Post on 17-Jan-2015
description
transcript
How do international touristsperceive hotel quality?
An exploratory study of service quality inAntalya tourism region
Ibrahim Taylan DortyolDepartment of Marketing, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
Inci VarinliDepartment of Business Management, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
Olgun KitapciDepartment of Marketing, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to identify tourists’ perceptions of services provided by hotels inAntalya/Turkey and to explore hotel service quality dimensions. Specifically, the objectives are asfollows: to identify the dimensions of hotel service quality, and to determine the relative impact ofthose dimensions on customer satisfaction levels, on customer value and on customers’ intentions torecommend or revisit a hotel.
Design/methodology/approach – The present study uses the framework which originallyappeared in Juwaheer’s study investigating international tourists’ perceptions of hotels in Mauritius.In this framework ten hotel service quality dimensions were defined by factor analysis and then themost important dimensions for each component were determined using stepwise regression analysis.
Findings – Of the ten hotel service quality dimensions, “tangibles” and “food quality and reliability”influence the customer satisfaction level the most. Customer value is explained by five dimensionswhich generate 37.8 percent of the variance. “Hotel employees and problem solving”, “transportation”,“food quality and reliability”, “climate and hygiene”, “level of price”, “tangibles”, “interaction withTurkish culture” and “friendly, courteous and helpful employees” are the main dimensions whichaffect whether a guest will recommend a hotel. “Tangibles”, “interaction with Turkish culture”, and“level of price” are seen as the most influential dimensions in terms of customers’ intentions to revisit ahotel.
Research limitations/implications – The basic limitation of the study is the unexplainedvariance, which is the result of the regression analysis. Therefore, future research should aim todetermine the factors explaining that variance.
Practical implications – In light of these findings, hotel managers in Antalya can betterunderstand their guests’ priorities and consequently, they can arrange their service encounter processaccordingly to fulfill these priorities.
Originality/value – This study presents potentially valuable information for hotel managers inAntalya with regards to understanding customer value and satisfaction, which are the key elements interms of guests revisiting a hotel and recommending it to others. As providing an opportunity for acomparative study of service quality searches, this study contributes to the field.
Keywords Turkey, Service marketing, Experience marketing, International guest services,International hotel management, Service quality perceptions
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
IJCHM26,3
470
Received 9 November 2012Revised 15 February 201327 June 201314 October 2013Accepted 2 November 2013
International Journal ofContemporary HospitalityManagementVol. 26 No. 3, 2014pp. 470-495q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0959-6119DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-11-2012-0211
IntroductionWith its history, sea, cultural assets and high quality tourism facilities, Antalya isknown as the capital of Turkish tourism. With Belek, Kemer, Side-Manavgat, Alanya,Lara-Kunda, and Kas tourism centers, Antalya hosts more than 10 million foreignquests every year. Along with a cultural heritage deeply rooted in history, Antalya’scoves and highlands of unique beauty, pristine beaches, comfortable hotels andmarinas, colorful entertainment venues, and art-filled festivals all make it a touristdestination that offers endless possibilities to its guests. These include the pleasure ofsunbathing from sunrise to sunset; the natural thrill of outdoor sports in the grip ofmother nature; the excitement of discovering national parks with their rich flora andfauna, ancient cities, museums and Kaleici; the mystery of the mountains and thepeaceful Mediterranean coves drawing you away; the romance of watching an operaoutdoors under the stars at night; sampling the unique delicacies of Turkish cuisineand enjoying the party scene. Meeting the hospitable people of Antalya is just anotherpart of the pleasant holiday experience (GoTurkey, 2013). Being an eye-catchingdestination (Sarı et al., 2011) and as well as being the most globally connected, denselypopulated and the main tourist destination in Turkey (Erkus-Ozturk, 2009) bringsmany responsibilities for city-managers in general. Specifically, as a tourism capital,hotels in Antalya need to provide services of the highest quality to their guests.
Objectives of the studyThe present paper builds on the framework of Juwaheer’s study which was publishedin 2004 and which investigated the perceptions of international tourists from countriesin Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania. Juwaheer employed a modified SERVQUALapproach on 410 international tourists staying in different categories of beach hotel inMauritius. Using principal component factor analysis, nine hotel factors namedreliability factors, assurance factors, extra room benefits sought, staff communicationskills and additional benefits, room attractiveness and decor, empathy, staff outlookand accuracy factors, food and service related factors, and hotel surroundings andenvironmental factors were identified out of 39 hotel attributes. The results ofregression analysis revealed that the overall level of service quality and likeliness toreturn to the same hotel are primarily derived from the reliability factor, while roomattractiveness and decor was the primary dimension affecting perceptions of hotelguests’ satisfaction and recommendation decisions.
With this in mind, the main purpose of the present study is to identify customerperceptions of services provided by hotels in Antalya and to determine the hotelservice quality dimensions. Specifically, the objectives can be listed as follows:
. to identify the hotel service quality dimensions; and
. to determine the relative impact of those dimensions on customer satisfactionlevels, customer value and on recommending and revisiting intentions.
The paper first presents a review of the literature on service quality in the tourismsector and then it presents the methodology used in the current study. The article endswith a review of the main findings, discussion, implications and limitations of thestudy.
Service qualityin Antalya
471
Literature reviewService qualityThe various attempts to relate the concept of quality to different situations haveprevented the emergence of a common global definition. The concept of quality isdescribed as “zero error – do right first time” in common Japanese philosophy(Parasuraman et al., 1985) and has been highlighted as the most important singlepioneering power on the economic development process of international companies(Reeves and Bednar, 1994). Accordingly, quality is used to describe differentphenomena (Vinagre and Neves, 2008). On the one hand, some authors describe theconcept as usage convenience, while others define it as conformity to specifications(Kara et al., 2005). However, the definition of quality standardized by “AmericanNational Standards Institute” and “American Society for Quality” is as follows: “Thetotality of features and characteristics of a product or service that impact its ability tosatisfy given needs” (Ma et al., 2005, p. 1068).
Therefore, service quality correlates with its own characteristics, and it is describedas an attitude form which includes a global judgment related to the superiority ofservice ( Jun et al., 2004; Stewart et al., 1998). According to the definition that relatesservice quality to behavioral intentions; it is an attitudinal structure which leadsbehavioral intentions (Fullerton, 2005). As an output of the service encounter process,service quality is stated as meeting the consumers’ expectations (Duffy et al., 1997).Among consumer satisfaction theories, some authors including Parasuraman and hiscolleagues identify service quality as the gap between service perceptions andconsumer expectations (Vinagre and Neves, 2008). Accordingly, perceived servicequality, termed “true quality” by Kordupleski (Redman and Mathews, 1998), is thediscrepancy level which emerges as the result of the comparison made betweennormative expectations related to what should happen and perceptions related to whatactually happened (Kelley and Turley, 2001; Sureshchandar et al., 2001). In otherwords, service quality focuses on meeting needs and requirements and the degree towhich the service provided meets customer expectations (Lewis et al., 1994).
Measuring service qualityThe basic characteristics of service, namely variability, inseparability andperishability have caused some difficulties for academics and practitioners withregards to measuring service quality (Espinoza, 1999). In particular, decisivelydetermining the criteria which will be used for the service quality evaluation process isnot very easy because of the complicated structures (Poolthong and Mandhachitara,2009). In spite of those difficulties, true quality cannot be developed unless it ismeasured, thus emphasizing the importance of service quality measurement. Onlyservice providers who know how consumers evaluate the service will also know how tolead these evaluations in the desired direction (Sureshchandar et al., 2001). In addition,basing user experiences related to a service and distinguishing service differentiationcriteria on this ground is another important reason to realize the measurement process(Vinagre and Neves, 2008). However, service marketers understand the need to definethe perceptions of service quality correctly when using it for a competitive advantage(Malhotra et al., 2005).
