Tourism Management 22 (2001) 607616

Tourism image, evaluation variables and after purchase behaviour:

inter-relationship
J. Enrique Bigne! a,*, M. Isabel Sa! nchezb, Javier Sa! nchezc
a
Department of Business Administration, Juan Jose Renau Piqueras, Edici Departmental Oriental, Avgda dels Terongers, s/n 46022, Valencia, Spain
b
Department of Marketing, Florida Universitaria, C/ Rei en Jaume I, no. 2, 46470 Catarroja, Valencia, Spain
c
Department of Business Administration and Marketing, Universitat Jaume I, Campus Riu Sec, 12080 Castello!n, Spain
Received 8 November 1999; accepted 4 December 2000

Abstract

Numerous authors have pointed out the inuence of tourism image on consumer behaviour. Tourism image will also exercise
some inuence on the quality perceived by tourists and on the satisfaction obtained from the holiday experience. This paper focuses
on the relationship between the image of a destination as perceived by tourists and their behavioural intentions, and between that
same image and the post-purchase evaluation of the stay. We will also examine the relationship between quality and satisfaction and
between these variables and the tourists behaviour variables. We place the accent on a joint analysis of these relationships, using a
structural equation model. The results of the empirical study show that tourism image is a direct antecedent of perceived quality,
satisfaction, intention to return and willingness to recommend the destination. The role of image as a key factor in destination
marketing is thus conrmed. With reference to the other relationships, on the one hand, it is conrmed that quality has a positive
inuence on satisfaction and intention to return and that satisfaction determines the willingness to recommend the destination.
However, the inuence of quality on willingness to recommend and the inuence of satisfaction on intention to return cannot be
corroborated. In this sense, further research could be necessary. r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tourism image; Perceived quality; Satisfaction; Intention to return; Willingness to recommend; Structural equation model

1. Introduction The image of a destination consists, therefore, of the

There is broad agreement among authors regarding
the inuence of tourism image on the behaviour of
individuals (Ashworth & Goodall, 1988; Mansfeld,
1992). Since tourism image is dened by many authors
as an individuals overall perception or total set of
impressions of a place (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991;
Hunt, 1975; Phelps, 1986), or as the mental portrayal of
a destination (Alhemoud & Armstrong, 1996; Cromp-
ton, 1979; Kotler, Haider, & Rein, 1993; Middleton,
1994; Milman & Pizam, 1995; Seaton & Benett, 1996),
it is logical to think that it will exercise some inuence
over tourists behaviour (Cooper, Fletcher, Gilbert, &
Wanhill, 1993).
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-963-82-83-18; fax: +34-963-82-
83-33.
E-mail addresses: enrique.bigne@uv.es (J.E. Bign!e), isanchez@-
orida-uni.es (M.I. S!anchez), jsanchez@emp.uji.es (J. S!anchez).
subjective interpretation of reality made by the tourist.
In this conguration intervene both cognitive and
aective factors (Moutinho, 1987). Buying behaviour
is also guided by cognitive and evaluative components
(Verhallen & Raaij Van, 1986). It is here argued that
image will inuence a tourist in the process of choosing
a stay, the subsequent evaluation of that stay and in his
or her future intentions. It is with this latter part that
this study is concerned, placing the emphasis on the
analysis of the relationship between destination image
and tourist behaviour, on the one hand, and between
image and the post-consumption evaluation of the stay
on the other. Intention to return and willingness to
recommend the destination are conceived as behaviour-
al variables and perceived quality and satisfaction are
the evaluative variables.
In addition to this, the relationship between perceived
quality and satisfaction and between these and the
behavioural variables is examined. All the relationships
are tested jointly using a structural equation model. The

