免费下载
网站简介

找论文变得更简单!

帮找论文

当前位置:

重点论文网    范文格式    外文翻译    旅游地游客满意的要素结构外文翻译
创建时间:04-08

旅游地游客满意的要素结构外文翻译

旅游地游客满意的要素结构1


摘要本文将美国马萨诸塞州的科德角海滨作为旅游目的地,通过实证确定影响游客的八个满意度因素,并采用相关的方法来衡量他们。通过使用因子分析方法685个度假游客进行调查并获得数据,从而将游客满意度因子划分为以下因素:海滩、机会、成本、好客度餐饮设施住宿设施环境和商业化程度。


关键词:游客满意度游客满意度的维度满意度



1  文献回顾

旅游商品及服务可能被视为一般商品和服务的一个子集。从这个角度来看,游客满意度定义如下

旅游的满意游客在旅游目的地的体验和旅游前对目的地的期望相比较所综合的结果当经验加权总和达到或者超过期望,游客则会感到满意当游客的实际验相于他的预期结果产生不满情绪说明游客不满意。虽然这是合乎逻辑且明显有效的但是由于游客满意度的概念模型不能识别游客满意度的各项维度之间的区别,也没有方法能有效衡量各项维度,所以它不起作用

斯旺和卡莫布对满意度维度这个问题进行了考虑。他们建议,产品性能的满意度应该发生在两个独立的维度工具之间,而且要富于表现力工具的性能对应产品的物理性能,就像一件衣服的耐久性。表现性能涉及到心理层面的性能,或者是服装的样式(斯旺和卡莫布1976年,第26页)。对于不同的产品消费者重视的这两个方面的相对比重可能会有所不同。对于某些产品,例如服装,表现力剪裁更重要,但是对于割草机,仪器的尺寸却具有更大的价值。

以上内容揭示了消费者满意度,特别是游客满意度测量的数个意义为了测量消费者对一个产品或服务的满意度,首先必须确定和衡量不同维度。其次,必须确定每个维度的相对重要性。

游客满意度的测量是相当复杂。通常,大多数旅游产品性能表现的重要性远远超过了它所用的工具。因此,从业者经常强调表现力的测量一个酒店强调舒适、豪华接待和声誉,而非一个房间的功能和价格。表面上看,这将简化游客满意度的测量。然而,旅游产品和其他消费产品之间存在着重大的差异--虽然大多数产品是同质统一的,旅游产品是许多相互关联的部分组成的一个无形产品。例如,常见的所谓家庭度假旅游产品该产品由许多子产品活动和项目组成,包括住宿食品饮料购买游览参与娱乐活动等等。光环效应可能会出现,即游客对旅游产品其中一个组成部分满意或不满意导致整体满意或不满意因此旅游满意每个维度的确定和衡量非常重要。

本研究旨在探索旅游目的地游客满意度要素结构,并提出方法来衡量这些。这是关于马萨诸塞州科德角一次规模较大的旅游研究,该公司要求衡量假期游客旅游感知的结果PizamAcquaro1977年)。


2  研究方法

2.1  说明

为了建立游客满意度概念的初步定义并发展一个能有效测量它的模型进行如下几个程序

1.回顾相关的文献,如消费者满意度(恩格尔多,1977安德森和乔尔森,1973麦克尼尔,1969米勒,1976隆斯特罗姆和拉模特1976斯旺和卡莫布1976目的地吸引力(法雅等人,1977古德里奇,1977年)。 

2.研究小组与科德角当地旅游专家政府官员企业家和民间领袖进行旅游咨询和交流,通过协商确定旅游者经常认为满意和不满意的是哪些项目。 

3.个在科德角度假的游客进行开放式的实地采访,以便更好地了解造成科德角游客满意和不满意的因素。

在综合以上信息的基础上,游客满意度的构建被界定为游客对于旅游体验这个具体领域的态度的一个集合。我们构建以下七个主要领域住宿、餐饮设施交通方便性、景点、成本、设施设备以及好客度这些维度的构建又衍生出32个项目的一系列设计,便于对马萨诸塞州科德角的游客满意度及其维度进行大量的测量。每个问题的回答都采用五点李克特式量表 

