Date post: | 21-Dec-2014 |
Category: |
Travel |
Upload: | pedro-cravo |
View: | 739 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Are Satisfied Tourists Loyal Tourists?
A Case Study in Algarve, Portugal
Sandra Teixeira & Pedro CravoSandra Teixeira & Pedro Cravo
IASK Advances in Tourism Research 2008IASK Advances in Tourism Research 2008Aveiro, May 27Aveiro, May 27thth 2008 2008
Summary What relationship may exist between the satisfaction
about the tourist experience and the loyalty to a destination?
The main objective of this paper is to show that loyalty can indeed be obtained by higher degrees of tourists’ satisfactions with their (tourist) experiences. Consumer Behaviour Quality of Service and Satisfaction Satisfaction and Loyalty Processes
Case Study - Arade
Consumer Behaviour Consumer behaviour is fairly recent as a scientific
discipline. Although the first books were written only in the 1960s, its origin dates back to the XIX century.
Studying consumer behaviour has become more popular with the Marketing theory.
Some of the aspects that are identified by Mowen and Minor as having an influence on consumer behaviour are:
Information processing; Motivation;
Personality; The decision process;
Satisfaction; Loyalty;
Situational influences.
Consumer Behaviour Ryan argues that “the attitudes, expectations and
perceptions of the holidaymaker are significant variables in setting goals, influencing behaviour and determining final satisfaction”.
Studying the behaviour of tourists and their attitudes requires several different aspects to be taken in consideration, namely:
1. The perception of the activity’s importance in terms of self-development, self-enhancement, ego fulfilment, the social role it plays;
2. To think about tourism not only in terms of tourist’s needs, but also of theirs future profits.
Consumer Behaviour3. The tourist-side variables, such as the skills. There are those
who defend that the challenge imposed by external conditions and the ability to cope with them contribute to the tourist experience and to its satisfaction.
4. The presence of other individuals (or groups) or, on the contrary, the importance of their absence.
5. Other variables related to consumers’ attitude, behaviour and motivations are identified by Ryan as:
the nature of the involvement; sense of flow;
the risk role; mindlessness;
the stress role; needs analysis.
boredom and frustration;
Consumer Behaviour
All of these are important to understand the complexity of consumer behaviour.
but…
How can organizations handle it?
Consumer Behaviour and Management A constant challenge to managers is the search for an
adequate competitive strategy, and this ultimately leads the company to obtain a competitive advantage.
In a growingly competitive and global society, the survival of companies and tourism destinations is ever more dependent on the way these can handle the needs and desires of consumers.
Consumer Behaviour and Management The satisfaction of these needs and desires is seen as a
goal for success.
Several studies have shown that the consumers’ satisfaction, by itself, isn’t enough to guarantee success.
Thus has emerged the need for clients’ loyalty.
Loyalty is regarded as something that’s determinant to create and maintain the competitiveness of companies and tourist destinations.
Consumer Behaviour and Management According to Oppermann, travel experience satisfaction
contributes to destination loyalty, which is revealed by the intention to revisit or recommend the destination to others.
Several studies have showed there is a relation between clients’ loyalty and their satisfaction.
In order to understand the interrelations that can be established between satisfaction and loyalty many authors have approached the subjects of consumer behaviour, quality of services, satisfaction and loyalty.
Quality and Satisfaction
Quality may be seen as a competitive advantage when it becomes superior to that offered by the competitors.
Quality is related to the individual experiences, to the manner in which these are lived through and to the level of realization of the expected results.
Satisfaction is a concept that is intimately related with the perception and expectations of consumers. Clients’ satisfaction with a service’s quality is defined by comparing the delivered service perception and the desired service expectations.
Satisfaction and Loyalty Processes
Tourist’s satisfaction is extremely important for the success of any destination marketing strategy, as it influences its choice, the products and services consumption and the decision to return.
Satisfaction is seen as a parameter to evaluate the performance of any given destination, product or service.
Satisfaction and Loyalty Processes
Oliver states that consumers build expectation before purchasing a product, comparing, afterwards, the performance obtained with those expectations.
In case the performance is better than expectations, there is a positive disconfirmation (the consumer is satisfied and will be predisposed to repeat the purchase in the future).
If the performance is worst than the expectation, there is a negative disconfirmation (the consumer unsatisfied and with the intention to search for alternative products in the future).
Satisfaction and Loyalty Processes
On a contrary direction, Tse and Wilton state that satisfaction is independent of consumers’ expectations, depending solely on the product’s performance itself.
Considering six different approaches to satisfaction and loyalty, Oliver concludes that none of them explains completely the link between the two, so it can be said that this relationship is much more complex and hard to portray than most of the studies have considered.
Satisfaction and Loyalty Processes
Gallarza and Saura also present several different methodologies to evaluate value perception, concluding that we can talk about the existence of a quality–value–satisfaction–loyalty chain.
In this sequence, perceived value depends upon quality and it can lead to satisfaction which, in term, will culminate in a loyalty attitude.
The Arade Destination Case
Objectives and Methodology
We intend to understand if, in the case of Arade’s municipalities, there is an evident connection between tourists’ satisfaction with their vacation on this destination and their loyalty, measured by the intention to return or to recommend this destination to others.
The information was collected using a questionnaire applied to tourist that visited Silves, Lagoa, Monchique and Portimão (Arade’s municipalities) in 2004.
Hypotheses The analysis conducted wanted to verify the following
hypotheses:H1 – Consumer satisfaction is different with each of the
destination’s attributes;
H2 – Loyalty degree (measured by the intention to return) changes in function of the satisfaction degree;
H3 – Loyalty degree (measured by the intention to recommend) changes in function of the satisfaction degree;
H4 – Higher degrees of satisfaction raise the probability of loyalty.
Respondents’ ProfileVariable % Variable %
Gender:MaleFemale
47.352.7
Residents in Portugal:NorthCentreLisbon and Tagus ValleyAlentejoAlgarve
29.915.645.47.81.3
Age Groups:0 to 1415 to 2425 to 4445 to 6465 and +
3.018.250.428.00.4
Residents Abroad:AustriaBelgiumFinlandFranceGermanyHungaryIrelandItalyNetherlandsNorwaySpainSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States
0.62.50.62.53.70.66.81.93.70.61.21.9
72.80.6
Marital Status:SingleMarriedDivorced
28.865.85.4
Education Level:PrimarySecondaryUniversity
5.839.854.4
Location of Residence:In PortugalAbroad
32.267.8
Trying to understand if tourists’ satisfaction changes with each of the destination’s attribute (H1), we analysed the results from the questions about the degree of satisfaction with each of the attributes considered. A summary of these is present in the chart.
3,25 3,50 3,75 4,00 4,25
Grau de Satisfação Acessibilidades
Grau de Satisfação Alojamento
Grau de Satisfação Animação
Grau de Satisfação Arquitectura Popular
Grau de Satisfação Autenticidade
Grau de Satisfação Centros Históricos
Grau de Satisfação Circuitos Pedonais
Grau de Satisfação com a experiência turística
Grau de Satisfação Competência e Cortesia
Grau de Satisfação Eventos Culutrais
Grau de Satisfação Gastronomia
Grau de Satisfação Hospitalidade
Grau de Satisfação Informação Turística
Grau de Satisfação Infra-estruturas Desportivas
Grau de Satisfação Jardins e Espaços Verdes
Grau de Satisfação Limpeza
Grau de Satisfação Locais de Lazer
Grau de Satisfação Meios de Transporte
Grau de Satisfação Monumentos
Grau de Satisfação Paisagem
Grau de Satisfação Parques de Estacionamento
Grau de Satisfação Planeamento Urbanístico
Grau de Satisfação Praias
Grau de Satisfação Restauração
Grau de Satisfação Segurança Pública
Grau de Satisfação Sinalização
Grau de Satisfação Sistema de Abastecimento de Águas
Grau de Satisfação Sistema de Recolha de Lixo
Grau de Satisfação Termas
Grau de Satisfação Trânsito
Grau de Satisfação Zonas Comerciais
Hypotheses Analysis – H1
Hypotheses Analysis – H1
To confirm the independence of the different attributes, we applied the Kruskal Wallis test that, for 29 degrees of freedom, gave us a Chi-Square value of 565.695, which corresponds to a significance of 0.000 at the 0.05 level.
Thus, the first hypothesis can not be rejected. The attributes are independent, so we can conclude that consumers’ satisfaction is different with each of the destination’s attributes.
Hypotheses Analysis – H2 Verifying if the loyalty degree
(measured by the intention to return) changes in function of the satisfaction degree, we tried to cross-analyse the degree of satisfaction with the intention to repeat the purchase.
As we can confirm by the Chi-Square tests’ results, the second hypothesis can’t be rejected. The intention to return to this destination changes in function of the satisfaction degree.