0261-5177/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 3 5 - 8
608 J.E. Bigne! et al. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 607616
empirical investigation was carried out in two major
Spanish tourism towns, in the Valencia region.
2. Conceptual framework and hypothesis
Tourists behaviour can be expected to be partly
conditioned by the image that they have of destinations.
This inuence begins at the stage of choosing the
holiday destination, so holiday choice cannot be
explained exclusively in terms of the objective environ-
ment (Johnson & Thomas, 1992). The inuence of
tourism image on the choice of holiday destination has
been considered by various authors in decision models
(Crompton & Ankomah, 1993; Gartner, 1989; Goodall,
1988; Kent, 1990; Mathieson & Wall, 1982; Moutinho,
1987; Schmoll, 1977; Stabler, 1990). Therefore, it is
thought that the destinations with stronger positive
images will have a higher probability of being included
and chosen in the process of decision making
(Alhemoud & Armstrong, 1996; Echtner & Ritchie,
1991; Johnson & Thomas, 1992; Telisman-Kosuta,
1994). The inuence of image is not limited to the stage
of selecting the destination, but also aects the
behaviour of tourists in general (Ashworth & Goodall,
1988; Bordas & Rubio, 1993; Cooper et al., 1993;
Mansfeld, 1992).
This paper is concerned with the inuence of
destination image on after-purchase behaviour, as well
as the relationship between image and subsequent
evaluation of the stay. The variables intention to return
to the destination and the willingness to recommend it
have been used as indicators of consumer behaviour in
other elds (Boulding, Kalra, Staelin, & Zeithaml, 1993;
Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman, Berry, &
Zeithaml, 1991).
Several studies of the relationship between service
quality, satisfaction and the behaviour of individuals
have centred on the intention to buy as the behavioural
variable (Anderson & Sullivan, 1990; Cronin and
Taylor, 1992; Woodside, Frey, & Daly, 1989). Loyalty
becomes a fundamental strategic component for the
rm. In order to retain customers, organisations must
seek to satisfy them, but a further objective must be to
establish a lasting relationship (Bign!e, 1997). This
relationship marketing approach has been suggested in
the general literature on marketing (Berry, 1983;
Christopher, Payne, & Ballantyne, 1993; Gro. nroos,
1994, 1996; Gummesson, 1996; Sheth & Parvatiyar,
1994), but has only sporadically been applied to tourism
(Rivers, Toh, & Alaoui, 1991) and very little to
destination marketing. Other studies have focused both
on the intention to repurchase and on the willingness to
recommend or positive word of mouth communication
(Boulding et al., 1993; de Ruyter, Wetzels, & Bloemer,
1996; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996).
In tourism, Court and Lupton (1997) found as a result
of their study of the image of New Mexico, that the
image of the destination positively aected an intention
to revisit in the future. The rst two hypotheses,
therefore, would be:
H1: The more favourable the image of a destination,
the higher the probability that the tourist will return
in the future.
H2: The more favourable the image of a destination,
the higher the probability that the tourist will
recommend it.
The variables relating to the evaluation of the stay
used in this study are perceived quality and
satisfaction. It is important to highlight that we are
interested in the tourists view rather than the providers.
As Hurley and Estelami (1998) point out, service
quality and customer satisfaction have not been
successfully dened or distinguished in the marketing
literature. Thus, there is still some confusion about the
similarities and dierences between the two constructs.
However, some authors have made an eort to suggest a
set of dierences between service quality and customer
satisfaction. Firstly, the expectations referred to in each
case are dierent. According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml,
and Berry (1988), while in the literature on satisfaction
expectations are interpreted as predictions, in the
literature on quality they are interpreted as wishes or
an ideal result. Oliver (1997) also points out that each
construct relates to a dierent type of expectations.
Those of service quality are based on perceptions of
excellence, whereas expectations of satisfaction refer to
need or equity. Another dierence suggested by Oliver
(1997) is that service quality judgements are more
specic (about particular attributes or key aspects)
while customer satisfaction judgements are more holis-
tic. In addition to this, the author links cognitive
judgements with service quality and aective ones with
customer satisfaction. Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann
(1994) add two last dierences. While in order to
determine a consumers satisfaction, he or she must have
made the purchase, this is not necessary in order to
evaluate quality. Finally, satisfaction depends on price
but quality does not.
The concept of perceived quality as a comparison
between expectations and the performance perceived by
the consumer has obtained wide acceptance following
the studies of Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988). Quality is
considered to be the overall judgement made by the
consumer regarding the excellence of a service. More
specically, it is a type of attitude, related but not
equivalent to satisfaction, which is described as the
degree and direction of the discrepancies between the
perceptions of the performance and the consumers
expectations of the service (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
 J.E. Bigne! et al. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 607616
Their well-known SERVQUAL scale, the object of
diverse criticism (see Buttle, 1996; Ryan, 1999), has been
a catalyst for signicant research and debate.
For consumer satisfaction, Giese and Cote (2000)
make a thorough review of conceptual and operational
denitions. The lack of agreement among these deni-
tions hinders research into consumer satisfaction. After
the literature review, the authors outline three general
components shared by the denitions: (1) consumer
satisfaction is a response, an emotional or cognitive
judgement (the emotional response predominating); (2)
the response refers to a specic focus (the object of the
consumer satisfaction); (3) The response is linked to a
particular moment (prior to purchase, after purchase,
after consumption, etc.). Giese and Cote point out that
specic denitions of consumer satisfaction need to be
made according to the context, taking into account the
above dimensions.
Another point to consider in the denition of
consumer satisfaction is to distinguish overall satisfac-
tion from satisfaction with individual attributes. Attri-
bute-specic satisfaction is not the only antecedent of
overall satisfaction (Spreng, ManKenzie, & Olshavsky,
1996). Overall satisfaction is a much broader concept
implying holistic evaluation after purchase (Fornell,
1992; Gnoth, 1994) and not the sum of the individual
assessments of each attribute. It is precisely this notion
of overall satisfaction that is adopted in this study.
With reference to the operationalisation of consumer
satisfaction, there is wide acceptance of the disconrma-
tion of expectations model (Oliver, 1980; Spreng,
ManKenzie, & Olshavsky, 1996; Tse & Wilton, 1988).
This model, like that of perceived quality, considers
satisfaction to be the result of a comparison between
expectations and the perception of the performance, so
that the consumer will feel satised whenever the
performance exceeds the expectations. There is certainly
less agreement over the process of disconrmation
(Oliver, 1980). Whereas some authors consider that
disconrmation is the most immediate antecedent of
satisfaction, others think the process is more complex,
such as Churchill and Suprenant (1982), who argue that
perception will aect satisfaction in two ways: by
disconrmation and by direct experience.
Despite broad agreement about the disconrmation
model, some authors have pointed out that there are
situations where perceived performance can be used as a
good approach to consumer satisfaction as well as to
service quality. Consequently, both models, disconr-
mation and perceived performance, are used for
operationalizing the constructs (Hurley & Estelami,
1998).
In the tourism industry, Kozak and Rimmington
(2000) cite dierent empirical or conceptual articles
about customer satisfaction. They concern dierent
elds such as specic tours, tour guides, travel agencies,
609
hotels, restaurants, recreation facilities and destinations.
Moreover, they mention some studies carried out in
specic tourist destinations using dierent approaches
to measure tourists satisfaction.
In this particular paper, perceived quality and
satisfaction refer to the tourists evaluation of their
holiday experience. Both are therefore based on post-
purchase judgements of the stay. Moreover, we focus on
overall evaluation rather than analysing the individual
components of the constructs. The operationalisation of
these constructs will be discussed later.
Tourism image exercises a positive inuence on
perceived quality and satisfaction, because it moulds
the expectations that the individual forms before the
visit, and these variables depend on the comparison of
such expectations with experience (Font, 1997; Phelps,
1986), as suggested by Gro. nroos (1984). Furthermore,
the evaluation of the experience at the destination will
also inuence the image and modify it (Chon, 1991;
Echtner & Ritchie, 1991; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991;
Ross, 1993).
Kotler, Bowen, and Makens (1996) consider that
the following sequence could be established: ima-
ge ) quality ) satisfaction ) post-purchase behaviour.
In this way, image would aect how customers perceive
quality. Consequently, perceived quality will improve if
the organisation has a positive image. The Nordic
School of Service Quality also reects this idea in the so-
called Image Model, which considers that the quality
perceived by the consumer is inuenced by three factors:
technical quality, functional quality, and corporate
image (Gro. nroos, 1990). Perceived quality will in turn
determine the satisfaction of consumers (Fornell,
Johnson, Anderson, Cha, & Bryant, 1996), because the
latter is the result of the assessment by the customer of
the perceived quality (Anderson et al., 1994; Gnoth,
1994; Kotler et al., 1996). In tourism, Appiah-Adu,
Fyall, and Singh (2000); Heung and Cheng (2000) and
Kozak and Rimmington (2000) suggest that perceived
quality is an antecedent of satisfaction. Consequently,
the third, fourth and fth hypotheses can be enunciated
as follows:
H3: The more favourable the image of a destination,
the higher the quality perceived by the tourist.
H4: The more favourable the image of a destination,
the higher the tourists satisfaction.
H5: Perceived quality has a positive inuence on
tourists satisfaction.
Satisfaction has a positive inuence on post-purchase
behaviour (Anderson & Sullivan, 1990; Cronin &
Taylor, 1992; Fornell, 1992; Keaveney, 1995; Oliver,
1980; Oliver & Swan, 1989). It seems reasonable, despite
its singularity, to extend these relationships to the eld
610 J.E. Bigne! et al. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 607616

