satisfaction. MIT Sloan Managment Review. 2014.
Available online: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-high-price-of-customer-satisfaction/ (accessed on 14 April 2023).
63.
Tosun, C.; Dedeo˘glu, B.B.; Fyall, A. Destination service quality, affective image and revisit intention: The moderating role of past
experience. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2015,4, 222–234. [CrossRef]
64.
Boro, K. Destination service quality, tourist satisfaction and revisit intention: The moderating role of income and occupation of
tourist. J. Tour. Hosp. Culin. Arts 2022,14, 23–40.
65.
Wantara, P.; Irawati, S.A. Relationship and Impact of Service Quality, Destination Image, on Customer Satisfaction and Revisit
Intention to Syariah Destination in Madura, Indonesia. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. Res. 2021,6, 209–215. [CrossRef]
66. Dobni, D.; Zinkhan, G.M. In search of brand image: A foundation analysis. ACR North Am. Adv. 1990,17, 110–119.

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 20 of 21
67.
Wang, D.; Hu, S.; Feng, L.; Lu, Y. Tourism Destination Image Perception Model Based on Clustering and PCA from the Perspective
of New Media and Wireless Communication Network: A Case Study of Leshan. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput.
2022
,2022, 8630927.
[CrossRef]
68.
Adnyana, I.P.; Teja Kusuma, G.; Kepramareni, P.; Landra, N. Destination Image as a Strategy to Save the Negative Effects of Risk
Perception on Attitudes and Intentions of Tourists Visits During Post Eruption of Mount Agung in Bali. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control.
Syst. 2020,12, 834–848.
69.
Dirsehan, T.; Kurtulu¸s, S. Measuring brand image using a cognitive approach: Representing brands as a network in the Turkish
airline industry. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2018,67, 85–93. [CrossRef]
70. Keller, K.L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J. Mark. 1993,57, 1–22. [CrossRef]
71.
Lee, J.-S.; Hsu, L.-T.; Han, H.; Kim, Y. Understanding how consumers view green hotels: How a hotel’s green image can influence
behavioural intentions. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010,18, 901–914. [CrossRef]
72.
Hwang, J.; Park, S. An exploratory study of how casino dealer communication styles lead to player satisfaction. J. Travel Tour.
Mark. 2018,35, 1246–1260. [CrossRef]
73.
Han, H.; Hwang, J.; Lee, M.J.; Kim, J. Word-of-mouth, buying, and sacrifice intentions for eco-cruises: Exploring the function of
norm activation and value-attitude-behavior. Tour. Manag. 2019,70, 430–443. [CrossRef]
74.
Han, H.; Eom, T.; Chung, H.; Lee, S.; Ryu, H.B.; Kim, W. Passenger repurchase behaviours in the green cruise line context:
Exploring the role of quality, image, and physical environment. Sustainability 2019,11, 1985. [CrossRef]
75.
Han, H.; Hyun, S.S. Cruise travel motivations and repeat cruising behaviour: Impact of relationship investment. Curr. Issues Tour.
2019,22, 786–805. [CrossRef]
76.
Han, H.; Hwang, J.; Lee, M.J. Antecedents of travellers’ repurchase behaviour for luxury cruise product. Curr. Issues Tour.
2018
,
21, 821–841. [CrossRef]
77. Ladhari, R. A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2009,1, 172–198. [CrossRef]
78. Parasuraman, A.; Berry, L.; Zeithaml, V. Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. J. Retail. 2002,67, 114.
79. Babakus, E.; Boller, G.W. An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. J. Bus. Res. 1992,24, 253–268. [CrossRef]
80.
Hassan, T.H.; Salem, A.E. Impact of Service Quality of Low-Cost Carriers on Airline Image and Consumers’ Satisfaction and
Loyalty during the COVID-19 Outbreak. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021,19, 83. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81.
Zinko, R.; Furner, C.P.; de Burgh-Woodman, H.; Johnson, P.; Sluhan, A. The Addition of Images to eWOM in the Travel Industry:
An Examination of Hotels, Cruise Ships and Fast Food Reviews. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res.
2021
,16, 525–541. [CrossRef]
82. Jöreskog, K.G. Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika 1971,36, 409–426. [CrossRef]
83. Dijkstra, T.K.; Henseler, J. Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Q. 2015,39, 297–316. [CrossRef]
84.
Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Assessing PLS-SEM Results—Part I: Evaluation of the Reflective Measeure-
ment Models. In A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 3rd ed.; Hair, J.F., Jr., Hult, G.T.M.,
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., Eds.; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
85.
Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015,43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
86.
Streukens, S.; Leroi-Werelds, S. Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results. Eur.
Manag. J. 2016,34, 618–632. [CrossRef]
87.
Becker, J.-M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Völckner, F. How collinearity affects mixture regression results. Mark. Lett.
2015
,
26, 643–659. [CrossRef]
88.
Bello, Y.O.; Majebi, E.C. Lodging quality index approach: Exploring the relationship between service quality and customers
satisfaction in hotel industry. J. Tour. Herit. Stud. 2018,7, 58–78.
89.
Thi, K.C.N.; Huy, T.L.; Van, C.H.; Tuan, P.C. The effects of service quality on international tourist satisfaction and loyalty: Insight
from Vietnam. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci. 2020,4, 179–186. [CrossRef]
90.
Kerdpitak, C.; Heuer, K. Key Success Factors of Tourist Satisfaction In Tourism Services Provider. J. Appl. Bus. Res. (JABR)
2016
,
32, 1237–1242. [CrossRef]
91.
Aydin, S.; Özer, G. The analysis of antecedents of customer loyalty in the Turkish mobile telecommunication market. Eur. J. Mark.
2005,39, 910–925. [CrossRef]
92.
Cheng, X.; Fu, S.; Sun, J.; Bilgihan, A.; Okumus, F. An investigation on online reviews in sharing economy driven hospitality
platforms: A viewpoint of trust. Tour. Manag. 2019,71, 366–377. [CrossRef]
93.
Yu, H.S.; Zhang, J.J.; Kim, D.H.; Chen, K.K.; Henderson, C.; Min, S.D.; Huang, H. Service Quality, Perceived Value, Customer
Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intention Among Fitness Center Members Aged 60 Years and Over. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J.
2014
,
42, 757–767. [CrossRef]
94.
Slack, N.; Singh, G.; Sharma, S. The effect of supermarket service quality dimensions and customer satisfaction on customer
loyalty and disloyalty dimensions. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2020,12, 297–318. [CrossRef]
95. Hoch, S.J.; Deighton, J. Managing What Consumers Learn from Experience. J. Mark. 1989,53, 1. [CrossRef]
96.
Aliman, N.K.; Mohamad, W.N. Linking Service Quality, Patients’ Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions: An Investigation on
Private Healthcare in Malaysia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016,224, 141–148. [CrossRef]
97.
Liu, C.-H.S.; Lee, T. Service quality and price perception of service: Influence on word-of-mouth and revisit intention. J. Air
Transp. Manag. 2016,52, 42–54. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2023,15, 8623 21 of 21
98.
Li, Z.; Wang, X.; Li, X.; Yuen, K.F. Post COVID-19: Health crisis management for the cruise industry. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.
2022,71, 102792. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
99. Rius, J.M.; Gassiot-Melian, A. Has COVID-19 had an impact on prices. J. Revenue Pricing Manag. 2021,21, 538–552. [CrossRef]
100.
Ryschka, A.M.; Domke-Damonte, D.J.; Keels, J.K.; Nagel, R. The effect of social media on reputation during a crisis event in the
cruise line industry. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2016,17, 198–221. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.