See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233631205

Tourists' Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions on

Destination Attributes: An Empirical Study in Alanya

Article  in  Tourism Analysis · July 2010

DOI: 10.3727/108354210X12724863327849

CITATIONS READS
18 1,268

3 authors, including:

Boran Toker
Akdeniz University
39 PUBLICATIONS   531 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Boran Toker on 07 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tourism Analysis, Vol. 15, pp. 243–252 1083-5423/10 $60.00 + .00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.3727/108354210X12724863327849
Copyright  2010 Cognizant Comm. Corp. www.cognizantcommunication.com

TOURISTS’ SATISFACTION AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS ON

DESTINATION ATTRIBUTES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY IN ALANYA

AHMET AKTAŞ*, AYDIN ÇEVİRGEN†, and BORAN TOKER†

*School of Tourism & Hotel Management, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

†Alanya Faculty of Business, Department of Tourism Management, Akdeniz University, Alanya, Turkey

This study attempts to investigate the tourist’s satisfaction as an influence on future behavioral
intensions (intention to revisit and recommendation) within a tourism context, specifically with
reference to the accommodation services, incoming travel agency services, and destination facili-
ties. The study was conducted in Alanya with a total of 2,200 respondents. The research findings
indicated that there were significant relationships among destination attributes, tourist satisfaction,
and behavioral intensions. Especially, the dimension of accommodation services was the strongest
predictor of the tourist satisfaction, followed by incoming travel agency services and facilities of
Alanya. In addition to this, the repeat tourists were more likely than first-time tourists to intend to
revisit Alanya in the future.

Key words: Tourists’ satisfaction; Destination attributes; Behavioral intentions; Alanya

Introduction include also public services and facilities, and

physical and natural attractions. All these elements
Tourism is one of the world’s largest service are branded together under the name of the desti-
industries in terms of income generation, foreign nation (Buhalis, 2000; Poonyth, Barnes, Suich, &
exchange earnings, and employment creation. De- Monamati, 2002; Ritchie & Crouch, 2003; Vassili-
velopments in international tourism have increased adis, 2008).
competitiveness among tourist destinations. Pro- According to Fuchs and Weiermair (2004),
viding high-quality services and maintaining tour- many tourism destinations consider tourist satis-
ists’ satisfaction are important factors leading to faction as one of the most important sources of
the success of the tourism destinations and hospi- their competitive advantage. As mentioned by Bu-
tality industry. halis (2000), delighting tourists by maximizing
Tourist destinations include an amalgam of in- their satisfaction is one of the key strategic man-
dustries such as accommodation, transportation, agement objectives for destinations.
food and beverage services, recreation and enter- Satisfaction with the total holiday experience is
tainment, and travel agencies. Tourist destinations dependent on all the links in the experience chain.

Address correspondence to Ahmet Aktaş, Ph.D., Professor, School of Tourism & Hotel Management, Akdeniz University, Antalya,
Turkey. Tel: +90 242 310 20 28; Fax: +90 242 227 46 70; E-mail: [email protected]

