Journal ofhttp://jvm.sagepub.

com/
Vacation Marketing

Relationships among residents' image, evaluation of the stay and post-purchase behaviour
Enrique Bigné Alcañiz, Isabel Sánchez García and Silvia Sanz Blas
Journal of Vacation Marketing 2005 11: 291
DOI: 10.1177/1356766705056626

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jvm.sagepub.com/content/11/4/291

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Vacation Marketing can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jvm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jvm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jvm.sagepub.com/content/11/4/291.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Aug 31, 2005

What is This?

Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014


Academic Papers
Relationships among residents’ image,
evaluation of the stay and post-purchase
behaviour
Enrique Bigné Alcañiz,* Isabel Sánchez Garcı́a and Silvia Sanz Blas
Received (in revised form): January 2005
Anonymously refereed paper
*University of Valencia, Faculty of Economics, Marketing Department, Avda. Tarongers s/n 46022
Valencia, Spain
Tel: +34 96 382 83 12; Fax: +34 96 382 83 33; E-mail: Enrique.Bigne@uv.es
Enrique Bigné is currently Professor of market-
ing and head of the Department of Marketing of
the Faculty of Economics at the University of
Valencia. He has published more than 60
papers in international and leading Spanish
academic journals and numerous books. He is
a member of the editorial board of several
journals. His research focuses on advertising,
international marketing, tourism marketing, ser-
vice marketing and strategic marketing. He is a
member of the American Marketing Association,
Academy of Marketing Science and European
Marketing Academy.
Isabel Sánchez is Assistant Professor of mar-
keting in the Faculty of Economics at the Uni-
versity of Valencia. Her research and teaching
interests are focused on the areas of consumer
behaviour, communication and marketing
research.
Silvia Sanz is Assistant Professor of Marketing
in the Faculty of Economics at the University of
Valencia. She received her PhD from the Univer-
sity of Valencia. Her primary research interests
include communication, sales, e-commerce, in-
teractive marketing and consumer behaviour.
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014
Journal of Vacation Marketing Volume 11 Number 4
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS: residents, destination image,
evaluation of stay, post-purchase behaviour
Scholars have approached the analysis of the host
community from a supply perspective rather than a
demand one. This paper focuses on the study of
residents when acting as tourists in their own
region. In this sense, the present work aims to fill
the gap existing in the literature about residents’
tourist behaviour, analysing the influence of the
image of their province on their evaluation of their
travel experience and their future behaviour inten-
tions. To accomplish this objective, a path analysis
is carried out to test jointly the set of relationships
among image, perceived quality, satisfaction, in-
tention to return and willingness to recommend.
INTRODUCTION
The host community has been the subject of
several studies in the tourism sector, since it
forms part of the product which tourists will
enjoy during their stay in the destination.1
The resident population contributes substan-
Journal of Vacation Marketing
tially to the formation of a destination’s im- Vol. 11 No. 4, 2005, pp. 291–302
age,2 so its support for the tourist industry will & SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA,
affect tourists’ perception of the destination and New Delhi.
www.sagepublications.com
and consequently their buying behaviour. DOI: 10.1177/1356766705056626
Page 291
Residents’ image, evaluation of stay and behaviour
Adequate development of tourism implies
that all the agents of the destination, and not
only those belonging to the tourism sector,
are involved in the management and plan-
ning of tourism. Consequently, the host
community is yet another element to be
considered in the competitiveness of a desti-
nation, and more and more interest is being
shown in studying the attitude of residents
towards the tourism of their region or
country3
5 and their perceptions of their
locality’s tourist image.6
9
However, both scholars and practitioners
have paid little attention to local residents as
potential visitors to their region.10 Studies in
this respect have dealt with the economic
potential of this market,11 the resident popu-
lation’s degree of knowledge of the tourist
attractions of their area,12 the visiting friends
and relatives market13 and the short-break
market.14 However, the purchasing behav-
iour and vacationing habits of the domestic
market have not been adequately studied,
with the recent important exception of Hud-
son and Ritchie,15 who focus on identifying
the most important factors leading residents
to choose their own region as a tourist
destination, evaluating their image of it and
understanding the making of travel decisions,
all from a perspective of segmentation of the
domestic market.
Though some research has focused on
studying the resident population’s perception
of their region as a tourism destination,16
18
it has not analysed the influence of this image
on residents’ tourism behaviour. The aim of
this study is to continue deepening the un-
derstanding of residents as visitors in their
own region, including both tourists (visitors
who stay at least one night in the destination)
and day-trippers (those who do not stay
overnight in the resort). For this purpose,
empirical research was carried out in the
province of Valencia, one of the main tourist
areas in Spain.
Spain is the world’s second most popular
tourist destination and was visited by 51.1
million tourists in 2002.19,20 From a domestic
point of view, 91.5 per cent of Spanish
tourists focus their travels in their own
country.21
Page 292 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014
The Valencia region was visited by 4.9
million foreign visitors in 200222 and around
15 million trips were taken there by residents
from other areas of Spain,23 making this
region the second most popular tourist desti-
nation for domestic holidays (representing
13 per cent of all holidays taken).24
Of the tourists visiting the region of Va-
lencia a significant percentage reside in the
region (27 per cent).25 Data show that 79.8
per cent of these holidaymakers return to the
area they have visited, and 92.3 per cent
intend to return at some future date.26
Consequently, this paper focuses on
analysis of the influence of the image held by
residents in Valencia of their region on their
post-purchase evaluation of the stay and on
their future behaviour intentions, as well as
the relations between the evaluative variables
and the behaviour variables. All the relation-
ships are tested jointly using a structural
equation model.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND
HYPOTHESES
There is broad agreement among authors
regarding the influence of tourism image on
tourists’ behaviour.27,28 Since tourism image
is defined as an individual’s overall perception
or total set of impressions of a place,29,30 or as
the mental portrayal of a destination,31,32 it is
logical to believe that it will exercise some
influence over tourists’ behaviour.33
Studies carried out during the last two
decades have shown that the image is a very
valuable concept for understanding the pro-
cess of selecting a destination.34 Many of
them focused on the relationship between
the image and preference and/or intentions
to visit the destination.35,36 However, the
influence of the image is not limited to the
stage of choosing the destination, but also
affects the behaviour of tourists in gener-
al.37,38 The image thus becomes a basic aspect
of the analysis of tourists’ behaviour before,
during and after the holiday experience.39
In the analysis of consumers’ post-pur-
chase behaviour, the variables ‘intention to
return to the destination’ and ‘willingness to

