INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH

Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)

Published online 5 March 2012 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.1877

A Structural Model for Examining how

Destination Image, Perceived Value, and
Service Quality Affect Destination
Loyalty: a Case Study of Orlando
Soon-Ho Kim1,*, Stephen Holland2 and Hye-Sook Han3
1
Cecil B. Day School of Hospitality, Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia
USA
2
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
3
Hospitality Management, Graduate School of Business Administration, Soongsil University, Seoul, South
Korea

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

O
The primary objectives of this study were to ver recent decades, tourism has experi-
investigate and develop a theoretical enced continued growth to become one
relationship among destination image, of the fastest growing economic sectors
service quality and perceived value and to in the world. Modern tourism has become a driv-
empirically test the constructs that are likely ing force for regional development and has
to affect tourist satisfaction, which in turn encompassed a growing number of new destina-
influence revisit intentions and word-of- tions. In an increasingly saturated marketplace,
mouth referrals. The results of empirical competitive destinations should redesign their
study indicated that destination image marketing strategies to increase customer loyalty
influences service quality and perceived and build long-term relationships with their cus-
value. In addition, the findings revealed that tomers (Baloglu, 2001; Yoon and Uysal, 2005). A
perceived value has a significant effect on review of the literature on loyalty reveals that
satisfaction and loyalty. These research repeat purchases and/or visits have often been
findings contribute to an extant knowledge in regarded as desirable (Oppermann, 2000; Alegre
this domain, specifically focused on a family- and Juaneda, 2006) because it is believed that
oriented destination where it was not studied the marketing costs needed to attract repeaters
yet with these relationships. Copyright © are lower than those required for first-time tour-
2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ists (Alegre and Juaneda, 2006). Fornell and
Wernerfelt (1987) found that maintaining existing
Received 17 January 2011; Revised 28 January 2012; Accepted customers generally has a much lower associated
8 February 2012 cost than that of recruiting new ones. Reichheld
(1996) documented that a 5% increase in cus-
Keywords: destination image; service quality; tomer retention can generate profit growth of
perceived value; loyalty. 25–95% across a range of industries. Thus, a lar-
ger proportion of gross profit counts toward the
bottom line (Chi and Qu, 2008). In addition, loyal
customers are more likely to act as no-cost word-
of-mouth (WOM) advertising agents that infor-
*Correspondence to: Dr Soon-Ho Kim, Assistant Professor, mally bring networks of friends, relatives and
Cecil B. Day School of Hospitality, Robinson College of other potential consumers to a product/service
Business, Georgia State University, 35 Broad Street, Suite
217, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA. (Shoemaker and Lewis, 1999). In fact, WOM
E-mail: [email protected] referrals account for up to 60% of sales to new
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
314 S.-H. Kim, S. Holland and H.-S. Han

customers (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). With travel experiences results in a positive evalu-
such exceptional returns, loyalty becomes a fun- ation of a destination. Tourist loyalty would im-
damental strategic component for organizations. prove if destination image has a direct effect on
The implications of loyalty in consumer behavioral intentions through quality, perceived
behavior have been examined in numerous value and satisfaction, which in turn affects
studies. In the context of travel and tourism, behavioral intentions. In other words, more
a plethora of studies on tourist satisfaction favorable images will lead to a higher likelihood
are available; but tourist loyalty has received of returning to the same destination.
less attention in the destination literature Some researchers even suggested that per-
(Baloglu and Ericson, 1998; Oppermann, 1999, ceived value measurements should be asso-
2000; Baloglu, 2001; Bigne et al., 2001; Darnell ciated with measures of satisfaction (Woodruff,
and Johnson, 2001; Kozak, 2001a, 2001b; Beaman 1997; Oh, 2000; Ryu et al., 2008; Chen and Chen,
et al., 2002; Fyall et al., 2003; Yoon and Uysal, 2010) and that perceived value plays a moderat-
2005). Therefore, the time is overdue for aca- ing role between service quality and satisfaction
demics and practitioners to conduct additional (Caruana et al., 2000). Furthermore, perceived
studies on loyalty to facilitate greater under- value associates the benefits received with the
standing of this concept and to better compre- price paid (Zeithaml, 1988) and is distinguished
hend the role of satisfaction in developing from service quality and satisfaction. Empirical
loyalty and the impact of antecedents of satis- research has also found that perceived value
faction determinants on customer loyalty and has positively influenced both future behavioral
their interrelationships. intentions and actual behaviors (Hutchinson
In the tourism context, understanding the et al., 2009; Meng et al., 2011). Therefore, service
determinants of tourist loyalty has been evaluation variables (e.g. service quality, per-
accepted as an important phenomenon at the ceived value and satisfaction) have been found
management level as a whole and for individ- to be good predictors of destination loyalty
ual attractions (Darnell and Johnson, 2001). (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Cronin et al., 2000;
Given the consequences of tourist loyalty, one Tam, 2000; Petrick and Sirakaya, 2004).
should not be surprised that a number of stud- Although theory-based research efforts have
ies shed light on the major influencing factors developed the understanding of key-service-
that lead to customer retention (Chi and Qu, oriented constructs (e.g. quality, value and sat-
2008), although most do not focus on destina- isfaction) in hospitality and tourism contexts,
tions. Abundant research has been devoted to there continues to be a need to refine theories
investigating the antecedents of repeat purchase and methodologies by introducing new vari-
intentions including satisfaction (Baker and ables and/or modified frameworks to enhance
Crompton, 2000; Kozak, 2001a, 2001b; Petrick the predictive power of these models (Oh and
et al., 2001), quality constructs (Baker and Parks, 1997; Hutchinson et al., 2009). For
Crompton, 2000), perceived value (McDougall example, service quality has been exclusively
and Levesque, 2000; Parasuraman and Grewal, investigated as the single antecedent to customer
2000; Petrick and Backman, 2002; Lee et al., satisfaction in most hospitality and tourism
2007) and destination image (Chon, 1991; Court service evaluation research, and other constructs
and Lupton, 1997; Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; have been examined to improve the accuracy
Chi and Qu, 2008). of predictions (Hutchinson et al., 2009). For
Past studies (Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; instance, perceived value has been empirically
Chi and Qu, 2008) suggest that destination examined as a second proposed antecedent vari-
images influence travelers in the process of able to satisfaction in recent studies (Oh, 1999;
selecting a destination, the subsequent evalu- Tam, 2000; Petrick and Sirakaya, 2004).
ation of the trip and their future intentions. The objective of this study was to empiric-
Destination image facilitates a positive influ- ally investigate a proposed model of tourist
ence on perceived quality, satisfaction and consumption processes by including des-
intentions to return to a destination (Court and tination image and perceived value into
Lupton, 1997; Bigne et al., 2001; Chi and Qu, the quality–satisfaction–loyalty paradigm. The
2008). A positive image derived from positive second purpose of this study was to examine
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Structural Model for Examining Destination Loyalty 315