IJCHM26,3
472
SatisfactionCustomer satisfaction is seen as the most valuable property for businesses in saturatedmarkets (Gundersen et al., 1996). Achieving profits by satisfying consumer demandsand needs reflects the central position of the customer satisfaction marketing concept(Woodside et al., 1989). Companies based on high satisfaction levels receive higheconomic gains (Gilbert and Veloutsou, 2006). Moreover, the satisfied consumer is lesssensitive to price, less affected by competitors’ counter attacks and compared with theunsatisfied consumer, stays loyal to company for longer (Nam et al., 2011). TheAmerican Customer Satisfaction Index (ASCI), a scale which measures the customersatisfaction level of companies, shows that a one-point increase in customersatisfaction causes a boost in market value of on average 1 million $ and 3 percent(Fornell, 2001). Being one of the most commonly studied components in marketingliterature (Philips et al., 2011), there have been various attempts to define the concept ofcustomer satisfaction (Yang and Peterson, 2004), but a generally agreed definition hasnot yet been determined (Tsiotsou, 2006). In light of previous studies, the followingdefinition of customer satisfaction can be given: “As a construct, customer satisfactionhas been noted as a special form of consumer attitude; it is a post-purchasephenomenon reflecting how much the consumer likes or dislikes the service afterexperiencing it” (Woodside et al., 1989, p. 6).
In some instances, the terms quality and satisfaction are used as synonyms and areseen as similar concepts (Iacobucci et al., 1995). Nevertheless, there are significantdifferences between these two notions. While the concept of service quality developsover years and correlates with customer expectations, satisfaction is a short-term andtransaction-based measurement of personal and emotional reaction to a service(Hernon et al., 1999). Cronin and Taylor (1992) provide a popular explanation of thedifference, namely that perceived service quality is a form of attitude; a long-runoverall evaluation, whereas satisfaction is a transaction-specific measure. In addition,whereas quality is a conceptual reaction, customer satisfaction consists of bothconceptual and affective reactions (Ha and Jang, 2010). Investigating the casual orderof the satisfaction-service quality relationship, Lee et al. (2000) suggested that servicequality is an antecedent of customer satisfaction which in turn has a greater influenceon purchase intention. Briggs et al. (2007) handled the discrepancy in question as partof the hotel sector and propounded that customer satisfaction is associated with thethoughts of the customers about their experiences and with the interaction betweenthem and hotel components like employees. In that study, it was also emphasized thatservice quality is shaped by location and value perception.
Service quality in the tourism sectorRecently, the dominant position of the manufacturing sector has been overtaken due tothe rise of the service sector. Accordingly, with its international identity, the tourismand accommodation industry stands among the biggest industries in the world(Ingram and Daskalakis, 1999). Tourism, which has become a supplementarycomponent of lifestyle, is one of the primary players in the economic development ofmany countries (Poon and Low, 2005) and it is seen as an indispensable source forforeign currency inflow (Atılgan et al., 2003). This situation is reflected in the studies inthe service quality field. Referring to previous studies within the scope of servicequality, the tourism field has emerged as the fifth most studied subject (Akıncı et al.,
Service qualityin Antalya
473
2009). Given that it possesses hedonic, aesthetic and emotional components whichcannot be seen in other services like finance (Johns, 1999), tourism services areaccepted as a unique product due to the tangible and intangible elements it owns aspart of the tourism experience (Poon and Low, 2005). As customers of hotels take partin an experience, the hotel industry is specific. Accordingly, hotel managers andemployees must be able to turn all the interactions with its guests into a positiveexperience ( Juwaheer and Ross, 2003). Purchasing and consuming all sorts of servicesgenerating holiday experience locates tourism consumers in a different place fromother economic activities. In this manner, tourism consumers make their quality andsatisfaction judgments via holiday experiences related to all components of acomplicated tourism system (Weiermair, 2000). The success of any company dependson understanding the basic points influencing consumers’ demands and meeting thesedemands in such a way that guests will be satisfied during their first visit ( Juwaheerand Ross, 2003). As an output of the process in question, customer-focused tourismcompanies should determine their target audience’s needs and develop the serviceencounter process accordingly (Eraqi, 2006).
This study focuses on the quality perceptions of international tourists, as it mightbe considered as a right attempt for hotel managers to determine the primitive servicequality dimensions in the high-quality service delivery process. The concept of qualityhas numerous dimensions changing over time. Here, the question is which dimensionsare the most important ones. Finding the true answer will lead hotel managers to takerelevant steps. With this conscious, an in-depth review of service quality andsatisfaction has been drawn and a content analysis has been made in the scope of theprevious studies on service quality in the tourism sector (Table I).
MethodologyThe survey questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part is to measure hotelguests’ perceptions of service quality in the hotel where they were staying. A five-pointLikert-type rating scale, in which (1) indicates “strongly disagree” and (5) indicates“strongly agree” was used. The second part of the questionnaire pertains to themeasurement of the demographic characteristics of respondents. The adoptedinstrument was in line with previous studies by Tribe and Snaith (1998), Khan (2003),Juwaheer (2004), Laroche et al. (2005), Akbaba (2006), Albacete-Saez et al. (2007), Li et al.(2007), Narayan et al. (2008) and Salazar et al. (2010). A pilot test was conducted with 25instructors at Cumhuriyet University. The results enabled us to gain valuableinformation about the wording of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed inEnglish, German and Russian.
The target population of this study was departing English, German and Russiantourists (n ¼ 307) who had stayed in hotels, motels and holiday-villages. The datagathering process was realized during July, 2012 at ICF Airport, Antalya. Incompletesurveys and the failure to obtain full responses means that after conducting 500face-to-face surveys, just 307 questionnaires were found to be usable. The precise sizeof the target population was difficult to be ascertained accurately. However, accordingto published data, the total number of incoming tourists in 2011, was 4,168,396(Turkish National Statistics, 2011). Probability sampling was implemented due to timeand budget restrictions. Therefore, the sample size was calculated to be 500 with a 5percent sampling error. In the data analysis process, factor analysis and multiple
IJCHM26,3
474
Au
thor
sS
amp
lesi
zeR
elia
bil
ity
Sca
leN
o.of
pro
pos
als
An
aly
sis
tech
niq
ue
Dim
ensi
ons
orfa
ctor
s
Lew
iset
al.
(199
4)1,
279
hot
elg
ues
ts66
Fre
qu
ency
2–
Loc
atio
nan
dp
rice
Atk
inso
n(1
988)
200
gu
ests
Asi
x-p
oin
tL
iker
t-ty
pe
59M
ean
Inor
der
ofp
rior
itie
s;h
yg
ien
e;sa
fety
;goo
dv
alu
efo
rth
em
oney
;an
dfr
ien
dly
,co
urt
eou
san
dh
elp
ful
emp
loy
ees
Kn
uts
on(1
988)
1,85
3v
isit
ors
Fre
qu
ency
5–
Cle
an,
com
fort
able
,w
ell-
mai
nta
ined
room
s;co
nv
enie
nt
loca
tion
;p
rom
pt
and
cou
rteo
us
serv
ice;
safe
and
secu
reen
vir
onm
ent;
and
frie
nd
lyan
dco
urt
eou
sem
plo
yee
sW
ilen
sky
and
Bu
ttle
(198
8)13
0h
otel
gu
ests
Afi
ve-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e40
Fac
tor
anal
ysi
s7
–O
pp
ortu
nit
ies
for
rela
xat
ion
;v
alu
efo
rm
oney
;st
and
ard
ofp
erso
nal
serv
ice;
ph
ysi
cal
attr
acti
ven
ess;
app
eali
ng
imag
e;st
and
ard
ofse
rvic
es;
and
suit
abil
ity
for
bu
sin
ess
gu
ests
Riv
ersetal.
(199
1)42
6h
otel
gu
ests
Afi
ve-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
eM
ean
3–
Loc
atio
n;
gen
eral
serv
ices
and
room
read
ines
sA
nan
thet
al.
(199
2)22
2v
isit
ors
Afi
ve-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e57
Mea
n9
–G
ood
val
ue
for
mon
ey;
in-r
oom
tem
per
atu
reco
ntr
olm
ech
anis
m;
con
ven
ien
tlo
cati
onof
hot
el;
pri
ceof
acco
mm
odat
ion
;so
un
dp
roof
room
s;sp
ecia
ld
isco
un
tsav
aila
ble
;lo
ud
fire
alar
ms;
free
par
kin
gse
rvic
es;
and
firm
nes
sof
mat
tres
s(continued
)
Table I.The service quality
studies in tourism andaccommodation sector
Service qualityin Antalya
475
Au
thor
sS
amp
lesi
zeR
elia
bil
ity
Sca
leN
o.of
pro
pos
als
An
aly
sis
tech
niq
ue
Dim
ensi
ons
orfa
ctor
s
Bar
sky
(199
2)10
0g
ues
tsM
ean
Inor
der
ofp
rior
itie
s;em
plo
yee
atti
tud
e;lo
cati
on;
and
room
sM
cCle
aryet
al.