243
244 AKTAŞ, ÇEVİRGEN, AND TOKER

Many of the links are not even located within one disposed towards it and may even recommend it
destination, and are thus beyond the control or to others (Johnston & Clark, 2005).
even the influence of a single destination manager Customer satisfaction is one of the most fre-
(Ritchie & Crouch, 2003). Some holiday experi- quently examined topics in the hospitality and
ences, such as a taxi to the airport, airport services, tourism field because it plays an important role in
air travel, etc., are outside of a destination and survival and future of any tourism products and
cannot be controlled by that destination. But oth- services (Gursoy, McCleary, & Lepsito, 2003;
ers, such as accommodation facilities, meals, travel Neal & Gursoy, 2008). Satisfaction with the tour-
agency services, recreational and sports facilities, ist destination depends on the outcome of tourists’
sightseeing, etc., are within a particular destination consumptions and their perceptions of tourist
and can be controlled. product. Tourist satisfaction can be defined as the
A potential traveler compares attributes when tourist’s emotional state after experiencing the trip
deciding which destination to choose. The chosen (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Yüksel, 2001). There-
destination potentially will be the most compatible fore, evaluating satisfaction in terms of a traveling
with the tourist’s expectations, thus having less experience is a postconsumption process (Fornell,
negative consequences. Destinations that appear to 1992; Kozak, 2001). In addition, assessing satis-
satisfy the most are more likely to be considered faction can help managers to improve services
and chosen in the travel decision process (Rei- (Fornell, 1992). It also significantly influences the
singer & Turner, 2000). choice of destination, the consumption of products
How to attract the tourists to revisit and/or rec- and services, and the decision to return (Kozak &
ommend the destination to others is crucial for the Rimmington, 2000).
success of destination tourism development (C. F. Several researchers investigate customer satis-
Chen & Tsai, 2007). Many destinations rely faction in the tourism literature. In tourism satis-
strongly on repeat visitation because it is less ex- faction has been examined in travel agencies (Mil-
pensive to retain repeat tourists than to attract new lan & Esteban, 2004; Rodriguez del Bosque, San
ones (Um, Chon, & Ro, 2006). The tourists’ per- Martin, & Collado 2006), accommodation estab-
ceptions of destination attributes may enhance lishments (Choi & Chu, 2001; Heung, 2000; Pi-
tourists’ holiday satisfaction or discourage them. zam & Ellis, 1999; Poon & Low, 2005), and desti-
If the expectations and needs of tourists are not nations (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Bigne, Sanchez,
met, there is the possibility that they will not come & Sanchez, 2001; Hui, Wan, & Ho, 2007; Joppe,
to the same destination again. Martin & Waalen, 2001; Kozak, 2001; Kozak &
This study focuses on tourists’ satisfaction and Rimmington, 2000; Pizam, Neuman, & Reichel,
their behavioral intentions in Alanya. In this study, 1978; Reisinger & Turner, 2000; Rodriguez del
overall holiday experience was evaluated in terms Bosque & San Martin, 2008; Yoon & Uysal,
of destination attributes that are controlled by des- 2005).
tination stakeholders. Satisfaction determines whether the tourist be-
comes a repeat visitor. Holiday dissatisfaction under-
Conceptual Framework lines the tourist’s decision process and influences
purchase intention (Reisinger & Turner, 2000).
Satisfaction is the outcome of the consumer’s Tourists’ positive experiences of service, products
evaluation of a service based on a comparison of and other resources provided by tourism destina-
their perceptions of service deliver with their prior tions could produce repeat visits as well as posi-
expectations. Thus, expectations, and indeed per- tive word-of-mouth (WOM) effects to potential
ceptions, are key components in delivering a qual- tourists such as friends and/or relatives (Chi & Qu,
ity service. If the operation meets the expectations, 2008; Oppermann, 2000a; Yoon & Uysal, 2005).
or indeed exceeds them, then customers are satis- Recommendations by previous visits can be taken
fied with the service. If they are satisfied they are as the most reliable information sources for poten-
more likely to become valuable customers who tial tourists. Recommendations to other people
not only use the service again, but are positively (WOM) are also one of the most often sought
 SATISFACTION AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS ON DESTINATION ATTRIBUTES 245