the relationships between destination image and consumption of goods and services at destina-
evaluative factors (e.g. service quality, perceived tions and the decision to return to a destination
value and satisfaction) in their prediction of (Stevens, 1992). As a result, researchers have
intentions to repurchase and positive WOM attempted to adapt service quality to hospitality
publicity. To accomplish this aim, this study pro- and tourism industry settings. For example,
vides a review of the literature on destination researchers have tested the SERVQUAL frame-
image, service quality, perceived value, satisfac- work in restaurants (e.g. Bojanic and Rosen,
tion and loyalty including empirically tested 1994), lodging (e.g. Saleh and Ryan, 1992) and
relationships among these constructs and seeks destinations (e.g. Pizam et al., 1978).
to test the most promising models. Service quality has been considered to be one
of the critical antecedents of both satisfaction
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Baker and Crompton,
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 2000; Caruana et al., 2000) and perceived value
(Fornell et al., 1996; Baker and Crompton, 2002;
The definition of tourist destination image most Petrick and Backman, 2002), as well as to be a
commonly cited is that by Crompton (1979, good predictor of repurchase intentions (Getty
p.18) “the sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions and Thompson, 1994; Baker and Crompton,
that a person has of a destination”. This defin- 2000). The theoretical justification for the
ition relates to the individual, whereas other linkages between quality, value and satisfaction
definitions acknowledge that images can be is derived from Bagozzi’s (1992) coping frame-
shared by groups of people (Jenkins, 1999). His work, which suggests that initial service evalua-
definition has led many researchers to address tions (i.e. appraisal) lead to emotional reactions
image as a salient concept in understanding that, in turn, drive behavior (Gotlieb et al.,
the destination selection process of tourists 1994). The adaptation of Bagozzi’s (1992) frame-
(Baloglu and McCleary, 1999; Pike, 2002; Beerli work to a service context suggests that higher
and Martín, 2004; Chen and Tsai, 2007). performance-oriented service quality and value
Tourist destination image is important because appraisals precede satisfaction (Cronin and
it influences both tourists’ decision-making pro- Taylor, 1992; Anderson et al., 1994; Gotlieb
cesses (Gunn, 1972; Hunt, 1975; Pearce, 1982; et al., 1994; Woodruff, 1997). By the same token,
Chon, 1990; Echtner and Ritchie, 1991) and beha- service quality has been referred to as a cus-
viors, including on-site experiences, evaluations tomer’s evaluation of a service encounter at a
and destination loyalty for a particular destin- specific point, whereas satisfaction has involved
ation (Crompton, 1979; Jenkins, 1999; Bigne both end state and process judgments and
et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2005; Chen and Tsai, 2007). reflected emotional states of mind created by
Chen and Tsai (2007) argued that on-site per- exposure to service experiences (Baker and
ceived service quality experiences could be con- Crompton, 2000.
ceptualized using the comparison between The present study explores the influence exerted
expectations and actual performance. Also, Chen by the current image of a destination on the future
and Tsai (2007) and Lee et al. (2005) posited that behavior of tourists, using service quality and
individuals having a favorable destination image perceived value as mediating variables (Castro
would perceive their on-site experiences (i.e. ser- et al., 2007). This study is based on the premise that
vice quality, perceived value) positively, which in image plays an important role in services that are
turn would lead to greater satisfaction levels and complex to evaluate—such as tourist destinations.
destination loyalty. For tourist destinations, the service image can be
Research concerning the nature and mea- a significant factor in conditioning customers’
surement of service quality is prevalent in the perceptions of quality and perceived value—
marketing literature (Oliver and Swan, 1989; and their consequent intended future behaviors.
Parasuraman et al., 1994; Cronin and Taylor, The first five hypotheses, therefore, are:
1992). In the tourism industry, customer percep-
tions of service quality are important to successful Hypothesis 1: The more favorable the
destination marketing because of their influence destination image, the higher the perceived
on destination selection (Ahmed, 1991), the service quality.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
316 S.-H. Kim, S. Holland and H.-S. Han

Hypothesis 2: The more favorable the Perceived value, as previously mentioned, has
destination image, the higher the perceived been recognized as the antecedent of customer
value. satisfaction and behavioral intentions in a service
setting (Cronin et al., 2000). Ravald and Grönroos
Hypothesis 3: The more favorable the (1996) suggested that value is regarded as an
destination image, the higher the overall important construct of relationship marketing
satisfaction. and one of the most successful competitive strat-
egies. As the most important measure for gaining
Hypothesis 4: Service quality has a direct a competitive edge, perceived value is considered
positive effect on overall satisfaction. to be an important predictor and the key deter-
minant of customer satisfaction and loyalty
Hypothesis 5: Service quality has a dir- (McDougall and Levesque, 2000; Parasuraman
ect positive effect on destination loyalty and Grewal, 2000; Petrick and Backman, 2002).
(Figure 1). Woodruff (1997) contended that measures of
received (attribute) value are antecedents to over-
In recent years, perceived value has been the all customer satisfaction, and these measures are
object of attention by marketing managers and proven to correlate well with such customer
researchers as one of the most influential behaviors as WOM referrals and intentions to
measures of customer satisfaction and loyalty purchase. Dodds (1991) also conceptualized a
(Sweeney et al., 1996; Parasuraman, 1997; model where perceived value is the link between
Patterson and Spreng, 1997; Cronin et al., 2000; perceived quality, perceived sacrifice and behav-
Parasuraman and Grewal, 2000; Eggert and ioral intentions.
Ulaga, 2002). Perceived value not only affects cus- Sánchez et al. (2006) adopted a multidi-
tomer choice behavior at the prepurchase stage mensional approach to perceived value: (i)
but also influences satisfaction and intentions to functional value of the travel agency (installa-
recommend and repurchase at the postpurchase tions); (ii) functional value of the contact
stage (Parasuraman and Grewal, 2000). Although personnel of the travel agency (professionalism);
some marketing researchers have examined rela- (iii) functional value of the tourism package
tionships among perceived value, customer satis- purchased (quality); (iv) functional value of
faction and/or behavioral intentions (Patterson price; (v) emotional value; and (vi) social
and Spreng, 1997; Woodruff, 1997; Cronin et al., value. Through qualitative investigation and
2000), research on perceived value as related the correlations of perceived value with other
to customer satisfaction and/or behavioral variables, they found a direct relationship be-
intentions has been lacking in the tourism litera- tween postpurchase valuation and satisfaction
ture (Petrick and Backman, 2002). and loyalty.