问卷包括两个附加的部分。第一部分是由包括动机、海角的吸引力以及所使用的服务类型在内的7个项目组成。第二部分涉及社会经济人口特征12个项目。 

2.2  样本

我们685位在马萨诸塞州科德角度假游客根据以下方法进行了抽样调查

1.编制一张关于科德角的主要旅游景点集群)的表。

2.由一个专家小组对每个集群的游客数量进行评分,分值为110,按照这个评分来确定群集排名

3每个群集被分配排名相对应比例的游客数目进行采访。在选取每个集群的采访对象时,采用在景点入口处使用随机选择的形式对游客进行采访,而不是定额抽样的形式 

2.3  说明

由于在这个研究中,我们主要是为了了解旅游地游客满意度要素构成因此我们使用因子分析方法。因子分析是一个找出一些共同因素从而来制定一套措施,它的根本目的是帮助研究人员发现和识别维度,因子。

旅游产品是由许多相互关联的部分组成,每个部分的满意度又是需要进行单独衡量,通过利用因子分析技术,可以简化这些措施的多重性。因此,因子分析衡量游客满意度方面非常有效。在这项研究中,主要的因子就是这32个项目。

我们选择这个方法,因为它不会改变原来的变量,而且主要部分是原始变量精确转换而来许多因素使用标准是由该特征值的最后一个因素的价值决定,我们包括用特征值(未旋转)大于或等于1.0的这些因素。这一标准能够确保那些至少占总变量的数量与(旋转)大于或者等于0.6包括在一个给定的因素

这意味着至少有36的方差所选择的变量所占百分比很大程度上取决于在一个给定的因素。与其他使用的0.5为标准的研究相比,这是一个保守的标准。我们这样做是为了提高研究结果的可靠性,并降低误判的机率。我们用自我旋转的方式来获取最终解决方案。 

此外,我们对所有项目的均值和标准偏差进行报告,以便为其他旅游目的地的研究提供比较的标准





2.4  结果

2.1  科德角游客满意度的平均数和标准差

变量

平均数

标准差

个数

旅游胜地的交通条件

2.35  1.06  670

科德角的商业化程度

2.58  1.01  669

商品和服务的成本

2.76   .98  677

度假费用

2.82  1.06  665

公正的商品和服务收费

2.89  .94  674

便捷的露营地

3.16  1.21  356

海滩上便捷的停车位

3.28  1.22  653

露营地设施的质量

3.31  1.06  340

居民帮助游客的意愿

3.58  1.04  655

居民的好客度

3.59   .97 665

居民对游客的礼貌性

3.60   .90 660

四通八达的交通网络

3.65  1.11  670

海滩设施的质量

3.57  1.13  654

高速公路指标的正确性

3.74  1.08  658

居民的友好程度

3.75   .90  668

/旅馆的服务质量

3.80   .83  558

便利店员工的友好程度

3.81   .83  653

便利店员工对游客的礼貌性

3.81   .78  647

海滩上的可用的空间

3.83   .95  663

旅游设施处员工帮助游客的意愿

3.84   .84  650

/旅馆所提供设施的质量

3.85   .83  575

餐饮店服务的质量

3.86   .83  674

购物商场的便利性和商品品质

3.90   .81  671

海滩的干净度

3.95   .88  672

餐饮店的食品质量

3.98   .82  674

天气条件

3.99   .93  679

旅游信息的充分性

4.00   .92  621

/旅馆的便利性

4.10   .86  592

环境的质量

4.29   .80  678

海滩的可利用性

4.31   .87  670

餐厅、咖啡厅和酒吧的可利用性

4.32   .77  672

自然风光的景色

4.58   .72  679


2.1呈现科德角游客的满意度评分的主要特点1表示非常满意,5表示非常满意。因此,值越高,说明游客越满意这些数值是游客对我们构建的32个项目分别进行1-5分的打分而得到。对于每个项目的平均值,我们可以分四个层次的评级平均值在1.00-1.99之间,代表满意度非常低平均值在2.00-2.99之间,代表满意度较低平均值在3.00-3.99之间,代表满意度较高平均值等于或者大于4.00,代表满意度非常高