recommend it’ have been two of the indica-
tors most used for measuring such behav-
iour.40
42 Several studies have focused on
both intention to repurchase and willingness
to recommend or positive word-of-mouth
communication.43,44
In the field of tourism, several researchers
have demonstrated that the image of a desti-
nation affected positively both the intention
to return again in the future and the inten-
tion to recommend.45,46 Focusing on resi-
dents, Schroeder47 points out the influence
of their image of their region on how much
they travel in it. This author also shows that
there is a direct relationship between the
resident population’s image of their region
and their intention to recommend it as a
destination to other people. Taking the
above into account, the first two hypotheses
of this study are as follows.
• H1: The more favourable the residents’
image of their region, the greater prob-
ability that they will return in the future.
• H2: The more favourable the residents’
image of their region, the greater prob-
ability that they will recommend it as a
tourism destination.
The tourism image also exercises a posi-
tive influence over the perceived quality and
the degree of satisfaction with the experi-
ence.48
50 The concept of perceived quality
as a comparison between expectations and
result perceived by the consumer is the one
that has gained most acceptance in the mar-
keting literature.51,52 Quality is considered to
be a holistic judgement made by the consu-
mer on the basis of the excellence or overall
superiority of the service. More specifically,
it is a type of attitude related but not equiva-
lent to satisfaction, which is described as the
degree and the direction of the gaps between
the perceptions of the result and the consu-
mer’s expectations regarding the service.53
In the field of tourism, studies of service
quality have begun to be important since the
early 1990s. Outstanding are studies of ser-
vice quality in hotel firms,54,55 in airlines,
restaurants, hotels and ski stations,56 in res-
taurant chains57 and in tourist destinations,
among others.58,59
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014
Bigné, Sánchez and Sanz
With regard to the analysis of satisfaction,
Giese and Cote60 made a wide-ranging re-
view of the existing conceptual and opera-
tional definitions of satisfaction. They
highlighted that specific definitions of con-
sumer satisfaction need to be made according
to the context, understood as the confluence
of three dimensions: emotional judgement,
object of the satisfaction and the particular
moment to be analysed. Another aspect to
be taken into account in defining consumer
satisfaction is distinguishing between overall
satisfaction and satisfaction with individual
attributes. Satisfaction with a specific attrib-
ute is not the only antecedent of overall
satisfaction.61 Overall satisfaction is a broader
concept implying a holistic evaluation after
the purchase, and not the sum of the indivi-
dual valuations of each attribute.62,63
There are also several tourism studies that
focus on the analysis of satisfaction. Some
examine tourists’ satisfaction with the ser-
vices of the destination.64,65 Others associate
the user’s satisfaction with recreational
services.66 Several studies analyse tourists’
satisfaction with tours67,68 and cruises.69 Some
explore the components of satisfaction with
the services performed by hotels and restau-
rants,70,71 and others focus on individual as-
pects such as the quality of the tourism
experience or the opinions of tourists regard-
ing the tourism industry and satisfaction.72
74
Tourism image exercises a positive influ-
ence 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.75,76 Further-
more, the evaluation of the experience at the
destination will also influence the image and
modify it.77
Kotler et al.78 consider the following logi-
cal sequence: image, quality, satisfaction,
post-purchase behaviour. Thus the image
affects how customers perceive quality. Con-
sequently, perceived quality increases if the
organization has a positive image. The Nor-
dic School of Service Quality also reflects
this idea in the so-called ‘image model’,
which considers that the quality perceived
by the consumer is influenced by three
Page 293
Residents’ image, evaluation of stay and behaviour
factors: technical quality, functional quality
and corporate image.79 Lewis80 also identifies
three factors of influence: physical quality or
the physical aspect of the service and the
surroundings; interactive quality deriving
from the contact between provider and cus-
tomer; and the image of the organization.
Perceived quality in turn determines consu-
mers’ satisfaction, as the ultimate aim is the
evaluation by the customer of perceived
quality.81,82 Perceived quality thus becomes
an antecedent of satisfaction and one of the
necessary conditions to achieve a satisfactory
vacation experience.83
85
Consequently the third, fourth and fifth
hypotheses can be enunciated as follows.
• H3: The more favourable the residents’
image of their region, the greater will be
the perceived quality of the stay in their
travels in it.
• H4: The more favourable the residents’
image of their region, the greater will be
the satisfaction obtained from their travels
in it.
• H5: Perceived quality has a positive in-
fluence on the satisfaction of residents as
tourists.
Together with the image, two other vari-
ables can also affect tourists’ post-purchase
behaviour: perceived quality and satisfaction,
as variables related to the evaluation of the
stay.86 The literature on marketing has
shown that there is a positive relationship
between perceived quality and post-purchase
behaviour intentions87 a relationship that has
been tested, following the model of
Figure 1 Model of the relationships among residents’ image, evaluation of the stay and post-purchase behaviour
H1
Quality
Image H3
H5
H4
Satisfaction
H2
Page 294 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014
Zeithaml,88 in the field of tourism.89,90 There
is also evidence that satisfaction exercises a
positive influence on post-purchase behav-
iour,91,92 being a determinant of the intention
to repeat the purchase or to use the service
in the future.93,94 Various studies have re-
vealed that a dissatisfied consumer is very
likely never to return again to the des-
tination.95
In the tourist sector, Baker and
Crompton96 empirically tested the influence
of perceived quality and satisfaction on fu-
ture behaviour intentions. Consequently, the
study has four further hypotheses.
• H6: The higher the perceived quality of
the tourism experience of residents in
their region, the more likely they are to
return in the future.
• H7: The higher the perceived quality of
the tourism experience of residents in
their region, the more likely they are to
recommend it.
• H8: The greater residents’ satisfaction
with the vacation experience in their
region, the more likely they are to return
in the future.
• H9: The greater residents’ satisfaction
with the vacation experience in their
region, the more likely they are to re-
commend it.
On the basis of the above hypotheses, a
comprehensive model (represented in Figure
1) is proposed which allows one to concep-
tualize the result of residents’ vacation ex-
perience.
H6
Intention to
return
H7 H8
Willingness to
recommend
H9
 Bigné, Sánchez and Sanz

METHODOLOGY item by asking respondents: ‘How would

Sample design and data collection
The empirical study was carried out in the
province of Valencia. The sample was taken
in 14 Valencian towns and cities, trying to
cover all the region and include the main
tourist destinations. A sample size of 1255
individuals of over 16 years old was finally
obtained, and sample error was below 3 per
cent for a confidence level of 95.5 per cent
(p ¼ q ¼ 0.5). The sample profile is dis-
played in Table 1.
Data were gathered during the months of
May, June and July 2003. The questionnaire
was administered personally to the respon-
dents.
Operationalization of constructs
Operationalization of image
Most studies of destination image have been
undertaken either with a multi-attribute ap-
proach or with non-structured techniques,
with the first option predominating.97–99 In
the former approach, tourism image is eval-
uated through a battery of attributes assessed
by means of a Likert scale or a semantic
differential 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 five-point rating
you describe the image that you have of. . .?’
The responses ranged from highly unfavour-
able (1) to highly favourable (5). This overall
measure was chosen for two reasons. On the
one hand, the purpose of the study is to
analyse the interrelationships among destina-
tion image and other variables, and not to
perform an in-depth analysis of the con-
struct. On the other, image has been de-
scribed as an overall impression greater than
the sum of its parts.100 Attribute lists may be
incomplete by failing to incorporate all of
the relevant characteristics of the destination
image.101,102 A complete operationalization
of destination image involves measuring
both attributes and holistic impressions,103,104
i.e. a combination of structured and unstruc-
tured methodology is required. Therefore,
the average or sum of the attribute scores is
not an adequate measurement of the overall
image. Baloglu and McCleary105 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.
Operationalization of perceived quality
Perceived quality was measured by asking
respondents ‘How would you describe the
stay in relation with what you had expected?’

Table 1: Profile of survey respondents

Variable % Variable %
Gender Residence
Male 46.9 Valencia city 46.4
Female 53.1 Rest of province 53.6
Age Occupation
16–24 years 29.5 Employed 42.1
25–34 years 20.2 Self-employed 10.8
35–45 years 19.6 Retired 15.5
46–55 years 10.0 Unemployed 5.0
56–65 years 10.3 Housework 9.6
66 years or over 10.4 Student 17.0
Education level Income
None 3.5 Below average 31.8
Primary 26.3 Near average 24.3
Secondary 37.7 Above average 37.4
University 32.5 Well above average 6.5

Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014 Page 295
Residents’ image, evaluation of stay and behaviour
Responses ranged from very much below
expectations (1) to very much above expec-
tations (5). Although in the gap model and
the SERVQUAL scale106,107 the authors
measured both expectations and perceptions,
respondents were asked to judge their stay in
comparison with their expectations directly.
This approach agrees with Carman’s
proposition,108 rather than questions about
perceptions and expectations being asked
separately.109 Perceived quality was measured
by means of a single-item rating scale for
similar reasons. Again, the purpose of the
study determined the type of measure to be
used. Likewise, even Zeithaml et al.110 used
an overall single-item rating scale for meas-
uring service quality along with a multiple-
item scale.
Operationalization of satisfaction
Satisfaction is a complex construct that has
received broad attention in the marketing
literature.111 As discussed earlier, overall sa-
tisfaction is not the same as satisfaction with
individual attributes.112,113 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.114–116 The residents’ satisfac-
tion with the holiday experience, therefore,
was measured by a single-item five-point
rating scale by asking ‘How would you
describe your stay?’ Respondents were
asked to rate along a five-point scale from
(1) very unsatisfactory to (5) very satisfac-
tory.
Operationalization of behavioural
variables
Intention to return and to recommend the
destination were also measured using a single
five-point rating item, following Boulding et
al.,117 by asking the respondents: ‘Would you
return to. . .?’ ‘Would you recommend it to
someone?’ Responses could rate from defi-
nitely yes (1) to definitely no (5).
Page 296 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014
Hypotheses testing
The data were processed with the statistical
program EQS 6.1. In order to determine the
direction and significance of the relation-
ships, the hypotheses must be tested simulta-
neously. With this aim, a path analysis was
carried out which considers jointly all the
hypotheses put forward, using the maximum
likelihood method.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
With the purpose of verifying if the data
fitted the theoretical model and testing
jointly the set of hypotheses proposed in the
present work, a path analysis was carried out.
The results of a first evaluation (see M1 in
Table 2)118 revealed that the data of the
sample did not fit the overall model pro-
posed; good indicators of goodness of fit
were not obtained. This led to the need to
respecify the initial hypothetical model, eli-
minating some relationships and incorporat-
ing new ones in order to optimize the fit.
The initial model estimation (M1) indi-
cated the convenience of eliminating the
relation Quality ! Willingness to recom-
mend (as not being significant); this leads to
model M2, which shows an important im-
provement in the fitting rates compared to
the initial model, although it continues to be
considered inadequate. Again, regarding the
theoretical support and following the recom-
mendations given by the program, a new
relation is added, H10, Intention to return
! Willingness to recommend. This gives a
model (M3) that offers an excellent fit ac-
cording to the data showed in Table 2.
Table 3 collects the standardized solution
of the model and shows the fulfilment of the
hypotheses suggested in the present study.
All the proposed hypotheses are fulfilled ex-
cept the relation Quality ! Willingness to
recommend. This fact is reflected in the t-
values over 3.291, and mean that the rela-
tionships are significant for a reliability level
of 99.9 per cent. The sign of the estimated
parameters is what would be expected ac-
cording to the literature review carried out.
 Bigné, Sánchez and Sanz

Table 2: Model goodness fitting

Initial model Model 2 Final model
Fitting rates Recommended level (M-1) (M-2) (M-3)
X2 (df): p value p . 0.05 219.69(1) ,0.001 236.20(2) ,0.001 5.13(1) p . 0.05
GFI Near 1 0.940 0.940 0.990
RMR ,0.05 0.050 0.050 0.006
RMSEA ,0.08 0.410 0.300 0.060
NFI .0.90 0.770 0.760 0.990
NNFI .0.90 1.250 0.760 0.990
AGFI High (near 1) 0.094 0.510 0.960
IFI High (near 1) 0.770 0.760 0.990
CFI High (near 1) 0.770 0.760 0.990
Normed X2 Between 1 and 31 219.690 118.100 5.130
AIC Low value 217.690 232.000 4.630
Note
1
Values between 1 and 5 are also acceptable.

Table 3: Regression coefficients, t–value and hypotheses fulfilment

Standardized
Final model (M3) coefficients t-value Hypotheses
Image ! Intention to return 0.202 7.247* H1: Fulfilled
Image ! Willingness to recommend 0.169 6.601* H2: Fulfilled
Image ! Quality 0.227 8.254* H3: Fulfilled
Image ! Satisfaction 0.221 8.597* H4: Fulfilled
Quality ! Satisfaction 0.363 14.142* H5: Fulfilled
Quality ! Intention to return 0.126 4.319* H6: Fulfilled
Quality ! Willingness to recommend – – H7: Not fulfilled
Satisfaction ! Intention to return 0.153 5.120* H8: Fulfilled
Satisfaction ! Willingness to recommend 0.139 5.463* H9: Fulfilled
Intention to return ! Willingness to recommend 0.401 15.883* H10: Fulfilled
*p , 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGERIAL It should be taken into account that this

IMPLICATIONS
With regards to the sequence of image !
quality ! satisfaction ! post-purchase be-
haviour suggested by the review of the lit-
erature, the analysis of the interrelationships
as a whole confirms this model.
Since quality is an immediate antecedent
of satisfaction, and affects intention to return
both directly and through satisfaction, its
measurement and improvement are a crucial
aspect for those in charge of the destination.
study measures overall perceived quality,
referring to the whole vacation experience.
Many private and public agents intervene in
the configuration of this experience, from
the providers of specific services of accom-
modation, transport or leisure, among
others, to the tourism information offices,
natural and artificial resources, etc. It is
therefore no easy task to achieve a high
overall perceived quality, and coordination
and cooperation among all those involved

Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014 Page 297
Residents’ image, evaluation of stay and behaviour
and full awareness of the importance of
delivering quality and diagnosing it are es-
sential. The situation becomes even more
complicated when one takes into account
that, as pointed out by Ryan,119 a single
unpleasant incident can lead to a negative
overall valuation, depending on how impor-
tant it is for the tourist.
This study has focused on residents when
they become visitors in their own region.
Therefore, destination managers must con-
sider the host community from a double
perspective. Firstly, it is an important source
of potential visitors to attract to the destina-
tion. Secondly, it is part of the global pro-
duct that other tourists will enjoy. In this
sense, those private and public organizations
involved in the marketing of the destination
should address special marketing policies to
residents with the aim of acquiring their
support for tourism development in their
area and encouraging them to remain in
their area when practising tourism.
Unfortunately, destination management is
slower than that of other fields in applying
quality improvement measures. On occa-
sions the added difficulties mentioned above
lead to uncoordinated provision.
Improving residents’ image of their region
as a place for tourism positively affects their
intention to travel in it, agreeing with the
results of Schroeder.120 Image is shown in
this study to be a key factor in the hands of
destination managers. It is a direct antecedent
of the evaluation of the stay and future be-
haviour. It is also a key factor in influencing
the choice of holiday destination, although
this has not been analysed in this study.
Destination managers should therefore not
delay in taking a serious approach to their
image, trying to develop programmes to
improve firstly residents’ knowledge, and
secondly their image, of the tourist attrac-
tions of their region.
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 offices, public relations, advising
travel agents and tour operators and promo-
tional instruments. Also, since one’s own
Page 298 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014
experience, or that of friends, acquaintances
or family, is very important in forming an
image, all efforts aimed at improving that
experience will result in an improved image
(since this is modified by each new item of
information or stimulus received by the in-
dividual). 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 offer, as these will affect visitors’
satisfaction and their intentions for future
behaviour.
In tourism it is more difficult to measure
loyalty on the basis of repetition of pur-
chase,121 since this is a sector in which con-
sumption is infrequent and on occasions
tourists prefer to visit new places. Indeed, a
study by Bigné et al.122 did not sufficiently
confirm the relationship between satisfaction
and intention to return. However, this study,
focused on residents as visitors, does verify
this relationship, since the great majority of
individuals satisfied with their travels in their
own region intend to continue travelling in
it. This is because, on many occasions, the
home province is the scene of excursions or
journeys of short duration, and satisfaction
with this type of travel consequently rein-
forces loyalty to the home province as a
tourism destination.
Focusing on the region under study, data
on the vacation habits of residents in
Valencia123 show that they travel frequently
in their province and generally stay between
one and three days. Furthermore, they are
highly satisfied with the travel experience
and intend to return in the future. Taking
into account this information and the find-
ings of the present study, those in charge of
the destination should undertake special pro-
motional campaigns addressed to residents to
encourage them to consider Valencia not
only as a destination for short trips but also
for longer stays. In this sense other specific
marketing actions should be developed, such
as special prices, improvement of service
quality, more information on tourist attrac-
tions and new services in the host commun-
ity.
To conclude one would note once more