(199
3)43
3b
usi
nes
sg
ues
tsA
fiv
e-p
oin
tL
iker
t-ty
pe
56F
acto
ran
aly
sis
7–
Bas
icp
rod
uct
;bu
sin
ess
serv
ices
;b
anq
uet
/mee
tin
gfa
cili
ties
;fr
equ
ent
trav
eler
pro
gra
ms;
adv
erti
sin
g/
pu
bli
cre
lati
ons;
con
ven
ien
tlo
cati
on;
and
no-
smok
ing
room
sW
ebst
eran
dH
un
g(1
994)
40em
plo
yee
s,58
gu
ests
Afi
ve-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e10
8–
tan
gib
les;
reli
abil
ity
;co
mm
un
icat
ion
;re
spon
siv
enes
s;se
curi
ty;
cou
rtes
y;
un
der
stan
din
g;
and
acce
ssA
kan
(199
5)22
8h
otel
gu
ests
Afo
ur-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e30
Fac
tor
anal
ysi
s7
–C
ourt
esy
and
com
pet
ence
ofth
ep
erso
nn
el;
com
mu
nic
atio
nan
dtr
ansa
ctio
n;
tan
gib
les;
kn
owin
gan
du
nd
erst
and
ing
the
cust
omer
;ac
cura
cyan
dsp
eed
ofse
rvic
e;so
luti
ons
top
rob
lem
s;an
dac
cura
cyof
hot
elre
serv
atio
ns
LeB
lan
can
dN
gu
yen
(199
6)40
9tr
avel
ers
0.47
-0,9
1fo
rd
imen
sion
sA
sev
en-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e
27F
acto
ran
aly
sis
5–
Con
tact
per
son
nel
;p
hy
sica
len
vir
onm
ent;
qu
alit
yof
serv
ices
;co
rpor
ate
iden
tity
;an
dac
cess
ibil
ity
Ek
incietal.
(199
8)11
5E
ng
lish
vac
atio
nis
ts0,
87fo
rta
ng
ible
s,0,
92fo
rIn
tan
gib
les
Ase
ven
-p
oin
tL
iker
t-ty
pe
18C
onfi
rmat
ive
fact
oran
aly
sis
2–
tan
gib
les
and
inta
ng
ible
s
(continued
)
Table I.
IJCHM26,3
476
Au
thor
sS
amp
lesi
zeR
elia
bil
ity
Sca
leN
o.of
pro
pos
als
An
aly
sis
tech
niq
ue
Dim
ensi
ons
orfa
ctor
s
Tri
be
and
Sn
aith
(199
8)(H
OL
SA
T)
102
hot
elg
ues
tsA
fiv
e-p
oin
tL
iker
t-ty
pe
566
–T
he
ph
ysi
calr
esor
tan
dfa
cili
ties
;am
bia
nce
;re
stau
ran
ts,
bar
s,sh
ops
and
nig
htl
ife;
tran
sfer
s;h
erit
age
and
cult
ure
;ac
com
mod
atio
nM
eiet
al.
(199
9)(H
OL
SE
RV
)15
5p
red
omin
antl
yb
usi
nes
str
avel
ers
0,88
-0,9
3fo
rd
imen
sion
;0,
97fo
rto
tal
scal
e27
Fac
tor
anal
ysi
s3
–E
mp
loy
ees;
tan
gib
les;
and
reli
abil
ity
Heu
ng
and
Ch
eng
(200
0)22
0to
uri
sts
0,78
-0,8
8fo
rd
imen
sion
sA
sev
en-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e
15F
acto
ran
aly
sis
4–
tan
gib
les
qu
alit
y;
staf
fse
rvic
eq
ual
ity
;p
rod
uct
val
ue;
and
pro
du
ctre
liab
ilit
yK
ozak
(200
1)1,
872
Bri
tish
and
Ger
man
tou
rist
s0,
56-0
,87
for
dim
ensi
ons
Ase
ven
-p
oin
tL
iker
t-ty
pe
55F
acto
ran
aly
sis
8–
Acc
omm
odat
ion
serv
ices
;lo
cal
tran
spor
tse
rvic
es;
hy
gie
ne,
san
itat
ion
and
clea
nli
nes
s;h
osp
ital
ity
and
cust
omer
care
;fa
cili
ties
and
acti
vit
ies;
lev
elof
pri
ces;
lan
gu
age
com
mu
nic
atio
n;
and
des
tin
atio
nai
rpor
tse
rvic
esC
hoi
and
Ch
u(2
001)
420
inte
rnat
ion
alto
uri
sts
0,71
-0,9
3fo
rd
imen
sion
s;0,
94fo
rto
tal
scal
eA
sev
en-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e
29E
xp
lora
tory
fact
oran
aly
sis
7–
Sta
ffse
rvic
eq
ual
ity
;ro
omq
ual
ity
;g
ener
alam
enit
ies;
bu
sin
ess
serv
ices
;v
alu
e;se
curi
ty;
and
IDD
(in
tern
atio
nal
dir
ect
dia
l)fa
cili
ties
(continued
)
Table I.
Service qualityin Antalya
477
Au
thor
sS
amp
lesi
zeR
elia
bil
ity
Sca
leN
o.of
pro
pos
als
An
aly
sis
tech
niq
ue
Dim
ensi
ons
orfa
ctor
s
Yu
kse
lan
dY
uk
sel
(200
1)34
0to
uri
sts
0,53
-0,9
0fo
rd
imen
sion
s;0,
95fo
rto
tal
scal
eA
sev
en-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e
58F
acto
ran
aly
sis
16–
Foo
dq
ual
ity
;se
rvic
eq
ual
ity
;h
yg
ien
ean
dac
com
mod
atio
n;
hos
pit
alit
y;
tou
rist
faci
liti
es;
bea
chan
den
vir
onm
ent;
pri
cean
dv
alu
e;en
tert
ain
men
t;q
uie
tnes
s;co
nv
enie
nce
;co
mm
un
icat
ion
;se
curi
ty;
wat
ersp
orts
;tr
ansp
orta
tion
;ai
rpor
tse
rvic
es;
and
wea
ther
Ek
incietal.
(200
3)12
0B
riti
shtr
avel
ers
0,88
for
tan
gib
les,
0,95
for
inta
ng
ible
s;0,
96fo
rto
tal
scal
e
Ase
ven
-p
oin
tL
iker
t-ty
pe
16E
xp
lora
tory
fact
oran
aly
sis
2–
tan
gib
les
and
inta
ng
ible
s
Get
tyan
dG
etty
(200
3)(L
QI)
222
trav
eler
sfo
rth
efi
rst
dat
ase
t,22
9tr
avel
ers
for
the
seco
nd
dat
ase
t
265
–T
ang
ibil
ity
;re
liab
ilit
y;
resp
onsi
ven
ess;
con
fid
ence
;an
dco
mm
un
icat
ion
Kh
an(2
003)
(EC
OS
ER
V)
324
Eco
tou
rism
Soc
iety
mem
ber
s0,
86-0
,98
for
dim
ensi
ons;
0,97
for
tota
lsc
ale
Ase
ven
-p
oin
tL
iker
t-ty
pe
30F
acto
ran
aly
sis
6–
Eco
tan
gib
les;
assu
ran
ce;
reli
abil
ity
;re
spon
siv
enes
s;em
pat
hy
;an
dta
ng
ible
sM
illa
nan
dE
steb
an(2
004)
368
stu
den
ts0,
71-0
,89
for
dim
ensi
ons;
0,95
for
tota
lsc
ale
Afi
ve-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e31
Con
firm
ativ
efa
ctor
anal
ysi
s6
–S
erv
ice
enco
un
ters
;em
pat
hy
;re
liab
ilit
y;
serv
ice
env
iron
men
t;ef
fici
ency
ofad
vic
e;ad
dit
ion
alat
trib
ute
s(continued
)
Table I.