上面表格中可知,我们所选取的这些游客对旅游目的地科德角表示出对较高的满意度。其中有19%6个项目)被评为非常满意66%21个项目较为满意。没有为非常满意度项目获得较高满意度的项目是自然资源——自然风景、相关景点、环境质量和沙滩。此外,还有旅游设施——包括酒店、旅馆和餐厅获得最低的项目有高消费交通条件化程度。
































2.2  科德角游客满意度因素构成

/因素

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

/旅馆的便利 

.14    .03   .15  .07   .56   .18  .28  .28

/旅馆所提供设施的质量

.21    .10   .15  .16   .84   .03  .07  .02

/旅馆的服务质量

.15    .16   .17  .19   .84   .05  .05 -.02

便捷的露营地

-.05    .19   .21  .22   .09   .78  .05 -.09

露营地设施的质量

.01    .12   .22  .20   .11   .78  .03 -.10

餐厅、咖啡厅和酒吧的可利用性

.00    .01   .19  .84   .09   .25  .39  .05

餐饮店的食品质量

.12   -.01   .19  .81   .19   .14  .09  .09

餐饮店服务的质量

.11    .13   .l9  .83   .13   .08  .04  .01

高速公路指标的正确性

.47    .01   .06  .34   .23  -.42  .07 -.06

旅游信息的充分性

.48   -.06   .25  .28   .24  -.38  .25 -.05

天气条件

.23   -.20   .05  .07   .10  -.03  .53  .28

四通八达的交通网络

.55   -.02   .14  .05   .08   .04  .21  .05

旅游胜地的交通条件

.47    .06   .06  .02   .05  -.16  .05  .53

度假费用

.06    .79   .13  .00   .08   .11  .04  .04

自然风光和景色

.29    .13   .12  .14   .07  -.02  .72 -.13

海滩的可利用性

.58    .05   .15  .11   .07   .06  .38 -.15

海滩设施的质量

.79   -.08   .05 -.05   .07   .09  .05 -.03

海滩的干净度

.72    .07   .11  .03   .15   .07  .24  .02

海滩上便捷的停车位

.75    .09   .04  .03   .08  -.12 -.04  .20

海滩上的可用的空间

.66    .19   .18  .12   .04   .14  .11  .16

居民帮助游客的意愿

.32    .07   .73  .01   .14   .10 -.02  .17

旅游设施处员工帮助游客的意愿

.03    .20   .78  .20   .01  -.09  .27 -.05

居民的友好程 

.18    .05   .82  .17   .04   .16  .03 -.02

便利店员工的友好程度

.04    .15   .00  .19   .03  -.02  .21 -.05

环境的质量

.23    .15   .27  .07   .05   .02  .62 -.01

商品和服务的成本

.08    .02   .19  .04   .09   .09  .04  .14

公正的商品和服务收费

.03    .82   .21  .07   .08   .07 -.04  .11

科德角的商业化程度

.01    .29   .03  .06   .05  -.06 -.01  .75

购物商场的便利性和商品品质

.08   -.01   .26  .22   .17   .36  .41  .33

便利店员工对游客的礼貌性

-.05    .23   .71  .21   .11   .04  .22 -.04

居民对游客的礼貌性

.23    .05   .81 -.03   .19   .24  .01  .04

居民的好客度

.22    .09   .79  .07   .19   .18  .07  .12


2.2提出了科德角旅游满意的因素构成基于之前的数据统计,将其构成分为8个因素。32个项目中有24个在加载8个因素时0.60甚至更高的比例

以下类型概述了游客满意度的因素:

因素1——海滩机会:包括海滩设施的质量、海滩地区的清洁度、停车场地的可获得性空间海滩可利用性

因素2——成本:包括休闲度假的费用一般商品和服务的价格以及其相对价格而言质量

3——殷勤待客包括居民帮助游客的意愿、雇员意援助游客的意愿、雇员对游客的友好和礼貌程度、居民对游客的礼貌度和居民的好客度

4——餐饮设施:包括餐厅、自助餐厅和酒吧的便利性、餐厅的品质以及服务的质量

因素5——住宿设施:包括酒店/旅馆所提供的设施的质量和提供的服务的质量

因素6——营区设施:包括2个项目组成:帐篷营地的可利用性和露营地设施的质量

因素7——环境因素包括风光自然景观生态环境质量

因素8——商业化程度这是一个单独的项目

这个实证研究结果表明24个项目是由八个不同的因素组合成。但是同时也有8个项目不属于任何的8个因素,分别是:酒店/的便捷性高速公路指示标志的正确性、旅游信息的充分性天气条件、四通八达的交通网络、交通条件、商业服务的可用性和质量。8个未加载项目中,四通八达的交通网络、交通条件、指示标志和旅游信息四个项目真正属于这个目的地的外部因素在旅游目的地区域里也没有扮演重要的角色因此,在讨论旅游景区满意度时,这些项目可以作为不相干的因素

3  结论和影响

研究结果使我们能够根据统计数据来确认和区别旅游目的地游客满意度的八个不同的因素。在科特角这个特殊的的例子中,发现了以下这些测量满意度的要素:海滩机会成本好客餐饮设施,住宿设施,环境和商业化程度。但是我们并不能够通过其他方法证明以上因素是唯一的。相反,这些因素可能是根据旅游目的地的具体情况而定,包括它的设施、景色吸引力、建筑排列、天气等等。然而,如果旅游目的地与马萨诸塞州的科德角一样是乡村夏日沙滩胜地,并且有相似的特点,那么也可以运用本篇所研究的要素来测量游客的满意度。

通过确认重要的游客满意度的要素构成,旅游的参与者旅游的研究者都能够更敏锐地发现造成游客满意或者不满意的原因并据此进行改进。

希望在未来对于游客满意度的构成要素这个新领域能有更进一步的研究,并且对其他不同类型旅游目的地的满意度因素进行经验性的识别和确认。同样,也要研究各个因素对总体满意度的重要性以及影响程度。


Dimentions Of Tourist Satisfaction With A Destination Area


Abstract: Pizam,Abraham,Yoram Neumann, and Arie Reichel.."Dimensions of Tourist Satisfaction with a Destination Area," Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. V, No. 3, July/September 1978, pp. 3.14-322. This paper empirically identifies eight factors of tourist satisfaction with Cape Cod,Massachusetts (USA) as a tourist destination area; and it suggests the means to measure them. By using a factor-analytic approach based on data obtained from a survey of 685 vacationing tourists, the following factors of tourist satisfaction were derived: beach opportunities, cost,hospitality, eating and drinking facilities, accommodation facilities,environment, and extent of commercialization.


Keywords: Tourist satisfaction. Dimensions of Tourists satisfaction. Satisfaction with Destination.


1  Literature Review

Tourism goods and services may be treated as a subset of goods and services in general. Viewed from this light,the following definition of tourist satisfaction is suggested:

"tourist satisfaction is the result of the interaction between a tourist's experience at the destination area and the expectations he had about that destination." When the weighted sum total of experiences compared to the expectations results in feelings of gratification, the tourist is satisfied; when the tourist's actual experiences compared with his expectations result in feelings of displeasure, he is dissatisfied. Though logical and apparently valid, this conceptual model of tourist satisfaction is inoperative as it does not identify the separate components and dimensions of tourist satisfaction or suggest the means to measure them.

The question of dimensions of satisfaction was considered by Swan and Combs.They suggested that satisfaction with a product performance should occur in two independent dimensionsmthe instrumental and the expressive. Instrumental performance corresponds to the physical performance of the product, such as the durability of an item of clothing. Expressive performance relates to the "psychological" level of performance, or the styling of the clothing (Swan and Combs,1976,p.26). The relative weights that consumers attach to each of these two dimensions may vary from product to product. For some products, such as clothing,the expressive dimension is more important than the instrumental one; for others,such as a lawn mower, the instrumental dimension is of greater value.

The above holds several implications for the measurement of consumer satisfaction in general and for tourist satisfaction in particular. In order to measure consumer satisfaction with a product or service, one must first identify and measure its different performance dimensions. Second, the relative importance of each dimension must be determined.

In tourist satisfaction, the measurement becomes rather complex. Usually, the expressive performance dimension of most tourism products is much more important than the instrumental one. Therefore practitioners often emphasize expressive measurement--the confort, luxury, hospitality and reputation of a hotel are emphasized over a room's functionality and price. Seemingly, this would simplify the measurement of tourist satisfaction. Nevertheless, signigicant difference exists between tourism products and other consumer products--while most products are homogeneous and uniform, the tourism product is an intangible composite of many interrelated components. Consider, for example, the common tourism product called family vacation. This product consists of many subproducts, activities and events including accommodations, food and beverage purchases, excursions, participation in recreational activities, entertainment and so forth. A "halo effect" may occur, wherein satisfaction or dissatisfaction with one of the components leads to satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the total tourism product. Consequently it is very important to identify and measure tourist satisfaction with each of the components. 

This exploratory study seeks to identify empirically factors of tourist satisfaction with a destination area and suggests methods to measure them. It is a segment of a larger study of tourism on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, which sought to measure tourist perceptions of vacation outcome (Pizam and Acquaro,1977).


2 Methodology

2.1 Instrument

To establish preliminary boundaries for the concept of tourist satisfaction and to develop a scale that would efficiently measure it, the following procedure was followed:(1)The literature dealing with factors such as consumer satisfaction (Engledow,1977; Anderson and Jolson,1973; McNeal,1969:Miller,1976,Lundstrom and Lamont,1976; Swan and Combs,1976) and attributes of destination attractiveness(Varetal.,1977;Goodrich,1977) was reviewed.(2)The Study Team consulted with local (Cape Cod) tourism experts, public officials, tourism entrepreneurs and civic leaders.This consultation was aimed at identifying items on which tourists frequently express satisfaction and dissatisfaction.(3)Open-ended field interviews with twenty-nine tourists vacationing on Cape Cod were conducted in order to gain a better understanding of the factors causing satisfaction and dissatisfaction with Cape Cod.

On the basis of this information, the construct of tourist satisfaction was defined as a collection of tourists' attitudes about specific domains in the vacationing experience.Our construct consisted of the following seven major domains: accommodations,eating and drinking establishments, accessibility, attractions, cost,amenities and facilities, and hospitality. When operationalized the construct resulted in a series of thirty-two items designed to measure a multitude of satisfactions with the tourism dimensions of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The response to each question was rated on a five-point Likert-type scale.

Our questionaire included two additional sections. The first section was composed of seven items in the area of motivations, attractiveness to the Cape, and types of services used. The second section covered socio-economic-demographic characteristics and included twelve items.

2.2  Sample

We drew a weighted cluster sample of 685 tourists vacationing on Cape Cod Massachusetts in the following manner:

1. A list of the Cape's major tourist attractions (clusters) was compiled.

2. Each cluster was ranked for volume of visitors (equating volume to attractiveness) on a scale of 1 to 10 by a panel of experts.