Service
H5
Quality
H4
H1

Destination H3 H8 Destination
Satisfaction
Image Loyalty

H2
H6
H7
Perceived

Value

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Structural Model for Examining Destination Loyalty 317

Chen and Chen (2010) examined the rela- demographic information and travel behaviors.
tionship between perceived value, satisfac- To avoid personal biases and suitably quantify
tion and behavioral intentions through qualitative data, 7-point scales were used (Um
visitor experience of heritage sites in Tainan, et al., 2006). Although a 5-point scale may have
Taiwan. The results revealed direct effects of been acceptable, a wider range allows effective
perceived value on satisfaction and behav- comparison analyses to more clearly show the
ioral intentions. However, they also reported differences between scores (Kozak, 2001a, 2001b).
that it was not the direct effect of the quality
of experience that influenced behavioral Destination image
intentions when mediated by perceived
value and satisfaction. A combination of structured and unstructured
Meng et al. (2011) investigated the relation- techniques was used to capture various aspects
ships of cruise image, perceived value, satisfac- of respondents’ perceptions of Orlando as a
tion and postpurchase behavioral intentions on travel destination. The questions in the question-
Taiwanese tourists. The results revealed that naire were based on a thorough literature review
cruise image has a positive effect on tourists’ per- of previous destination studies, content analyses
ceived value and also has an indirect effect on of tourism literature, promotion brochures,
postpurchase behavioral intentions. Further- Orlando Web sites and specific destination char-
more, they found that tourists’ perceived value acteristics. For example, “Orlando is a family-
influences their satisfaction positively. Also, the oriented destination”, “Orlando offers a variety
direct relationship between perceived value and of special events/festivals”, “Everything was
postpurchase behavioral intention was tested. fascinating” and “Local people are friendly”
Although their model did not test the direct rela- items were selected from promotion brochures,
tionship between perceived value and loyalty, and “Orlando is a good atmosphere to visit”,
here, we propose to test destination loyalty “Orlando has many interesting places” and
through two factors (revisit intentions and “Orlando is a relaxing place to visit” items were
WOM referrals), which is another form of post- adopted from Orlando Web sites. Thirty-two
purchase behavioral intention from the article cognitive/perceptual evaluation items were
of Meng et al. written and measured on a Likert scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The last three hypotheses, therefore, are:

Hypothesis 6: Perceived value is a direct Service quality

antecedent of overall satisfaction. Service quality was measured based on 15
aspects of service quality, which were adapted
Hypothesis 7: Perceived value is a direct from both Cronin et al. (2000) and Gallarza
antecedent of destination loyalty. and Saura (2006). The selected 15 service qual-
ity items were rated on 7-point Likert scales,
Hypothesis 8: Satisfaction has a direct where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly
positive effect on destination loyalty. agree. Then, the second measure consisted of
three overall direct measures of service quality
that are adapted from the work of Cronin
METHODOLOGY et al. (2000) but are also similar to other overall
service quality indicators used elsewhere
Construct measurement (Cronin and Taylor, 1992).
This study employed a causal research design
Perceived value
using a cross-sectional sample. The survey ques-
tionnaire was composed of the following two Perceived value measures were adapted from
major sections: (i) questions that measure destin- Lee et al. (2007). Thirteen items divided into
ation image, service quality, perceived value, economic and overall values were presented.
overall satisfaction and destination loyalty and The respondents were asked to indicate the
(ii) questions designed to gather tourists’ degree to which they agreed based on their
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
318 S.-H. Kim, S. Holland and H.-S. Han

visit to Orlando and to what extent they agreed Study site and sample
that their visit gave them superior net value on
The data for this study were collected using a
each of the 13 items on a 7-point scale, ranging
self-administered questionnaire in an Orlando
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
area commercial airport. According to Forbes
(2007), three attractions (5. Disney World’s Magic
Kingdom; 12. Universal Studios Orlando/Islands
Overall satisfaction
of Adventure at Universal Orlando; 13. SeaWorld
To measure overall satisfaction, there have Orlando) in Orlando were listed on the top 25
been debates on using multiple-item measures most visited tourist destinations in the USA. The
versus single-item measures. A number of population of this study consisted of tourists
studies have used a summative overall meas- who traveled individually or in groups during
ure of satisfaction (Oliver and Swan, 1989; the spring season. To improve the representa-
Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Lee et al., 2007). Many tiveness of the sample, the same number of
studies have addressed overall satisfaction, respondents were contacted every weekday and
using a single-item scale ranging from very weekend throughout March 2008 at 12 different
unsatisfied to very satisfied (Cronin and Taylor, gates. The field researcher approached trave-
1992; Parasuraman et al., 1994; Howat et al., lers, outlined the purpose of the research pro-
1999). However, a multiple-item overall satis- ject and invited them to participate in the
faction scale was adopted from Lee et al. survey. After consenting, a self-administered
(2007) in this study to capture more variance on-site questionnaire was given to those who
in explaining overall satisfaction. Respondents had recent travel experiences in the Orlando
were asked to rate satisfaction with their over- area. A total of 608 questionnaires were col-
all travel experience on a 7-point Likert scale, lected with convenience sampling, but after
with 1 being strongly disagree and 7 being inspection, 27 questionnaires were eliminated
strongly agree. from the analysis because important questions
were left blank. Ultimately, 581 questionnaires
were coded and used in the analysis.
Destination loyalty
Procedures
Attitudinal measurements, including revisit
intentions and recommendations, are usually Following the development of an initial item
used to infer consumer loyalty and were pool, the preliminary questionnaire was sub-
found to be the pertinent measure (Chi and mitted to a panel of eight experts including aca-
Qu, 2008). Prior research has shown that demics and practitioners for content validity
loyal customers are more likely to repurchase testing. The preliminary questionnaire was
a product/service in the future (Sonmez and modified, revised and improved, mainly in
Graefe, 1998; Petrick et al., 2001). It has also the areas of item adequacy, factor relevance
been suggested that loyal visitors are more and wording clarity based on feedback from
willing to recommend the product/service the panel. A pilot study was conducted with
to others (Shoemaker and Lewis, 1999). In Dunnellon (a small city 76 miles northwest of
addition, good correlation has been found Orlando) Presbyterian Church members who
between consumers’ repurchase intentions and had experience visiting Orlando within the
positive WOM referrals (Oh and Parks, 1997; past 6 months (n = 26) to further examine the
Oh, 2000). Therefore, repurchase and referral content validity, reliability, comprehension
intentions make up the Customer Destination and estimate the time needed to fill out the
Index. In this study, six-item measures were questionnaire by the general public. Suggested
employed to assess tourist destination loyalty changes and improvements were minor, and
as the ultimate dependent construct: tourists’ they were primarily related to wording clarifi-
intentions to revisit Orlando and their willing- cations. It took an average of 11 minutes to fill
ness to recommend Orlando as a favorable out the questionnaire.
destination to others, with 7-point Likert type The researcher first contacted the data collec-
scales (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). tion location (Sanford International Airport,
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Structural Model for Examining Destination Loyalty 319

just north of Orlando) to obtain permission to Table 1. Respondent profile (N = 581)