that managers of destinations should devote
more effort to trying to get residents to travel
in their own region, since on the one hand
such efforts could be rewarded by the loyalty
of resident visitors with the further possibility
of applying a relational marketing strategy,
and, on the other, it is a way of breaking the
seasonal cycle so common in many resorts.
Further research needs to replicate this
study using a multidimensional approach of
the variables instead of a single measure.
Furthermore it would be desirable to include
more behavioural variables such as frequency
of visitation or length of stay. The model
presented could also be tested not only with
residents but also non-residents to compare
the findings and show the main differences
between them. Another interesting research
topic would be to study the relationship be-
tween the host community attitudes to tour-
ism and their domestic tourist behaviour.
Finally, more applied research dealing with
the effect of different marketing policies on
domestic tourism demand could provide
very useful information for managers of the
destination.
REFERENCES
(1) Schroeder, T. (1996) ‘The Relationship of
Residents’ Image of Their State as a Tourist
Destination and Their Support for Tour-
ism’, Journal of Travel Research, 34(4): 7–13.
(2) Echtner, C. M. and Brent Ritchie, J. R.
(1991) ‘The Meaning and Measurement of
Destination Image’, Journal of Tourism Stud-
ies, 2(2): 2–12.
(3) Gursoy, D., Jurowski, C. and Uysal, M.
(2002) ‘Resident Attitudes: A Structural
Modeling Approach’, Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 29(1): 79–105.
(4) Ko, D. W. and Stewart, W. P. (2002) ‘A
Structural Equation Model of Residents’
Attitudes for Tourism Development’, Tour-
ism Management, 23(5): 52–130
(5) Sternquist, W. B. (1985) ‘Attitudes About
Resort Area: A Comparison of Tourists and
Local Retailers’, Journal of Travel Research,
24(1): 14–19.
(6) Schroeder, ref. 1 above.
(7) Sternquist, ref. 5 above.
(8) Hudson, S. and Brent Ritchie, J. R. (2002)
‘Understanding the Domestic Market Using
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014
Bigné, Sánchez and Sanz
Cluster Analysis: A Case Study of the Mar-
keting Efforts of Travel Alberta’, Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 8(3): 263–76.
(9) King, B. (1994) ‘Australian Attitudes to
Domestic and International Resort Holi-
days: A Comparison of Fiji and Queens-
land’, in Seaton, A. V. (ed.) Tourism: The
State of the Art, pp. 347–58. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons.
(10) Hudson and Brent Ritchie, ref. 8 above.
(11) Hughes, G. (1992) ‘Changing Approaches
to Domestic Tourism’, Tourism Management,
13(1): 85–90.
(12) Boekstein, M., Bennett, A. and Uken, E.
(1991) ‘How Well Tourists Know Their
Own Attractions’, Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 18(3): 504–8.
(13) Seaton, A. V. and Palmer, C. (1997) ‘Un-
derstanding VFR Tourism Behavior: The
First Five Years of the United Kingdom
Tourism Survey’, Tourism Management,
18(6): 345–55.
(14) Edgar, D. (2001) ‘Short Break Markets
From Product Positioning to a Value-Based
Approach’, in Faulkner, B., Moscardo, G.
and Laws, E. (eds) Tourism In the Twenty-
First Century: Reflections on Experience, pp.
67–88. London: Continuum.
(15) Hudson and Brent Ritchie, ref. 8 above.
(16) Schroeder, ref. 1 above.
(17) Sternquist, ref. 5 above.
(18) King, ref. 9 above.
(19) FRONTUR (2003) Movimientos Turı́sticos
en Frontera. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios
Turı́sticos.
(20) INE (2004) Datos Estadı́sticos del Turismo en
España, available at www.ine.es, consulted
September 2004.
(21) FAMILITUR (2003) Movimientos Turı́sticos
de los Españoles. Madrid: Instituto de Estu-
dios Turı́sticos.
(22) FRONTUR, ref. 19 above.
(23) FAMILITUR, ref. 21 above.
(24) Agencia Valenciana de Turismo (2004) El
Turismo en la Comunidad Valenciana 2003.
Valencia: Generalitat Valenciana.
(25) FAMILITUR, ref. 21 above.
(26) Agencia Valenciana de Turismo, ref. 24
above.
(27) Ashworth, G. and Goodall, B. (1988)
‘Tourist Images: Marketing Considera-
tions’, in Goodall, B. and Ashworth, G.
(eds) Marketing in the Tourism Industry. The
Promotion of Destination Regions, pp. 213–38.
London: Routledge.
Page 299
Residents’ image, evaluation of stay and behaviour
(28) O’Leary, S. and Deegan, J. (2003) ‘People,
Pace, Place: Qualitative and Quantitative
Images of Ireland as a Tourism Destination
in France’, Journal of Vacation Marketing,
9(3): 213–26.
(29) Fakeye, P. C. and Crompton, J. L. (1991)
‘Images Differences Between Prospective,
First-Time and Repeat Visitors to the Low-
er Rio Grande Valley’, Journal of Travel
Research, 30(2): 10–16.
(30) Phelps, A. (1986) ‘Holiday Destination Im-
age The Problem of Assessment: An Exam-
ple Developed in Menorca’, Tourism
Management, 7(3): 168–80.
(31) Alhemoud, A. M. and Armstrong, E. G.
(1996) ‘Image of Tourism Attractions in
Kuwait’, Journal of Travel Research, 34(4):
76–80.
(32) Milman, A. and Pizam, A. (1995) ‘The
Role of Awareness and Familiarity with a
Destination: The Central Florida Case’,
Journal of Travel Research, 33(3): 21–7.
(33) Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D. and
Wanhill, S. (1993) Tourism. Principles and
Practice. London: Pitman Publishing.
(34) Baloglu, S. and McCleary, K. W. (1999) ‘A
Model of Destination Image Formation’,
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4): 868–97.
(35) Milman and Pizam, ref. 32 above.
(36) Goodrich, J. N. (1978) ‘The Relation Be-
tween Preferences for and Perceptions of
Vacation Destinations’, Journal of Travel Re-
search, 17(2): 8–13.
(37) Ashworth and Goodall, ref. 27 above.
(38) Cooper et al., ref. 33 above.
(39) Bigné, J. E., Sánchez, M. I. and Sánchez, J.
(2001) ‘Tourism Image, Evaluation Vari-
ables and After Purchase Behaviour: Inter-
relationship’, Tourism Management, 22(6):
607–16.
(40) Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and
Zeithaml, V. A. (1993) ‘A Dynamic Process
Model of Service Quality: From Expecta-
tions to Behavioral Intentions’, Journal of
Marketing Research, 30(1): 7–27.
(41) Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L. and Zeithaml,
V. A. (1991) ‘Refinement and Reassess-
ment of the SERVQUAL Scale’, Journal of
Retailing, 67(4): 420–50.
(42) Swanson, S. R. and Davis, J. C. (2003)
‘The Relationship of Differential Loci with
Perceived Quality and Behavioural Inten-
tions’, Journal of Service Marketing, 17(2):
202–19.
(43) Boulding et al., ref. 40 above.
Page 300 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014
(44) Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L.L. and Parasura-
man, A. (1996) ‘The Behavioral Conse-
quences of Service Quality’, Journal of
Marketing, 60(2): 31–46.
(45) Bigné et al., ref. 39 above.
(46) Court, B. and Lupton, R. A. (1997) ‘Cus-
tomer Portfolio Development: Modelling
Destination Adopters, Inactives and Rejec-
ters’, Journal of Travel Research, 36(1): 35–43.
(47) Schroeder, ref. 1 above.
(48) Phelps, ref. 30 above.
(49) Bigné et al., ref. 39 above.
(50) Font, X. (1997) ‘Managing the Tourist
Destination’s Image’, Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 3(2): 123–31.
(51) Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and
Berry, L. L. (1985) ‘A Conceptual Model of
Service Quality and its Implications for
Future Research’, Journal of Marketing,
49(4): 41–50.
(52) Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry,
L. L. (1988) ‘SERVQUAL: A Multiple-
Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Percep-
tions of Service Quality’, Journal of Retailing,
64(1): 12–40.
(53) Parasuraman et al., ref. 52 above.
(54) Saleh, F. and Ryan, C. (1992) ‘Analysing
Service Quality in the Hospitality Industry
Using the SERVQUAL Model’, Service In-
dustries Journal, 11(3): 324–45.
(55) Fick, G. R. and Brent Ritchie, J. R. (1991)
‘Measuring Service Quality in the Travel
and Tourism Industry’, Journal of Travel
Research, 30(2): 2–9.
(56) Bojanic, D. C. and Rosen, L. D. (1994)
‘Measuring Service Quality in Restaurants:
An Application of the SERVQUAL Instru-
ment’, Hospitality Research Journal, 18(1):
3–14.
(57) Vogt, C. H. A. and Fesenmainer, D. R.
(1995) ‘Tourists and Retailers’ Perceptions
of Services’, Annals of Tourism Research,
22(4): 763–80.
(58) Chadee, D. D. and Mattsson, J. (1996) ‘An
Empirical Assessment of Customer Satisfac-
tion in Tourism’, Service Industries Journal,
16(3): 305–20.
(59) Otto, E. J. and Brent Ritchie, J. R. (1996)
‘The Service Experience in Tourism’, Tour-
ism Management, 17(3): 165–74.
(60) Giese, J. L. and Cote, J. A. (2000) ‘Defining
Consumer Satisfaction’, Academy of Market-
ing Science Review, available at www.
amsreview.org/articles/giese01-2000.pdf,
consulted September 2004.