3. Each cluster was assigned a given number of tourists to be interviewed proportionate to its relative ranking. Within each cluster the tourists to be interviewed were randomly selected at the entrance to the given attraction by using a table of random numbers. No form of quota sampling was involved.

2.3  Analysis

Since in this study we sought to understand dimensions of tourist satisfaction with destination areas, we used the factor-analytic approach. Factor analysis is a method of finding the common elements that underlie a set of measures, lts fundamental purpose is to help the researcher discover and identify unities or dimensions, called factors.

Factor analysis is expecially useful in measuring tourist satisfaction since the tourism product is made up of many interrelated components each of which requires a separate measure of satisfaction. By using the factor analytic technique we can simplify the multiplicity of these measures. In this study principal factoring without iteration was performed on thirty two items.

We chose this method because it does not alter the original variables and the principal components are the exact mathematical transformation of the original variables. The criterion used for deciding the number of factors was the value of the Eigen value for the last factor. We included only those factors with Eigen values (before rotation) greater or equal to 1.0. This criterion ensures that only components accounting for at least the amount of the total variables with loadings (after rotation) greater or equal to 0.6 were included in a given factor. This means that at least 36 percent of the variance of the chosen variable is accounted for by the variation in a given factor. This is a conservative criterion compared to other studies which use 0.5 as the cutting offloading. We did this in order to increase the reliability of our findings and to decrease the probability of misclassification. We used varimax rotation to reach the final solution.

In addition, the means and the standard deviations for all items are reported in order to serve as comparison standards for research on other tourism destinations.



















2.4  Results

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviation Tourlsts's Satisfaction with Destination

Variable

Mean*

S.D.

N

Traffic condition in the resort area

2.35 1.06 670

Extent of commercialization on the Cape(H= 1, L=5)

2.58 1.01 669

Cost of general goods and services (H= 1, L=5)

2.76 .98 677

Cost of vacationing (H= 1, L=5)

2.82 1.06 665

Fairness of the services and goods for the price charges

2.89 .94 674

Availability of campgrounds

3.16 1.21 356

Availability of parking spaces for the beaches

3.28 1.22 653

Quality of facilities at campgrounds

3.31 1.06 340

Willingness of residents to aid tourists

3.58 1.04 655

General hospitality of residents towards tourists

3.59 .97 665

Courtesy of residents towards the tourists

3.60 .90 660

Ease of access to the resort area

3.65 1.11 670

Quality of facilities at beaches

3.57 1.13 654

Adequacy of directional signs on highways

3.74 1.08 658

General friendliness of the people in the area

3.75 .90 668

Quality of service in hotels/motels

3.80 .83 558

General friendliness of the employees of tourist facilities

3.81 .83 653

Courtesy of employees of tourist facilities towards tourists

3.81 .78 647

Availability of space on the beach

3.83 .95 663

Willingness of the employees of tourist facilities to aid tourists

3.84 .84 650

Quality of facilities offered at hotels/motels

3.85 .83 575

Quality of service in eating and drinking places

3.86 .83 674

Availability and quality of shopping facilities

3.90 .81 671

Cleanliness of the beach area

3.95 .88 672

Quality of eating and drinking places

3.98 .82 674

Weather conditions

3.99 .93 679

Adequacy of tourism information

4.00 .92 621

Availability of hotels/motels

4.10 .86 592

Quality of the environment

4.29 .80 678

Availability of beaches

4.31 .87 670

Availability of restaurants, cafeterias and bars

4.32 .77 672

Scenery and natural attraction

4.58 .72 679


Table 1 presents the main characteristics of tourist ratings of satisfaction with Cape Cod. The ratings are based on a five-point scale for each of the thirty-two items representing our construct. Four levels of rating have been defined for the mean of each item:l) Very low - for means which are 1.00 through 1.992) Low . for means which are 2.00 through 2.993) High - for means which are 3.00 through 3.994) Very high - for means which are 4.00 and greater.

As seen in the above table, the tourists in our sample expressed fairly high satisfaction with Cape Code as a destination area. Nineteen percent or six items were rated as very highly satisfying, sixty-six percent or twenty-one items were rated as highly satisfying. No items were rated as very low in satisfaction.

The items receiving the highest ratings were natural assets--scenery, natural attractions, the environmental quality and beaches--and tourism facilities including hotels, motels and restaurants. The items receiving the lowest rating included high costs, trafic conditions, and extent of commercialization.






















Table 2  The Factor Structure of Tourists' Satisfaction with De6tlnetlon Area

Variable/ Factor*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

AVAILABILITY OF HOTELS/MOTELS

.14 .03 .15 .07 .56 .18 .28 .28

QUALITY OF FACILITIES OFFERED AT HOTELS

.21 .10 .15 .16 .84 .03 .07 .02

QUALITY OF SERVICE IN HOTELS/MOTELS

.15 .16 .17 .19 .84 .05 .05 -.02

AVAILABILITY OF CAMPGROUNDS

-.05 .19 .21 .22   .09   .78 .05 -.09

QUALITY OF FACILITIES AT CAMPGROUNDS

.01 .12 .22 .20 .11 .78 .03 -.10

QUALITY OF FACILITIES AT CAMPGROUNDS

.00 .01 .19 .84 .09 .25 .39 .05

QUALITY OF EATING & DRINKING PLACES

.12 -.01 .19 .81 .19 .14 .09 .09

QUALITY OF SERVICE IN EATING & DRINKING PLACES

.11 .13 .l9 .83 .13 .08 .04 .01

ADEQUACY OF HIGHWAY DIRECTIONAL SIGNS

.47 .01 .06 .34 .23 -.42 .07 -.06

ADEQUACY OF TOURISM INFORMATION

.48   -.06   .25  .28   .24  -.38  .25 -.05

WEATHER CONDITIONS

.23 -.20 .05 .07 .10 -.03 .53 .28

EASE OF ACCESS

.55 -.02 .14 .05 .08 .04 .21 .05

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

.47 .06 .06 .02 .05 -.16 .05 .53

COST OF VACATIONING

.06 .79 .13 .00 .08 .11 .04 .04

SCENERY AND NATURAL ATI'RACTION

.29 .13 .12 .14 .07 -.02 .72 -.13

AVAILABILITY OF BEACHES

.58 .05 .15 .11 .07 .06 .38 -.15

QUALITY OF FACILITIES AT BEACHES

.79   -.08   .05 -.05   .07   .09  .05 -.03

CLEANLINESS OF THE BEACH AREAS

.72 .07 .11 .03 .15 .07 .24 .02

AVAILABILITY OF PARKING SPACES FOR THE BEACHE

.75 .09 .04 .03 .08 -.12 -.04 .20

AVAILABILITY OF SPACE ON THE BEACH

.66 .19 .18 .12 .04 .14 .11 .16

WILLINGNESS OF RESIDENTS TO AID THE TOURIST

.32 .07 .73 .01 .14 .10 -.02 .17

WILLINGNESS OF EMPLOYEES OF FACILITIES TO AID TOURISTS

.03 .20 .78 .20 .01 -.09 .27 -.05

GENERAL FRIENDLINESS OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA

.18 .05 .82 .17 .04 .16 .03 -.02

GENERAL FRiENDLiNESS OF THE EMPLOYEES OF FACILITIES

.04 .15 .00 .19 .03 -.02 .21 -.05

QUALITY OF TH E ENVI RONMENT

.23 .15 .27 .07 .05 .02 .62 -.01

COST OF GENERAL GOODS AND SERVICES

.08 .02 .19 .04 .09 .09 .04 .14

FAIRNESS OF SERVICES AND GOODS RELATIVE TO PRICE

.03 .82 .21 .07 .08 .07 -.04 .11

EXTENT OF COMMERCIALIZATION

.01 .29 .03 .06 .05 -.06 -.01 .75

AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY OF SHOPPING FACILITIES

.08 -.01 .26 .22 .17 .36 .41 .33

COURTESY OF EMPLOYEES TOWARDS TOURISTS

-.05 .23 .71 .21 .11 .04  .22 -.04

COURTESY OF RESIDENTS TOWARDS TOURISTS

.23 .05 .81 -.03 .19 .24 .01 .04

GENERAL HOSPITALITY OF RESIDENTS

.22 .09 .79 .07 .19 .18 .07 .12


Table 2 (next page) presents the factor structure of tourist satisfaction with Cape Cod. Based on the statistical analysis reviewed earlier, eight factors were derived.Twenty-four of the original thirty-two items had a 0.60 or greater loading with one of the eight factors. The following typology outlines the factors of satisfaction.

Factor 1 - Beach opportunities: This factor included the quality of beach facilities,cleanliness of beach areas, availability of parking spaces, and availability of space on the beach.

Factory 2 - Cost: This factor included the cost of vacationing, the cost of general goods and services, and the quality of goods and services relative to price.

Factor 3 - Hospitality: This factor consisted of the following items: willingness of residents to aid tourists, willingness of employees to aid tourists, general friendliness of employees, courtesy of employees toward tourists, courtesy of residents toward tourists, general hospitality of residents.

Factor 4 - Eating and drinking facilities: The following items were included in this factor: availability of restaurants, cafeterias, and bars; quality of eating and drinking places; and quality of service in eating and drinking places.

Factor 5 - Accommodation facilities: This factor included two items: quality of facilities offered at hotels/motels and quality of service in hotels/motels.

Factor 6 - Campground facilities: This factor consisted of two items: availability of campgrounds, and quality of campground facilities.

Factor 7 - Environment: Two items were included in this factor: scenery and natural attractions, and quality of environment.

Factor 8 - Extent of commercialization: This was a one-item factor.

An examination of the empirical findings suggested that the twenty-four items composed eight distinct factors, while eight items that did not belong to any of the eight factors were: availabilty of hotels/motels (evidently this is not an issue in a resort area), adequacy of highway directional signs, adequacy of tourism information, weather conditions, ease of access, traffic conditions, availability and quality of shopping services (mixing availability with quality here may be problematic; future research should separate these two facets).Four of the eight unloaded items were external factors that did not really belong to the destination itself. Ease of access, traffic conditions, directional signs, and information did not play an important role once the tourist was in the destination area.Therefore, these items may be irrelevant in gauging satisfaction with the destination area, and their lack of connection to any of the factors is not a great surprise.


3  Discussion

The results of this study enabled us to identify and distinguish statistically between eight separate factors of tourist satisfaction with a destination area. In the specific case of Cape Cod, these factors were found to be: beach opportunities, cost,hospitality, eating and drinking facilities, accommodations facilities, campground facilities, environment, and commercialization. Our findings by no means suggest that the above factors are universal. Rather, the factors probably depend on the destination area, its facilities, attractions, land formation, weather, and so forth. We however propose that destinations having features similar to those of Cape Cod, Massachus e t t s - r u r a l summer beach resort areas-could use the same factors as the ones developed here.

By identifying the significant dimensions of tourist satisfaction, the tourism practitioner and travel researcher can sensitively analyze the causes of general satisfaction/dissatisfaction and rectify them accordingly.

It is hoped that further research in this relatively new area will lead to empirical identification of the factors of satisfaction for different types of destination areas, as well as to determination of the relative impact of each factor on total tourist satisfaction.



[1]  Pizam, Abraham, Yoram Neumann,and Arie Reichel"Dimensions of Tourist Satisfaction with a Destination Area," Annals of Tourism Research,Vol. V, No.3, July/September 1978:314-322.

最新论文

网站导航

热门论文