conduct the study. In a meeting with the mar- Frequency
keting and public relations manager, an action Variables Category (N = 581) %
plan was submitted including a copy of the
survey and agreement that results would be Gender Male 241 41.5
Female 340 58.5
shared with them. The main complication was
Age (years) 18–25 160 27.6
having the data collector located beyond secur- 26–32 57 9.8
ity checkpoints. This required having the data 33–40 88 15.1
collector badged, necessitating a full background 41–50 149 25.8
check, fingerprinting, etc. It took two weeks for 51–65 119 20.5
the proper authorizations to be acquired. Then, 66 or above 7 1.2
the data collector took four hours of security Marital Single 181 31.2
classes. After passing those classes, the data status Married 356 61.3
collector was finally permitted to interview Divorced 27 4.6
travelers beyond security checkpoints (i.e. in Widowed 6 1.0
boarding lounges near departure gates) over a Other 11 1.9
Income Below $20 000 47 8.1
four-week period.
$20 000–39 999 65 11.2
$40 000–59 999 98 16.9
Data analysis $60 000–79 999 80 13.8
$80 000–99 999 102 17.6
The Statistical Package for the Social Science Above $100 000 189 32.6
17.0 (2008) was employed for descriptive statis- Duration 1–2 60 10.4
tics for socio-demographics and normality of stays 3–4 179 30.8
checks in which values of skewness and 5–6 186 32.1
kurtosis were evaluated. AMOS 7.0 was also 7–9 124 21.3
utilized to examine psychometric properties of Over 10 32 5.5
the model via confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) and test the hypothesized theoretical four nights (17%), seven nights (15%), three
relationships of the model through structural nights (14%) and six nights (11%).
equation modeling (SEM). As regard to how this sample compared with
Orlando visitors overall, only about 24% of
Orlando visitors arrive by air travel; although
RESULTS
for out-of state visitors, 49% arrive by air. For
all Orlando non-Florida visitors, average length
Demographic profile of participants
of stay was 5.4 nights, with number of nights
Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics stayed about equal to those surveyed, and
of participants. A slight majority of the partici- 41.6% were women. Sixty per cent of domestic
pants were female visitors (59%). In terms of leisure travelers visited a theme park. Among
age group, 27.6% were 18–25 years followed out-of-state visitors, the average household in-
by 41–50 years (25.8%) and 51–65 years old come was about $101 000. Thus, the sample
(20.5%). The average household income was who responded to the survey was overrepresen-
above $60 000. However, one third of the tative of women, higher income travelers
respondents reported an average household and slightly younger travelers (38.4 years in
income above $100 000 (32%). Well less than the study sample compared with 43.0 years
half (38%) of the participants were visiting for all Orlando visitors). Compared with all
Orlando for the first time in the last three years, out-of-state air tourists to Orlando, only
and 27% of the participants visited the des- Pennsylvania was in the top five among those
tination twice during that same period. Par- surveyed; the other top four states (NY, NJ, CA
ticipants reported visiting Disney World, and IL) were underrepresented in the study
Universal Studios Orlando or SeaWorld during sample. All other states contributed less than
their visit. The more frequent durations of stays 5% to the total air travel market to Orlando, so
in Orlando were five nights (21%), followed by travelers from IA, MN, TN, NC and SC were a
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
320 S.-H. Kim, S. Holland and H.-S. Han

bit overrepresented in the study sample. exceeded the critical value (2.58) ranging from
Respondents from only two countries (Canada 9.54 to 19.64 at p < 0.01 significance level.
and Scotland) comprised about 2% of the Cronbach’s alpha values for all constructs
respondents, whereas for the Orlando market showed strong internal consistency ranging
overall, in 2008, international travelers made from 0.76 to 0.96. The construct reliability (CR)
up 6.8% of the visitors (Canada, Mexico and values were all well above the suggested stand-
UK being major sources of visitors). So, inter- ard of 0.70. In addition, the AVE surpassed the
national visitors were underrepresented also. In threshold value of 0.50. Therefore, it can be con-
some ways, the sample approximates the air- cluded that all latent constructs possess suffi-
arrivals-only Orlando segment, but in other cient reliability. According to Fornell and
ways, it is skewed as noted above. Larcker (1981), discriminant validity can be
established when the AVE values for the latent
Data screening and test of assumptions constructs are compared with the squared corre-
lations between the corresponding constructs,
The assumptions of multivariate normality, lin-
and none of the squared correlations surpass
earity, outliers and missing data were evaluated
the AVE. These tests indicated that the discrim-
through descriptive statistics using SPSS and
inant validity was upheld for all constructs.
CFA using AMOS to purify the data and reduce
systematic errors. The analyses were performed
on the total sample (N = 581). No standardized Structural model
score for any variable was above 3.29, and no
The most obvious examination of the structural
standardized score was below –3.29, which were
model involves the significance tests for the esti-
the suggested cutoff values for potential outliers
mated coefficients (paths), which provide the
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Skewness and
basis for accepting or rejecting the proposed
kurtosis values for the 69 manifest variables ran-
relationships between latent constructs (Chi and
ged from –0.459 to –1.490 and –0.055 to 2.904
Qu, 2008). Prior to estimating path coefficients
respectively, which were well within the accept-
for the hypothesized structural model, a struc-
able thresholds (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007).
tural model with five constructs was estimated
There was no evidence that both univariate
using ML estimation (Figure 2). Although the
and multivariate normality assumptions for
chi-square test was significant (w2 = 1729.128,
observed variables were violated.
p < 0.001), the results yielded acceptably high
goodness-of-fit indices, indicating that the
Measurement model
hypothesized model fit the observed data. The
To assess the constructs, CFA, shown in Table 2, normed chi-square (w2/df = 2.802) was lower
was employed to establish confidence in the than the suggested cutoff value (i.e. <3.0; Bollen,
measurement model using maximum likelihood 1989). The root mean square error of approxima-
(ML) estimation because it is consistent and tion (RMSEA) value indicated that the structural
asymptomatically efficient in large-scale sam- model had a good fit (RMSEA = 0.058; Hu and
ples (Bollen, 1989). Proper evaluation of the Bentler, 1999). The Standard Root Mean Square
measurement model is a prerequisite to the Residual (SRMR) (0.047) had an appropriate
evaluation of the structural model. The conver- value (≤0.10; Kline, 2005). Comparative Fit Index
gent validity of the measurement scale was (CFI) was 0.943, which was good (Kline, 2005).
examined in terms of factor loadings and average GFI was 0.931, which is indicative of a good
variance extracted (AVE). Convergent validity model (Kline, 2005). Also, Normed Fit Index
requires a factor loading greater than 0.707 and (NFI) was 0.930, supporting this model as fitting
AVE no less than 0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, the data (Kline, 2005).
1981). As shown in Table 2, most indicators The hypothesized structural model was esti-
had significant factor loadings higher than 0.707 mated to examine the hypotheses with regard
(p < 0.01). Average variances extracted ranged to the effect of destination image, service
from 0.52 to 0.72, showing strong convergent quality and perceived value factors on desti-
validity. In addition, all of the t-value indica- nation loyalty. The tested model included a
tors associated with each of the critical ratios total of 11 latent constructs and three manifest
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Structural Model for Examining Destination Loyalty 321