of tourism as Appiah-Adu et al. (2000) suggest. innite population, this being about 6.33% for a
Consequently, condence level of 95.5% p q 50:
The data were gathered during the month of August
H6: The greater the tourists satisfaction with the
1996. The questionnaire was administered personally to
holiday experience, the more likely it is that he or she
the respondents. The survey points were chosen at
will return in the future.
random, covering both the town and the beach areas.
H7: the greater the tourists satisfaction with the Within these points, the selection of individuals was
holiday experience, the more likely it is that he or she done so as to meet a set of quotas regarding the
will recommend it. following sociodemographic variables: gender, age,
education level, occupation and household size. The
Finally, the literature on marketing has shown that
quotas were established on the basis of a previous study
there is a positive relationship between perceived quality
of the tourists that visit Valencia carried out by the
and intentions after the purchase (Boulding et al., 1993;
Instituto Tur!stico Valenciano (ITVA, 1994). This public
Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Keaveney, 1995; Ruyter De,
organisation is responsible for the tourist policy of the
Wetzels, & Bloemer, 1996; Zeithaml et al., 1996;
Valencia Region. The sample prole (displayed on
Zeithaml, 2000). However, this topic has not received
Table 1), therefore, can be judged to be fairly
the same attention in tourism. The two nal hypotheses
representative of the target population.
are, therefore:
H8: The higher the quality perceived by the tourist,
the more likely it is that he or she will return in the
future. Table 1
Prole of survey respondents
H9: The higher the quality perceived by the tourist,
the more likely it is that he or she will recommend it. Variables Pen* !scola (%) Torrevieja (%)

If veried, these hypotheses would clearly lead to two Gender

Male 48.2 46.0
types of conclusions. From a destination management Female 51.8 54.0
perspective, the utility of improving the image and the
perceived quality of a destination. From the research Age
point of view, the conclusions reached in other services 1824 19.9 26.7
are reinforced. 2534 33.5 27.8
3544 17.9 13.7
4554 12.7 11.0
5564 10.0 11.4
3. Methodology 65 or over 4.0 9.5

The purpose of this research is to clarify the inter- Education level

Primary 41.9 42.2
relationships among destination image, perceived qual- Secondary 36.3 37.6
ity, satisfaction, intention to return and willingness to University 22.0 21.1
recommend the destination. In order to accomplish this
main objective, a set of hypotheses will be tested jointly. Occupation
Student 9.6 16.0
Housework 18.3 19.8
3.1. Sample design and data collection Unskilled worker 22.3 17.1
Salesperson 4.0 2.3
The empirical study was carried out in two important Craftsman 2.0 0.8
Spanish tourist resorts on the coast of the Valencia Skilled worker 11.1 8.0
region: Pen* !scola and Torrevieja. The individuals who Clerical worker 8.4 8.0
Self-employed worker 5.2 5.3
were visiting the above resorts at the time of the survey Professional 3.6 1.9
were considered to be the target population. Since Executive/manager 4.8 2.6
accurate data as to the size and location of this Unemployed 2.4 5.7
population were not available, probabilistic sampling Retired 5.5 9.9
techniques could not be applied. The sample selection Civil servant 2.8 2.6
was a result of a combination of the convenience Household size
method, the interviewers judgement and the quota One person (self) 4.8 3.4
method. As to size, 251 tourists were interviewed in Two persons 22.3 18.6
Pen* !scola and 263 in Torrevieja. Since the size of the Three persons 20.7 22.1
population is unknown, statistical tables were applied to Four persons 28.3 27.4
Five persons or more 23.9 28.5
determine the sample error made in the case of an
 J.E. Bigne! et al. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 607616
3.2. Questionnaire design and operationalisation of
constructs
The same questionnaire was applied to both destina-
tions as part of a broader study of the two towns. It
consisted of ve sections: questions on the travel habits
of the respondents; sources of inuence in the choice of
holiday destination; the visitors opinion of the attrac-
tions and services provided; sociodemographic vari-
ables; and questions concerning overall image and
evaluative and behavioural variables. This study focuses
on the latter section.
Operationalisation of image. Most studies of destina-
tion image have been undertaken either with a multi-
attribute approach or with non-structured techniques,
with the rst option predominating (Echtner & Ritchie,
1991, 1993). In the multi-attribute approach, tourism
image is evaluated through a battery of attributes
assessed by means of a Likert scale or a semantic
dierential scale, obtaining the overall image as an
average or sum of the attribute scores. In this study,
however, overall image was measured using a single ve-
point rating item by asking respondents: How would
you describe the image that you have of y? The
responses can range from highly unfavourable (1) to
highly favourable (5). This single measure was chosen
for two reasons. On the one hand, the purpose of our
study is to analyse the inter-relationships among
destination image and other variables and not an in
depth analysis of the construct. On the other, image has
been described as an overall impression greater than the
sum of its parts (Oxenfeldt, 1974). Attribute lists may be
incomplete by failing to incorporate all of the relevant
characteristics of the destination image (Echtner &
Ritchie, 1991; Gartner, 1989). Echtner and Ritchie
(1991, 1993) state that a complete operationalisation
of destination image involves measuring both attributes
and holistic impressions, i.e., a combination of struc-
tured and unstructured methodology is required. There-
fore, the average or sum of the attribute scores is not an
adequate measurement of the overall image. Baloglu
and McCleary (1999) measured overall destination
image by means of a single-item rating scale, the
purpose of their study being to test a model of
destination image formation using path analysis.
Operationalisation of perceived quality. Perceived
quality was measured by asking respondents How
would you describe the stay in relation with what you
had expected? Very much below expectations (1)... Very
much above expectations (5). Although in the gap
model and the SERVQUAL scale Parasuraman et al.
(1985, 1988) measure both expectations and perceptions,
respondents were asked to judge their stay in compar-
ison with their expectations directly. This approach
agrees with Carmans proposition (Carman, 1990) that
data be directly collected in terms of the perception
611
expectation dierence, rather than questions about
perceptions and expectations being asked separately
(LeBlanc, 1992). Perceived quality was measured by
means of a single-item-rating scale for similar reasons.
Again, the purpose of the study determines the type of
measure to be used. Likewise, even Zeithaml et al.
(1996) used an overall single-item rating scale for
measuring service quality along with a multiple-item
scale.
Operationalisation of satisfaction. Satisfaction is a
complex construct that has received broad attention in
the marketing literature (see Babin & Grin, 1998). As
discussed earlier, overall satisfaction is not the same as
satisfaction with individual attributes (Fornell, 1992;
Gnoth, 1994; Spreng, ManKenzie, & Olshavsky, 1996).
Although multi-item scales are the most commonly used
measures of satisfaction, several authors have used a
single measure of overall satisfaction in their studies
(Andreasen, 1984; Bloemer & Ruyter, 1998; Bolton &
Lemon, 1999; Crosby & Taylor, 1982; Fornell et al.,
1996; Herberlein, Linz, & Ortiz, 1982; Tse & Wilton,
1988). The tourists satisfaction with the holiday
experience, therefore, was measured by a single-item
ve point rating scale by asking the respondents: How
would you describe your stay? Respondents were asked
to rate along a ve-point scale (1=very unsatisfactory
to 5=very satisfactory).
Operationalisation of behavioural variables. Intention
to return and to recommend the destination were also
measured using a single ve-point rating item, following
Boulding et al. (1993), by asking the respondents:
Would you return to...? Would you recommend it to
someone? Responses can rate from Denitely yes (1)
to Denitely no (5).
3.3. Hypothesis testing
The data were processed with the statistical package
SPSS 8.0 and Lisrel 8.3. In order to determine the
direction and signicance of the relationships, the
hypotheses must be tested simultaneously. With this
aim, a path analysis was carried out which considers
jointly all the hypotheses put forward.
4. Analysis of results
As a previous step to the analysis by structural
equation model (SEM), we examined the relationships
between each pair of variables as suggested in the
hypothesis. Chi-square statistic, analysis of variance and
Spearman coecient were used, all the relationships
being signicant po0:01: However, as some authors
point out (Hair, Anderson Tatham, & Black, 1998)
SEM is the preferred mode of analysis, providing
stronger tests. Therefore, in order to test the set of
612 J.E. Bigne! et al. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 607616

hypotheses, path analysis was used. SEM may be
preferable to conventional statistical methods, for
example, where a multiple regression is required to test
for several dependent variables from the same set of
independent variables simultaneously, particularly if it is
possible for one dependent variable to simultaneously
caused another (Reisinger & Turner, 1999; p. 72).
In the marketing literature, we can nd several studies
that link quality with satisfaction (Anderson et al., 1994;
Fornell et al., 1996; Gnoth, 1994; Kotler et al., 1996);
quality and satisfaction with behaviour (Anderson &
Sullivan, 1990; Boulding et al., 1993; Cronin and Taylor,
1992; Ruyter De, Wetzels, & Bloemer, 1996; Woodside
et al., 1989; Zeithaml et al., 1996); image with perceived
quality and satisfaction (Kotler et al., 1996; Font, 1997;
Gro. nroos, 1990; Phelps, 1986); image with behaviour
(Court & Lupton, 1997) or even image with satisfaction
and behaviour (Bloemer & Ruyter, 1998). However,
none of them has carried out an integral analysis of all
the above variables. Hence, the purpose of this analysis
is to test the relationships between the dierent pairs of
variables as a whole, in order to determine the direction
and signicance of these relationships. The results are
reected in Figs. 1 and 2.
In general, most of the hypotheses considered hold
good for both tourism destinations (see Table 2), so it
can be said that it is the image of the destination that
determines quality and the visitors satisfaction (hy-
potheses 3 and 4), though this level of satisfaction is also
aected by the perceived quality (hypothesis 5). Also,
the image determines whether people recommend the
destination (hypothesis 2) and the intention to return
(hypothesis 1). Quality and satisfaction are other
variables inuencing behaviour. The inuence of per-
ceived quality on intention to return is conrmed, as
well as the inuence of satisfaction on the willingness
to recommend the destination (hypotheses 8 and 7).
However, with reference to the relationship between
quality and intention to recommend (hypothesis 9)
and between satisfaction and intention to return
(hypothesis 6), the results diverge. Hypothesis 9
holds good only for Pen* !scola, hypothesis 6 only for
Torrevieja. Therefore, it cannot be armed that
satisfaction is a determining factor in the intention to
return nor that perceived quality determines willingness
to recommend. Acceptance or rejection of both hypoth-
eses cannot be made general, further research being
necessary.
The two models considered have one degree of
freedom and are signicant as a whole p > 0:05: It is
also important to highlight that the goodness-of-t
index (GFI) reaches a value close to one (0.999 in
Pen* !scola and 0.997 in Torrevieja), as well as the
adjusted goodness-of-t index (0.991 and 0.949, respec-
tively). These results provide a satisfactory support for
the model.
The structural equation model, therefore, conrms
the following causal relationships:
Image ) Quality Quality ) Satisfaction
Image ) Satisfaction Quality ) Return
Image ) Recommendation Satisfaction )
Image ) Return Recommendation
If we compare these results with the scheme reected
in the conceptual framework (Kotter et al., 1996):
Image ) quality ) satisfaction ) post-purchase beha-
viour; we can conclude as follows: On the one hand, it
is true that the image is one of the determinants of
perceived quality. It will also directly determine

Fig. 1. Path analysis for Pen* !scola. Chi square with one degree of freedom=0.38; p 0:540>0.05. GFI=0.999; AGFI=0.991; RMSR=0.014. For
each of the relationships considered, the value of the parameter appears in rst place and then, in parentheses, the t-value that determines the
signicance of this parameter. When this value is below 1.96 the relationship is not signicant (n.s.).
 J.E. Bigne! et al. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 607616 613

Fig. 2. Path analysis for Torrevieja. Chi square with one degree of freedom=2.17; p 0:141>0.05. GFI=0.997; AGFI=0.949; RMSR=0.062. For
each of the relationships considered, the value of the parameter appears in rst place and then, in parentheses, the t-value that determines the
signicance of this parameter. When this value is below 1.96 the relationship is not signicant (n.s.).

Table 2 5. Conclusions and managerial implications

Fullment of the hypothesis

Hypothesis Pen* iscola Torrevieja The path analysis indicates that destination image has
a positive eect on behavioural variables as well as on
H1 (Image-Return) Fullled Fullled
H2 (Image-Recommend) Fullled Fullled the evaluation variables. An improvement in the overall
H3 (Image-Perceived quality) Fullled Fullled image of a place held by an individual enhances his or
H4 (Image-Satisfaction) Fullled Fullled her intention to return and to recommend it in the
H5 (Perceived quality-Satisfaction) Fullled Fullled future. It also increases the propensity to make a
H6 (Satisfaction-Return) Not fullled Fullled
H7 (Satisfaction-Recommend) Fullled Fullled
positive assessment of the stay and to perceive a higher
H8 (Perceived quality-Return) Fullled Fullled quality.
H9 (Perceived quality-Recommend) Fullled Not fullled Regarding the relationship between perceived quality
and satisfaction and between them and the behavioural
variables, the structural equation model shows that,
while perceived quality has a positive inuence on
satisfaction and behavioural variables. Regarding per- satisfaction and intention to return, its inuence on
ceived quality, only its inuence on satisfaction and willingness to recommend the destination cannot be
intention to return has been proved adequately, but satisfactorily proved. And with regard to satisfaction,
denite conclusions cannot be drawn for the willingness only its positive inuence on the willingness to
to recommend the destination. Nevertheless, since recommend gets enough support. We would like to
perceived quality is a determinant of satisfaction, and emphasise that these results, although they do not
this in turn determines recommendation, in this indirect sustain these hypotheses, do not oer enough proof for
manner quality would aect the intention to recom- rejection either. We think that further research should
mend. Finally, satisfaction only signicantly aects be carried out, extending the study to dierent types of
recommendation, but we cannot draw denite conclu- destinations and deepen the multidimensional nature of
sions for the intention to return. Consequently, the the variables.
model outlined in the conceptual framework is con- So, with regard to the sequence image ) quality
rmed for the most part, although the exceptions ) satisfaction ) post-purchase behaviour, suggested
pointed out above must be taken into account. Further by the review of the literature, the analysis of the
research is needed on these points. However, this makes interrelationships as a whole conrms this model in
it clear that, in order to achieve the loyalty of an large part, although we must be cautious with regard to
individual, destination image plays an essential role and the last link.
the relationship with the tourist must be handled Although dierent studies have veried that customer
proactively to develop it into a lasting relationship satisfaction leads to greater loyalty and positive word-
benecial to both parties (satisfaction of a punctual of-mouth communication, Mittal and Lasar (1998)
transaction is not enough). point out that satisfaction does not always imply
614 J.E. Bigne! et al. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 607616
customer loyalty. The literature has shown the positive
relationship between repeat purchase behaviour and
satisfaction, but some authors suggest that satisfaction
may not be enough to explain repurchase intentions
(Oliver, 1999). In general, the explanation lies in
switching barriers (Fornell, 1992). Furthermore, a
dissatised customer may continue with the same
provider if he expects nothing better from competitors,
and alternatively a satised customer may wish to
change provider hoping to obtain even more satisfactory
results.
The special peculiarities of tourism must also be taken
into account. The consumption of a tourism product
will occur in the future, and tourists are relatively unsure
of their intention to return when asked some months
before (Sirakaya, McLellan, & Uysal, 1996), as they
may seek variety or be dependent on their family budget
and time availability. In fact, on many occasions tourists
do seek variety and prefer to visit new destinations.
Thus, the tourists satisfaction with their experience in
the destination does not guarantee their return. Our
empirical study does not allow us to accept hypothesis
H6 (though neither can we reject it altogether) in the
case of Pen* !scola. In Torrevieja, satisfaction does
inuence the intention to return, perhaps because this
destination is more habitual as a second residence.
However, tourists are willing to recommend the
destination and this is another aspect of their loyalty.
The managers of a destination, therefore, should take
special interest in verifying the intention to recommend
the destination, as well as satisfaction and intention to
return.
Since quality is an immediate antecedent of satisfac-
tion, and aects intention to return both directly and
through satisfaction, its measurement and improvement
are a crucial aspect for those in charge of the
destination. It should be taken into account that our
study measures overall perceived quality, referring to the
whole vacational experience. Many private and public
agents and many elements intervene in the conguration
of this experience, from the providers of specic services
of accommodation, transport or leisure, among others,
to the tourism information oces, the local inhabitants,
natural and articial resources, etc. It is therefore no
easy task to achieve a high overall perceived quality, and
co-ordination and co-operation among all those in-
volved and full awareness of the importance of
delivering quality and diagnosing it are essential. The
situation becomes even more complicated when we take
into account that, as pointed out by Ryan (1999), a
single unpleasant incident can lead to a negative overall
valuation, depending on how important it is for the
tourist.
Unfortunately, destination management is slower
than that of other elds in applying quality
improvement measures. On occasions the added
diculties mentioned above lead to unco-ordinated
provision.
Image is shown in this study to be a key factor in the
hands of destination managers. It is a direct antecedent
of perceived quality and satisfaction (evaluation of the
stay) and of the intention to return and to recommend
the destination (future behaviour). It is also a key factor
in inuencing the choice of holiday destination, though
this has not been analysed in our study. Destination
managers should therefore not delay in taking a serious
approach to their image. Although it is not possible to
control all the elements intervening to form the image of
a destination, it is possible to manipulate some of them
such as advertising, tourist information oces, public
relations, advising travel agents and tour operators and
promotional instruments. Also, since ones own experi-
ence, or that of friends, acquaintances or family, is very
important in forming an image, all eorts aimed at
improving that experience will result in an improved
image (since this is modied by each new item of
information or stimulus received by the individual). As a
consequence of the above, tourism destinations must
take special care of the image that they attempt to
communicate and the quality of the services and
products that they oer, as these will aect visitors
satisfaction and their intentions for future behaviour.
The conclusions of the study are subject to several
limitations. Among them, the restriction of the scope of
the study to current tourists and, therefore, the non-
inclusion of potential tourists. Consequently, the image
studied would correspond to the complex image (Fakeye
& Crompton, 1991), i.e., the image formed after the
holiday experience. Also the number of variables
considered should be increased, as tourist behaviour
has many dimensions more than the intentions to return
or to recommend the destination.
Despite these limitations, it seems to be beyond doubt
that tourism destinations should concern themselves
with improving their image if they are to compete
successfully in the competitive holiday market, because
the image that tourists hold of them will aect their
post-purchase evaluation and the word of mouth
communication that takes place, as well as the intention
to return in the future. In addition to this, achieving a
lasting relationship with customers passes through the
improvement of the quality of the holiday experience as
perceived by tourists.
References
Alhemoud, A. M., & Armstrong, E. G. (1996). Image of tourism
attractions in Kuwait. Journal of Travel Research, 34(4), 7680.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, . D. (1994). Customer
satisfaction, market share and protability: ndings from Sweden.
Journal of Marketing, 58, 5366.
 J.E. Bigne! et al. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 607616
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1990). Customer satisfaction and
retention across rms. In Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman (Eds.),
Presentation in TIMS college of marketing special interest
conference on service marketing. Nashville, T. N. September,
1996.
Andreasen, A. R. (1984). Life status changes and changes in consumer
preferences and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 11,
784794.
Appiah-Adu, K., Fyall, A., & Singh, S. (2000). Marketing culture and
customers retention in the tourism industry. The Service Industries
Journal, 20(2), 95113.
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: Routledge.
Babin, B. J., & Grin, M. (1998). The nature of satisfaction: an
updated examination and analysis. Journal of Business Research,
41, 127136.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image
formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868897.
Berry, L. L. (1983). Relationship marketing. In: L. L. Berry, G. L.
Shostack, & G. Upah (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on services
marketing (pp. 2528). Chicago IL: American Marketing
Association.
Bign!e, E. (1997). Perspectivas Actuales de la Investigaci!on y Contenido
del Marketing: Bases de Futuro. XI Congreso Nacional y VII
Congreso Hispano-France!s (pp. 6980). Asociaci!on Europea de
Direccio! n y Econom!a de la Empresa, Lleida.
Bloemer, J., & Ruyter, K. (1998). On the relationship between store
image, store satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of
Marketing, 32(5/6), 10.
Bolton, R. N., & Lemon, K. N. (1999). A dynamic model of
customers usage of services: usage as an antecedent and
consequence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research,
36(2), 171186.
Bordas, E., & Rubio, M. L. (1993). La Imagen Tur!stica de Espan* a:
Un Modelo de Gestio! n a Largo Plazo. Informacio!n Comercial
Espan*ola, 722, 107118.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A
dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to
behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 727.
Buttle, F. A. (1996). SERVQUAL: Review, critique, research agenda.
European Journal of Marketing, 30(1), 832.
Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: an
assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing,
66(1), 3355.
Chon, K. (1991). Tourism destination image modication process.
Marketing implications. Tourism Management, 12(1), 6872.
Christopher, M., Payne, A., & Ballantyne, D. (1993). Relationship
marketing: Bringing quality, customer service and marketing
together. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Churchill, G. A., & Suprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the
determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing
Research, 19, 491504.
Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D., & Wanhill, S. (1993). Tourism.
Principles & practice. UK: Pitman Publishing.
Court, B., & Lupton, R. A. (1997). Customer portfolio development:
modelling destination adopters, inactives and rejecters. Journal of
Travel Research, 36(1), 3543.
Crompton, J. L. (1979). An assessment of the image of Mexico as a
vacation destination and the inuence of geographical location
upon that image. Journal of Travel Research, 14(4), 1823.
Crompton, J. L., & Ankomah, P. K. (1993). Choice set propositions in
destination decisions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 461476.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a re-
examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 5568.
615
Crosby, L. A., Taylor, J. R. (1982). Consumer satisfaction with
Michigans container deposit law: an ecological perspective.
Journal of Marketing, 46(1), 4760.
de Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., & Bloemer, J. (1996). On the relationship
between perceived service quality and behavioural intentions.
Proceedings of the 25th European marketing academy conference
(pp. 273292). Budapest.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). The meaning and
measurement of destination image. The Journal of Tourism Studies,
2(2), 212.
Echtner, C. M., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993). The measurement of
destinations image: an empirical assessment. Journal of Travel
Research, 31(4), 313.
Fakeye, P. C., & Crompton, J. L. (1991). Images dierences between
prospective, rst-time and repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande
valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 1016.
Font, X. (1997). Managing the tourist destinations image. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 3(2), 123131.
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: the
Swedish experience. Journal of Marketing, 56, 621.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E.
(1996). The American customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose,
and ndings. Journal of Marketing, 60, 718.
Gartner, W. C. (1989). Tourism image: attribute measurement of state
tourism products using multidimensional scaling techniques.
Journal of Travel Research, 28(2), 1620.
Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2000). Dening consumer satisfaction. Aca-
demy of Marketing Science Review (online), http://www.amsreview.
org/amsrev/theory/giese00-01.html.
Gnoth, J. (1994). Quality of service and tourist satisfaction. In: S. Witt,
& L. Moutinho (Eds.), Tourism marketing and management
handbook (pp. 279284). Hempel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall.
Goodall, B. (1988). How tourists choose their holidays: an analytical
framework. In B. Goodall, & G. Ashworth (Eds.), Marketing in the
tourism industry. The promotion of destination regions
(pp. 117). London: Routledge.
Gro. nroos, C. (1984). Strategic management and marketing in the
service sector. Bromley Chartwell-Brat.
Gro. nroos, C. (1990). Service management and marketing. Managing the
moments of truth in service competition. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books and MacMillan.
Gr.onroos, C. (1994). Quo vadis marketing? Toward a relationship para-
digm marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 10, 347360.
Gro. nroos, C. (1996). From marketing mix to relationship marketing:
towards a paradigm shift in marketing. Management decision
conference (21pp.) MCB University Press. http://www.mcb.co.uk/
services/con...elation.mar/new phil/backgrnd.htm.
Gummesson, E. (1996). Relationship marketing and imaginary
organizations: a synthesis. European Journal of Marketing, 30(2),
3144.
Hair Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
International.
Herberlein, T. A., Linz, D., & Ortiz, B. P. (1982). Satisfaction,
commitment and knowledge of customers on a mandatory
participation time-of-day electricity pricing experiment. Journal of
Consumer Research, 9, 106114.
Heung, V., & Cheng, E. (2000). Assessing tourists satisfaction with
shopping in the Hong Kong special administrative region of China.
Journal of Travel Research, 38(2), 396404.
Hunt, J. D. (1975). Image as a factor in tourism development. Journal
of Travel Research, 13(3), 17.
Hurley, R. F., & Estelami, H. (1998). Alternative indexes for
monitoring customer perceptions of service quality: a comparative
evaluation in a retail context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 26(3), 209221.
616 J.E. Bigne! et al. / Tourism Management 22 (2001) 607616
ITVA (1994). Apuntes sobre la demanda tur!stica espan* ola de la
Comunidad Valenciana. Papers de Turisme, 16, 5566.
Johnson, P., & Thomas, B. (1992). The analysis of choice and demand
in tourism. In: P. Johnson, & B. Thomas (Eds.), Choice and demand
in tourism (pp. 112). London: Mansell.
Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service
industries: an exploratory study. Journal of Marketing, 59, 7182.
Kent, P. (1990). People, places and priorities: opportunity sets and
consumers holiday choice. In: G. Ashworth, & B. Goodall (Eds.),
Marketing tourism places (pp. 4262). London: Routledge.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (1996). Marketing for hospitality
and tourism. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, O., Haider, D. H., & Rein, Y. (1993). Marketing places:
Attracting investment, industry and tourism to cities, states and
nations. New York: The Free Press.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with
Mallorca, Spain, as an o-season holiday destination. Journal of
Travel Research, 38(1), 260269.
LeBlanc, G. (1992). Factors aecting customer evaluation of service
quality in travel agencies: an investigation of customer perceptions.
Journal of Travel Research, 30(4), 1016.
Mansfeld, Y. (1992). From motivation to actual travel. Annals of
Tourism Research, 19, 399419.
Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). In: Cooper, Fletcher, Gilbert, &
Wanhill (Eds.), Tourism: economic. Physical and social impacts.
London: Longman.
Middleton, V. T. C. (1994). Tourist product. In: S. Witt, & L.
Moutinho (Eds.), Tourism marketing and management handbook
(pp. 573576). Hempel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall.
Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1995). The role of awareness and familiarity
with a destination: the central orida case. Journal of Travel
Research, 33(3), 2127.
Mittal, B., & Lasar, W. M. (1998). Why do customers switch? The
dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty. The Journal of Services
Marketing, 12(3), 177194.
Moutinho, L. (1987). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European
Journal of Marketing, 21(10), 544.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing
Research, 17, 460469.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioural perspective on the
consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing,
63, 3344.
Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Consumer perceptions of
interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: a eld survey
approach. Journal of Marketing, 53, 2135.
Oxenfeldt, Z. (1974). Developing a favourable price-quality image.
Journal of Retailing, 51, 814.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual
model of service quality and its implications for future research.
Journal of Marketing, 49, 4150.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL a
multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service
quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 1240.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Renement and
reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4),
420450.
Phelps, A. (1986). Holiday destination imageFthe problem of
assessment: an example developed in Menorca. Tourism Manage-
ment, 7(3), 168180.
Reisinger, Y., & Turner, L. (1999). Structural equation modelling with
Lisrel: Application in tourism. Tourism Management, 20(1), 7178.
Rivers, M. J., Toh, R. S., & Alaoui, M. (1991). Frequent-stayer
programs: The demographic. behavioural and attitudinal char-
acteristics of hotel steady sleepers. Journal of Travel Research,
29(4), 4144.
Ross, G. F. (1993). Ideal and actual images of backpacker visitors to
Northern Australia. Journal of Travel Research, 32(2), 5457.
Ryan, C. (1999). From the psychometrics of SERVQUAL to sex:
Measurements of tourist satisfaction. In: A. Pizam, & Y. Mansfeld
(Eds.), Consumer behaviour in travel and tourism (pp. 267286).
New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press.
Schmoll, G. A. (1977). In: Cooper, Fletcher, Gilbert, & Wanhill (Eds.),
Tourism promotion. London: Tourism International Press.
Seaton, A. V., & Benett, M. M. (1996). Marketing tourism products.
Concepts, issues, cases. London: International Thomson Business
Press.
Sheth, N. J., & Parvatiyar, A. (1994). Relationship marketing in
consumer markets: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 255271.
Sirakaya, E., McLellan, R. W., & Uysal, M. (1996). Modelling
vacation destination decisions: a behavioral approach relationship
marketing in consumer markets: antecedents and consequences.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 5(1/2), 5775.
Spreng, R. A., Mankenzie, S. B., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1996). A Re-
examination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction. Journal
of Marketing, 60(3), 1532.
Stabler, M. (1990). The concept of opportunity sets as a methodolo-
gical framework for the analysis of selling tourism places: the
Industry view. In: G. Ashworth, & B. Goodall (Eds.), Marketing
tourism places (pp. 2341). London: Routledge.
Telisman-Kosuta, N. (1994). Tourist destination image. In: S. Witt, & .
L. Moutinho (Eds.), Tourism marketing and management handbook
(pp. 557561). Hempel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall.
Tse, D. K., & Wilton, P. C. (1988). Models of consumer satisfaction
formation: An extension. Journal of Marketing Research, 25,
204212.
Verhallen, T. M. M., & Raaij Van, . W. F. (1986). How consumers
trade o behavioural costs and benets. European Journal of
Marketing, 20(3/4), 1934.
Woodside, A., Frey, L., & Daly, R. (1989). Linking service quality,
customer satisfaction and behavioral intention. Journal of Health
Care Marketing, 9, 517.
Zeithaml, V. A. (2000). Service quality, protability, and the economic
worth of customers: what we know and what we need to learn.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 6785.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The
behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing,
60(2), 3146.