IJCHM26,3
478
Au
thor
sS
amp
lesi
zeR
elia
bil
ity
Sca
leN
o.of
pro
pos
als
An
aly
sis
tech
niq
ue
Dim
ensi
ons
orfa
ctor
s
Juw
ahee
r(2
004)
410
inte
rnat
ion
alto
uri
sts
0,60
-0,7
5fo
rd
imen
sion
sA
sev
en-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e
39F
acto
ran
aly
sis
9–
Rel
iab
ilit
y;
assu
ran
ce;
extr
aro
omb
enefi
tsso
ug
ht;
staf
fco
mm
un
icat
ion
and
add
itio
nal
amen
itie
sso
ug
ht;
room
attr
acti
ven
ess
and
dec
or;
emp
ath
y;
staf
fou
tloo
kan
dac
cura
cy;
food
and
serv
ice;
hot
elsu
rrou
nd
ing
san
den
vir
onm
ent
Nad
iri
and
Hu
ssai
n(2
005)
285
Eu
rop
ean
gu
ests
0,95
for
tan
gib
les,
0,81
for
inta
ng
ible
s;0,
96fo
rto
tal
scal
e
Afi
ve-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e22
Ex
plo
rato
ryfa
ctor
anal
ysi
s2
–ta
ng
ible
san
din
tan
gib
les
Poo
nan
dL
ow(2
005)
200
Asi
anto
uri
sts
Afi
ve-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e48
Fac
tor
anal
ysi
s12
–H
osp
ital
ity
;ac
com
mod
atio
n;
food
and
bev
erag
es;
recr
eati
onan
den
tert
ain
men
t;su
pp
lem
enta
ryse
rvic
es,
secu
rity
and
safe
ty;
inn
ovat
ion
and
val
ue-
add
edse
rvic
es;
tran
spor
tati
on;
loca
tion
;ap
pea
ran
ce;
pri
cin
g;
and
pay
men
tA
kb
aba
(200
6)23
4B
usi
nes
str
avel
ers
0,70
-0,8
5fo
rd
imen
sion
s;0,
93fo
rto
tal
scal
eA
fiv
e-p
oin
tL
iker
t-ty
pe
29F
acto
ran
aly
sis
5–
tan
gib
les;
adeq
uac
yin
serv
ice
sup
ply
;u
nd
erst
and
ing
and
cari
ng
;as
sura
nce
;an
dco
nv
enie
nce
Alb
acet
e-S
aez
etal.
(200
7)17
2to
uri
sts
0,71
-0,9
1fo
rd
imen
sion
s;0,
93fo
rto
tal
scal
eA
sev
en-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e
36E
xp
lora
tory
fact
oran
aly
sis
and
con
firm
ativ
efa
ctor
anal
ysi
s
7–
Per
son
nel
resp
onse
;co
mp
lem
ent
offe
r;to
uri
stre
lati
ons;
bas
icd
eman
ds;
tan
gib
leel
emen
ts;
secu
rity
;an
dem
pat
hy
(continued
)
Table I.
Service qualityin Antalya
479
Au
thor
sS
amp
lesi
zeR
elia
bil
ity
Sca
leN
o.of
pro
pos
als
An
aly
sis
tech
niq
ue
Dim
ensi
ons
orfa
ctor
s
Wil
kin
set
al.
(200
7)66
4h
otel
gu
ests
0,72
-0,9
0fo
rd
imen
sion
s63
Ex
plo
rato
ryfa
ctor
anal
ysi
san
dco
nfi
rmat
ive
fact
oran
aly
sis
3p
rim
ary
;6
seco
nd
ary
–P
hy
sica
lp
rod
uct
(sty
lish
effo
rt;
room
qu
alit
y;
and
add
edex
tras
);se
rvic
eex
per
ien
ce(q
ual
ity
staf
f;p
erso
nal
izat
ion
;an
dsp
eed
yse
rvic
e);a
nd
qu
alit
yfo
odan
db
ever
age
Nar
ayan
etal.
(200
8)32
3to
uri
sts
0,67
-0,9
0fo
rd
imen
sion
sA
sev
en-
poi
nt
Lik
ert-
typ
e
67E
xp
lora
tory
fact
oran
aly
sis
and
con
firm
ativ
efa
ctor
anal
ysi
s
14–
Cor
e-to
uri
smex
per
ien
ce;
cult
ure
;in
form
atio
nce
nte
rs;
per
son
alin
form
atio
n;
hos
pit
alit
y;
fair
nes
sof
pri
ce;h
yg
ien
e;d
istr
acti
ons;
amen
itie
s;p
ub
s;v
alu
efo
rm
oney
;lo
gis
tics
;fo
od;
and
secu
rity
Moh
sin
and
Loc
ky
er(2
010)
271
par
tici
pan
tsB
etw
een
0,99
3an
d1
for
all
qu
esti
ons
Ase
ven
-p
oin
tL
iker
t-ty
pe
23E
xp
lora
tory
fact
oran
aly
sis
5–
Hot
elam
bia
nce
and
staf
fco
urt
esy
;fo
odan
db
ever
age
pro
du
ctan
dse
rvic
eq
ual
ity
;st
aff
pre
sen
tati
onan
dk
now
led
ge;
rese
rvat
ion
serv
ices
;an
dov
eral
lv
alu
efo
rm
oney
Ram
anat
han
and
Ram
anat
han
(201
1)
664
hot
elg
ues
ts–
––
Sta
tist
ical
reg
ress
ion
“Val
ue
for
mon
ey”
asa
crit
ical
attr
ibu
te,
wh
ile
“cu
stom
erse
rvic
e”,
“roo
mq
ual
ity
”an
d“q
ual
ity
offo
od”
are
dis
sati
sfier
s
Table I.
IJCHM26,3
480
regressions were used. Accordingly, 50 service quality variables were factor analyzedto reduce those variables into a smaller set of dimensions. Principal componentanalysis with varimax rotation was conducted and only factors with an Eigenvalueequal to or greater than one were considered significant. Finally, regression analysiswas applied to find out the hotel service quality dimensions which contribute to thecustomer satisfaction level and revisiting and recommending intentions. Accordingly,multiple regression analysis with a stepwise method was used.
FindingsDemographic profile of respondentsTable II shows the demographics of the respondents. The sample included morewomen (57.0 percent), tourists aged between 35 and 44 (28.7 percent), white-collarworkers (36.4 percent) and German tourists (61.2 percent). The majority of tourists hadgraduated from at least high school (86.3 percent). They stayed at 4 þ star hotels (91.6percent) and their trips were for pleasure rather than for business (90.4 percent).
Hotel service quality dimensionsThe results of descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha are illustrated in Table III.Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the reliability of each factor. Cronbach’s alphas ofindividual factors were 90.5 for “friendly, courteous and helpful employees”, 85.1 for“Room amenities”, 87.9 for “food quality and reliability”, 86.1 for “Interaction withTurkish culture”, 78.2 for “Entertainment opportunities”, 75.5 for “tangibles”, 86.3 for“Level of prices”, 67.4 for “transportation” and 41.8 for “Climate and hygiene”. Themean values, standard deviations, number of items and reliability analysis aresummarized in Table III.
From the varimax-rotated factor matrix, ten factors representing 63.6 percent of theexplained variance were extracted from 50 variables. Reliability analysis was theinternal consistency of each factor. These ten dimensions, represented in Table IV,were identified as follows:
Dimension 1 – friendly, courteous and helpful employees. This dimension,accounting for 30.3 percent of the variation in the data, consists of statements aboutcourteous, friendly, knowledgeable and available service when the guests needed hotelemployees. In addition, according to this dimension the hotel staff should know theirduties. They should perform their duties well and not make mistakes. They should beable to solve complaints. In addition, they should appear neat and tidy and payindividualized attention to their guests to make them feel special. Furthermore, aspectssuch as flexibility, the hotel’s ability to solve guests’ problems, giving informationabout the facilities and compensating for any inconvenience that guests suffer alsoplayed their part in this dimension.
Dimension 2 – room amenities. In this dimension which explains 6.5 percent of thevariance, the room should be quiet and it should have a good view, fine furnishings andit should be very comfortable. In addition, room facilities should function properly andmaterials associated with the service should be adequate.