types of information for people interested in trav- in Turkey. Together with its natural and cultural
eling (Chi & Qu, 2008). attractions, Alanya is a resort in Antalya, and it is
Several studies in tourism point to a positive situated in the 135-km east coast of Antalya Gulf
relationship between tourist satisfaction and a de- on the Anatolian Peninsula. Following the arrivals
sire to return (Bigne et al., 2001; Kozak, 2001; of Germans in the late 1950s, Alanya met with
Yoon & Uysal, 2005). Cronin and Taylor (1992) tourism. In the 1970s locals started to offer their
stated that customer satisfaction has a significant residences to tourists. The east and the west of
effect on purchase intentions. Kozak and Rim- Alanya were declared as a “tourist center” with the
mington (2000) also concluded that the level of “Tourism Incentive Act” in 1982. The declaration
overall satisfaction with holiday experiences had helped to increase investments demands. The total
the greatest impact on the intention to revisit the bed capacity in Alanya was 8,708 in 1988 (Soyak,
same destination. In other study, Baker and Cromp- 2003). Because Alanya had 67,168 beds in 631
ton (2000) found a significant direct relationship establishments in 1996, along with the growth of
between satisfaction and behavioral intentions. tourism, the number of establishments increased
Oppermann (1998, 2000b) and Pritchard (2003) to 669 in 2006 with a percentage of 6%, but the
highlighted different reasons why repeat visitation total bed capacity increased to 147,303 with a per-
has been regarded as a desirable phenomenon in centage of 120% in the same period. In compari-
the literature: (1) the marketing costs needed to son with establishment numbers in 1996, the total
attract repeat visitors are lower than those required bed capacity in 2006 characterizes the mass tour-
for first timers, (2) repeat visitation is considered
ism-oriented nature of establishments. Table 1 shows
a positive indication of tourist satisfaction, (3) re-
the growth of tourism in Alanya. Alanya, as one of
peat visitors are the type of tourist most likely to
the most important tourism destinations in Turkey,
revisit a destination, and (4) they might recom-
received 6.9% of total tourists and provided 7.2%
mend the destination to friends and relatives (as
of total receipts in 2006 (Alanya Chamber of
cited in Alegre & Cladera, 2006).
Commerce and Industry [ACCI], 2007; Republic
In order to assess the customer satisfaction,
various theories and measurement models such as of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism,
“expectancy-disconfirmation,” “importance-perfor- 2007). The foregoing statistical data underlines the
mance,” and “performance-only” have been used importance of tourism in Alanya.
in the literature. There is still much discussion
about the single best method of measuring cus- Aim of the Study and Hypotheses
tomer satisfaction using pre- and postexperience
constructs (i.e., “expectations,” “importance,” and This study attempted to investigate the relation-
“performance”). Recently, the debate has centered ship among tourists’ satisfaction and behavioral
on a comparison of single construct measurement intentions in Alanya. The aims of the study are
(i.e., performance-only models) and multiple con- threefold: (1) to examine tourists’ satisfaction to-
struct measurements (i.e., expectation-performance wards destination facilities, accommodation, and
and importance-performance models) (Fallon & incoming travel agencies services, (2) to determine
Schofield, 2003). The performance-only measure their overall holiday satisfaction and behavioral
outperformed other alternative models in terms of intentions, and (3) to investigate whether there
predicting overall satisfaction and behavioral in- were any differences between first-time and repeat
tention (Baloglu, Pekcan, Chen, & Santos, 2003; tourists’ satisfaction and behavioral intentions.
Baker & Crompton, 2000; Crompton & Love, Based on the theoretical issues outlined above
1995; Kozak, 2001). For this reason, in this study and the empirical findings of previous researches
tourist satisfaction was measured by performance- the following hypotheses were established:
only model.
H1: There is a significant positive relationship be-
The Study Area: Alanya tween tourists’ perception of destination facili-
The Mediterranean coast around the province ties and overall holiday satisfaction.
of Antalya is one of the main tourist destinations H2: There is a significant positive relationship be-
246 AKTAŞ, ÇEVİRGEN, AND TOKER

Table 1
The Scope of Tourism in Alanya

No. of Total Bed No. of Total Tourism

Year Establishments Capacity Foreign Tourists Receipts (US$)

1996 631 67,168 592,870 481,410,440

1997 691 88,024 698,628 529,560,024
1998 715 97,453 617,312 448,785,824
1999 768 106,355 418,537 310,972,991
2000 745 104,711 677,340 557,450,820
2001 747 112,957 866,130 807,233,160
2002 768 122,663 1,029,350 961,412,900
2003 722 127,663 988,785 932,424,255
2004 748 133,361 1,133,616 1,098,473,904
2005 790 146,302 1,464,686 1,379,734,210
2006 669 147,303 1,357,554 1,212,295,722

Source: Alanya Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2007, pp. 65, 68).