Table 2. Confirmative factor analysis

Average
Construct variance
Factors Mean (SD) Loadings Cronbach’s a reliability extracted
Factor 1: destination atmosphere 0.87 0.84 0.62
Exciting 6.03 (1.00) 0.88
Pleasing 6.26 (0.90) 0.75
Enjoyable 6.16 (0.95) 0.77
Adventurous 5.63 (1.23) 0.85
Good atmosphere 6.11 (0.89) 0.86
Pleasant weather 6.38 (0.89) 0.91
Factor 2: travel information 0.85 0.83 0.60
Easily accessible 6.05 (0.94) 0.92
Useful 6.03 (0.95) 0.88
Various events 5.77 (1.10) 0.89
Factor 3: travel environment 0.80 0.80 0.59
Advanced destination 5.71 (0.96) 0.89
High standards for sanitation 5.43 (1.12) 0.78
and cleanliness
Suitable accommodation 6.06 (0.90) 0.85
High standard of living 5.54 ( 1.01) 0.75
Factor 4: shopping 0.89 0.87 0.57
Good place to shop 5.64 (1.19) 0.90
Variety of shops 5.90 (1.13) 0.88
Convenient shopping 5.81 (1.05) 0.87
Factor 5: community attitude 0.81 0.80 0.58
Helpful 5.30 (1.33) 0.78
Family-oriented 6.22 (0.89) 0.83
Friendly 5.48 (1.19) 0.88
Factor 6: performance-based quality 0.96 0.94 0.63
Competent 5.53 (1.09) 0.89
Listen carefully 5.43 (1.14) 0.95
Reliable 5.52 (1.02) 0.88
Timely manner 5.50 (1.07) 0.90
Honest 5.57 (1.05) 0.92
Understand needs 5.62 (1.05) 0.93
Respectful 5.64 (1.05) 0.94
Easy to contact 5.70 (1.07 0.92
Clean 5.71 (1.02) 0.86
Factor 7: product-based quality 0.90 0.91 0.57
Quality of merchandise 5.77 (0.97) 0.81
Quality of tourism product 5.93 (0.93) 0.76
Quality of food 5.92 (0.97) 0.71
Quality of lodging facilities 6.04 (0.87) 0.77
Generally, high-quality destination 5.70 (0.94) 0.78
Factor 8: overall value 0.88 0.90 0.58
Right decision 5.88 (1.05) 0.76
Good results 4.81 (1.40) 0.83
Place wanted to travel 5.42 (1.12) 0.71
Good experiences 5.81 (1.11) 0.70

(Continues)

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
322 S.-H. Kim, S. Holland and H.-S. Han

Table 2. (Continued)

Average
Construct variance
Factors Mean (SD) Loadings Cronbach’s a reliability extracted
Factor 9: economic value 0.76 0.77 0.52
Reasonably priced 5.30 (1.24) 0.77
Expensive 4.74 (1.38) 0.80
Quality per dollar spent more 5.24 (1.37) 0.72
than what I expected
Factor 10: tourist satisfaction 0.89 0.85 0.72
Overall satisfaction with 5.88 (0.99) 0.86
Orlando tour
Satisfaction with Orlando tour 5.65 (1.02) 0.76
compared with my expectations
Satisfaction with Orlando tour 5.76 (1.01) 0.78
considering time and effort I
invested
Factor 11: revisit intentions 0.93 0.91 0.52
High likelihood of revisiting 5.50 (1.63) 0.93
Will revisit 5.44 (1.63) 0.91
Plans to revisit 5.26 (1.85) 0.86
Factor12: word-of-mouth referral 0.95 0.93 0.57
Say positive things 5.91 (1.13) 0.86
Recommend to others 5.84 (1.23 0.90
Refer Orlando tour to other people 5.77 (1.24) 0.87

variables (Table 3). More specifically, there satisfaction (b = 0.735, t-value = 11.789) and
were five latent variables representing destin- destination loyalty (b = 0.445, t-value = 5.89)
ation image, two latent variables each for ser- respectively. Hypothesis 8 dealt with the direct
vice quality, perceived value and destination effect of satisfaction on destination loyalty. The
loyalty. Seven out of eight direct effects of hy- finding revealed that the direct effect of satisfac-
potheses (paths) were found to be significant, tion had a positive relationship with destination
the exception being the effect of destination loyalty (b = 0.344, t-value = 6.359), indicating that
image on satisfaction (b = 0.097, t-value = 3.29). when satisfaction increased by 1 standard devi-
The standardized direct effects of destination ation, destination loyalty increased also by 0.344.
image had a positive influence on service qual-
ity (b = 0.567, t-value = 6.47) and perceived CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
value (b = 0.725, t-value = 12.29) respectively.
These results indicated that when destination The primary objectives of this study were to
image increased by one standard deviation, ser- investigate and develop a theoretical relation-
vice quality also increased by 0.567 standard ship among destination image, service quality
deviations. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were and perceived value and to empirically test
supported. The standardized direct effects of the constructs that are likely to affect tourist
service quality were found to exert a positive satisfaction, which in turn influence destin-
influence on satisfaction (b = 0.171, t-value = 2.29) ation loyalty. The SEM analysis supported the
and destination loyalty (b = -1.55, t-value = –2.14) existence of statistically significant relation-
respectively. Therefore, Hypotheses 4 and 5 ships between destination image and service
were all supported. Hypotheses 6 and 7 dealt quality (Hypothesis 1), destination image and
with the direct effects of perceived value on perceived value (Hypothesis 2), service quality
satisfaction and destination loyalty. The find- and satisfaction (Hypothesis 4), service quality
ings revealed that the direct effects of per- and destination loyalty (Hypothesis 5), perceived
ceived value had a positive relationship with value and satisfaction (Hypothesis 6), perceived
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Structural Model for Examining Destination Loyalty 323
0.47 (12.38) 0.32 (11.58)

Y1 Y2

0.72 (12.82) 0.58 (15.16)

Service
0.53
(10.52)
X1 Quality .155** (2.14)
0.81 (15.82)
.171* (2.29)
0.43 0.42 .567** (6.47)
(12.51) X2 (10.21)

.097(3.29)
0.65
0.65 (15.12) Destination .344* (6.36) Destination
(12.17) X3 Satisfaction
Image Loyalty

0.50 0.54
X4
(11.25) (12.49) .725** (12.29)
.735** (12.53)
0.49 (11.78)
0.42
X5 .445** (5.89)
(11.89)
Perceived
Value

Where:
0.65 0.89 X1…X5 : destination atmosphere, travel information,
travel environment, shopping and community attitude

Y3 Y4 Y1…Y4 : performance-based quality, product-based

quality, emotional value and functional value

Note: fit indices: x 2/df=2.802, CFI=.943, GFI=.929,

NFI=.925, SRMR=.043, RMSEA=.048
**p<.01; *p<.05
0.46 (12.21) 0.23 (9.98) Standardized coefficient (t-value)

Figure 2. Tested structured model.

value and destination loyalty (Hypothesis 7) and This study does not support a conclusion that
satisfaction and destination loyalty (Hypothesis postvisit destination image directly influences
8). The only hypothesis (Hypothesis 3) that was satisfaction; however, destination image has a
not supported pointed to no significant relation- direct relationship with destination loyalty
ship between perceived destination image and through satisfaction as a moderating variable.
overall satisfaction. The total effect of destination image on destin-
With these results, it is believed that the ation loyalty (i.e. sum of direct and indirect
destination loyalty model outlined in the con- effects through satisfaction and satisfaction on
ceptual framework was corroborated. There- destination loyalty) was found to be 0.51 and
fore, it can be said that tourists’ overall 0.34. This indicates that destination image and
satisfaction was affected by perceptions of ser- satisfaction are important variables influencing
vice quality and perceived value, which were destination loyalty. This finding confirms the
also directly influenced by perceived desti- conclusions of some previous studies (Bigne
nation image, and destination loyalty was in et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2005; Chen and Tsai, 2007).
turn influenced by overall satisfaction. In Although different studies have verified that
addition, the newly proposed direct path from destination image leads to overall satisfaction,
service quality to destination loyalty and per- Chen and Tsai (2007) pointed out that percep-
ceived value to destination loyalty were tions of positive destination image do not
shown to be significant; thus, service quality always imply satisfaction. Also, some authors
and perceived value were also direct anteced- suggested that destination image may not be
ents of destination loyalty. enough to explain satisfaction (Bigne et al.,
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
324 S.-H. Kim, S. Holland and H.-S. Han