Dimension 3 – food quality and reliability. This dimension, explaining 4.5 percent ofthe variance, includes statements related to hotel meals and reliability. According tothis dimension, hotel meals should be high quality, hygienic and there should be a widevariety. Reliability means that all areas in the hotel should be well indicated with signs,
Service qualityin Antalya
481
Frequency %
GenderFemale 172 57,0Male 130 43,0Total 302 100
Age18-24 72 23,825-34 59 19,535-44 87 28,745-54 51 16,8Above 55 34 11,2Total 303 100
EducationNo school education 2 0,7Elementary School 12 3,9Junior High School 42 13,7High School 96 31,3Bachelor’s degree 72 23,5Master’s degree 45 14,7Doctorate degree 15 4,4Total 284 100
Type of accommodationMotel 12 4,2Holiday village 12 4,24 stars hotel 82 28,45 stars hotel 153 52,9þ5 stars hotel 30 10,4Total 289 100
Was it your first visit?Yes 129 43,4No 168 56,6Total 297 100
JobExecutive/manager 54 18,2Self-employed 35 11,8White-collar 108 36,4Blue-collar 16 5,4Retired 11 3,7Housewife 6 2,0Student 37 12,5Others 30 10,1Total 297 100
Marital statusSingle 124 42,8Married 136 46,9Divorced/widowed 30 10,3Total 290 100
(continued )
Table II.Demographics ofrespondents
IJCHM26,3
482
and the hotel should reflect a quality service image; it should provide the services asthey are promised and it should perform the services right first time.
Dimension 4 – interaction with Turkish culture. Explaining 4.2 percent of thevariance, this dimension is about being able to meet and talk to Turkish people, to findout about everyday life in Turkey, to learn more about Turkish history, to visitmuseums and archaeological sites and to visit nearby Turkish towns and countryside.
Dimension 5 – entertainment opportunities. This dimension, which explained 4.1percent of the variation, consists of statements related to the variety of restaurants,bars, shops and nightlife and being a fashionable.
Dimension 6 – tangibles. In this dimension, the visual quality of resort buildings,green spaces, the capacity of the hotel service unit and the crowdedness of the beachare taken into consideration and 3.5 percent of the variance is explained.
Dimension 7 – level of prices. Explaining 3.0 percent of the variance, this dimensionincludes statements related to the cheapness of services in restaurants, bars andnightlife.
Dimension 8 – transportation. Explaining 2.8 percent of the variance, thestatements in this dimension are associated with the airport’s modernity, quality ofin-flight service and access to the hotel’s loading/unloading areas, car parking areas,etc.
Dimension 9 – climate and hygiene. The ninth dimension includes statements fromtwo different sub-dimensions. Explaining 2.3 percent of the variance explained, thisdimension therefore consists of statements which focus on the cleanliness of the resortand fine weather.
Dimension 10 – security. This dimension explains 2.1 percent of the variance andincludes just one statement that explains the safety and security of the resort.
As the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) rate is 0.908, the data gathered from sample areconsidered to be appropriate for factor analysis (Table IV).
Relative importance of hotel service quality dimensions on customer satisfaction,customer value, recommending intentions and revisiting intentionsIn Tables V-VIII the hotel service quality dimensions affecting customer satisfaction,customer value, recommending intentions and revisiting intentions are shown.Stepwise regression analysis was carried out using customer satisfaction, customer
Frequency %
NationalityGerman 188 61,2Russian 71 23,1English 48 15,6Total 307 100
Purpose of visitBusiness 22 7,5Fun/holiday 264 90,4Health 5 1,7For sport 1 0,3Total 292 100 Table II.
Service qualityin Antalya
483
Dimensions and variables a m s
Friendly, courteous and helpful employees 0,905 4,26 0,881Q19. The hotel staff would be friendly 4,46 0,852Q20. The hotel staff would know their job, do it well and not makemistakes 4,32 0,815Q18. The hotel staff would be courteous 4,49 0,842Q22. The hotel staff would be always available when needed 4,40 0,804Q24. The hotel staff would give guests individualized attention thatmakes them feel special 4,07 0,950Q23. The hotel staff would appear neat and tidy 4,39 0,807Q21. The hotel staff would be responsive to solve the complaints 4,19 0,979Q25. The hotel staff would have knowledge to answer questions 4,24 0,876Q40. The hotel would provide flexibility in service that would beadequate and sufficient 4,07 0,895Q41. Getting information about the facilities and services of the hotelwould be easy 4,19 0,864Q42. The hotel would resolve guest complaints and would compensatefor the inconvenience guests suffer 4,09 1,014
Room amenities 0,851 4,13 0,986Q30. The room would have a high comfort 4,06 0,983Q28. The room would have quality furnishings 4,08 0,965Q29. The size of the room would be enough 4,16 0,953Q27. The room would have a good view 4,03 1,003Q32. Materials associated with the service would be adequate andsufficient 4,22 0,995Q31. Facilities in room would function properly 4,33 0,926Q26. The room would be quiet 4,06 1,080
Food quality and reliability 0,879 4,32 0,909Q34. Hotel meals would be a high variety 4,30 0,963Q33. Hotel meals would be a high quality 4,35 0,928Q35 Hotel meals would be hygienic 4,54 0,809Q36. All areas in the hotel would be well indicated with signs 4,19 0,941Q38. The hotel would provide the services as they were promised 4,37 0,936Q39. The hotel would perform the services right the first time 4,23 0,904Q37. The hotel would project a quality service image 4,26 0,883
Interaction with Turkish culture 0,861 3,79 1,042Q50. I would be able to visit museums and archaeological sights 3,84 1,078Q49. I would be able to learn more about Turkish history 3,78 1,040Q51. I would be able to visit nearby Turkish towns and countryside 3,77 1,083Q48. I would be able to find out about everyday life in Turkey 3,77 1,039Q47. I would be able to mix and talk with Turkish people 3,82 0,970
Entertainment opportunities 0,782 3,83 0,956Q11. The resort would have a variety of bars 4,05 0,912Q10. The resort would have a variety of restaurants 4,12 0,899Q13. The resort would have a variety of nightlife 3,42 1,073Q12. The resort would have a variety of shops 3,97 0,932Q14. The resort would be fashionable 3,62 0,964
Tangibles 0,755 4,31 0,881Q7. The hotel would ensure regular maintenance of hotel lawn and greenspace 4,26 0,902Q6. The resort buildings and layout would be visually pleasing 4,21 0,857Q8. The service units of the hotel have adequate capacity 4,46 0,840Q9. The beach would be uncrowned 4,22 0,964Q1. The beach and sea would be clean 4,42 0,842
(continued )
Table III.Descriptive statistics ofvariables
IJCHM26,3
484
value, recommending intentions and revisiting intentions as the dependent variablesand hotel service quality dimensions as independent variables. From Tables V-VIII, itis understood that “tangibles” ðb ¼ 0:243Þ and “food quality and reliability” ðb ¼
0:190Þ dimensions are the main influential factors of customer satisfaction and thesedimensions explain 14.2 percent of the variance in the customers satisfaction level. Itmeans that 85.8 percent of the variance can be explained by other factors. Furthermore,the tangibles dimension is the most influential dimension on customer satisfaction as itexplains 11.6 percent of the variance. The F-statistic for the regression model was17.228 with a p-value of 0.000.
The customer value is explained by five dimensions generating 37.8 percent of thevariance which are “friendly, courteous and helpful employees” ðb ¼ 0:132Þ;transportation ðb ¼ 0:259Þ; “food quality and reliability” ðb ¼ 0:215Þ; “Climate andhygiene” ðb ¼ 0:151Þ; and “Level of prices” ðb ¼ 0:101Þ: However, it should be notedthat 62.2 percent of the variance can be explained by other factors. Indeed, the“friendly, courteous and helpful employees” dimension is the most influentialdimension on customer value as it explains 25.3 percent of the variance. The F-statisticfor the regression model was 36.567 with a p-value equal to 0.000. “tangibles” ðb ¼
0:158Þ; “Interaction with Turkish culture” ðb ¼ 0:141Þ and “friendly, courteous andhelpful employees” ðb ¼ 0:152Þ are the main dimensions that influence customers torecommend the hotel and 12.6 percent of variance is explained by these dimensions.The F-statistic for the regression model was 14.550 with a p-value equal to 0.000.Finally, “tangibles” ðb ¼ 0:225Þ; “Interaction with Turkish culture” ðb ¼ 0:133Þ and“Level of price” ðb ¼ 0; 121Þ are considered to be the most influential dimensions oncustomers’ revisiting intentions. 12.7 percent of the variance is explained by thesedimensions and in order to explain all the variance, some other factors should be takeninto account. The F-statistic for the regression model was 14.633 with a p-value equalto 0.000.