tween tourists’ perception of accommodation (Ball & Giakoumis, 2003; Heung, 2000; Millan &
services and overall holiday satisfaction. Esteban, 2004; Pizam et al., 1978, Sussmann &
H3: There is a significant positive relationship be- Rashcovsky, 1997; Yüksel & Yüksel, 2001). A 5-
tween tourists’ perception of incoming travel point Likert type scale was used in this part of the
agency services and overall holiday satisfaction. questionnaire, ranging from 5 = “completely agree”
H4: There is a significant positive relationship be- to 1 = “completely disagree.” The final part deals
tween intention to revisit and overall holiday with the measurement of single-item overall satis-
satisfaction. faction and two-item behavioral intentions with a
H5: There is a significant positive relationship be- 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 5 = “completely
tween intention to recommend and overall holi- agree” to 1 = 1“completely disagree.” The survey
day satisfaction. questions were discussed with agency managers.
H6: There is a significant difference between first- Thus, this result was used to improve the clarity
time tourists’ and repeat tourists’ intention to and readability of questions.
revisit. This study was executed in three basic stages:
H7: There is a significant difference between first- sampling, data collection, and data analysis. The
time tourists’ and repeat tourists’ intention to data used in this study is based on the project,
recommend. named “Alanya Tourist Profile Research 2007”
H8: There is a significant difference between first- (Aktas, Çevirgen, & Toker, 2008). Sampling de-
time tourists’ and repeat tourists’ satisfaction. sign and sample size are significant subjects to sta-
tistically represent the population and to be able
Method to suggest implications both theory and practice.
A questionnaire survey method was used in the Simple random sampling design was used for this
study and data were obtained by managing a struc- survey owing to its efficiency. The sample popula-
tured questionnaire. The questionnaire instrument tion of the study was limited to tourists visiting
consisted of three parts. The first part included ba- Alanya via travel agencies. According to ACCI,
sic questions regarding the profile of the respon- 1,357,554 tourists came to Alanya in 2006. The
dents such as nationality, gender, age, marital sta- survey was carried out between June and Septem-
tus, and number of visits. The second part of the ber 2007. A total number of 5,000 questionnaires
instrument comprised 23 questions concerning were delivered to tourists through travel agencies
tourists’ perceptions of destination attributes. The and 2,200 questionnaires were obtained, resulting
literature on destination attributes provided the ba- in a response rate of 44%. The questionnaires were
sis for developing a questionnaire for this study filled out by the respondents at the end of their
 SATISFACTION AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS ON DESTINATION ATTRIBUTES 247

holidays (taking a performance-only approach). Table 2

Answer rate is statistically acceptable for data Respondent Profile
analysis. Seventy-five questionnaires were elimi-
%
nated owing to missing data. Consequently, 2,125
questionnaires were evaluated. The data obtained Nationality
were analyzed by using SPSS for Windows 15.0 German 28.2
Dutch 15.9
program. Data analysis included descriptive statis- Russian 13.0
tics, frequency distributions, factor analysis, corre- Turkish 12.5
lation analysis, regression analysis, and t-test. Scandinaviana 8.2
Austrian 3.0
English 3.0
Findings Czech 2.2
Polish 2.2
The respondents’ profiles are summarized in Belgian 2.1
Ukrainian 1.9
Table 2. When looking at differences by nationali- Other 7.8
ties, German visitors took the first place with Gender
28.2%, Dutch visitors (15.9%) were second, and Female 58.0
Male 42.0
Russian visitors (13%) were third. About 58% of Age
the respondents were female and 42% were male. 18–24 29.3
Nearly half of the respondents were between 25 25–34 23.2
35–44 26.6
and 44 years of age. There were 83.4% of the re- 45–54 15.6
spondents who completed high school and above, 55–64 4.2
65 and over 1.1
indicating that a large proportion of the sample Marital status
was well educated. About half of the respondents Married 46.3
were married. When asked to indicate professions Single 44.7
Widowed 3.2
almost half of the respondents (41.4%) reported Divorced 5.8
that they were workers. Sixty-three percent of the Education
respondents were made up of first-time visitors. Primary school 11.6
High school 43.1
First, reliability analysis of the scale was evalu- Associate’s degree 14.3
ated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal Bachelor’s degree 26.0
consistency. Cronbach’s alpha value was about Postgraduate degree 5.0
Occupation
0.93, well above the generally agreed upon lower Worker 41.4
limit of 0.60 for research at exploratory stage Civil servant 17.8
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Afterwards, a prin- Self-employed 11.9
Retired 3.6
cipal factor analysis was performed on items in Other 25.3
order to identify dimensions. Bartlett’s test of Past experience
sphericity with a value of 12754.34 (p < 0.001) First-time visit 63.0
Repeat visit 37.0
and the calculation of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
statistics of 0.95, which can be qualified as “excel-
lent,” pointed out that data seemed suitable for
factor analysis. Taking the distribution of the scree bach’s alpha test confirms the existence of a high
plot into consideration, principal component fac- level of internal consistency among factor group-
tors with an eigenvalue of 1 or greater were ro- ings. Ranking the mean scores of three factors, in-
tated by the varimax analysis. Twenty-three items coming travel agency services reached the highest
from the factor analysis resulted in three factor score, followed by accommodation services and
groupings and explained 63.6% of the total vari- destination facilities. The mean scores of all the
ance. Most of the factor loadings were greater than factors were above the neutral point in the scale
0.70, indicating a good correlation between the (3 = neutral). The results of the factor analysis are
items and the factor grouping they represent; thus, showed in Table 3.
all items were used in the analysis. The Cron- In Table 4, correlation matrix offered support
248 AKTAŞ, ÇEVİRGEN, AND TOKER