Table 3. Results of the structural equation modeling for structural model

Construct Standard
Path coefficients between factors b reliability error t Hypothesis
Service quality Destination image (S) 0.567 13.094 0.046 6.47** Supported
Perceived value Destination image (S) 0.725 15.829 0.044 12.29** Supported
Satisfaction Destination image (NS) 0.097 1.561 0.069 3.29 Not supported
Satisfaction Service quality (S) 0.171 3.678. 0.040 2.29* Supported
Destination loyalty Service quality (S) 0.155 3.459 0.077 2.14** Supported
Satisfaction Perceived value (S) 0.735 10.879 0.078 11.789** Supported
Destination loyalty Perceived value (S) 0.445 4.720 0.151 5.89** Supported
Destination loyalty Satisfaction (S) 0.344 3.612 0.112 6.359** Supported

Indirect effect
b p
Destination loyalty Satisfaction Destination image (S) 0.034 0.028
Destination loyalty Satisfaction Service quality (S) 0.011 0.033
Destination loyalty Satisfaction Perceived value (S) 0.098 0.001

S, significant; NS, not significant.

*Correlation significant at 0.05 level.
**correlation significant at 0.01 level.

2001; Chen and Tsai, 2007). In general, the Second, perceived service quality is an imme-
explanation may be related to the type of trave- diate antecedent of satisfaction and affects des-
lers. The companions most often reported in tination loyalty both directly and indirectly
the current study were family with children through satisfaction as a moderating variable.
(53%) for the purpose of vacation and pleasure. In addition, perceived service quality was
Parents may be dissatisfied with overall experi- positively influenced by destination image. This
ences at Orlando, but their priority was to finding is consistent with past studies (Baker
choose a vacation destination for their children. and Crompton, 2000; McDougall and Levesque,
In addition, children (who were likely highly 2000; Murray and Howat, 2002; Castro et al.,
satisfied) were not the survey respondents. 2007; Shonk and Chelladurai, 2008; Hutchinson
When the researcher interviewed some respon- et al., 2009). Therefore, service quality measure-
dents (i.e. parents taking care of children), many ment and improvement are essential aspects
were close to exhaustion with their Orlando for those wishing to enhance destination loyalty.
experience, but most children seemed excited It should be noted that the current study
and happy, and presumably hoping to visit again. measured perceived service quality, referring
The results of the current study are consist- to employee-performance-based quality and
ent with past studies; in particular, destination product-based quality experiences.
image not only influences the decision-making Third, the results are consistent with prior
process but also conditions post-decision- studies (Woodruff, 1997; Cronin et al., 2000;
making behaviors of tourists. In other words, Eggert and Ulaga, 2002; Lee et al., 2007) in that
the influence of destination image is not limited perceived value had an effect on customer sat-
to the destination selection stage, but it also isfaction, which in turn influenced destination
affects the on-site behaviors of tourists in gen- loyalty. These findings indicate that the respond-
eral (Bigne et al., 2001; Chen and Tsai, 2007). ent tourists considered visiting Orlando to be a
Hence, endeavors to build or improve a valuable and correct decision, which likely
destination’s image facilitate loyal visitors revi- affected their travel satisfaction level expressed
siting or recommending behaviors, thus being for Orlando. As for travel expenses, most
critical to the success of destination tourism respondents indicated satisfaction with prices
development. being reasonable during their Orlando visit.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Structural Model for Examining Destination Loyalty 325

Most also characterized Orlando as a pleasur- economic value) and seven variables which
able and enjoyable tourism destination, adding attempted to better measure the complexities
to their satisfaction levels. In a similar vein, of perceived value. In addition, the effect of
results provide acceptable evidence that mea- perceived value on destination loyalty was
sures of customers’ perceived overall value and found to be 0.543. This finding suggests that
economic value can be expanded to include perceived value has a significant influence on
tourists’ perceived value in visiting a family- destination loyalty, as has been also reported
oriented destination. by past research (Lee et al., 2007).
There are a number of theoretical implica- Fourth, although some past studies have
tions. First, a newly developed comprehensive shown emotion to be an important value
model was tested to simultaneously analyze (Allen et al., 1992; Goossens, 2000), results
the relationship between destination image, in this study were less supportive. An attempt
service quality, perceived value and satisfaction was made to include emotional reactions (“visit-
and to concurrently explore these four con- ing Orlando gave me pleasure”, “Orlando was a
structs in the prediction of intention to revisit destination that I enjoyed” and “visiting
and share positive WOM impressions with Orlando made me feel better”) in the overall
others. Although destination image, service value factor, but although the mean scores
quality, value and satisfaction studies have been (4.74, 6.08, 5.80 respectively) of these items were
prevalent in a variety of fields; in the tourism fairly high with these three items, the value fac-
and hospitality literature, these constructs have tor convergent validity was below 0.707, indicat-
usually been studied fragmentarily. In addition, ing a lack of convergent validity. After careful
these service-oriented constructs were not previ- consideration of both statistical and theoretical
ously studied in a family-oriented destination, justifications, a decision was made to keep the
although this travel segment has become an other seven items, but the three emotional value
important component of the tourism industry. items did not meet statistical criteria to retain
Therefore, the current study also contributes them. Hence, emotional value items were not
insights for this segment by specifically focusing included in the analyses reported here. Efforts
on a family-oriented destination. should be made in future studies to explore
Second, considerable research has focused on ways to improve the measurement of emotion
the nature of service quality, and there is general in visitor assessments of destinations.
acceptance that service quality is composed of a Although the current research findings are
number of underlying dimensions. However, based on good indicators of the antecedents of
there is a lack of agreement on the exact nature destination loyalty, the understanding of tour-
of these dimensions. Thus, previous research ists’ revisit intentions and their behavior
consistently tailored service quality dimensions remains limited. In particular, these findings
based on the context being examined (Murray were limited to a nonrandom convenience sam-
and Howat, 2002). In the same token, service ple of Orlando air arrival visitors. Visitors who
quality studies in tourism and recreation stressed travel to different destinations or to Orlando by
products/programs and/or destinations (Getty different means may have different opinions of
and Thompson, 1994; Howat et al., 1999; Baker those destinations. A single study restricts the
and Crompton, 2000). However, the current generalizability of findings, which should be
study developed two different factors with 18 considered in applying these results to other
items to capture the complexity of perceptions. destinations. To overcome this limitation, future
Third, although marketing literature has sug- researchers should replicate this study in differ-
gested that perceived value is the leading pre- ent destinations and travel modes.
dictor of customer loyalty and repurchase Second, the design of this study (postvisit
intentions (Woodruff, 1997; Parasuraman and assessment of image) made it impossible to
Grewal, 2000), this construct has usually been measure the previsit image of the destin-
operationalized with “value for money” in the ation, which would have made it feasible to
hospitality and marketing literature. The measure the extent to which secondary infor-
current study operationalized perceived value mation sources influence the formation of the
with two factors (overall perceived value and previsit image and the way in which primary
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
326 S.-H. Kim, S. Holland and H.-S. Han