(61) Spreng, R. A., Mackenzie, S. B. and Ol-
shavsky, R. W. (1996) ‘A Re-Examination
of the Determinants of Consumer Satisfac-
tion’, Journal of Marketing, 60(3): 15–32.
(62) Fornell, C. (1992) ‘A National Customer
Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Ex-
perience’, Journal of Marketing, 56(1): 6–21.
(63) Gnoth (1994) ‘Quality of Service and Tour-
ist Satisfaction’, in Witt, S. and Moutinho,
L. (eds) Tourism Marketing and Management
Handbook, pp. 279–84. Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice-Hall.
(64) Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1993) ‘Predict-
ing Satisfaction Among First-Time Visitors
to a Destination by Using the Expectancy
Disconfirmation Theory’, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 12(2):
197–209.
(65) Tribe, J. and Snaith, T. (1998) ‘From
SERVQUAL to HOLSAT: Holiday Satis-
faction in Varadero, Cuba’, Tourism Man-
agement, 19(1): 125–34.
(66) Noe, P. F. and Uysal, M. (1997) ‘Evalua-
tion of Outdoor Recreational Settings’,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
4(4): 223–30.
(67) Geva, A. and Goldman, A. (1991) ‘Satisfac-
tion Measurement in Guided Tours’, Annals
of Tourism Research, 18(2): 177–85.
(68) Duke, R. C. and Persia, M. A. (1996)
‘Consumer Defined Dimensions for the
Escorted Tour Industry Segment: Expecta-
tions, Satisfaction and Importance’, Journal
of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 5(2): 77–99.
(69) Qu, H. and Ping, E. Y. W. (1999) ‘A
Service Performance Model of Hong Kong
Cruise Travellers’ Motivation Factors and
Satisfaction’, Tourism Management, 20(2):
237–44.
(70) Saleh and Ryan, ref. 54 above.
(71) Danaher, P. J. and Arweiler, W. (1996)
‘Customer Satisfaction in the Tourism In-
dustry: A Case Study of Visitors to New
Zealand’, Journal of Travel Research, 35(1):
89–93.
(72) Chadee and Mattsson, ref. 58 above.
(73) Otto and Brent Ritchie, ref. 59 above.
(74) Danaher and Arweiler, ref. 71 above.
(75) Phelps, ref. 30 above.
(76) Font, ref. 50 above.
(77) Chon, K. (1991) ‘Tourism Destination Im-
age Modification Process. Marketing Impli-
cations’, Tourism Management, 12(1): 68–72.
(78) Kotler, P., Bowen, J. and Makens, J. (1996)
Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism. Tren-
Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014
Bigné, Sánchez and Sanz
ton: Prentice-Hall.
(79) Grönroos, C. (1990) Service Management
and Marketing. Managing the Moments of
Truth in Service Competition. Lexington:
Lexington Books and Macmillan.
(80) Lewis, B. R. (1993) ‘Service Quality Meas-
urement’, Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
11(4): 4–12.
(81) Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson,
E. W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B. E. (1996)
‘The American Customer Satisfaction In-
dex: Nature, Purpose, and Findings’, Journal
of Marketing, 60(4): 7–18.
(82) Appiah-Adu, K., Fyall, A. and Singh, S.
(2000) ‘Marketing Culture and Customer
Retention in the Tourism Industry’, Service
Industries Journal, 20(2): 95–113.
(83) Chadee and Mattsson, ref. 58 above.
(84) Tribe and Snaith, ref. 65 above.
(85) Baker, D. A. and Crompton, J. L. (2000)
‘Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioural In-
tentions’, Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3):
785–804.
(86) Bigné et al., ref. 39 above.
(87) Zeithaml, V. A. (2000) ‘Service Quality,
Profitability, and the Economic Worth of
Customers: What We Know and What We
Need to Learn’, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 28(1): 67–85.
(88) Zeithaml, V. A. (1988) ‘Consumer Percep-
tions of Price, Quality, and Value: A
Means-Ends Model and Synthesis of Evi-
dence’, Journal of Marketing, 52(3): 2–22.
(89) Bojanic, D. C. (1996) ‘Consumer Percep-
tions of Price, Value and Satisfaction in the
Hotel Industry: An Exploratory Study’,
Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing,
4(1): 5–22.
(90) Kashyap, R. and Bojanic, D. C. (2000) ‘A
Structural Analysis of Value, Quality, and
Price Perceptions of Business and Leisure
Travellers’, Journal of Travel Research, 39(1):
45–51.
(91) Oliver, R. L. (1980) ‘A Cognitive Model of
the Antecedents and Consequences of Satis-
faction Decisions’, Journal of Marketing
Research, 17(November): 460–9.
(92) Yuksel, A. (2001) ‘Managing Customer Sa-
tisfaction and Retention: A Case of a Tour-
ist Destination, Turkey’, Journal of Vacation
Marketing, 7(2): 153–68.
(93) Oliver, ref. 91 above.
(94) Patterson, P. G., Johnson, L. W. and
Spreng, R. A. (1997) ‘Modelling the Rela-
tionship Between Perceived Value, Satis-
Page 301
Residents’ image, evaluation of stay and behaviour