Table 3
The Factor Analysis Results

Factor % of Variance
Items Loading Eigenvalue Explained Mean F-Value Alpha p-Value

Factor 1. Destination facilities 5.3 23.1 3.72 35.47 0.89 0.0001

Cleanliness of town 0.65
Safety of town 0.66
People’s hospitality 0.67
Cleanliness of beaches 0.66
Lively nightlife 0.59
Rich in ancient monuments 0.69
Sufficient shopping opportunities 0.72
Sufficient recreation facilities 0.74
Easy to reach 0.66
Cheapness of town 0.61
Factor 2. Accommodation services 4.8 20.8 3.79 124.42 0.90 0.0001
Cleanliness of hotel 0.75
Hospitable staff 0.76
Safety of hotel 0.74
Food quality 0.74
Service quality 0.80
Comfortable of hotel 0.80
Animation and sports facilities 0.54
Factor 3. Incoming travel agency services 4.5 19.5 3.92 18.70 0.93 0.0001
Expertise of agency 0.77
Attitudes of staff 0.83
Airport transfers 0.69
Information services 0.81
Guide services 0.84
Reservations 0.73

Table 4
Correlation Matrix

Incoming Overall
Destination Accommodation Travel Agency Holiday
Facilities Services Services Satisfaction Recommendation Revisit

Destination facilities 1
1967
Accommodation services 0.552* 1
1917 2025
Incoming travel agency services 0.525* 0.552* 1
1865 1946 1960
Overall holiday satisfaction 0.354* 0.505* 0.383* 1
1838 1909 1857 1936
Recommendation 0.403* 0.519* 0.363* 0.689* 1
1835 1909 1861 1894 1938
Revisit 0.371* 0.478* 0.345* 0.646* 0.798* 1
1819 1892 1842 1874 1891 1919

*Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level.

 SATISFACTION AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS ON DESTINATION ATTRIBUTES 249

for the significant positive relationships between vices) and exerting the strongest influence in de-
perception of destination facilities and overall hol- pendent variable (overall holiday satisfaction).
iday satisfaction (H1), perception of accommoda- This analysis presents the strength of any variable
tion services and overall holiday satisfaction (H2), in the overall model. Results of each process are
and perception of incoming travel agency services reported in Table 7 together with the t statistics,
and overall holiday satisfaction (H3). Consequently, standardized regression coefficients, and R 2 val-
H1, H2, and H3 were supported (p < 0.01). ues. Table 7 demonstrates the influence of three
The intention to revisit and intention to recom- factor variables over the level of the respondents’
mend the destination exhibits the high positive overall satisfaction with their holidays. The model
correlation with the overall holiday satisfaction accounts for 28% of the variance in the dependent
measure; thus, H4 and H5 were also supported variable. It is observed that all the factor variables
(p < 0.01). Furthermore, there is a relationship had statistically significant beta coefficients. These
among destination facilities, accommodation, and variables also had a positive score. In Table 7, the
incoming travel agency services as independent dimension of accommodation services was the
variables. Table 4 shows the research findings strongest predictor of the overall holiday satisfac-
suggest that there is a positive relationship among tion (p < 0.001), followed by incoming travel
all these factors. agency services (p < 0.001) and destination facili-
Subsequently, an independent t-test was em- ties (p < 0.005).
ployed to investigate whether there were any sta-
tistically significant differences between first-time Conclusions
and repeat tourists’ behavioral intentions and satis-
faction. Results of independent sample t-test in Tourists’ perceptions of destination attributes
Table 5 indicated that the repeat tourists were are important to successful destination competi-
more likely than the first-time tourists’ intention tiveness, because they influence the choice of a
to revisit to Alanya in the future (p < 0.01), thus destination and tourists’ future behaviors. For this
supporting H6. As can be seen in the Table 5, no reason, it is important to attempt to better under-
statistically significant differences were recorded stand the behavior of tourists when choosing, con-
between first-time and repeat tourists’ satisfaction suming, and later evaluating their destination ex-
and their intention to recommend to others (p > periences.
0.05), thus H7 and H8 were not supported. The This study attempted to investigate the relation-
results of the hypotheses testing are summarized ship among tourists’ perceptions of destination at-
in Table 6. tributes, tourist satisfaction, and behavioral inten-
Afterwards, multiple regression analysis was tions (revisit and recommendation). The study
used to determine the aggregate impact of certain results showed that tourists were generally pleased
independent variables (destination facilities, ac- with their visit to Alanya. The three dimensions of
commodation, and incoming travel agency ser- destination attributes were identified and named
“destination facilities,” “accommodation,” and “in-
coming travel agency services.” Particularly, tour-
Table 5 ists were ultimately pleased with incoming travel
Mean Difference Tests Between First-Time agency services (mean = 3.92), followed by ac-
and Repeat Tourists commodation services (mean = 3.79). But pleased
with destination facilities (mean = 3.72) was not
First
Time Repeat t-Value Sig. t relatively high as much as other dimensions.
It was determined that there were statistical re-
Intention to lationships between tourists’ overall holiday satis-
revisit 3.8446 4.0114 −2.83 0.003
Intention to faction and all dimensions of destination attributes.
recommend 4.0535 4.1246 −1.38 0.695 Specifically, the relationships between accommoda-
Overall holiday tion services dimension and overall holiday satis-
satisfaction 4.1018 4.0456 1.29 0.068
faction were at the highest level. The results of the
250 AKTAŞ, ÇEVİRGEN, AND TOKER

Table 6
Hypothesis Testing Results

Hypothesis Testing Result

H1: Destination facilities–Satisfaction Supported

H2: Accommodation services–Satisfaction Supported
H3: Travel agency services–Satisfaction Supported
H4: Revisit–Satisfaction Supported
H5: Recommendation–Satisfaction Supported
H6: First-timers’ revisiting–Repeaters’ revisiting Supported
H7: First-timers’ recommendation–Repeaters’ recommendation Not supported
H8: First-timers’ satisfaction–Repeaters’ satisfaction Not supported

regression analysis revealed that the main determi- Managerial Implications

nants of overall holiday satisfaction were first ac-
commodation services and followed by incoming Tourists’ satisfaction would positively affect
travel agency services and facilities of Alanya. future behaviors related to revisiting and recom-
The other result indicated that there were statis- mendation. The more satisfied tourists are, the
tical significant relationships between the behav- more likely they are to return to the same destina-
ioral intensions and the overall holiday satisfac- tion and to share their positive experiences with
tion. These results provide empirical support for others. The study results provide empirical evi-
previous studies (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Bigne dence supporting this statement: there is a positive
et al., 2001; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Kozak, 2001; significant relationship between the tourist satis-
Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). faction and their behavioral intensions.
According to another result of the study, al- Tourists’ satisfaction can play a significant role
though no statistically significant differences were for enhancing the destination’s competitive posi-
recorded between first-time and repeat tourists’ tion because tourists’ feedback related to their hol-
satisfaction and their intention to recommend to iday experiences provides valuable information to
friends and relatives, the repeat tourists were more destination managers in evaluating their current
likely than the first-time tourists’ intention to re- operations and formulating their future manage-
visit to Alanya in the future. As mentioned by Op- ment strategies. Applying strategies and actions
permann (1998), a tourist who is highly satisfied for destinations should take into account the wishes
with a destination might not return because they of all stakeholders, such as hoteliers, travel agen-
have a desire to see new places (as cited in J. Chen cies, tourists, local authorities, local people, and
& Gursoy, 2001). In fact, on many occasions tour- hospitality industry associations. This integrated
ists do seek variety and prefer to visit new destina- management approach is actually required if a
tions. Thus, the tourists’ satisfaction with their ex- tourist destination will be able to sustain its tour-
perience in the destination does not guarantee their ism development in the future. Besides, it would
return (Bigne et al., 2001). be useful that future studies should be repeated
periodically in Alanya and include other tourist
destinations.
Table 7
Impacts of Factors on Overall Holiday Satisfaction References
Variable β t-Value Sig. Alanya Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (2007). Ala-
nya economic report 2006. Alanya: Author.
Constant 20.065 0.000
Aktas, A., Çevirgen, A., & Toker, B. (2008). Alanya tourist
Destination facilities 0.070 2.785 0.005
Accommodation services 0.411 15.959 0.000 profile research 2007. Retrieved from http://www.
Incoming travel agency services 0.121 4.772 0.000 akdeniz.edu.tr/-alanya/dokuman/turist_profili_arastirmasi
2007.pdf
R2 = 0.28. Alegre, J., & Cladera, M. (2006). Repeat visitation in ma-
 SATISFACTION AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS ON DESTINATION ATTRIBUTES 251

ture sun and sand holiday destinations. Journal of their complaining response styles. Journal of Food Ser-
Travel Research, 44, 288–297. vice Business Research, 6(1), 25–44.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfac- Heung, V. C. S. (2000). Satisfaction levels of mainland
tion and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Re- Chinese travelers with Hong Kong hotel services. Inter-
search, 27(3), 785–804. national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage-
Baloglu, S., Pekcan, A., Chen, S. L., & Santos, J. (2003). ment, 12(5), 308–315.
The relationship between destination performance, Hui, T. K., Wan, D., & Ho, A. (2007). Tourists’ satisfac-
overall satisfaction, and behavioral intention for distinct tion, recommendation and revisiting Singapore. Tour-
segments. In J. A. Williams & M. Uysal (Eds.), Current ism Management, 28, 965–975.
issues and development in hospitality and tourism satis- Johnston, R., & Clark, G. (2005). Service operations man-
faction (pp. 149–165). New York: The Haworth Press. agement (2nd ed.). UK: Pearson Education (Prentice
Ball, S., & Giakoumis, P. (2003). An empirical analysis Hall).
of the perceived importance attached to destination and Joppe, M., Martin, D. W., & Waalen, J. (2001). Toronto’s
accommodation attributes. Anatolia: An International image as a destination: A comparative importance-satis-
Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 14(1), faction analysis by origin of visitor. Journal of Travel
45–78. Research, 39, 252–260.
Bigne, J. E., Sanchez, M. I., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct des-
image, evaluation variables and after purchase behavior: tinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 784–807.
Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22, 607–616. Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction
Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destina-
of the future. Tourism Management, 21, 97–116. tion. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 260–269.
Chen, C. F., & Tsai, D. C. (2007). How destination image Millan, A., & Esteban, A. (2004). Development of a multi-
and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions? ple-item scale for measuring customer satisfaction in
Tourism Management, 28, 1115–1122. travel agencies services. Tourism Management, 25,
Chen, J., & Gursoy, D. (2001). An investigation of tourists’ 533–546.
destination loyalty and preferences. International Jour- Neal, J. D., & Gursoy, D. (2008). A multifaceted analysis
nal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13, of tourism satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 47,
79–86. 53–62.
Chi, C. G. Q., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric
relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tour- Oppermann, M. (1998). Destination threshold potential and
ism Management, 29, 624–636. the law of repeat visitation. Journal of Travel Research,
Choi, T. Y., & Chu, R. (2001). Determinants of hotel 37(2), 131–137.
guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage in the Hong Oppermann, M. (2000a). Tourism destination loyalty. Jour-
Kong hotel industry. Hospitality Management, 20, 277– nal of Travel Research, 39, 78–84.
297. Oppermann, M. (2000b). Where psychology and geography
Crompton, J. L., & Love, L. L. (1995). The predictive va- interface in tourism research and theory. In A. G.
lidity of alternative approaches to evaluating quality of Woodside, G. I. Grouch, J. A. Mazanec, M. Opper-
a festival. Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), 11–25. mann, & M. Y. Sakai (Eds.), Consumer psychology of
Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service qual- tourism, hospitality and leisure (pp. 9–38). Cambridge,
ity: A re-examination and extension. Journal of Market- MA: CABI.
ing, 56(3), 55–68. Pizam, A., & Ellis, T. (1999). Customer satisfaction and
Fallon, P., & Schofield, P. (2003). “Just trying to keep the its measurement in hospitality enterprises. International
customer satisfied”: A comparison of models used in Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
the measurement of tourist satisfaction. In J. A. Wil- 11(7), 326–339.
liams & M. Uysal (Eds.), Current issues and develop- Pizam, A., Neumann, Y., & Reichel, A. (1978). Dimen-
ment in hospitality and tourism satisfaction (pp. 77–96). sions of tourist satisfaction with a destination area. An-
New York: The Haworth Press. nals of Tourism Research, 5(3), 314–332.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barom- Poon, W. C., & Low, K. L. T. (2005). Are travellers satis-
eter: The Swedish experience. Journal of Marketing, 56, fied with Malaysian hotels? International Journal of
6–21. Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(3), 217–
Fuchs, M., & Weiermair, K. (2004). Destination bench- 227.
marking: An indicator system’s potential for exploring Poonyth, D., Barnes, J. I., Suich, H., & Monamati, M.
guest satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 212– (2002). Satellite and resource accounting as tools for
225. tourism planning in southern Africa. Development
Gursoy, D., McCleary, K. W., & Lepsito, L. R. (2003). Southern Africa, 19(1), 123–141.
Segmenting dissatisfied restaurant customers based on Pritchard, M. P. (2003). The attitudinal and behavioural
 252 AKTAŞ, ÇEVİRGEN, AND TOKER

consequences of destination performance. Tourism travel patterns. International Journal of Hospitality

Analysis, 8, 61–73. Management, 16(2), 191–208.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (2000). Japanese tourism satis- Um, S., Chon, K., & Ro, Y. (2006). Antecedents of revisit
faction: Gold Coast versus Hawaii. Journal of Vacation intention. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 1141–
Marketing, 6(4), 299–317. 1158.
Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism. Vassiliadis, C. A. (2008). Destination product characteris-
(2007). 2006 Tourism statistics. Ankara: Author. tics as useful predictors for repeat visiting and recom-
Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive mendation segmentation variables in tourism: A CHAID
destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. UK: exhaustive analysis. International Journal of Tourism
CABI. Research, 10, 439–452.
Rodriguez del Bosque, I., & San Martin, H. (2008). Tourist Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the ef-
satisfaction a cognitive-affective model. Annals of fects of motivation and satisfaction on destination loy-
Tourism Research, 35(2), 551–573. alty: A structural model. Tourism Management, 26,
Rodriguez del Bosque, I. A., San Martin, H., & Collado, J. 45–56.
(2006). The role of expectations in the consumer satis- Yüksel, A. (2001). Managing customer satisfaction and re-
faction formation process: Empirical evidence in the tention: A case of tourist destinations, Turkey. Journal
travel agency sector. Tourism Management, 27(3), 410– of Vacation Marketing, 7(2), 153–168.
419. Yüksel, A., & Yüksel, F. (2001). Comparative performance
Soyak, C. (2003). Alanya’da Turizm ve Kentsel Mekanlar. analysis: Tourists’ perceptions of Turkey relative to
Istanbul: Akdeniz Kültürleri Araştırma Derneği. other tourist destinations. Journal of Vacation Market-
Sussmann, S., & Rashcovsky, C. (1997). A cross-cultural ing, (7)4, 333–355.
analysis of English and French Canadians’ vacation

View publication stats