information sources could alter this image. Baker D, Crompton J. 2000. Quality, satisfaction and
Also, Fakeye and Crompton (1991) revealed behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research
that the image held of destinations by nonvi- 27(3): 785–804.
sitors differed from that of visitors. Empirical Baloglu S. 2001. An investigation of loyalty typ-
studies have found that people change their ology and the multidestination loyalty of inter-
image about a destination after they visit. national tourists. Tourism Analysis 6: 41–52.
In addition, the number of visits or the Baloglu S, Ericson R. 1998. Destination loyalty and
switching behavior of tourists: a markov analysis.
extent of previous experience at a specific
Tourism Analysis 2: 119–127.
destination seems to have a positive influ-
Baloglu S, McCleary KW. 1999. A model of destin-
ence on a destination’s image among repeat ation image formation. Annals of Tourism Research
visitors. Therefore, it would seem desirable 26(4): 868–897.
to carry out longitudinal studies that focus Beaman J, Huan T, Kozak M. 2002. Estimating a
on destination image, measured before and Markov Model that incorporates first visit deci-
after visiting a destination. sions and varying repeat frequency. Tourism
Tourism and hospitality products are consid- Analysis 6: 81–97.
ered to be interdependent between subsectors. Beerli A, Martín J. 2004. Factors influencing destination
Tourists’ experiences at destinations encompass image. Annals of Tourism Research 31(3): 657–681.
satisfaction at hotels, restaurants, shops, attrac- Bigne JE, Sanchez MI, Sanchez J. 2001. Tourism
tions, etc.; they may evaluate each service elem- image, evaluation variables and after-purchase
ent separately. These individual components of behavior: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management
satisfaction with a destination lead to overall sat- 22(6): 607–616.
isfaction. From this perspective, Chen and Tsai Bojanic DC, Rosen LD. 1994. Measuring service
(2007) further contended that overall satisfaction quality in restaurants: an application of the
with a hospitality experience is a function of sat- SERVQUAL instrument. Hospitality Research Journal
18: 607–616.
isfaction with the individual attributes of all the
Bollen K. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Vari-
services and products that make up the experi-
ables. J. Wiley: New York.
ence, such as accommodations, weather, natural
Caruana A, Money AH, Berthon PR. 2000. Service qual-
environments, social environments, etc. There- ity and satisfaction: the moderating role of value.
fore, future studies should explore satisfaction European Journal of Marketing 34(11/12): 1338–1352.
with various components of the destination to Castro C, Armario E, Ruiz D. 2007. The influence of
give in-depth managerial implications to destin- market heterogeneity on the relationship between
ation marketers or managers. a destination’s image and tourists’ future behav-
ior. Tourism Management 28: 175–187.
Chen C-F, Chen F-S. 2010. Experience quality, per-
REFERENCES ceived value, satisfaction and intentions for heri-
tage tourists. Tourism Management 31: 29–35.
Ahmed ZU. 1991. The influence of the components Chen C, Tsai D. 2007. How destination image and
of a state’s tourist image on product positioning evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions?.
strategy. Tourism Management 12(1): 331–340. Tourism Management 28: 1115–1122.
Alegre J, Juaneda C. 2006. Destination loyalty – Chi C, Qu H. 2008. Examining the structural rela-
consumers’ economic behavior. Annals of Tourism tionship of destination image, tourist satisfaction
Research 33(3): 684–706. and destination loyalty: an integrated approach.
Allen CT, Machleit S, Kleine SS. 1992. A comparison Tourism Management 29: 624–636.
of attitudes and emotions as predictors of behav- Chon KS. 1990. The role of destination image in tourism:
ior at diverse levels of behavioral experience. a review and discussion. The Tourist Review 15: 2–9.
Journal of Consumer Experience 18: 493–504. Chon KS. 1991. Tourism destination image: Market-
Anderson EW, Fornell C, Lehmann DR. 1994. ing implication. Tourism Management 12(1): 68–72
Customer satisfaction, market share, and profit- Court BC, Lupton RA. 1997. Customer portfolio
ability: findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing development: modeling destination adopters,
58(3): 53–66. inactives, and rejecters. Journal of Travel Research
Bagozzi RP. 1992. The self-regulation of attitudes, 36(1): 35–43.
intentions and behavior. Social Psychology Quar- Crompton JL. 1979. An assessment of the image of
terly 55(2): 178–204. Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Structural Model for Examining Destination Loyalty 327