Dimensions and variables a m s
Level of prices 0,863 3,57 0,979Q16. Bars would be cheap 3,57 1,006Q15. Restaurants would be cheap 3,66 0,968Q17. Nightlife would be cheap 3,48 0,964
Transportation 0,674 4,15 0,926Q45. The arrival airport would be modern and efficient 4,20 0,907Q46. In flight service would be of a high quality 3,97 1,004Q43. It would be easy access to the hotel 4,29 0,868
Climate and hygiene 0,418 4,53 0,752Q5. The climate would be mainly sunny 4,66 0,664Q3. The resort would be clean 4,41 0,841
Security – 4,61 0,712Q4 The resort would be safe and secure 4,61 0,712
Note: Standard Deviation: s; Cronbach’s alpha: a; Mean: m Table III.
Service qualityin Antalya
485
Dim
ensi
ons
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
Q19
.0,
791
Q20
.0,
752
Q18
.0,
715
Q22
.0,
644
Q24
.0,
591
Q23
.0,
586
Q21
.0,
585
Q25
.0,
501
Q40
.0,
487
Q41
.0,
478
Q42
.0,
457
Q30
.0,
821
Q28
.0,
731
Q29
.0,
700
Q27
.0,
538
Q32
.0,
511
Q31
.0,
495
Q26
.0,
405
Q34
.0,
798
Q33
.0,
762
Q35
.0,
708
Q36
.0,
542
Q38
.0,
535
Q39
.0,
486
Q37
.0,
471
Q50
.0,
843
Q49
.0,
814
Q51
.0,
805
Q48
.0,
757
(continued
)
Table IV.Factor loadings for hotelservice qualitydimensions
IJCHM26,3
486
Dim
ensi
ons
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
Q47
.0,
500
Q11
.0,
822
Q10
.0,
709
Q13
.0,
664
Q12
.0,
555
Q14
.0,
449
Q7.
0,69
2Q
6.0,
630
Q8.
0,57
4Q
9.0,
561
Q1.
0,43
8Q
16.
0,83
7Q
15.
0,83
6Q
17.
0,81
6Q
45.
0,78
9Q
46.
0,71
6Q
43.
0,39
5Q
5.0,
772
Q3.
0,42
7Q
4.0,
465
Eig
env
alu
e14
,857
3,20
22,
219
2,07
62,
008
1,73
11,
501
1,39
51,
131
1,04
6P
erce
nta
ge
ofv
aria
nce
exp
lain
ed30
,321
6,53
54,
528
4,23
74,
098
3,53
23,
063
2,84
72,
307
2,13
4T
otal
var
ian
ceex
pla
ined
63,6
02
Notes:
Kai
ser-
Mey
er-O
lkin
(KM
O):
0,90
8.D
1=fr
ien
dly
,co
urt
eou
san
dh
elp
ful
emp
loy
ees;
D2=
room
amen
itie
s;D
3=fo
odq
ual
ity
and
reli
abil
ity
;D
4=in
tera
ctio
nw
ith
Tu
rkis
hcu
ltu
re;
D5=
ente
rtai
nm
ent
opp
ortu
nit
ies;
D6=
tan
gib
les;
D7=
lev
elof
pri
ces;
D8=
tran
spor
tati
on;
D9=
clim
ate
and
hy
gie
ne;
D10
=se
curi
ty.
Table IV.
Service qualityin Antalya
487
DiscussionThe results of this study back up the importance of service quality perceptions in thecontext of particular dimensions as it shows such dimensions are related withcustomer satisfaction, customer value and behavioral intentions. From a pragmaticpoint-of-view, the study offers potentially valuable contributions to the hotel industryin Antalya as it provides some insights for hotel managers. Developing a framework
R 2 Sig. Dimensions B b T Sig T
Hotel guests 0,378 0,000 Friendly, courteous and helpful employees 0,189 0,132 1,851 0,065Transportation 0,325 0,259 4,964 0,000Food quality & reliability 0,281 0,215 3,176 0,002Climate & hygiene 0,227 0,151 3,044 0,003Level of prices 0,105 0,101 2,028 0,043
Notes: n=307. Total explained variance (R 2)=0,378; dependent variable: customer value. Value items:The holiday would be good value for money
Table VI.Hotel service qualitydimensions affectingcustomer value
R 2 Sig. Dimensions B b T Sig T
Hotel guests 0,142 0,000 Tangibles 0,345 0,243 3,936 0,000Food quality & reliability 0,243 0,190 3,064 0,002
Notes: n=307. Total explained variance (R 2)=0,142; dependent variable: satisfaction. SatisfactionItems: My general vacation satisfaction level of high, my satisfaction level related with the resort ishigh
Table V.Hotel service qualitydimensions affectingcustomer satisfactionlevel
R 2 Sig Dimensions B b T Sig T
Hotel guests 0,127 0,000 Tangibles 0,391 0,225 3,854 0,000Interaction with Turkish culture 0,174 0,133 2,279 0,023Level of prices 0,152 0,121 2,145 0,033
Notes: n=307. Total explained variance (R 2)=0,127; dependent variable: revisit intentions. Revisitintention items: I would like to revisit Antalya, I would like to stay again at the resort which I havestayed last
Table VIII.Hotel service qualitydimensions affectingrevisit intentions
R 2 Sig. Dimensions B b T Sig T
Hotel guests 0,126 0,000 Tangibles 0,248 0,158 2,355 0,019Interaction with Turkish culture 0,166 0,141 2,404 0,017Friendly, courteous and helpful employees 0,237 0,152 2,277 0,023
Notes: n=307. Total explained variance (R 2)=0,126; dependent variable: recommend intentions.Recommendation Items: I would recommend my friends and relatives to visit Antalya, I wouldrecommend my friends and relatives to stay at the resort which I have stayed last
Table VII.Hotel service qualitydimensions affectingrecommend intentions
IJCHM26,3
488
for conceptualizing the effects of service quality dimensions on customer satisfactionand other behavioral intentions can be considered as the main theoretical implication ofthis study. The present study presents ten hotel service quality dimensions from a listcompiled of 50 items. These dimensions can be listed as:
(1) friendly, courteous and helpful employees;
(2) room amenities;
(3) food quality and reliability;
(4) interaction with Turkish culture;
(5) entertainment opportunities;
(6) tangibles;
(7) level of prices;
(8) transportation;
(9) climate and hygiene; and
(10) security.
In the second stage of the analysis, these dimensions were analyzed using a stepwiseregression analysis technique to find out the dimensions which are used by tourists inAntalya. The aim here was to evaluate satisfaction and value levels of tourists and toexplore the dimensions that have the main influences on their revisiting andrecommending intentions. Accordingly, although there is a large unexplained variance,the “tangibles” and “food quality and reliability” dimensions are the main dimensionsthat should be considered by hotel managers in order to satisfy their guests’ needs. Inthese dimensions, the featured points are providing a pleasing visual appearance ofresort buildings and their layout, ensuring regular maintenance of green spaces,having adequate capacity of dining rooms, meeting rooms, swimming pools, quietnessof the beaches, meals that are high quality, rich in variety and hygienic, indicating allareas in the hotel with signs, representing a quality service image, providing theservices as promised and performing the services right first time. By doing so, thephysical environment may become more attractive.
From the results, it is observed that five dimensions namely, “friendly, courteousand helpful employees”, “transportation”, “food quality and reliability”, “climate andhygiene” and “level of prices” are the dimensions that explain customer valueperceptions as these dimensions generate 37.8 percent of the variance. As the “friendly,courteous and helpful employees” dimension is the best predictor of customer valueperceptions, hotel managers should pay more attention to hotel staff in order to ensurethat they are courteous, friendly, neat and tidy. They should know what to do, and theyshould do it well. They shouldn’t make mistakes. The hotel employee are the ones whoare responsible for dealing with complaints; they should be available whenever needed,show individualized attention to guests and have enough knowledge to answer theirquestions. In recruitment process, the candidates possessing these attributes should befound and hired. Since hotel employees have first-hand knowledge about thecharacteristics of customers, Olorunniwo et al., 2006 state that the employees should beencouraged and rewarded in service quality design and implementation process. Whatis more, hotel managers should focus on the problem-solving process by providingflexible services, giving information to guests easily, resolving guests’ complaints and
Service qualityin Antalya
489
compensating for any inconveniences that guests suffer. Regarding the other fourdimensions, easy access to the hotel, a modern and efficient airport, high qualityin-flight service, a clean resort, fine weather; and low-priced bars, restaurants andnightlife are the other matters to focus on. The statements of the “food quality andreliability” dimension are expressed in the previous paragraph, so they will not bementioned again here.