faction and Repurchase Intentions in a Travel Agencies: An Investigation of Cus-

Business-to-Business, Services Context: An tomer Perceptions’, Journal of Travel Re-
Empirical Examination’, Journal of the Acad- search, 30(4): 10–16.
emy of Marketing Science, 25(1): 4–18. (110) Zeithaml et al., ref. 44 above.
(95) Dube, L., Renaghan, L. M. and Miller, J. (111) Babin, B. J. and Griffin, M. (1998) ‘The
M. (1994) ‘Measuring Customer Satisfac- Nature of Satisfaction: An Updated Exam-
tion for Strategic Management’, Cornell ination and Analysis’, Journal of Business
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Research, 41(2): 127–36.
35(1): 39–47. (112) Ko and Stewart, ref. 4 above.
(96) Baker and Crompton, ref. 85 above. (113) Spreng et al., ref. 61 above.
(97) Jenkins, O. J. (1999) ‘Understanding and (114) Bloemer, J. and Ruyter, K. (1998) ‘On the
Measuring Tourist Destination Images’, Relationship Between Store Image, Store
International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(1): Satisfaction and Store Loyalty’, European
1–15. Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6): 499–514.
(98) Pike, S. (2002) ‘Destination Image Analysis: (115) Bolton, R. N. and Lemon, K. N. (1999)
A Review of 142 Papers from 1973 to ‘A Dynamic Model of Customers’ Usage
2000’, Tourism Management, 23(5): 541–9. of Services: Usage as an Antecedent and
(99) Echtner, C. M. and Brent Ritchie, J. R. Consequence of Satisfaction’, Journal of
(1993) ‘The Measurement of Destination Marketing Research, 36(2): 171–86.
Image: An Empirical Assessment’, Journal of (116) Tse, D. K. and Wilton, P. C. (1988)
Travel Research, 31(4): 3–13. ‘Models of Consumer Satisfaction Forma-
(100) Oxenfeldt, A. R. (1974) ‘Developing a tion: An Extension’, Journal of Marketing
Favourable Price-Quality Image’, Journal of Research, 25(2): 204–12.
Retailing, 51(4): 8–14. (117) Boulding et al., ref. 40 above.
(101) Echtner and Brent Ritchie, ref. 2 above. (118) Luque, T. (2000) Técnicas de Análisis de
(102) Gartner, W. C. (1989) ‘Tourism Image: Datos en Investigaciones de Mercados. Madrid:
Attribute Measurement of State Tourism Pirámide.
Products Using Multidimensional Scaling (119) Ryan, C. (1999) ‘From the Psychometrics
Techniques’, Journal of Travel Research, of SERVQUAL to Sex: Measurements of
28(2): 16–20. Tourist Satisfaction’, in Pizam, A. and
(103) Echtner and Brent Ritchie, ref. 2 above. Mansfeld, Y. (eds) Consumer Behaviour in
(104) Echtner and Brent Ritchie, ref. 99 above. Travel and Tourism, pp. 267–86. New
(105) Baloglu and McCleary, ref. 34 above. York: Haworth Hospitality Press.
(106) Parasuraman et al., ref. 51 above. (120) Schroeder, ref. 1 above.
(107) Parasuraman et al., ref. 52 above. (121) Riley, M., Niininen, O., Szivas, E .E. and
(108) Carman, J. M. (1990) ‘Consumer Percep- Willis, T. (2001) ‘The Case for Process
tions of Service Quality: An Assessment of Approaches in Loyalty Research in Tour-
the SERVQUAL Dimensions’, Journal of ism’, International Journal of Tourism Re-
Retailing, 66(1): 33–55. search, 3(1): 23–32.
(109) Leblanc, G. (1992) ‘Factors Affecting Cus- (122) Bigné et al., ref. 39 above.
tomer Evaluation of Service Quality in (123) FAMILITUR, ref. 21 above.

Page 302 Downloaded from jvm.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE LAVAL on July 16, 2014