of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Gunn CA. 1972. Vacationscape: Designing tourist
Travel Research 17(Spring): 18–23 regions. Bureau of Business Research, University
Cronin J, Taylor S. 1992. Measuring service quality: A of Texas, TX: Austin.
reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing Howat G, Murray D, Crilley G. 1999. The relationships
56(3): 125–131. between service problems and perceptions of service
Cronin JJ, Brady MK, Hult GT. 2000. Assessing the quality, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions of
effects of quality, value, customer satisfaction on Australian public sports and leisure center. Journal
consumer behavioral intentions in service envir- of Park and Recreation Administration 17(2): 42–64.
onments. Journal of Retailing 76(2): 193–218. Hu L, Bentler P. 1999. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes
Darnell A, Johnson P. 2001. Repeat visits to attrac- in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional
tions: a preliminary economic Analysis. Tourism Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation
Management 22(1): 119–126. Modeling 6(1): 1–55.
Dodds WB. 1991. In search of value: How price and Hunt JD. 1975. Image as a factor in tourism develop-
store name information influence buyers’ prod- ment. Journal of Travel Research 13: 1–7.
uct perceptions. The Journal of Service Marketing
5(Summer): 27–36. Hutchinson J, Lai F, Wang Y. 2009. Understanding
the relationships of quality, value, equity, satisfac-
Echtner CM, Ritchie JRB. 1991. The meaning and
tion, and behavioral intentions among golf trave-
measurement of destination image. The Journal of
lers. Tourism Management 30(2): 298–308.
Tourism Studies 2(2): 2–12.
Eggert A, Ulaga W. 2002. Customer perceived value: Jenkins O. 1999. Understanding and measuring
A substitute for satisfaction in business markets? tourist destination image. International Journal of
The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing Tourism Research 1(1): 1–15.
17(2/3): 107–118. Kline R. 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equa-
Fakeye PC, Crompton JL. 1991. Image differences tion Modeling, 2nd edn. Guilford Press: New York.
between prospective, - time, and repeat visitors Kozak M. 2001a. A critical review of approaches to
to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel measure satisfaction with tourist destinations. In
Research 30(2): 10–16. Consumer Psychology of Tourism Hospitality and
Fornell C, Larcker DF. 1981. Evaluating structural Leisure, Vol. 2, Woodside A, Crouch G, Mazanec
equation models with unobservable variables and J, Oppermann M, Sakai M (eds). CABI Publishing:
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research New York; 303–320.
18(1): 39–50. Kozak M. 2001b. Repeaters’ behavior at two
Fornell C, Wernerfelt B. 1987. Defensive marketing distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism Research
strategy by customer complaint Management. Jour- 28(3): 784–807.
nal of Marketing Research 24(November): 337–346. Lee CK, Lee YK, Lee BK. 2005. Korea’s destination
Fornell C, Johnson MD, Anderson EW, Cha J, Bryant image formed by the 2002 World Cup. Annals of
BE. 1996. The American customer satisfaction Tourism Research 32(4): 839–858.
index: nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of
Lee CK, Yoon YS, Lee SK. 2007. Investigating the
Marketing 60(4): 7–18.
relationships among perceived value, satisfaction,
Fyall A, Callod C, Edwards B. 2003. Relationship and recommendations: The case of the Korean
marketing: the challenge for Destinations. Annals DMZ. Tourism Management 28(1): 204–214.
of Tourism Research 30: 644–659.
McDougall G, Levesque T. 2000. Customer satisfaction
Gallarza MG, Saura IG. 2006. Value dimensions,
with services: putting perceived value into the equa-
perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An
tion. Journal of Services Marketing 14(5): 392–410.
investigation of university students’ travel. Tour-
ism Management 27(2): 437–452. Meng S-M, Liang G-S, Yang S-H. 2011. The relation-
Getty JM, Thompson KN. 1994. The relationship ships of cruise image, perceived value, satisfac-
between quality, satisfaction, and recommending tion, and post-purchase behavioral intention on
behavior in lodging decisions. Journal of Hospital- Taiwanese tourists. African Journal of Business
ity and Leisure Marketing 2(3): 3–22. Management 5(1): 19-29.
Goossens C. 2000. Tourism information and pleas- Murray D, Howat G. 2002. The relationships among
ure motivation. Annals of Tourism Research 27(2): service quality, value, satisfaction, and future inten-
301–321. tions of customers at an Australian Sports and
Gotlieb JB, Grewal D, Brown SW. 1994. Consumer Leisure Centre. Sport Management Review 5: 25–43.
satisfaction and perceived quality: complementary Oh H. 1999. Service quality, customer satisfaction, and
or divergent constructs? Journal of Applied Psychology customer value: A holistic Perspective. International
79(6): 875–885. Journal of Hospitality Management 18(1): 67–82.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
328 S.-H. Kim, S. Holland and H.-S. Han

Oh H. 2000. Diners’ perceptions of quality, value Ravald A, Grönroos C. 1996. The value concept and re-
and satisfaction. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant lationship. European Journal of Marketing 30(2): 19–30.
Administration Quarterly 41(3): 58–66. Reichheld FF. 1996. The Loyalty Effect. Harvard Busi-
Oh H, Parks SC. 1997. Customer satisfaction and ness School Press: Boston, MA.
service quality: a critical review of the literature Reichheld FF, Sasser WE. 1990. Zero defections:
and research implications for the hospitality quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review
industry. Hospitality Research Journal 20(3): 35–64. 68(September/October): 105–111.
Oliver R, Swan J. 1989. Consumer perceptions of Ryu K, Han H, Kim T-H. 2008. The relationships
interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transac- among overall quick-casual restaurant image,
tions: A field survey approach. Journal of Marketing perceived value, customer satisfaction, and be-
53(2): 21–35. havioral intentions. International Journal of Hospi-
Oppermann M. 1999. Predicting destination choice tality Management 27: 459–469.
– a discussion of destination loyalty. Journal of Saleh F, Ryan C. 1992. Client perceptions of hotels.
Vacation Marketing 5: 51–65. Tourism Management 13: 163–168.
Oppermann M. 2000. Tourism destination loyalty. Sánchez J, Callarisa L, Rodríguez RM, Moliner MA.
Journal of Travel Research 39: 78–84. 2006. Perceived value of the purchase of a tourism
Parasuraman A. 1997. Reflection on gaining competi- product. Tourism Management 27: 394–409.
tive advantage through customer Value. Journal of Shoemaker S, Lewis RC. 1999. Customer loyalty: the
the Academy of Marketing Science 25(2): 154–161. future of hospitality marketing. International Jour-
Parasuraman A, Grewal D. 2000. The impact of tech- nal of Hospitality Management 18: 345–370.
nology on the quality–value–loyalty chain: A Shonk D, Chelladurai P. 2008. Service quality, satis-
research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing faction, and intent to return in event sport tour-
Science 28(1): 168–174. ism. Journal of Sport Management 22: 587–602.
Sonmez SF, Graefe AR. 1998. Determining future
Parasuraman A, Zeithaml V, Berry L. 1994. Reassess-
travel behavior from past travel experience and
ments of expectations as comparison standard in
perceptions of risk and safety. Journal of Travel
measuring service quality: Implications for future
Research 37(2): 171–178.
research. Journal of Marketing 58(1): 111–124.
Stevens BF. 1992. Price value perceptions of trave-
Patterson PG, Spreng RA. 1997. Modelling the relation- lers. Journal of Travel Research 31(1): 44–48.
ship between perceived value, satisfaction and pur- Sweeney JC, Soutar GN, Johnson LW. 1996. Retail
chase intentions in a business-to-business, services service quality and perceived value: A compari-
context: An empirical examination. International son of two models. Journal of Retailing and Con-
Journal of Service Industry Management 8(5): 414–434. sumer Services 4(1): 39–48.
Pearce PL. 1982. Perceived changes in holiday desti- Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. 2007. Using Multivariate
nations. Annals of Tourism Research 9: 145–164. Statistics. Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA.
Petrick JF, Backman SJ. 2002. An examination of the Tam JLM. 2000. The effects of service quality, per-
construct of perceived value for the prediction of ceived value and customer satisfaction on behav-
golf travelers: Intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel ioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure
Research 41(August): 38–45. Marketing 6(4): 31–43.
Petrick JF, Sirakaya E. 2004. Segmenting cruisers by Um S, Chon K, Ro Y. 2006. Antecedents of revisit
loyalty. Annals of Tourism Research 31(2): 472–475. intention. Annals of Tourism Research 33(4): 1141–1158.
Petrick JF, Morais DD, Norman WC. 2001. An exam- Woodruff RB. 1997. Customer value: The next
ination of the determinants of ntertainment vaca- source for competitive edge. Journal of the Academy
tioners’ intensions to revisit. Journal of Travel of Marketing Science 25(2): 139–153.
Research 40(August): 41–48. Yoon Y, Uysal M. 2005. An examination of the effects of
Pike S. 2002. Destination image analysis: a review of motivation and satisfaction on destination loyalty: A
142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tourism Management structural model. Tourism Management 26(1): 45–56.
23: 541–549. Zeithaml V. 1988 Consumer perceptions of price,
Pizam A, Neumann Y, Richel A. 1978. Dimensions quality, and value: a means-end model and syn-
of tourist satisfaction with a destination. Annals thesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52(July):
of Tourism Research 5: 314–322. 2–22.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 15, 313–328 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr