INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCH
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.877
Destination Attributes’ Evaluation,
Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions: a
Structural Modelling Approach
Celeste Eusébio* and Armando Luís Vieira
University of Aveiro, DEGEI/GOVCOPP, Campus Universitário de Santiago, Aveiro, Portugal
ABSTRACT
This study aims at developing and testing a
model integrating the associations among
tourists’ evaluation of destinations’ attributes,
overall satisfaction and behavioural
intentions. The analysis is based on 923
observations collected in the Central Region
of Portugal, where no investigation of this
nature had been conducted before, and
compares results regarding domestic versus
international tourists. LISREL estimates
provided strong support for the model. Some
idiosyncrasies specific to each sample were
found. This study represents an important
contribution to the body of knowledge in the
area of tourism destinations’ management and
marketing and suggests important
implications to both practitioners and
researchers. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Received 17 June 2010; Revised 15 June 2011; Accepted 22
September 2011
Keywords: destination attributes’ evaluation;
destination loyalty; domestic tourists;
international tourists; overall satisfaction;
structural equation modelling.
INTRODUCTION
T
he success of tourism destinations’ market-
ing and development strategies is inexor-
ably dependent upon a rigorous analysis
*Correspondence to: Celeste Eusébio, University of
Aveiro, DEGEI/GOVCOPP, Campus Universitário de
Santiago, 3810–193 Aveiro, Portugal.
E-mail: celeste.eusebio@ua.pt
of visitors’ overall satisfaction (SAT), as well as
its impacts on the intention to revisit and recom-
mend the destination. Indeed, satisfaction and
loyalty are viewed as key sources of superior
performance and business success in today’s
competitive environment. Since satisfaction and
loyalty were introduced as fields of research in
the tourism consumer behaviour literature, the
relationship between these two constructs has
been intensively studied in tourism research,
from different perspectives and methodologies
(Oh, 1999; Baker and Crompton, 2000; Kozak,
2001a; Skogland and Siguaw, 2004; Yoon and
Uysal, 2005; Alegre and Cladera, 2006; Gallarza
and Saura, 2006; Um et al., 2006; González et al.,
2007; Hui et al., 2007; Jang and Feng, 2007; Chi
and Qu, 2008; Alegre and Garau, 2010). However,
little research has focused on the differences in
terms of markets, as far as tourism destinations’
satisfaction and loyalty are concerned. Moreover,
very few studies have been conducted on this
topic in Portugal (Valle et al., 2006; Silvestre
et al., 2008), an important European tourism
destination. This study was carried out in the par-
ticular context of the Central Region of Portugal,
where no investigation of this nature had been
conducted before, based on the comparison of
the results regarding domestic (residents) versus
international tourists. Against this background,
the present investigation aims at analyzing how
the tourist’s evaluation of certain destination
attributes influence his/her SAT with the destin-
ation and post-visitation behavioural intentions,
as well as the role of SAT on the intentions to
revisit and recommend. To this end, a model
integrating the associations among tourists’
evaluation of destinations’ attributes, SAT and
behavioural intentions was proposed and tested
through structural equations modelling (SEM).
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Following this introduction, a theoretical
overview and a conceptual framework are out-
lined. After a description of the adopted meth-
odology, the results of the empirical analysis
are discussed. The paper finalizes by present-
ing the conclusions, research implications, as
well as limitations and suggestions for future
investigation.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Satisfaction
Tourist satisfaction is vital for the success of
tourism destinations’ marketing strategies and
economic development, given that it influences
destination choice, spending, repurchase
intention and recommendation to family and
friends (Yoon and Uysal, 2005). Notwithstand-
ing the relevance of the concept of satisfaction
in tourism, and despite its crucial role in tour-
ism marketing research, the literature con-
tinues to be somewhat ambiguous on its
nature and definition (Baker and Crompton,
2000; Kozak, 2001b; Bosque and Martín, 2008).
Indeed, it is possible to find significant differ-
ences in the conceptualization of this construct
(Bosque and Martín, 2008). Most of the previ-
ous studies in this field have used a cognitive
approach, defining consumer satisfaction as a
post-consumption evaluation that meets or
exceeds expectations (Kozak, 2001c). However,
some studies consider satisfaction as an emo-
tional reaction derived from a consumption
experience (Spreng et al., 1996). More recent
research has adopted a cognitive–affective
approach, defining satisfaction as an indivi-
dual’s cognitive–affective state derived from a
tourist experience in a destination (Bosque
and Martín, 2008). Millán and Esteban (2004)
analysed various definitions of satisfaction
reported in the literature, noting that the major-
ity of them highlight that satisfaction results
from a psychological process, which comprises
a set of variables and their interaction mecha-
nisms, being satisfaction the final stage of this
process. Baker and Crompton (2000, p. 788)
point out that ‘satisfaction is purely experien-
tial’, i.e. a psychological state that can only be
derived from interaction with the destination.
Most of the early research on tourist satisfac-
tion with a destination focused on satisfaction
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
C. Eusébio and A. L. Vieira
at the global level. Recently, an attribute-level
conceptualization of the antecedents of satis-
faction has emerged, in which SAT is viewed
as a function of attribute-level evaluations.
These two concepts are distinct, although
related (Chi and Qu, 2008). Indeed, the number
of studies that distinguish tourists’ evaluation
of destination attributes (DAT) from SAT and
analyse the relationship between both con-
structs has increased considerably (e.g. Oh,
1999; Chen and Gursoy, 2001; Hui et al., 2007;
Chi and Qu, 2008; Alegre and Garau, 2010;
Chen and Chen, 2010).
The assessment of tourist satisfaction regard-
ing destinations has been undertaken in previ-
ous studies from a variety of perspectives and
theories. Yoon and Uysal (2005) suggest that
the most frequently used theories include the
expectation/disconfirmation theory, the equity
theory, the norm theory and the perceived
overall performance theory. Of these theories,
the expectation/disconfirmation theory and
the perceived overall performance theory are
the most frequently used (Kozak, 2001a;
Skogland and Siguaw, 2004; Hui et al., 2007;
Chen and Chen, 2010). According to Yoon and
Uysal (2005), the expectation/disconfirmation
theory, which was developed by Oliver (1980),
postulates that satisfaction is a result of the
discrepancy between expectations and per-
ceived performance. When the performance of
a tourism destination, as perceived by the tour-
ist, is higher (lower) than his/her expectations,
a positive (negative) disconfirmation will result
in satisfaction (dissatisfaction) (Yoon and
Uysal, 2005; Hui et al., 2007). This theory has
become the dominant framework employed in
the assessment of tourist satisfaction (Yüksel
and Yüksel, 2001; Bosque and Martín, 2008).
However, despite its dominance, some authors
have questioned its applicability, namely,
when it comes to first purchase or sporadic
purchases. Additionally, some authors have
identified a set of limitations and problems
associated to this theory (e.g. Oh, 1999; Kozak,
2001a; Yüksel and Yüksel, 2001; Millán and
Esteban, 2004; Hui et al., 2007). One of the pro-
blems frequently reported relates to the mutual
influence between the scores of both scales
(expectations and perceived performance) if
measured at the same time (Millán and Esteban,
2004). In this case, the expectation scale
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Evaluation of Destinations’ Attributes, Satisfaction and Loyalty
would be influenced by a positive perform-
ance of the product, and the inverse effect
also could occur. When the destination under
analysis receives tourists from many nation-
alities through several entry points, which is
the case of the Central Region of Portugal,
it is very difficult to measure the expectation
before the visit and the perceived perform-
ance after the visit. Consequently, the most
common method used to obtain information
from tourists is questioning them at the des-
tination. In this case, the use of the expect-
ation/disconfirmation theory may lead to
the problem of mutual influence between ex-
pectation and perceived performance scales.
Taking into account the problems of the
above-mentioned expectation/disconfirmation
theory, some researchers have adopted the per-
ceived performance model (Yoon and Uysal,
2005) to assess tourist satisfaction (e.g. Oh,
1999; Kozak, 2001a; Kozak, 2001b; Um et al.,
2006; Hui et al., 2007). According to this model,
tourist satisfaction or dissatisfaction is only a
function of actual performance of the products
consumed. In the words of Kozak (2001a,
p. 791), the advocates of the perceived perfor-
mance model argue that ‘regardless of the
existence of any previous expectations, the
customer is likely to be satisfied when a prod-
uct or service performs at a desired level’. Hui
et al. (2007) reinforce this idea, citing tourism
studies that highlight the relevance and appli-
cability of these models in the assessment of
tourist satisfaction (e.g. Llosa et al., 1998).
According to Hui et al. (2007, p. 968), when a
consumer assesses the perception/experience
regarding a product, he or she ‘might already
include a perception minus expectation mental
process’. Kozak (2001a, p. 791) points out that
‘there is empirical support for the idea that
the performance-only approach has higher
reliability and validity values than other
approaches such as expectation versus per-
formance and disconfirmation’. Hui et al.
(2007) corroborated this assertion by compar-
ing the results obtained in terms of explanatory
power in models predicting SAT and finding
that all the adjusted R2 values obtained in the
perceptions-only approach were higher than
their corresponding values in the disconfirm-
ation approach. Bearing in mind the foregoing
discussion, in particular, the limitations of the
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
disconfirmation approach, as well as the
characteristics of the tourism destination exam-
ined in this study, although recognizing expec-
tations as playing an important role in
satisfaction, we considered the perceived
performance theory as the most adequate
approach for the present investigation.
Destination loyalty
Although the literature includes several studies
on satisfaction, the issue of destination loyalty
has not been completely investigated (Oppermann,
2000; Yoon and Uysal, 2005). Several authors
also have highlighted the need for further
studies on the link between satisfaction and
destination loyalty (e.g. Oppermann, 2000;
Hui et al., 2007). To quote Chi and Qu (2008,
p. 625), ‘it is time for practitioners and
academics to conduct more studies of loyalty
to have greater knowledge of this concept’. In
an increasingly aggressive business context,
destinations need new marketing strategies,
aiming at keeping loyal visitors, to guarantee
sustainable competitive advantages and super-
ior performance in the long run. This is in line
with the growing number of publications
analyzing customer loyalty regarding tourism
products, destinations or leisure recreation
activities (e.g. Oh, 1999; Baker and Crompton,
2000; Kozak, 2001a; Skogland and Siguaw, 2004;
Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Gallarza and Saura, 2006;
Um et al., 2006; Hui et al., 2007; Bosque and
Martín, 2008; Chi and Qu, 2008; Eusébio et al.,
2008; Williams and Soutar, 2009; Alegre and
Garau, 2010; Chen and Chen, 2010).
Again, the literature on destination loyalty
suggests a large number of different approaches
and operational definitions (Oppermann, 2000).
Regarding the data used to measure destination
loyalty, three approaches emerged from the
literature review as the most frequently used:
behavioural approach, attitudinal approach
and composite approach (the latter being a
combination of the former) (Oppermann, 2000;
Yoon and Uysal, 2005). The behavioural
approach is one of the earliest approaches used
to measure loyalty (Oppermann, 2000). Accord-
ing to this approach, the loyalty concept has
been frequently operationalized ‘as sequence
purchase, proportion of patronage of probability
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

of purchase’ (Yoon and Uysal, 2005, p. 48). In
tourism, according to the behavioural approach,
destination loyalty has been frequently mea-
sured using the ‘repeat visitation’ indicator
(Petrick, 2004; Skogland and Siguaw, 2004;
Alegre and Cladera, 2006; Alegre and Juaneda,
2006; Correia et al., 2008). Despite the relevance
of assessing behavioural commitment to the
tourism destination, the idea that loyalty is a
two-dimensional concept (affective and behav-
ioural loyalty) is well documented in the
literature (Petrick, 2004). As Yoon and Uysal
(2005, p. 48) argue, ‘tourist loyalty to the
products or destination may not be enough to
explain why and how they are willing to revisit
or recommend these to other potential tourists’.
In this context, attitudinal approaches, based on
a specific desire to continue a relationship with
a brand or service provider, have been used
extensively to assess destination loyalty (Kozak,
2001a; Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Gallarza and
Saura, 2006; Um et al., 2006; Hui et al., 2007;
William and Soutra, 2009; Chi and Qu, 2008;
Alegre and Garau, 2010; Chen and Chen,
2010). As implied above, the composite
approach is an integration of the behavioural
and attitudinal dimensions. The proponents of
this approach argue that to be truly loyal, a
customer must not only to purchase the product
but also to have a positive attitude towards it
(Oppermann, 2000). Although this approach
has been frequently used (Oppermann, 2000),
it has some limitations. For example, according
to Yoon and Uysal (2005, p. 48), ‘this approach
has limitations in that not all the weighting
or quantified scores may apply to both the
behavioural and attitudinal factors and they
may have differing measurements’. Oppermann
(2000), in turn, points out that a composite
approach may be the most comprehensive,
but it is not automatically the most practical.
In this context, the present study will use
only the attitudinal approach to measure
destination loyalty.
MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS
The model proposed in this study is illustrated
in Figure 1 and corresponds to six hypotheses
as described in this section.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
C. Eusébio and A. L. Vieira
Evaluation of the destination’s attributes and
overall satisfaction
The association between the tourist’s evaluation
of DAT and SAT has been studied by several
authors (e.g. Oh, 1999; Kozak, 2001a; Hui et al.,
2007; Matzler et al., 2007; Chi and Qu, 2008;
Alegre and Garau, 2010; Chen and Chen, 2010).
It has been suggested that the tourist’s positive
experiences of products, among other resources
provided by tourism destinations, positively
influence SAT (e.g. Gallarza and Saura, 2006;
Hui et al., 2007; Matzler et al., 2007, Chi and
Qu, 2008; Alegre and Garau, 2010). Against this
background, this study tests the association
between evaluation of the DAT and SAT by
proposing the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The better the evaluation of the
DAT, the higher the level of SAT.
Evaluation of destination’s attributes and
likelihood of returning and recommending
Several studies analysed the impact of the
evaluation of destinations’ attributes on both
the intention to return and recommend (e.g.
Oh, 1999; Skogland and Siguaw 2004; Chi and
Qu, 2008; Alegre and Garau, 2010; Chen and
Chen, 2010). Most of these studies have used
an aggregation approach, i.e. a single loyalty
measure comprising two facets, intention to
revisit and positive word of mouth (Baker and
Crompton, 2000; Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Matzler
et al., 2007; Bosque and Martín, 2008; Chi and
Qu, 2008; Chen and Chen, 2010). However, the
literature (e.g. Gabe et al., 2006; Söderlund,
2006) suggests that the intention to revisit a
destination and the intention to recommend it
are two separate constructs. Analogous to
Söderlund (2006), in the present study, we posit
evaluation of DAT as impacting separately on
each of the constructs, i.e. the likelihood of future
visits (REP) and the likelihood of recommenda-
tion (REC). We also argue that the evaluation of
DAT impacts on the mentioned constructs both
directly and indirectly, through SAT. Thus, the
following hypotheses are suggested:
Hypothesis 2: The better the evaluation of
the DAT, the higher the likelihood of future
visits (REP).
Hypothesis 3: The better the evaluation of
the DAT, the higher the likelihood of recom-
mendation (REC).
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Evaluation of Destinations’ Attributes, Satisfaction and Loyalty

H3 Likelihood of
recommendation
(REC)
+ H5

Evaluation of H1 +
Overall
destinations´
Satisfaction H6 +
Attributes H4
(SAT)
(DAT) +
H2
+ Likelihood of
+ future visits
(REP)

Figure 1. Proposed model of destination satisfaction and loyalty.

Overall satisfaction and likelihood of
returning and recommending
The relationship between the tourist’s evalu-
ation of DAT and both the likelihood of return-
ing and recommending could be viewed as a
necessary, but non–sufficient, indicator of the
destination’s perceived performance (Kozak,
2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Devesa et al., 2010).
Bearing this in mind, a construct representing
the SAT level obtained with the visit also was
included in this study, consistent with the
existent empirical evidence revealing that
satisfaction has a positive influence on post-
purchase behaviour (Oh, 1999; Chen and Gursoy,
2001; Baker and Crompton, 2000; Yoon and
Uysal, 2005; Lee et al., 2005, Gallarza and Saura,
2006; Hui et al., 2007; Chi and Qu, 2008; Bosque
and Martín, 2008; Nowacki, 2009; Chen and
Chen, 2010). However, the literature is somewhat
ambiguous regarding the impact of satisfaction
on intention to revisit and recommend. Bigné
et al. (2001), e.g. tested these relationships and
found that satisfaction only exerted significant
impacts on the likelihood of recommending,
whereas other studies (e.g. Lee et al., 2005; Hui
et al., 2007; Hutchinson et al., 2009) suggest that
satisfaction significantly influences both the
intention to revisit and the willingness to recom-
mend. Some authors only analysed the impact
of satisfaction on intention to return (e.g. Kozak
2001a; Um et al., 2006; Shonk and Chelladurai,
2008; Alegre and Cladera, 2009), having found a
positive relationship between tourist satisfaction
and the desire to return. In addition, most of
the iterature does not distinguish the impact of
satisfaction on revisit intention from that on
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
intention to recommend (e.g. Baker and Cromp-
ton, 2000; Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Gallarza and
Saura, 2006; Hernández-Lobato et al., 2006;
Matzler et al., 2007; Bosque and Martín, 2008;
Chi and Qu, 2008; Nowacki, 2009; Williams and
Soutar, 2009; Chen and Chen, 2010). In line with
several authors (Bigné et al., 2001; Hui et al.,
2007; Söderlund, 2006; Gabe et al., 2006), who
found that satisfaction impacts differently on
the two types of intentions, in the present study,
we suggest that the impact of SAT on the
intention to revisit is different from the impact
on the intention to recommend. Therefore, the
following hypotheses were formulated:
Hypothesis 4: The higher the level of the
tourist’s SAT, the higher the likelihood of future
visits (REP).
Hypothesis 5: The higher the level of the
tourist’s SAT, the higher the likelihood of
recommendation (REC).
Because of the specific characteristics of
services, namely, intangibility and simultaneity
(i.e. services cannot be tested before they are
consumed and co-produced), word-of-mouth
communication is viewed as one of the most
important information sources in tourism (Chi
and Qu, 2008; Williams and Soutar, 2009).
However, the literature does not seem to be
very prolific in studies assessing the impact of
revisit intention on intention to recommend.
We have only identified one author who ana-
lysed this association, Oh (1999), who found a
strong positive relationship between these two
variables. The crucial role of word-of-mouth
communication in the development of tourism
destination contributed strongly for including
the following hypothesis in the present study:
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

Hypothesis 6: The higher the likelihood of
future visits (REP), the higher the likelihood
of recommendation (REC).
METHODOLOGY
Sample and data
Data collection considered both the high and
the low season, as well as each component of
the destination’s offering, for both domestic
and international tourists, to build a sample
that would be as representative as possible of
the tourism market in the Central Region of
Portugal. This helped to differentiate the
present investigation from previous studies,
as well as to strengthen its contributions to
the body of knowledge in this area. A total of
923 visitors were inquired face to face. To
accomplish this objective, a cluster sampling
approach was used. To this end, the population
of interest was organized in groups according
to physical/geographical proximity criteria.
Clusters included in the final sample were
randomly selected and so were respondents
pertaining to each cluster. The questionnaire
was first developed in Portuguese, then trans-
lated into five languages (English, French,
Spanish, German and Italian) and finally pre-
tested and revised to ensure its effectiveness
as perceived by the respondents.
CONSTRUCT MEASUREMENT
Operationalization of destination attributes’
evaluation
To measure DAT evaluation, we started by
identifying the most important attributes char-
acterizing the tourism destination considered
in this study. Indeed, the literature suggests that
the number and nature of destinations’ attri-
butes considered relevant to tourist satisfaction
with a destination can vary (Kozak, 2001a,
2001b, 2001c; Matzler et al., 2007). The selection
of the attributes analysed in this research was
based on a combination of extant literature
(e.g. Kozak 2001b; Gallarza and Saura, 2006;
Um et al., 2006; Bosque and Martín, 2008; Alegre
and Garau, 2010; Devesa et al., 2010) with
personal experience and informal discussions
with several researchers. In line with some
literature (e.g. Kozak, 2001a; Alegre and Garau,
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
C. Eusébio and A. L. Vieira
2010), the perceived performance of DAT was
the approach used to measure the satisfaction
of respondents with the most important
attributes of the Central Region of Portugal.
Similar to Kozak’s (2001a) study, in this
research, we propose that visitors are likely to
be satisfied when a product meets the desired
level of performance, regardless of the existence
of any prior expectations. In this context, DAT
was measured using a five-point scale (1 = very
bad to 5 = very good) with nine items (for
details on the items, see Table 1 in the next
section), by asking ‘How do you evaluate the
following items regarding the Region that you
are visiting?’
Operationalization of overall satisfaction
Overall satisfaction was defined as an overall
evaluation of the tourism destination perform-
ance, based on the travel experience, in line
with several studies (e.g. Oh, 1999; Baker and
Crompton, 2000; Skogland and Siguaw, 2004;
Um et al., 2006). A single item, five-point scale,
ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 5 = very
satisfied, was developed to measure SAT, by
asking ‘How satisfied are you with this Region
as a tourism destination?’
Operationalization of behavioural variables
Consistent with previous works (e.g. Skogland
and Siguaw, 2004; Yoon and Uysal, 2005;
Bosque and Martín, 2008), destination loyalty
was measured from an attitudinal approach
through two sub-dimensions of loyalty:
intentions to return to the same destination in
the future (REP) and intentions or willingness
to recommend it (REC). Both REP and REC
were measured by a single five-point item
(ranging from 1 = very unlikely to 5 = very
likely), by asking ‘How likely would you
return to this Region?’, and ‘How likely would
you recommend this Region to your family and
friends?’ respectively.
ANALYSIS
This study incorporates the two-step approach
to SEM by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) into
the eight-step process in LISREL modelling by
Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2000). To iden-
tify potential cross-cultural effects as well as
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Evaluation of Destinations’ Attributes, Satisfaction and Loyalty

Table 1. Factor structure for evaluation of destination attributes

Factors
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Destination attributes Basic services Accessibility Attractions
(A&FB) (Access) (Attract)
Price of accommodation 0.790
Price of food and drinks 0.741
Quality of food and drinks 0.700
Quality of 0.651
accommodation
Signpost/ease in 0.755
finding locations
Quality of the 0.741
transportation infrastructure
Traffic congestion 0.678
Cultural and historic attractions 0.831
Scenery and other 0.817
natural attractions
Cronbach’s alpha 0.710 0.568 0.592
Eigenvalue 2.598 1.469 1.149
Variance explained 23.846% 18.088% 16.019%
(%) (pos rotation)
Average variance extracted 0.510 0.508 0.518
Composite reliability 0.806 0.756 0.682

distance effects on the relationships among subsequently complemented with a confirmatory

DAT evaluation, SAT and behavioural inten-
tions, respondents were categorized into two
groups based on the origin of visitors (domestic
and international). Indeed, several studies (e.g.
Kozak, 2001a; Um et al., 2006; McCleary et al.,
2007; Gabe et al., 2006) compared the relation-
ship between satisfaction and loyalty across
different origin countries, revealing differences
between markets. The split-sample approach
adopted in this study also serves as a proce-
dure of model cross-validation. For these
purposes, the final sample of collected data
was split in two halves, the domestic sample
(n = 330) and the international sample (n = 593).
The evaluation of the measurement model was
carried out using factor analysis, both explor-
atory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA). In a first
instance, EFA was employed on the total sample
(N = 923) to assess the factor structure of the
items measuring the latent constructs compos-
ing the model and also as a procedure of
measure purification, from a traditional (i.e. non-
confirmatory) perspective. This procedure was
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
assessment (CFA) of dimensionality, convergent
validity, reliability and discriminant validity, on
both the domestic and the international samples
under the principles of SEM, using LISREL. The
testing and the cross-validation of the structural
model on both samples, also with LISREL,
then served as a confirmatory assessment of
nomological validity.
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
In the present study, according to the EFA
conducted on the total sample, DAT is the only
multidimensional construct (SAT, REP and REC
are unidimensional constructs). The results of
the conducted EFA suggest a three-factor
structure for DAT (see Table 1). Consistent with
the dominant trend in the literature (e.g. Kozak,
2001b; Chi and Qu, 2008; Alegre and Cladera,
2009; Alegre and Garau, 2010), the factors
were labelled taking into consideration the
content meaning of the questions included in
each factor. Factor 1 was labelled basic services
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

(A&FB). It includes two items, price and quality,
relating to accommodation services, plus two
items (also price and quality) regarding food
and drinks services. Factor 2 was labelled acces-
sibility (Access) as it includes items measuring
the quality of transportation infrastructure,
signpost and traffic congestion. The third factor
includes items relating to cultural and natural
attractions and was labelled attractions (Attract).
An examination of both the eigenvalues and the
scree plot helped inform the decision of retaining
these three factors, accounting for a total
variance explained of nearly 58%. The tests with
the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient
suggested that all items should be retained in
their respective factors. All of the items loaded
highly and significantly onto the respective
factor and correlated significantly with the other
items pertaining to the same factor. This suggests
support for convergent validity (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988; Steenkamp and van Trijp, 1991;
Hair et al., 1998). The correlations between the
factors did not exceed 0.70, a sign of measure
distinctness (Ping, 2004), thereby suggesting
support for discriminant validity (Steenkamp
and van Trijp, 1991). Additional confirmatory
tests provided further support for both
convergent and discriminant validity, as well as
reliability. The good psychometric properties
of the employed measurements were corrobo-
rated by confirmatory assessments based
on the average variance extracted (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981) and composite reliability
(Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000) criteria, as
also illustrated in Table 1.
Access
.47
H1
+
Attract DAT
.62
.52
A&FB
Figure 2. Proposed model with path estimates and R2 values (in italic) – domestic sample.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
C. Eusébio and A. L. Vieira
Assessment of the structural model on the
domestic sample
The overall model fit statistics are within or
close to the generally accepted thresholds for
good fit: w2 = 6.31 (p = 0.392), w2/d.f. = 1.52,
root mean squared error of approximation
(RMSEA) = 0.012, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) =
0.99, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = 0.98.
These results suggest that, at least as far as the
domestic tourists are concerned, the model fits
well and corresponds to a close representation
of the population of interest. Residual analysis
suggested no major threats to unidimensionality,
given the non-significant number of absolute
values above 2.58 (Jöreskorg and Sörbom, 2001)
and modification indices above 5.0 (Anderson
and Gerbing, 1988). Furthermore, items loaded
strongly and significantly on unique factors,
lending thereby support to the unidimensional-
ity of each construct. In addition, assessments
of convergent and discriminant validity, as well
as reliability were undertaken, and the measure-
ment model was found to be acceptable overall.
Turning now to the signs of the parameters
representing the hypotheses incorporated in the
model, the results of the test of the structural
model on the domestic sample indicate that all
signs of the associations between constructs in
the model under analysis were in accordance
with hypothesized relationships (see Figure 2).
Regarding the proposed hypotheses, as can
be read from Table 2, all but two of the param-
eter estimates – the ones corresponding to the
link between DAT and REP (Hypothesis 2) and
.27
H3
REC
.37 H5
.37
.01 H6 .52
SAT
.61
H4
H2
.22
.15 REP
.08
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Evaluation of Destinations’ Attributes, Satisfaction and Loyalty

Table 2. Results for structural model assessment – domestic sample

Parameter Estimate SE t-value R2 Hypothesis Result
DAT!SAT 0.61 0.22 6.71 H1 Supported
0.37
DAT!REP 0.15 0.36 0.77 H2 Not supported
SAT!REP 0.22 0.14 3.28 H4 Supported
0.08
DAT!REC 0.37 0.35 3.38 H3 Supported
SAT!REC 0.01 0.12 0.21 H5 Not supported
REP!REC 0.52 0.031 8.15 H6 Supported
0.27

DAT, destination attributes; REC, likelihood of recommendation; REP, likelihood of future visits; SAT, overall satisfaction.

the link between SAT and REC (Hypothesis 5) – correlations for the structural equations ranged
were statistically significant at p < 0.05 or better. from 0.08 to 0.37, indicating an acceptable
In terms of the strength of significant path esti- amount of variance in the endogenous variables
mates, by order of relative importance, DAT explained by the respective proposed determi-
stands out as the strongest element in the nants (see Figure 2 and Table 2).
model, with significant, direct impacts on Table 3 presents the aggregate of both direct
SAT and both direct and indirect significant and indirect effects exerted by both exogenous
effects on REC. SAT also plays an important and endogenous latent variables.
role in the model, taking into account its direct In principle, these results constitute suffi-
impacts on REP as well as its indirect impacts cient evidence that the proposed conceptual
on REC. The importance of SAT in the model framework is supported by the data and
also is reflected by its role as a mediator of provides support for the nomological validity
the (indirect) effects of DAT on REP. Moreover, of the constructs that comprise the model.
despite the above-mentioned non-significant These suppositions also are to be put to the test
links, SAT still exerts an important indirect in the next section, within the process of cross-
effect on REC, through REP, which, in turn, validation on the international sample.
works as a strong and significant determinant
of REC, as well as a mediator of the effects of
Assessment of the structural model on the
both DAT and SAT.
international sample
Although, as stated, the focus of the present
analysis is on the paths representing the The results of the test of the final structural
hypotheses to be tested, the figures illustrating model regarding international tourists (see
the various models also include the estimates of Figure 3) seem to corroborate those based on
the links to the first-order constructs/dimensions
of DAT, according to a partial aggregation ap-
proach (Baumgartner and Homburg, 1996). It Table 3. Decomposition of structural effects – domestic
was felt that this could be useful not only to as- sample
sess the relative importance of each dimension Effect on SAT Direct Indirect Total
of DAT but also to think ahead of the research
implications. For example, the information DAT 0.61 0.61
included in Figure 2 suggests that the attractions’ Effect on REP
DAT 0.13 0.13
dimension (Attract) is the dominant dimension
SAT 0.22 0.22
of DAT and that the accessibility dimension Effect on REC
(Access) is its weakest reflective indicator. In this DAT 0.37 0.15 0.52
respect, more detail will be provided as the ana- SAT 0.11 0.11
lysis develops, especially during the comparison REP 0.52 0.52
of the models. Finally, the square multiple
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
 C. Eusébio and A. L. Vieira

.31

H3
REC

.45 H5
Access .50
.26

H1
.02 H6 .33
+
Attract DAT SAT
.54 .71
.46 H4
A&FB H2
.28

.08 REP

.08

Figure 3. Proposed model with path estimates and R2 values (in italic) – international sample.

the domestic sample. In effect, when tested on
the validation sample, the model also showed
a good overall fit: w2 = 4.02 (p = 0.682), w2/d.
f. = 0.67, RMSEA = 0.002, GFI = 1.00, AGFI =
0.98. In addition, using the international
tourists’ sample, all signs of the associations
between constructs also were in accordance
with hypothesized relationships, no major
threats to unidimensionality were identified,
and the model also was found to be acceptable
in terms of convergent and discriminant validity,
as well as reliability.
Analogous to the domestic tourists, results
regarding international tourists support all
but two of the hypothesized relationships.
Indeed, as can be read from Table 4, all param-
eter estimates also were significant at p < 0.05
or better (again with the exception of the links
correspondent to Hypotheses 2 and 5). In terms
of the strength of path estimates, the testing of
the model on the international tourists’ sample
corroborated the order of relative importance
of the various constructs that had been
suggested by the results based on the domestic
sample. DAT is confirmed as the most influen-
tial construct in the model, given its direct
and/or indirect significant impacts on all the
endogenous variables. The role of SAT also is
highlighted, in this case as a direct determinant
of REP and as an indirect but still relevant
determinant of REC, as well as a mediator of
part of the effects of DAT. Also consistent with
the results of the test on the domestic sample,
the testing of the structural model on the inter-
national tourists’ sample corroborates the
importance of REP as both direct determinant
of REC and mediator of the effects of SAT and
DAT on REC. Contrary to expectations and
hypotheses suggested, and as happened with
the domestic tourists’ sample, the associations

Table 4. Results for structural model assessment – international sample

Parameter Estimate SE t-value R2 Hypothesis Result
DAT!SAT 0.71 0.21 6.08 H1 Supported
0.50
DAT!REP 0.08 0.22 1.44 H2 Not supported
SAT!REP 0.28 0.08 2.77 H4 Supported
0.08
DAT!REC 0.45 0.21 3.83 H3 Supported
SAT!REC 0.02 0.07 0.085 H5 Not supported
REP!REC 0.33 0.05 11.4 H6 Supported
0.31

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Evaluation of Destinations’ Attributes, Satisfaction and Loyalty
between DAT and REP (Hypothesis 2) and SAT
and REC (Hypothesis 5) revealed to be non--
significant. The square multiple correlations for
the structural equations were quite respectable
and higher than those of the resident sample
as far as the constructs SAT and REC are
concerned. Although the amount of variance
explained is considered acceptable in relation
to both samples, it also is acknowledged that,
ideally, a model should explain a higher
percentage of the variance, namely, as far as
the REP construct is concerned. Therefore, as
highlighted in the concluding section, it is
important that future research should investi-
gate other potential antecedents that could
improve the explanatory power of the model.
Table 5 presents the aggregate of both direct
and indirect effects exerted by both exogenous
and endogenous latent variables.
The results correspond to a scenario where
the variable DAT exerts direct effects on SAT
and REC, and indirect effects on both REP
and REC, whereas SAT only exerts direct
effects on REP and indirect effects on REC,
through the mediation of REP, which, in turn,
acts as a strong and significant determinant
of REC.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Despite the growing body of work published in
the last decades, there is still some degree of
ambiguity in the literature on the relationship
between satisfaction and loyalty in tourism.
Indeed, several studies revealed that the rela-
tionships between these constructs are complex,
diverse and dynamic (e.g. Bigné et al., 2001;
Hernández-Lobato et al., 2006; Williams and
Table 5. Decomposition of structural effects –
international sample
Effect on SAT Direct Indirect
DAT 0.71
Effect on REP
DAT 0.20
SAT 0.28
Effect on REC
DAT 0.45 0.11
SAT 0.09
REP 0.33
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Soutar, 2009), and authors in this field have been
consistently highlighting the need for further
research (e.g. Oppermann, 2000; Bigné et al.,
2001). This study provides new insights into
the interrelationships among DAT evaluation,
SAT and behavioural intentions. It thus contri-
butes to advance knowledge, not only on the
influence of the tourist’s evaluation of DAT on
SAT but also on the impact of both of those
constructs on the intention to recommend and
the intention to revisit.
Additionally, our study assesses the influence
of the intentions to revisit on the intentions to
recommend, which has been systematically
neglected in the literature, despite its pivotal
role in the development of effective marketing
strategies.
Our study also extends previous research by
comparing the structural relationships among
the evaluation of destinations’ attributes,
satisfaction and behavioural intentions across
the domestic and the international markets.
Although regarded in the literature as fundamen-
tal for the development of effective marketing
strategies (Kozak, 2001b; Gabe et al., 2006; Um
et al., 2006), very little empirical research
considers this type of comparative analysis.
Finally, this study also contributes signifi-
cantly for the definition of tourism marketing
and development strategies of the Central
Region of Portugal, with several meaningful
insights into this issue as well. Indeed, although
this region exhibits a considerable tourism
potential, notwithstanding its initial develop-
ment stage, there are no studies assessing the
structural relationships among attributes’ evalu-
ation, satisfaction and loyalty. Although this
study has been conducted in a specific destin-
ation, the findings allow for relevant conclusions
from both academic and managerial perspectives.
The empirical results of this study provided
reasonable support for the proposed model.
Total The analysis suggests that model stability does
not appear to be a serious concern, due to the
0.71 good performance of the model when tested
on both samples, and seem to constitute suffi-
0.20
cient evidence that the proposed conceptual
0.28
framework is supported by the data, while
0.56 reinforcing support for the nomological valid-
0.09 ity of the constructs that integrate the model.
0.33 This study corroborates the expected crucial
role of the evaluation of the DAT, regarding
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

both national and international tourists, high-
lighting DAT as a building block of SAT
(Hypothesis 1) on a consistent basis, in line with
previous studies (Chi and Qu, 2008; Alegre
and Garau, 2010). In both sub-samples, evalu-
ation of attractions (Attract) is the dominant
dimension of DAT, whereas evaluation of
accessibility (Access) is its weakest dimension.
The attraction dimension has been previously
highlighted, e.g. in the study by Lee et al.
(2005). However, it should be noted that the
relative importance of these attributes is
strongly influenced by and can vary with the
type of destination and market under analysis.
The percentage of the explained variance of
the likelihood of recommendation (REC) is ac-
ceptable in both samples, contrary to the per-
centage of the likelihood of future visits’
(REP) explained variance, which is weak in
both samples. These results are in line with
Hui et al. (2005), who analysed the impact of
SAT on both the likelihood of recommendation
and revisiting and found that the explanatory
power of SAT is higher in the case of intention
to recommend that in the case of intention to
revisit. According to the same authors (e.g.
Hui et al., 2007), these results corroborate the
idea that it is more probable for a satisfied tour-
ist to pass on a positive word of mouth than to
repeat a destination. Indeed, tourist satisfaction
may not guarantee that tourists will return
(Bigné et al., 2001; Skogland and Siguaw, 2004;
Gabe et al., 2006). The foregoing discussion
seems to suggest that novelty may lead visitors
that are satisfied with a DAT not to return to
that destination but, nevertheless, to recom-
mend it. Indeed, as suggested by Hui et al.
(2007), there might exist several other potential
explanations for the weak linkage between
satisfaction and intention to revisit. For
example, motivations, alternative destinations
and low switching costs may contribute to a
situation where tourists are satisfied with the
destination but, nevertheless, will decide not
to return.
The direct association between DAT and REP
(Hypothesis 2) revealed to be non-significant,
which might suggest that the intention to
repeat a visit may be more dependent on the
level of SAT (whose impact on REP – Hypoth-
esis 4 – is direct and significant) than on the
evaluation of the DAT. This result is in contrast
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
C. Eusébio and A. L. Vieira
with the majority of consumer behaviour litera-
ture, which suggests a positive relationship be-
tween the DAT evaluation and revisit intentions
(Chi and Qu, 2008; Um et al., 2006). This might
be due to the fact that SAT is a broader concept
than that of evaluation of DAT. However, it
should be noted that DAT exerts relevant
indirect effects on REP through SAT. In any
case, these apparently conflicting results and
the lack of studies on this particular issue con-
stitute important avenues for future research.
Moreover, SAT seems to be a necessary but
non-sufficient condition for recommending a
destination: to recommend a destination, the
tourist needs to make a good evaluation of
the DAT and/or intend to return to the same
destination. This is shown by the fact that the
link between SAT and REC (Hypothesis 5) is
weak and non-significant, whereas the impacts
of both DAT (Hypothesis 3) and REP (Hypoth-
esis 6) on REC are strong and statistically
significant. The apparent incongruence of the
weak link between SAT and REC, with the
dominant trend of consumer behaviour research
proposing a positive relationship between SAT
and willingness to recommend (Bigné et al.
2001; Lee et al., 2005; Hui et al., 2007; Hutchinson
et al., 2009), suggests that more research is
needed to find out whether these results are a
consequence of destination specificity. However,
it should be stressed that SAT exerts strong and
significant indirect positive impacts on REC.
The strong and statistically significant effects
of REP on REC suggest that the intention to
revisit has a positive influence on the intention
to recommend, thereby corroborating previous
research (Oh, 1999).
Finally, as far as the comparison between
markets is concerned, although some literature
(Kozak, 2001a; Um et al., 2006; MCCleary et al.,
2007; Gabe et al., 2006) suggests that cultural
differences and travel distance may interfere
with the impact of satisfaction on revisit
intention, no substantial differences were
found in our study, as the link between SAT
and REP is similar in both samples. However,
some idiosyncrasies specific to each sample
were found. For example, DAT has a greater
impact on SAT regarding international tourists,
when compared with domestic tourists,
whereas in the domestic sample, there is a
stronger association between REP and REC
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Evaluation of Destinations’ Attributes, Satisfaction and Loyalty
than in the international sample. Another
example is the finding that the link between
DAT and REC is stronger in the international
sample than in the domestic sample. This
might suggest that the evaluation of the DAT
is relatively more valued by international tour-
ists, not only when building their perceptions
on SAT but also when it comes to recommend-
ing the destination. On the other hand, cultural
issues might be explaining the stronger link
between the intentions to revisit and recom-
mend identified in the domestic sample as
compared with the international sample.
Research implications
By focusing on the associations between DAT,
SAT, revisiting and recommending likelihood,
this study represents a relevant contribution
to the area of destinations’ management and
marketing and suggests important implications
for both practitioners and researchers. Destina-
tions are nowadays facing fierce competition,
and the challenges will be increasingly
demanding in the years to come. Therefore, it
is crucial to understand why travelers are loyal
to a destination and the factors driving loyalty.
Satisfaction and loyalty may be vitally impor-
tant for maintaining a destination’s competitive
advantage, as well as for achieving economic
and employment stability for locals. Competi-
tiveness is a key element of management and
marketing strategy.
To increase competitiveness, destination
management organizations and other actors of
the tourism system should pay particular atten-
tion to the tourist’s evaluation of DAT, given
that this variable explains most of the variance
of global satisfaction (SAT), exerts a strong and
direct impact on the likelihood of recommenda-
tion (REC) and has an indirect but relevant
impact on the likelihood of repetition (REP),
which, in turn, has a strong direct impact on
REC. This also suggests that the achievement
of a high overall level of satisfaction is depen-
dant on the co-ordination and co-operation of
all parties involved in the management and
marketing of the destination.
Although satisfaction is not the sole driver of
intentional behaviour, destinations’ managers
should be permanently aware of the significant
influence of SAT on the intentions to revisit and
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
recommend, both directly and as a mediator of
the effects of the evaluation of the DAT, to
develop strategies to enhance SAT and, conse-
quently, improve destinations’ competitiveness.
Thus, it is strongly recommended that destina-
tions’ managers pay particular attention to key
aspects contributing to SAT, such as improving
tourism services, accessibility and attractions.
In addition, destinations’ managers, when
examining the associations between the evalu-
ation of DAT, SAT and loyalty, also should take
into account and capitalize on the specificities
of each market that were identified in this
study so that the strategies directed to each seg-
ment may contribute to improve the destina-
tion’s superior performance. Indeed, a better
understanding of the idiosyncrasies specific to
each sample might improve managers’ deci-
sions on practical aspects. For example, as im-
plied above, the results of this study suggest
that, in the perception of international tourists
as opposed to that of domestic tourists, the
evaluation of the DAT constitutes a relatively
more important driver of both SAT and
intention to recommend and that cultural
issues might be an explanation for the different
magnitudes of the links between the intentions
to revisit and recommend in the two samples.
Results suggest that there also is the need to
pay attention to those dimensions of DAT that
are more important (e.g. in the present case,
the attractions’ dimension was the most im-
portant). For example, specifically in relation
to the Central Region of Portugal, results sug-
gest that it is fundamental to pay particular at-
tention to both natural and cultural attractions.
In this context, it is hoped that these results
spark the interest of practitioners and scholars
interested in the field of tourism destinations’
management and marketing and constitute a
motivation to test the model proposed in this
study in different research contexts.
Limitations and suggestions for future
investigations
This study’s results should be interpreted bear-
ing in mind some limitations, which, in turn,
give rise to some opportunities for future
research. On the one hand, given that some of
the variance of the endogenous variables
remained unexplained, in future investigations,
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr

researchers in this area should explore other
variables that might improve the model’s
explanatory power. Previous visits, motivation,
emotions and other DATs are examples of
variables that should be explored in future
works, given their crucial role in destination
loyalty, as shown in several studies (e.g. Kozak,
2001a; Yoon and Uysal, 2005; Chi and Qu, 2008;
Devesa et al., 2010). On the other hand, to
replicate and test this model in other research
settings could be particularly useful, namely,
to check whether results are influenced by
certain context specificities (e.g. cultural, geo-
graphical). The theoretical and practical value
of the model, as well as the reliability of its vari-
ables, could be substantially improved through
further qualitative and quantitative research.
Although this study considers the differences
between the domestic and the international
samples, the latter sample still includes a variety
of nationalities, which might have introduced
some bias. An interesting opportunity for future
investigation would be to further disaggregate
the international tourists according to cultural
differences and similarities. Finally, another
crucial avenue for future research would be to
adopt a longitudinal perspective to assess
satisfaction in tourism and its impacts on
loyalty, not least because of the dynamic nature
of travel behaviour.
REFERENCES
Alegre J, Cladera M. 2006. Repeat visitation in
mature sun and sand holiday destinations. Journal
of Travel Research 44: 288–297.
Alegre J, Cladera M. 2009. Analysing the effect of
satisfaction and previous visits on tourist inten-
tions to return. European Journal of Marketing
43(5/6): 670–685.
Alegre J, Garau J. 2010. Tourist satisfaction and
dissatisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research 37(1):
52–73.
Alegre J, Juaneda C. 2006. Destination loyalty:
consumer’s economic behavior. Annals of Tourism
Research 33(3): 684–706.
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. 1988. Structural equa-
tion modeling in practice: a review and recom-
mended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin
103(3): 411–423.
Baker DA, Crompton JL. 2000. Quality, satisfaction
and behavioural intentions. Annals of Tourism
Research 27(3): 785–804.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
C. Eusébio and A. L. Vieira
Baumgartner H, Homburg C. 1996. Applications of
structural equation modeling in marketing and
consumer research: a review. International Journal
of Research in Marketing 13: 139–161.
Bigné JE, Sánchez MI, Sánchez J. 2001. Tourism
image, evaluation variables and after purchase
behavior: inter-relationship. Tourism Management
22: 607–616.
Bosque IRD, Martín HS. 2008. Tourist satisfaction: a
cognitive-affective model. Annals of Tourism
Research 35(2): 551–573.
Chen C-F, Chen F-S. 2010. Experience quality,
perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral
intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Manage-
ment 31: 29–35.
Chen JS, Gursoy D. 2001. An investigation of tourists’
destination loyalty and preferences. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
13(2): 79–85.
Chi CG-Q, Qu H. 2008. Examining the structural
relationships of destination image, tourist satis-
faction and destination loyalty: an integrated
approach. Tourism Management 29(4): 624–636.
Correia A, Oliveira N, Butler R. 2008. First-time and
repeat visitors to Cape Verde: the overall image.
Tourism Economics 14(1): 185–203.
Devesa M, Laguna M, Palacios A. 2010. The role of
motivation in visitor satisfaction: empirical evi-
dence in rural tourism. Tourism Management 31:
547–552.
Diamantopoulos A, Siguaw JA. 2000. Introducing
LISREL. SAGE: London.
Eusébio C, Kastenholz E, Carneiro MJ. 2008. Factors
influencing destination loyalty of cultural tourists
– a binary logistic regression model. Proceedings
of the International Conference on Advances in
Tourism Research, Aveiro, Portugal, May 26–27.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. 1981. Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables
and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing
Research 18: 39–50.
Gabe TM, Lynch CP, McConnon JC. 2006. Likeli-
hood of Cruise Ship Passenger Return to a Visited
Port: The Case of Bar Harbor, Maine. Journal of
Travel Research 44: 281–287.
Gallarza MG, Saura IG. 2006. Value dimensions,
perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an
investigation of university students’ travel behav-
iour. Tourism Management 27: 437–452.
González MEA, Comesaña LR, Brea JAF. 2007.
Assessing tourist behavioural intentions through
perceived service quality and customer satisfac-
tion. Journal of Business Research 60: 153–160.
Hair JR, Anderson R, Tatham R, Black W. 1998.
Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th edn. Prentice Hall
International: London.
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr
Evaluation of Destinations’ Attributes, Satisfaction and Loyalty
Hernández-Lobato L, Solis_Radilla MM, Moliner-Tena
MA, Sánchez-García J. 2006. Tourism Destination
Image, Satisfaction and Loyalty: A study in
Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo, Mexico. Tourism Geographies
8(4): 343–358.
Hui TK, Wan D, Ho A. 2007. Tourists’ satisfaction,
recommendation and revisiting Singapore.
Tourism Management 28: 965–975.
Hutchinson J, Lai F, Wang Y. 2009. Understanding
the relationships of quality, value, equity, satisfac-
tion, and behavioral intentions among golf
travelers. Tourism Management 30: 298–308.
Jang S, Feng R. 2007. Temporal destination revisit
intention: the effects of novelty seeking and
satisfaction. Tourism Management 28: 580–590.
Jöreskorg K, Sörbom D. 2001. LISREL 8: User’s
Reference Guide. Scientific Software Inter-
national, Inc.: Lincolnwood.
Kozak M. 2001a. Repeaters’ behavior at two
distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism Research
28(3): 784–807.
Kozak M. 2001b. Comparative assessment of tourist
satisfaction with destinations across two national-
ities. Tourism Management 22: 391–401.
Kozak M. 2001c. A critical review of approaches to
measure satisfaction with tourist destinations. In
Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality
and Leisure, Vol. 2, Mozanec JA, Crouch GI,
Ritchie JRB, Woodside AG (eds). CABI Publish-
ing: New York; 303–319.
Lee C-K, Lee Y-K, Lee B. 2005. Korea’s destination
image formed by the 2002 World Cup. Annals of
Tourism Research 32(4): 839–858.
Llosa S, Chandon J, Orsingher C. 1998. An empirical
study of SERVQUAL’s dimensionality. Services
Industries Journal 18: 16–44.
Matzler K, Füller J, Faullant R. 2007. Customer
satisfaction and loyalty to Alpine Ski Resorts: the
moderating effect of lifestyle, spending and
customers’ skiing skills. International Journal of
Tourism Research 9: 409–421.
McCleary KW, Weaver PA, Hsu CHC. 2007. The
Relationship Between International Leisure Trave-
lers’ Origin Country and Product Satisfaction,
value, Service Quality, and Internet to Return.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 21(2): 117–130.
Millán A, Esteban A. 2004. Development of a
multiple-item scale for measuring customer
satisfaction in travel agencies services. Tourism
Management 25: 533–546.
Nowacki MM. 2009. Quality of visitor attractions,
satisfaction, benefits and behavioural intentions
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
of visitors: verification of a model. International
Journal of Tourism Research 11: 297–309.
Oh H. 1999. Service quality, customer satisfaction,
and customer value: a holistic perspective.
Hospitality Management 18: 67–82.
Oliver RL. 1980. A Cognitive Model of the Antece-
dents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions.
Journal of Marketing Research 17: 460–490.
Oppermann M. 2000. Tourism destination loyalty.
Journal of Travel Research 39: 78–84.
Petrick JF. 2004. Are loyal visitors desired visitors?
Tourism Management 25: 463–470.
Ping Jr RA. 2004. On Assuring Valid Measures for
Theoretical Models Using Survey Data. Journal of
Business Research 57: 125–141.
Shonk DJ, Chelladurai P. 2008. Service Quality, Sat-
isfaction, and Intention to Return in Event Sport
Tourism. Journal of Sport Management 22: 587–602.
Silvestre AL, Santos CM, Ramalho C. 2008. Satisfac-
tion and behavioural intentions of cruise passen-
gers visiting the Azores. Tourism Economics 14(1):
169–184.
Skogland I, Siguaw JD. 2004. Are your satisfied cus-
tomers loyal? The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly 45(3): 221–234.
Söderlund M. 2006. Measuring customer loyalty
with multi-item scales: a case for caution.
International Journal of Service Industry Management
17(1): 76–98.
Spreng RA, Mackenzie SB, Olshavsky BW. 1996. A
re-examination of the determinants of consumer
satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 59: 58–70.
Steenkamp J, van Trijp H. 1991. The Use of LISREL
in Validating Marketing Constructs. International
Journal of Research in Marketing 8: 283–299.
Um S, Chon K, Ro Y. 2006. Antecedents of revisit
intention. Annals of Tourism Research 33(4):
1141–1158.
Valle PO, Silva JA, Mendes J. 2006. Tourist
satisfaction and destination loyalty intention: a
structural and categorical analysis. International
Journal of Business Science and Applied Management
1(1): 25–44.
Williams P, Soutar GN. 2009. Value, satisfaction and
behavioral intentions in an adventure tourism
context. Annals of Tourism Research 36(3): 413–438.
Yoon Y, Uysal M. 2005. An examination of the
effects of motivation and satisfaction on desti-
nation loyalty: a structural model. Tourism
Management 26: 45–56.
Yüksel A, Yü ksel F. 2001. The expectation-disconfir-
mation paradigm: a critique. Journal of Hospitality
& Tourism Research 25(2): 107–131.
Int. J. Tourism Res. (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/jtr