Repetition intention
TotalYes Maybe No
Degree of satisfaction
Not satisfied 9 16 4 29
Satisfied 54 75 11 140
Completely satisfied 52 18 1 71
Total 115 109 16 240
ValueDegrees of
freedomAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson’s Chi-Square 28.181(a) 4 0.000
Likelihood Ratio 29.205 4 0.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
23.525 1 0.000
N of Valid Cases240
(a) 2 cells (22.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.93.
Hypotheses Analysis – H3 As for the third
hypothesis, this time we tried to cross-analyse the degree of satisfaction with the intention to recommend the destination to others.
Like previously, we can confirm by the Chi-Square tests’ results that the third hypothesis can’t also be rejected. The intention to recommend this destination changes in function of the satisfaction degree.
ValueDegrees of
freedomAsymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson’s Chi-Square 36.906(a) 2 0.000
Likelihood Ratio 29.003 2 0.000
Linear-by-Linear Association
35.409 1 0.000
N of Valid Cases241
(a) 1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 0.72.
Recommend intention
TotalYes Maybe No
Degree of satisfaction
Not satisfied
9 16 4 29
Satisfied 166 44 2 212
Total 175 60 6 241
Hypotheses Analysis – H4
As for the fourth hypothesis, higher degrees of satisfaction raise the probability of loyalty, an overview of the previous results seems to confirm it.
Even so, considering that the repetition and recommending intentions can be considered ordinal variables (yes=1; maybe=2; no=3), we decided to calculate Spearman correlation coefficient in order to confirm the previous observation.
Hypotheses Analysis – H4Repetition intention
TotalYes Maybe No
Degree of satisfaction
Completely unsatisfied 4 5 1 10
Unsatisfied 2 2 1 5
Neither sat. nor unsat. 3 9 2 14
Satisfied 54 75 11 140
Completely satisfied 52 18 1 71
Total 115 109 16 240
In the repetition intention, Spearman Correlation coefficient presents a negative value (-0.323) with a significance of 0.000, which means that one of the variables value drops as the other increases.
Knowing that the repetition intention value is bigger for the non-intention to return (3=no), this means that the repetition intention raises with the degree of satisfaction.
ValueAsymp. Std.
Error(a) Approx. T(b)
Approx. Sig.
Interval by IntervalPearson’s R
-0.242 0.064 -3.848 0.000(c)
Ordinal by OrdinalSpearman Correlation
-0.323 0.059 -5.257 0.000(c)
N of Valid Cases 240
(a) Not assuming the null hypothesis.(b) Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.(c) Based on normal approximation.
Hypotheses Analysis – H4Recommend intention
TotalYes Maybe No
Degree of satisfaction
Completely unsatisfied 7 2 1 10
Unsatisfied 1 3 1 5
Neither sat. nor unsat. 1 11 2 14
Satisfied 99 40 2 141
Completely satisfied 67 4 0 71
Total 175 60 6 241
As for the recommend intention, Spearman Correlation coefficient presents a negative value (-0.403) with a significance of 0.000.
Therefore, we can also confirm that the intention to recommend raises with the degree of satisfaction, which together with the previous test, confirms this last hypothesis.
ValueAsymp. Std.
Error(a) Approx. T(b)
Approx. Sig.
Interval by IntervalPearson’s R
-0.346 0.069 -5.702 0.000(c)
Ordinal by OrdinalSpearman Correlation
-0.403 0.050 -6.810 0.000(c)
N of Valid Cases 241
(a) Not assuming the null hypothesis.(b) Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.(c) Based on normal approximation.
Conclusions
Today’s society has changed the way companies, as well as tourist destinations, handle the needs and desires of consumers/tourists.
Many authors have approached the questions of motivation, quality of tourist experiences and satisfaction.
Only more recently has emerged the concern with consumers’ loyalty.
Loyalty is quite complex and hard to explain.
Conclusions
This complexity is present on the study about the Arade destination.
The fact that each attribute was evaluated differently by the same types of tourists reveals that destinations must continue to strive for tourist experience’s quality and tourists’ satisfaction, otherwise they can never aspire to their loyalty.
Even attributes least connected with tourist activities can have an influence on the final opinion that tourist form about the destination (limiting satisfaction and, consequently, the possibility of loyalty).
Sandra [email protected]
Muito obrigado!
Muchas gracias!
Grazie molto!
Kiitos!
Paldies!
Tusen takk!
Takk fyrir!
Thank you very much!
Merci beaucoup!
Dankeschön!
Dank u well!
Hvala lepa!
Děkuji!
Ω!
Pedro [email protected]