The “tangibles” and “interaction with Turkish culture” dimensions emerge as thetwo main influences on both recommending and revisiting intentions. Besides thestatements related to the tangibles dimension presented above, hotel guests who areable to meet and talk to Turkish people, who are able to find out about everyday life inTurkey, who are able to learn more about Turkish history, who are able to visitmuseums and archeological sites and who can visit nearby Turkish towns andcountryside are more likely to recommend and revisit the hotel where they stayed. Theother dimensions influencing recommending and revisiting intentions are “friendly,courteous and helpful employees” and “level of prices”. The statements related to theselast dimensions are not going to be pointed out again as they have been describedabove. The result of the study is on the other side of the discussion, compared withAlexandris et al. (2002) reported that tangible dimension is not among the mostimportant predictor of WOM communications. Accordingly, the tangible dimensionstill stands as an antecedent of recommending and revisiting intention.
Implications and limitationsThe increasing interest in addressing the service quality concept from the consumer’spoint-of-view is accepted as one of the most important developments in the tourismindustry (Nadiri and Hussain, 2005). Explicitly describing and understanding the hotelattributes in light of customer needs allows hotel management to recognize and fulfillcustomer wants and needs in advance instead of subsequently reacting to customerdissatisfaction (Choi and Chu, 2001). Moreover, giving a satisfactory experience to thecustomers, hotel managers should understand how the customers assess the servicequality (Olorunniwo et al., 2006) that is too subjective to evaluate based on specificcharacteristics of service (Alexandris et al., 2002). Thus, this study is believed toprovide useful information about these facts for hotel managers in Antalya. Besides itspractical implications, the study has some theoretical values while it is providinginsights for a comparative study of service quality perceptions.
With the findings of the study, it is understood that international tourists evaluatetheir satisfaction and value perceptions and intend to revisit and recommend inaccordance with the different hotel service quality dimensions. In light of thesefindings, hotel managers in Antalya can understand their guests’ priorities and canarrange their service or encounter process to fulfill these priorities. Recognizing thepriorities will lead the hotels to reposition their quality propositions in order to exceedthe expectations of their guests and shape their hotel experience. By doing so, hotelsmay offer their own service quality pledges. In addition to these implications, thisstudy is also helpful for hotels in Antalya in terms of allocating their resources moreeffectively. The need to identify the key dimensions in gaining customer value,customer satisfaction and in leading the guests to revisit and recommend makes thesefindings more interesting and valuable. The importance of findings for managerialdecision-making processes is evident. Hotel managers seeking to improve their
IJCHM26,3
490
customers’ loyalty levels and making efforts to increase retention rates may benefitfrom information about the effect of dimensions of service quality on customersatisfaction and of the latter on behavioral loyalty.
Presenting information for hotel management in Antalya with regards to gainingcustomer value and customer satisfaction and in leading the guests to revisit andrecommend may be accepted as a reply to the question of how the study contributes tothe literature. In this manner, the study may be used in international industry-specificand comparative research. Hotel managers that aim to offer high quality service shouldpay special attention to having staff that are able to solve problems and who arefully-qualified. It is essential for the staff to have the emotional and esthetic skills asthey are always in touch with customers from different cultures and countries (Crickand Spencer, 2011). It would also be interesting to expand the model to include theeconomic consequences for companies and organizations of the relationships describedin this paper. The Turkish hospitality industry, among others, will have much tobenefit from studying such an extended model.
The basic limitation of the study is perhaps the unexplained variance as the resultof the regression analysis. To settle this matter, future research should aim todetermine the points which explain that variance. With regards to other attempts tomake the findings more valuable, examining the research in different sectors, indifferent cultures, in different service areas of hospitality could be advisable. It shouldbe also mentioned that generalization of the findings to the entire tourism and hotelfield is not possible due to the sampling procedure. Since it is a convenience sample, theapplicability of this work to all hotels in the region and service quality field is quitesuspicious. The other limitation of this study comes from the fact that the field researchwas conducted on tourists who visited Antalya. Owing to the research samplelimitations, it would be useful to analyze data from a greater geographical sample thatwould include other tourist locations and compare the differences.
References
Akan, P. (1995), “Dimensions of service quality: a study in Istanbul”, Managing Service Quality,Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 39-43.
Akbaba, A. (2006), “Measuring service quality in the hotel industry: a study in a business hotel inTurkey”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 25, pp. 170-192.
Akıncı, S., Atılgan Inan, E., Aksoy, S. and Buyukkupcu, A. (2009), “Pazarlama literaturundehizmet kalitesi kavramının dunu ve bugunu”, H.U. Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler FakultesiDergisi, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 61-82.
Albacete-Saez, C.A., Fuentes-Fuentes, M.M. and Llorens-Montes, F.J. (2007), “Service qualitymeasurement in rural accommodation”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 1,pp. 45-65.
Alexandris, K., Dimitriadis, N. and Markata, D. (2002), “Can perceptions of service quality predictbehavioral intentions? An exploratory study in the hotel sector in Greece”, ManagingService Quality, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 224-231.
Ananth, M., DeMicco, F.J., Moreo, P.J. and Howey, R.M. (1992), “Marketplace lodging needs ofmature travelers”, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 33No. 4, pp. 12-24.
Atılgan, E., Akıncı, S. and Aksoy, S. (2003), “Mapping service quality in the tourism industry”,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 412-422.
Service qualityin Antalya
491
Atkinson, A. (1988), “Answering the eternal question: what does the customer want”, The CornellHotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 12-14.
Barsky, J.D. (1992), “Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: meaning and measurement”,Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 51-73.
Briggs, S., Sutherland, J. and Drummond, S. (2007), “Are hotels serving quality? An exploratorystudy of service quality in the Scottish hotel sector”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28,pp. 1006-1019.
Choi, T.Y. and Chu, R. (2001), “Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage inthe Hong Kong hotel industry”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 20, pp. 277-297.
Crick, A.P. and Spencer, A. (2011), “Hospitality quality: new directions and new challenges”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 463-478.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension”,The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Duffy, J.A., Duffy, M. and Kilbourne, W. (1997), “Cross national study of perceived servicequality in long-term care facilities”, Journal of Aging Studies, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 327-336.
Ekinci, Y., Prokopaki, P. and Cobanoglu, C. (2003), “Service quality in Cretan accommodations:marketing strategies for the UK holiday market”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 22,pp. 47-66.
Ekinci, Y., Riley, M. and Fife-Schaw, C. (1998), “Which school of thought? The dimension ofresort quality”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 10No. 2, pp. 63-67.
Eraqi, M.I. (2006), “Tourism service quality (TourServQual) in Egypt: the viewpoints of externaland internal customers”, Benchmarking an International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 469-492.
Erkus-Ozturk, H. (2009), “The role of cluster types and firm size in designing the level of networkrelations: the experience of the Antalya tourism region”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30,pp. 589-597.
Espinoza, M.M. (1999), “Assessing the cross-cultural applicability of a service quality measure: acomparative study between Quebec and Peru”, International Journal of Service IndustryManagement, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 449-468.
Fornell, C. (2001), “The science of satisfaction”, Harvard Business Review, March.
Fullerton, G. (2005), “The service quality-loyalty relationship in retail services: does commitmentmatter?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 12, pp. 99-111.
Getty, J.M. and Getty, R.L. (2003), “Lodging quality index (LQI): assessing customers’ perceptionsof quality delivery”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 94-104.
Gilbert, G.R. and Veloutsou, C. (2006), “A cross-industry comparison of customer satisfaction”,Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 298-308.
Goturkey.com (2013), Official Tourism Portal of Turkey, available at: www.goturkey.com/en/city/detail/antalya (accessed 8 October 2013).
Gundersen, M.G., Heide, M. and Olsson, U.H. (1996), “Hotel guest satisfaction among businesstravelers: what are the important factors?”, The Cornell Hotel and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 72-81.
Ha, J. and Jang, S. (2010), “Effects of service quality and food quality: the moderating role ofatmospherics in an ethnic restaurant segment”, International Journal of HospitalityManagement, Vol. 29, pp. 520-529.
IJCHM26,3
492
Hernon, P., Nitecki, D.A. and Altman, E. (1999), “Service quality and customer satisfaction: anassessment and future directions”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 25 No. 1,pp. 9-17.
Heung, V.C.S. and Cheng, E. (2000), “Assessing tourists’ satisfaction with shopping in the HongKong Special Administrative Region of China”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38,pp. 396-404.
Iacobucci, D., Ostrom, A. and Grayson, K. (1995), “Distinguishing service quality and customersatisfaction: the voice of the consumer”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3,pp. 277-303.
Ingram, H. and Daskalakis, G. (1999), “Measuring quality gaps in hotels: the case of Crete”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-30.
Johns, N. (1999), “What is this thing called service?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33Nos 9/10, pp. 958-973.
Jun, M., Yang, Z. and Kim, D. (2004), “Customers’ perceptions of online retailing service qualityand their satisfaction”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21No. 8, pp. 817-840.
Juwaheer, T.D. (2004), “Exploring international tourists’ perceptions of hotel operations by usingmodified SERVQUAL approach – a case study of Mauritius”, Managing Service Quality,Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 350-364.
Juwaheer, T.D. and Ross, D.L. (2003), “A study of hotel guest perceptions in Mauritius”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 105-115.
Kara, A., Lonial, S., Tarım, M. and Zaim, S. (2005), “A paradox of service quality in Turkey: theseemingly contradictory relative importance of tangible and intangible determinants ofservice quality”, European Business Review, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5-20.
Kelley, S.W. and Turley, L.W. (2001), “Consumer perceptions of service quality attributes atsporting events”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54, pp. 161-166.
Khan, M. (2003), “ECOSERV, ecotourists’ quality expectations”, Annals of Tourism Research,Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 109-124.
Knutson, B.J. (1988), “Frequent travelers: making them happy and bringing them back”, TheCornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 83-87.
Kozak, M. (2001), “Comparative assessment of tourist satisfaction with destinations across twonationalities”, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 391-401.
Laroche, M., Kalamas, M. and Cleveland, M. (2005), “‘I’ versus ‘we’, how individualists andcollectivists use information sources to formulate their service expectations”, InternationalMarketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 279-308.
LeBlanc, G. and Nguyen, N. (1996), “An examination of the factors that signal hotel image totravelers”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 32-42.
Lee, H., Lee, Y. and Yoo, D. (2000), “The determinants of perceived service quality and itsrelationship with satisfaction”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 217-231.
Lewis, B.R., Orledge, J. and Mitchell, V. (1994), “Service quality: students’ assessment of banksand building societies”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 3-12.
Li, C., Lai, P.C., Chick, G.E., Zinn, H.C. and Graefe, A.R. (2007), “Cross-cultural models ofcustomer service: a case of country park recreation in Hong Kong”, Journal of Park andRecreation Administration, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 41-66.
McCleary, K.W., Weaver, P.A. and Hutchinson, J.C. (1993), “Hotel selection factors as they relateto business travel situations”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 42-48.
Service qualityin Antalya
493
Ma, Q., Pearson, J.M. and Tadisina, S. (2005), “An exploratory study into factors of serviceproviders”, Information & Management, Vol. 42, pp. 1067-1080.
Malhotra, N.K., Ulgado, F.M., Agarwal, J., Shainesh, G. and Wu, L. (2005), “Dimensions of servicequality in developed and developing economies: multi country cross-culturalcomparisons”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 256-278.
Mei, A.W.O., Dean, A.M. and White, C.J. (1999), “Analysing service quality in the hospitalityindustry”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 136-143.
Millan, A. and Esteban, A. (2004), “Development of a multiple-item scale for measuring customersatisfaction in travel agencies services”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25, pp. 533-546.
Mohsin, A. and Lockyer, T. (2010), “Customer perceptions of service quality in luxury hotels inNew Delphi, India: an exploratory study”, International Journal of ContemporaryHospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 160-173.
Nadiri, H. and Hussain, K. (2005), “Perceptions of service quality in North Cyprus hotels”,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 469-480.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y. and Whyatt, G. (2011), “Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumersatisfaction”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 1009-1030.
Narayan, B., Rajendran, C. and Sai, L.P. (2008), “Scales to measure and benchmark servicequality in tourism industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4,pp. 469-493.
Olorunniwo, F., Hsu, M.K. and Udo, G.J. (2006), “Service quality, customer satisfaction, andbehavioral intentions in the service factory”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1,pp. 59-72.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service qualityand its implications for future research”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Phillips, W.J., Wolfe, K., Hodur, N. and Leistritz, F.L. (2011), “Tourist word of mouth and revisitintentions to rural tourism destinations: a case of North Dakota, USA”, InternationalJournal of Tourism Research, Vol. 14 No. 4.
Poolthong, Y. and Mandhachitara, R. (2009), “Customer expectations of CSR, perceived servicequality and brand effect in Thai retail banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing,Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 408-427.
Poon, W. and Low, K.L. (2005), “Are travelers satisfied with Malaysian hotels?”, InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 217-227.
Ramanathan, U. and Ramanathan, R. (2011), “Guests’ perceptions on factors influencingcustomer loyalty”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Redman, T. and Mathews, B.P. (1998), “Service quality and human resource management: areview and research agenda”, Personnel Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-77.
Reeves, C.A. and Bednar, D.A. (1994), “Defining quality: alternatives and implications”, TheAcademy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 419-445.
Rivers, M.J., Toh, R.S. and Alaoui, M. (1991), “Frequent-stayer programs: the demographic,behavioral, and attitudinal characteristics of hotel steady sleepers”, Journal of TravelResearch, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 41-45.
Salazar, A., Costa, J. and Rita, P. (2010), “A service quality evaluation scale for the hospitalitysector: dimensions, attributes and behavioral intention”, Worldwide Hospitality andTourism Themes, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 383-397.
Sarı, C., Oban, R. and Erdogan, A. (2011), “Ornitho-Tourism and Antalya”, Procedia Social andBehavioral Sciences, Vol. 19, pp. 165-172.
IJCHM26,3
494
Stewart, H., Hope, C. and Muhlemann, A. (1998), “Professional service quality: a step beyondother services?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 209-222.
Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Kamalanabhan, T.J. (2001), “Customer perceptions ofservice quality: a critique”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 111-124.
Tribe, J. and Snaith, T. (1998), “From SERVQUAL to HOLSAT: holiday satisfaction in Varadero,Cuba”, Tourism Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 25-34.
Tsiotsou, R. (2006), “The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on purchaseintentions”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 207-217.
Turkish National Statistics (2011), Arriving Foreigners 2011, available at: www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTabloArama.do, (accessed 5 May 2010).
Vinagre, M.H. and Neves, J. (2008), “The influence of service quality and patients’ emotions onsatisfaction”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 21 No. 1,pp. 87-103.
Webster, C. and Hung, L. (1994), “Measuring service quality and promoting decentering”, TheTQM Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 50-55.
Weiermair, K. (2000), “Tourists’ perceptions toward and satisfaction with service quality in thecross-cultural service encounter: implications for hospitality and tourism management”,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 397-409.
Wilensky, L. and Buttle, F. (1988), “A multivariate analysis of hotel benefit bundles and choicetrade-offs”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 29-41.
Wilkins, H., Merrilees, B. and Herington, C. (2007), “Towards an understanding of total servicequality in hotels”, Hospitality Management, Vol. 26, pp. 840-853.
Woodside, A.G., Frey, L.L. and Daly, R.T. (1989), “Linking service quality, customer satisfaction,and behavioral intention”, Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 5-17.
Yang, Z. and Peterson, R.T. (2004), “Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the roleof switching costs”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 10, pp. 799-822.
Yuksel, A. and Yuksel, F. (2001), “Comparative performance analysis: tourists’ perceptions ofTurkey relative to other tourist destinations”, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4,pp. 333-355.
Corresponding authorIbrahim Taylan Dortyol can be contacted at: taylan_dortyol@yahoo.com.tr
Service qualityin Antalya
495
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints