ARTICLE IN PRESS

Tourism Management 28 (2007) 11151122 www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Research article

How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions?

Ching-Fu Chen, DungChun Tsai
Department of Transportation and Communication Management Science, National Cheng Kung University, 1, Ta-Hsueh Rd. Tainan, 701, Taiwan, ROC Received 1 November 2005; accepted 17 July 2006

Abstract Differing from the previous studies, this study proposed a more integrated tourist behavior model by including destination image and perceived value into the qualitysatisfactionbehavioral intentions paradigm. The structural relationships between all variables with respect to different stages of tourist behaviors were investigated in the study. The results show that destination image have both direct and indirect effects on behavioral intentions. In addition, the path destination image-trip quality-perceived value-satisfactionbehavioral intentions appears evident in this study. r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Destination image; Trip quality; Perceived value; Satisfaction; Behavioral intentions

1. Introduction Tourism has been seen as the driving force for regional development. Successful tourism can increase destinations tourist receipts, income, employment and government revenues. How to attract the tourists to revisit and/or recommend the destination to others is crucial for the success of destination tourism development. From the perspective of tourist consumption process (Ryan, 2002; Williams & Buswell, 2003), tourist behavior can be divided into three stages: pre-, during- and postvisitation. More specically, tourist behavior is an aggregate term, which includes pre-visits decision-making, onsite experience, experience evaluations and post-visits behavioral intentions and behaviors. It has been generally accepted in the literature that destination image has inuence on tourist behaviors (Bigne, Sanchez, & Sanchez, 2001; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Lee, Lee, & Lee, 2005). The tourist behaviors include the choice of a destination to visit and subsequent evaluations and future behavioral
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 6 2757575x53230; fax: +886 6 2753882. E-mail addresses: cfchen99@mail.ncku.edu.tw (C.-F. Chen), tsai46@mail.ncku.edu.tw (D. Tsai).

intention. The subsequent evaluations include the travel experience or perceived trip quality during the stay, perceived value and overall satisfaction while the future behavioral intentions include the intention to revisit and the willingness to recommend. There has been a great body of studies focusing on the interrelationship between quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions (Backman & Veldkamp, 1995; Baker & Crompton, 2000; Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000). However, in recent years perceived value has been emphasized as the object of attention by researchers in tourism (Kashyap & Bojanic, 2000; Murphy, Pritchard, & Smith, 2000; Oh, 1999, 2000; Petrick, 2004; Petrick & Backman, 2002a, b; Petrick, Backman, & Bixler, 1999; Petrick, Morais, & Norman, 2001; Tam, 2000). Some studies even argued that the measurement of satisfaction must be in conjunction with the measure of perceived value (Oh, 2000; Woodruff, 1997) and perceived value plays the moderating role between service quality and satisfaction (Caruana, Money, & Berthon, 2000). Furthermore, perceived value involves the benets received for the price paid (Zeithaml, 1988) and is a distinctive concept from quality and satisfaction. Empirical research also reveal that the positive impact of perceived value on both future behavioral intentions and behaviors. Hence, perceived value, quality and satisfaction all have been shown to be

0261-5177/$ - see front matter r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1116 C.-F. Chen, D. Tsai / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 11151122

good predictors of future behavioral intentions (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Bojanic, 1996; Cronin et al., 2000; Petrick, 2004; Tam, 2000). By understanding the relationships between future behavioral intentions and its determinants, destination tourism managers would better know how to build up an attractive image and improve their marketing efforts to maximize their use of resources. Hence, the purpose of the study is twofold. The rst is to construct a more integrated model of tourist consumption process by including destination image and perceived value into the quality satisfactionbehavioral intention paradigm. The second is to examine the relationships between destination image and evaluative factors (i.e. trip quality, perceived value and satisfaction) in their prediction of future behavioral intentions. 2. Conceptual background and hypotheses Destination image is dened as an individuals mental representation of knowledge (beliefs), feelings and overall perception of a particular destination (Crompton, 1979; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991). Destination image plays two important roles in behaviors: (1) to inuence the destination choice decision-making process and (2) to condition the after-decision-making behaviors including participation (on-site experience), evaluation (satisfaction) and future behavioral intentions (intention to revisit and willingness to recommend) (Ashworth & Goodall, 1988; Bigne et al., 2001; Cooper, Fletcher, Gilbert, & Wanhill, 1993; Lee et al., 2005; Mansfeld, 1992). On-site experience can be mainly represented as the perceived trip quality based upon the comparison between expectation and actual performance. However, the inuence of destination image on after-decision-making behaviors has been neglected in previous studies except for Bigne et al. (2001) and Lee et al. (2005). Following the marketing perspective, Lee et al. (2005) argued that individuals having a favorable destination image would perceive their on-site experiences (i.e. trip quality) positively, which in turn would lead to greater satisfaction levels and behavioral intentions. The rst four hypotheses, therefore, would be: H1. The more favorable the destination image, the higher the perceived trip quality. H2. The more favorable the destination image, the higher the overall satisfaction. H3. The more favorable the destination image, the higher the perceived value. H4. The more favorable the destination image, the more positive the behavioral intention. As aforementioned, service quality has been recognized as the antecedent of satisfaction and behavioral intentions in a service setting. In addition, the research by Bigne et al. (2001) and Lee et al. (2005) also ascertained that higher trip

quality could lead to both higher satisfaction and more positive behavioral intentions in general. The fth and sixth hypotheses, therefore, would be: H5. The higher the trip quality, the higher the overall satisfaction. H6. The higher the trip quality, the more positive the behavioral intention. Quality, perceived value and satisfaction have been recognized as the antecedents of behavioral intentions (Kashyap & Bojanic, 2000; Petrick, 2004; Tam, 2000; TianCole, Crompton, & Willson, 2002). However, the relationships between these antecedents are arguable. Based upon different assumptions, Petrick (2004) classied the relationship quality, perceived value and satisfaction into three models, i.e. the satisfaction model (quality-valuesatisfaction), the value model (quality-satisfactionvalue) and the quality model (the relationship between satisfaction and value is uncertain). The empirical result shows in favor of the satisfaction model. In other words, perceived value plays a moderating role between quality and satisfaction. The evidence is inherent to Caruana et al. (2000) and Hellier, Geursen, Carr, and Rickard (2003). In addition, perceived value may be a better predicator of repurchase intentions than either satisfaction or quality (Cronin et al., 2000; Oh, 2000). The last four hypotheses, therefore, would be: H7. The higher the trip quality, the higher the perceived value. H8. The higher the perceived value, the higher the overall satisfaction. H9. The higher the perceived value, the more positive the behavioral intention. H10. The higher the overall satisfaction, the more positive the behavioral intention. The conceptual model of the study is shown as Fig. 1. Each of the model components is dened as follows: Behavioral intention: the visitors judgment about the likeliness to revisit the same destination or the willingness to recommend the destination to others. Overall satisfaction: the extent of overall pleasure or contentment felt by the visitor, resulting from the ability of the trip experience to fulll the visitors desires, expectations and needs in relation to the trip. Perceived value: the visitors overall appraisal of the net worth of the trip, based on the visitors assessment of what is received (benets), and what is given (costs or sacrice). Trip quality: the visitors assessment of the standard of the service delivery process in association with the trip experience. Destination image: the visitors subjective perception of the destination reality.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.-F. Chen, D. Tsai / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 11151122 1117

3.2. Sample design and data collection

H3 H1 Destination image H4 H2 Perceived value H5 H8 Behavioral intention H10 Trip quality H6 H7 Satisfaction

H9

Fig. 1. The conceptual model of the study.

3. Methodology 3.1. Questionnaire design The questionnaire was designed as the survey instrument including all constructs of the proposed model to investigate the hypotheses of interest. The questions in the questionnaire are based on a review of the literature and specic destination characteristics. The survey instrument was revised and nalized based on feedback from ve tourism experts and a pilot sample of 25 postgraduate students studying a tourism management program in Taiwan. Hence, the content validity of the survey instrument was deemed as adequate.1 The questionnaire consists of ve parts. Part 1 of the questionnaire deals with the measurement of destination image with 20 attributes extracted from previous studies (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martin, 2004; Etchner & Ritchie, 1993; Walmsley & Young, 1998). Part 2 deals with the measurement of trip quality with 20 items covering the ve aspects of attractions, accessibility, amenity, activities, available packages, and ancillary services (Buhalis, 2000). Part 3 deals with the measurement of perceived value with three items including time value, money value and effort value (Bolton & Drew, 1991). Part 4 deals with the measurement of single-item overall satisfaction and two-item behavioral intentions (i.e. likeliness to revisit and willingness to recommend) following Bigne et al. (2001), Sirakaya, Petrick, and Choi (2004) and Tian-Cole et al. (2002). Respondents are asked to indicate their agreement level for each item, for the rst four parts on a ve-point Likert-type scale, from strongly disagree ( 1) to strongly agree ( 5). Part 5 presents respondents demographic information with seven items, such as gender, age, education level, occupation, monthly income, travel party, and past visitation experience via a categorical scale.

The empirical study was carried out in Kengtin region, an important and famous coastal destination in southern Taiwan, during December 2004. Individuals over the age of 18 years and who were visiting the attractions within the Kengtin region were considered to be the target population. Applying the convenient sampling technique, a total number of 500 questionnaires were delivered and 393 usable samples were obtained, resulting in a response rate of 78.6%. The respondent prole is summarized as Table 1. The great majority of the respondents were aged below 34 but over 15 (72.2%) with a slight majority of female visitors (57.0%). In all, 75.4% had a university degree or higher qualication. Student (20.1%), service worker (20.6%) and clerk worker (20.6%) were the main divisions of occupation for respondents. The great majority of the respondents had a monthly income less than NT$40,000, or approximately $12002 (72.2%), 98.3% were accompanying family or friends (98.3%), and 80.7% were revisiting Kengtin. 3.3. Data analysis The data analysis was conducted in two stages. First, exploratory factor analyses using principal component method with varimax rotation were conducted on destination image and trip quality to examine their dimensionalities and psychometric properties. On that basis, the relationships of destination image, evaluative factors (i.e. trip quality, perceived value and satisfaction), and behavioral intentions were empirically tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) technique in the second stage. 4. Empirical results In this study a multi-attribute approach was employed to measure destination image and trip quality. As mentioned above, destination image and trip quality were both measured using a 20-item scale. Employing the principal components factor analysis, four factors with an eigenvalue greater than one explained 62.4% of the variance of destination image scale. Six items with factor loading less than 0.5 were removed from the scale. The varimax-rotated factor pattern implies that the rst factor concerns destination brand (5 items, a 0:819). The second factor relates to entertainment (4 items, a 0:763). The third factor consists of characteristics of the nature and culture (3 items, a 0:659). The fourth factor relates to sun and sand (2 items, a 0:607). The arithmetic means of the four multi-item factors were used to build the construct destination image for subsequent analysis. The result of the factor analysis for destination image is shown in Table 2.
2

The results of scale reliability for the pilot test are destination image (Cronbach a 0:89), trip quality (Cronbach a 0:83), perceived value (Cronbach a 0:91) and behavioral intention (Cronbach a 0:87).

1 $A33 NT$ at the time of study.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1118 Table 1 Respondent prole Demographic characteristics Gender Male Female Age 1824 2534 3544 4554 55 and over Education level Primary High school University Postgraduate Occupation Student Housework Civil servant Self-employed Service worker Skilled worker Clerical worker Other Monthly income (NT$)a p2,000,000 20,00140,000 40,00160,000 60,00080,000 X80,001 Travel party Single Family Friends Tour group Past experience First-time visit Repeated visit
a

C.-F. Chen, D. Tsai / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 11151122

Frequency

Percentage (%)

169 224 148 161 76 5 3 6 92 266 29 79 21 52 37 81 17 81 25 108 176 68 16 25 3 158 229 3 76 417

43.0 57.0 37.6 41.0 19.3 1.2 0.9 1.2 23.4 67.6 7.8 20.1 5.3 13.2 9.4 20.6 4.3 20.6 6.5 27.4 44.8 17.1 4.2 6.5 0.9 40.1 58.2 0.9 19.3 80.7

33 NT$A1 US$.

Similarly, four factors with an eigenvalue greater than one explained 60.5% of the variance of trip quality scale using the principal components factor analysis. Two items with loading factors less than 0.5 were removed from the scale. The varimax-rotated factor pattern implies that the rst factor relates to hospitality (7 items, a 0:848). The second factor relates to attractions (4 items, a 0:748). The third factor concerns transport (3 items, a 0:769). The fourth consists of the attributes of amenity (4 items, a 0:763). The arithmetic means of the four multi-item factors were used to build the construct trip quality for subsequent analysis. The result of the factor analysis for trip quality is shown in Table 3. Reliability for each of the factors was obtained using the calculation of a Cronbach a coefcient. The Cronbach a coefcients ranged from 0.85 to 0.61 (see Tables 2 and 3).

Six of the eight factors were above the cut-off criterion of 0.7 recommended by Nunnally (1978) while two were just below this level, namely, nature and culture (0.66) and sun and sand (0.61). However, Peterson (1994) suggested that an a value of 0.6 is the criterion-in-use. Therefore, it suggests that all factors were well above the criterion-inuse and thus acceptably reliable. Conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then conducted using LISREL VIII (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) with covariance matrix to test the convergent validity of the constructs used in subsequent analysis. The t indices suggested by Joreskog and Sorbom (1993) and Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) were used to assess the model adequacy. Convergent validity of CFA results should be supported by item reliability, construct reliability and average variance extracted (Hair et al., 1998). As shown in Table 4, t-values for all the standardized factor loadings of the items were found to be signicant (po0:01). In addition, construct reliability estimates ranging from 0.75 to 0.92 exceeded the critical value of 0.7 recommended by Hair et al. (1998), indicating it was satisfactory. The average variances extracted for all the constructs fell between 0.60 and 0.93, and were greater than the value of 0.5 suggested by Hair et al. (1998). Composite scores for each construct were obtained from the mean scores across items representing that construct. The proposed conceptual model in Fig. 1 was tested by using the ve constructs: namely destination image, trip quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Factors of destination brand, entertainment, nature and culture and sun and sand were served as the measurement variables of destination image. Also, factors of hospitality, attractions, transport and amenity are used as the measurement variables of trip quality. In addition, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions were measured by three, one and two items as mentioned previously, respectively. Employing the covariance matrix among 14 measurement items as input, the SEM analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between each pair of constructs as hypothesized. The results of SEM analysis were depicted in Fig. 2. The t indices of the model are summarized in Table 5. The overall model indicates that w2 is 207.7 with 69 degrees of freedom (d.f.) (po0.0001). Technically, the p-value should be greater than 0.05, i.e., statistically insignicant. However, in practice the w2-value is very sensitive to sample size and frequently results in the rejection of a well-tting model. Hence, the ratio of w2 over d.f. has been recommended as a better goodness of t than w2 (Hair et al., 1998). A common level of the w2/d.f. ratio is below 5 (though below 3 is better). The w2/d.f. ratio of the model is 3.01 (i.e., 207.7/69), indicating an acceptable t. Furthermore, other indicators of goodness of t are GFI 0.930, RMSEA 0.0716, RMR 0.0015, NFI 0.972, NNFI 0.975, CFI 0.981, RFI 0.963, and PNFI 0.737. Comparing these with the corresponding critical values shown in Table 4, it suggests that the hypothesized model ts the empirical data well.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.-F. Chen, D. Tsai / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 11151122 Table 2 Factor analysis of destination image Factor/item IM1: Destination brand (3.60) Offers personal safety A good quality of life Clean A good name and reputation Hospitable and friendly people IM2: Entertainment (3.51) Good night life A good shopping place Varied gastronomy Exotic IM3: Nature and culture (3.92) Great variety of fauna and ora Spectacular landscape Unusual ways of life and customs IM4: Sun and sand (4.19) Good weather Good beaches Factor loading Variance explained (%) 20.19 0.783 0.780 0.718 0.647 0.521 17.78 0.760 0.756 0.744 0.574 12.49 0.852 0.658 0.625 11.91 0.810 0.773 62.40 0.61 50.46 0.66 37.97 0.76 Cumulative variance explained (%) 20.19 Cronbach a 0.82 1119

Table 3 Factor analysis of trip quality Factor/item TQ1: Hospitality (3.43) Price of accommodation Prices of activities Food and beverage of accommodation Services of accommodation workers Prices of food & beverage Safety of activities TQ2: Attractions (3.82) Cleanness of beaches Uniqueness of landscape Comfort of built environment Weather TQ3: Transport (3.57) Accessibility Internal transport Parking facilities and space TQ4: Amenity (3.73) Food and beverage provision General infrastructure Travel information Signs and indicators Factor loading Variance explained (%) 20.57 0.761 0.717 0.707 0.698 0.671 0.526 13.57 0.830 0.791 0.602 0.546 13.05 0.767 0.758 0.713 12.86 0.688 0.676 0.622 0.558 60.05 0.76 47.19 0.77 34.14 0.75 Cumulative variance explained (%) 20.57 Cronbach a 0.85

Within the overall model, the estimates of the structural coefcients provide the basis for testing the proposed hypotheses. As shown in Fig. 2, destination image has a signicantly positive effect on trip quality and behavioral intentions (g1 0:91, t-value 14.63, po0:01, and g4 0:37, t-value 2.17, po0:01, respectively) thus supporting H1 and H4. Due to their insignicances on structural coefcients, however, the hypotheses of destination image has positive effect on perceived value (H2) and

on satisfaction, (H3) is not supported. The trip quality, as hypothesized, has a signicantly positive effect on perceived value (b1 0:83, t-value 10.92, po:01), thus supporting H5. Nonetheless, it does not have a signicant effect on both satisfaction and behavioral intentions, thus rejecting H6 and H7, respectively. In addition, the perceived value has a signicantly positive effect on satisfaction (b4 0:75, t-value 9.51, po0:01), supporting H8 while it does not appear to have a signicant effect on behavioral

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1120 Table 4 Convergent validity Constructs Items Item reliability Factor loadings Standard error Standardized factor loading t-value Destination image IM1 IM2 IM3 IM4 TQ1 TQ2 TQ3 TQ4 PV1 PV2 PV3 1.000 0.903 0.746 0.711 1.00 0.960 0.929 0.915 1.00 1.178 1.172 1.00 1.068 0.070 0.060 0.065 0.065 0.082 0.068 0.078 0.078 0.040 0.46 0.42 0.34 0.33 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.38 0.49 0.57 0.57 0.59 0.63 0.75 12.97** 12.38** 10.90** 0.80 14.77** 11.26** 13.51** 0.84 15.15** 14.98** 0.92 26.68** 0.62 Construct reliability Average variance extracted C.-F. Chen, D. Tsai / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 11151122

Trip quality

0.60

Perceived value

0.76

Behavioral intention BI1 BI2 **po0:01.

0.93

3=0.13
(0.78)

Trip quality

2=0.04 (0.72) 3=0.20 (1.03)

Table 5 Goodness of t indices of model

Satisfaction

Criteria w2-test w2 w2/d.f.

Indicators

1=0.91**
(14.63) 1=0.83** (10.92) -

Destination image

p40:05 o5 40.9 40.9 40.5 40.9 40.9 40.95 o0.05 o0.05

207.7 3.01 (207.7/69) 0.93 0.94 0.61 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.02 0.02

6=0.54** (7.94) 4=0.75** (9.51)

4=0.37** (2.16)

2=0.07
(0.53)

Perceived value

5=0.17 (1.74)

Behavioral intention

Fit indices GFI AGFI PGFI NFI NNFI Alternative indices CFI RMSEA RMR

**denotes p<0.01

Fig. 2. The estimated structural model.

intentions, not supporting H9. Finally, the satisfaction has a signicantly positive effect on behavioral intentions (b6 0:54, t-value 7.94, po0:01), supporting H10. To sum up, an evident path destination image-trip quality-perceived value-satisfaction-behavioral intentions appears in the estimated model. The results of the hypotheses testing are summarized in Table 6. Note that trip quality does not directly, but does indirectly, inuence satisfaction through perceived value as a moderating variable. This nding conrms the arguments of previous studies (Caruana et al., 2000; Oh, 2000; Woodruff, 1997). Table 7 reports the direct and indirect effects of all variables on visitors behavioral intentions. Both destination image and satisfaction had direct effects on behavioral intentions while trip quality and perceived value had indirect effects on behavioral intentions. Total effect of destination image on behavioral intentions, i.e., sum of direct and indirect effect through destination images effect

Table 6 Summary of hypothesis testing results Hypothesis H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 Destination image-Trip quality Destination image-Perceived value Destination image-Satisfaction Destination image-Behavioral intentions Trip quality-Perceived value Trip quality-Satisfaction Trip quality-Behavioral intentions Perceived value-Satisfaction Perceived value-Behavioral intentions Satisfaction-Behavioral intentions Testing result Supported Not supported Not supported Supported Supported Not supported Not supported Supported Not supported Supported

on trip quality, perceived and satisfaction, was found to be 0.68. In a similar way, the total effects of trip quality, perceived value and satisfaction on behavioral intentions

ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.-F. Chen, D. Tsai / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 11151122 Table 7 Direct effect, indirect effect and total effect Path Image-Trip quality Trip quality-Perceived value Perceived value-Satisfaction Satisfaction-Behavioral intentions Image-Behavioral intentions Trip quality-Behavioral intentions Perceived value-Behavioral intentions Direct effect 0.91 0.83 0.75 0.54 0.37 Indirect effect 0.31 0.34 0.41 Total direct 0.91 0.83 0.75 0.54 0.68 0.34 0.41 1121

were found to be 0.34, 0.41 and 0.54, respectively. It indicates that destination image and satisfaction are the two most important variables to inuence visitors behavioral intentions. 5. Conclusions This study investigated the tourist behaviors by constructing a more comprehensive model considering destination image, evaluative factors (i.e. trip quality, perceived value, satisfaction) and behavioral intentions. The structural relationships between all variables in the study were tested using data obtained from a visitor questionnaire survey at Kengtin in southern Taiwan. As Lee et al. (2005) argued, although broad agreement among scholars regarding the inuence of destination image on process, little empirical research has been done. In addition, the moderating role of perceived value between quality and satisfaction has been debatable but frequently neglected in previous research. This study differs from previous studies by taking account of destination image and perceived value in the tourist behavior model. The structural relationship analysis indicates that destination image appears to have the most important effect on behavioral intentions (i.e. intention to revisit and willingness to recommend). Destination image inuences behavioral intentions in two ways: directly and indirectly. This nding is consistent with Bigne et al. (2001). In particular, the path of destination image-trip qualityperceived value-satisfaction-behavioral intentions appears evident in this study. Destination image not only inuences the decision-making process but also conditions after-decision-making behaviors of tourists. In other words, the inuence of destination image is not limited to the stage of selecting the destination, but also affects the behavior of tourists in general (Bigne et al., 2001). Hence, endeavors to build or improve the image of a destination facilitate loyal visitors revisiting or recommending behaviors, thus being critical to the success of destination tourism development. Trip quality was found to have an indirect rather than a direct effect on overall satisfaction as moderated by perceived value. It implies that unless leading to an increase in perceived value, trip quality is not guaranteed

to lead to customers overall satisfaction. Subsequently, the results in positive behavioral intentions would be also uncertain. Hence, perceived value does play an important role in affecting the level of satisfaction and future behavioral intentions of customers. An increase in quality would generally induce an increase in costs. If a product with high quality cannot make customers satised, however, the quality in practice is of little use and its induced cost is wasteful. By better understanding how tourists value their trip experiences, tourism managers could be able to device more effective marketing strategies and service delivery to meet tourists actual needs. Once tourists perceive their trip experiences valuable, the higher satisfaction would occur and furthermore the benets of positive behaviors could be brought out. The issues allowing better understanding of customers value perception and the role of perceived value in the relationship between quality and satisfaction should be addressed and warrant future study. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Mr. Ting-Yao Wei for his assistance in data collection and the two referees for their comments. References
Ashworth, G., & Goodall, B. (1988). Tourist images: Marketing considerations. In B. Goodall, & G. Ashworth (Eds.), Marketing in the tourism industry. The promotion of destination regions (pp. 213238). London: Croom Helm. Backman, S. J., & Veldkamp, C. (1995). Examination of the relationship between service quality and user loyalty. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13(2), 2942. Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785804. Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868897. Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (2004). Factors inuencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657681. Bigne, J., Sanchez, M., & Sanchez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behavior: Inter-relationships. Tourism Management, 22(6), 607616. Bojanic, D. C. (1996). Consumer perceptions of price, value and satisfaction in the hotel industry: An exploratory study. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 4(1), 522.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1122 C.-F. Chen, D. Tsai / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 11151122 Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic perspective. Hospitality Management, 18, 6782. Oh, H. (2000). Diners perceptions of quality, value and satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 5866. Peterson, R. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbachs coefcient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 381391. Petrick, J. F. (2004). The roles of quality, perceived value and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers behavioral intentions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 397407. Petrick, J. F., & Backman, S. J. (2002a). An examination of golf travelers satisfaction, perceived value, loyalty and intentions to revisit. Tourism Analysis, 6(3/4), 223237. Petrick, J. F., & Backman, S. J. (2002b). An examination of the construct of perceived value for the prediction of golf travelers intentions to repurchase. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 3845. Petrick, J. F., Backman, S. J., & Bixler, R. (1999). An investigation of selected factors impact on golfer satisfaction and perceived value. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 17(1), 4059. Petrick, J. F., Morais, D. D., & Norman, W. C. (2001). An examination of the determinants of entertainment vacationers intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 4148. Ryan, C. (2002). From motivation to assessment. In C. Ryan (Ed.), The tourist experience (2nd ed., pp. 5877). London: Continuum. Sirakaya, E., Petrick, J., & Choi, H. S. (2004). The role of mood on tourism product evaluations. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 517539. Tam, J. L. M. (2000). The effects of service quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 6(4), 3143. Tian-Cole, S., Crompton, J. L., & Willson, V. L. (2002). An empirical investigation of the relationships between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions among visitors to a wildlife refuge. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(1), 124. Walmsley, D. J., & Young, M. (1998). Evaluative images and tourism: The use of personal constructs to describe the structure of destination images. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), 6569. Williams, C., & Buswell, J. (2003). Service quality in leisure and tourism. UK: CABI Publishing. Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive edge. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139153. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(July), 222. Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A multistage model of customers assessments of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(March), 375384. Buhalis, D. D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97116. Caruana, A., Money, A. H., & Berthon, P. R. (2000). Service quality and satisfaction: The moderating role of value. European Journal of Marketing, 34(11/12), 13381352. Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D., & Wanhill, S. (1993). Tourism: Principles and practice. UK: Pitman Publishing. Crompton, J. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the inuence of geographical location upon the image. Journal of Travel Research, 17(4), 1823. Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193218. Etchner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of destination image: An empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(3), 313. Fakeye, P., & Crompton, J. (1991). Image differences between prospective, rst-time, and repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 1016. Hair, J. F. J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hellier, P. K., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. A., & Rickard, J. A. (2003). Customer repurchase intention: A general structural model. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), 17621800. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL VIII: Users reference guide. Chicago: Scientic Software International. Kashyap, R., & Bojanic, D. (2000). A structural analysis of value, quality and price perception of business and leisure travellers. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 4551. Lee, C., Lee, Y., & Lee, B. (2005). Koreas destination image formed by the 2002 world cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 839858. Mansfeld, Y. (1992). From motivation to actual travel. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 399419. Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P., & Smith, B. (2000). The destination product and its impact on traveler perceptions. Tourism Management, 21(1), 4352. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.