Tourist Perceived Value,Relationship to Satisfaction,and Behavioral Intentions

Abstract

Perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty are essential concepts for running a successful and profitable modern company, and therefore defining a model of perceived value and value dimensions is a primary goal of marketing management. The theoretical propositions in this article are tested in relation to the tourist destination of Dubrovnik, Croatia. The author has defined a model of tourist perceived value, satisfaction, and behavior intentions. The model was tested using the structural equation modeling. The results show a significant effect of perceived value on the satisfaction and intended future behavior of tourists. In addition, tourists’ perceived value associated with Dubrovnik was affected primarily by destination appearance, followed by the emotional experience, while the impact of cost was significantly lower.

Keywords

perceived value benefits costs tourist destination Dubrovnik

Introduction

In today’s rapidly changing business environment, with an increasing number of rational consumers faced with an ever-expanding number of choices (Kotler and Keller 2008), a given company can dominate most thoroughly by using business concepts that focus on customers and by providing customers with increased value as compared to the competition (Gale 1994; Woodruff and Gardial 1996). Introducing the concept of perceived value into a business strategy will affect a company’s orientation toward the customer. According to Petrick (2002), customers use perceived value to compare alternatives among market options, rather than relying on product quality or satisfaction; therefore, measurements of quality and satisfaction have become less important and the focus of research has shifted to perceived value (Gale 1994).

Each company must first determine how the customer defines the value of their market offerings, and which factors determine the perceived value of current and potential customers (Gale 1994). Analysis of these factors gives guidance as to how to improve existing offerings, which in turn leads to higher perceived value, increased customer satisfaction, and the establishment of long-term relationships with customers (Ravald and Grönroos 1996).

Although the concept of perceived value has been the topic of a number of studies in the last 20 years, there are industries in which the topic—as well as the overarching question of how perceived value affects customers’ overall satisfaction and intended future behavior—has not yet been sufficiently researched. One such underexplored area of research is the perceived value of tourist destinations. Analysis of the available literature shows that there is a lack of research into how tourists perceive the value of the destinations they have visited and how tourists value those dimensions that most affect their assessments of a given destination. The aim of this study is to provide the literature review of relevant tourism studies and to make the contribution through the results of empirical research conducted in specific Croatian tourist destination. Furthermore, this article helps understand the importance of individual destination perceived value research that leads to the recognition of how different groups of tourists perceive the same destination. It provides important information for planning the marketing activities for each destination. Since tourism is a key sector of the Croatian economy (UNWTO 2011), an improved understanding of the perceived value of Croatian tourist destinations is thus of paramount importance.

Tourist destinations combine a set of products and services, offered individually or together and at a particular location, and place this product for offer in the global marketplace. According to Boranić-Živoder (2009), features such as a destination’s attractions, accessibility, tourist services, ancillary services, and activities are combined to be offered or marketed as a tourist destination or a tourism product. Because of the complex nature of a tourist destination, determining the perceived value of a destination is a difficult and demanding process. According to Crompton (1992), the effective market positioning of the destination requires that those factors which visitors perceive as important be defined, and that the unique features which differentiate a specific destination from its competitors be similarly well defined. Destination-specific marketing programs that take into account those factors that are most valued by tourists will afford those destinations a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

The Conceptual Framework

General Review of the Concept of Perceived Value

Zeithaml (Zeithaml 1988; Zeithaml and Bitner 2003) has emphasized the following definitions of perceived value: (1) value as low price, (2) value as whatever the consumer wants in a product, (3) value as the quality the consumer gets for the price paid, and (4) value as what a consumer gets for what a consumer gives. While these definitions are associated with a unidimensional approach to perceived value, a multidimensional approach has been mentioned elsewhere (e.g., Fandos Roig et al. 2006; Sheth, Newman, and Gross 1991; Sweeney and Soutar 2001). According to the multidimensional approach, perceived value represents the sum of the different dimensions of value, which have different effects in different situations. Through a unidimensional approach, the concept of perceived value is typically viewed as an independent concept that can be measured as a single variable, while a multidimensional approach analyzes value as a construct composed of multiple variables (Sánchez-Fernandez and Iniesta-Bonilla 2007).

A majority of marketing researchers have accepted the definition of perceived value as consumers assessments of the trade-offs between the benefits and sacrifices realized in selecting a given product from those options available at market (Chen and Dubinsky 2003; Lapierre 2000; McDougall and Levesque 2000; Oliver 1999; Sánchez-Fernandez and Iniesta-Bonilla 2006; Vranešević 2000; Zeithaml 1988). Perceived benefits—what the consumer feels they have received from a product or service—includes perceived quality, internal and external features of the product, and other psychological benefits (Zeithaml 1988). Perceived sacrifices are primarily associated with price as monetary cost; nevertheless, it is necessary to include nonmonetary costs such as the cost of the time, physical effort, mental effort, and lifestyle changes associated with consuming said product (Snoj, Pisnik Korda, and Mumel 2004; Vranešević 2000). From this understanding of perceived value, one can conclude that the benefits have a positive impact on perceived value and the costs have a negative impact.

The benefits component stems primarily from perceived quality (Bolton and Drew 1991; Piri Rajh 2006), which in turn stems from perceptions of the tangible and intangible features of the product being assessed (Zeithaml 1988). Functional benefits are defined as benefits arising from the product’s performance that reflect the perceived quality of product (Jamal, Othman, and Muhammad 2011). The perceived quality can therefore be seen as the basis of the functional benefits of the product (Sánchez et al. 2006). The perceived benefits might also include significant affective (emotional and social) benefits that the consumer receives through the purchase and/or use of the product (Best 1997; Sánchez et al. 2006). Affective benefits play an equally important role in consumers’ perceptions of value (Fandos Roig et al. 2006).

The sacrifices consist of both monetary and nonmonetary costs (Snoj, Pisnik Korda, and Mumel 2004; Zeithaml 1988)—price, time, energy, effort, and perceived risk—which are necessary to invest in order to obtain and use the product. Monetary cost influences consumer choice in two distinct ways: as an amount of money the consumer must give up in exchange for the purchase and/or use of the product and as a quality indicator, implying that the product is of higher quality if the price is higher than similar products. These two components of monetary cost have different impacts on perceived value in the sense that the amount of money paid has a negative impact on perceived value while having a positive impact as an indicator of quality (Oh 2003). However, some studies have shown (e.g., Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000; Oh 2003; Piri Rajh 2006; Sweeney, Soutar, and Johnson 1999) that the negative impact of price on perceived value is greater than its positive impact on the perception of quality.

In analyzing the relationship between the dimensions of perceived benefits and perceived sacrifices, it can be seen that improved perceptions of quality result in increased value, while higher levels of perceived sacrifice lead to reduced perceptions of value (Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000; Piri Rajh 2006). A company can therefore increase the perceived value of its offerings by providing additional benefits to consumers or by reducing purchasing costs. According to Kotler and Keller (2008), increased customer value can be achieved through a combination of increases to the functional or emotional benefits and/or reductions to one or more of the costs. Perceived benefits and sacrifices can thus be understood as two interdependent elements, since increasing the benefits should lead directly to lower perceived costs (Ravald and Grönroos 1996). Despite the high quality of the product and the benefits to the customer, however, if the price is very high and the customer is not willing to pay it for the said product, then the product has no value to that individual (Ashton et al. 2010).

It is important to emphasize that neither all aspects of benefits and costs that may affect perceptions are of equal importance to all consumers nor do all consumers hold the same valuations. Some benefits and costs are major factors in assessing value while others are perceived as being less important (Lai 1995). Also, valuation could change with the change of circumstances, time, and location (Gallarza and Gil 2008). This means that the preference for certain features of the same object can be changed, with the alteration of one set of circumstances from moment to moment (ice cream in summer vs. ice cream in winter) or from place to place (at sea vs. at home; Holbrook 1999; Woodruff and Gardial 1996).

Finally, it can be concluded that perceived value is a concept that provides insight into how consumers perceive a given product or service and provides guidance as to how to create the product or service in order to fulfill consumers’ needs and expectations. Generally, perceived value can be defined as an individual, cognitive-affective evaluation of the product or service that occurs in the purchasing process and is based on a comparison between the benefits and costs arising out of the offer and the offers of competitors in the market, and which varies with the changing circumstances of time, place, and situation in which the assessment is made.

Relationship between Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions

Analysis of the relationship between the concepts of perceived value, satisfaction, and intended future behaviors has found that perceived value often stands out as an antecedent and a key determinant of customer satisfaction and their future behavioral intentions (Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000; McDougall and Levesque 2000; Parasuraman and Grewal 2000). Because of the narrow focus of this study, the empirical analysis of the relationship between perceived value, satisfaction, and future behavioral intentions was focused on tourism and tourism-related services. Analysis of selected relevant research conducted in the last 20 years is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Analysis of Relevant Past Research.

Researchers	Results
Oh (1999)	Research in the hotel industry has identified the following relationships: perceived price and perceived quality of service affect perceived value, where price has negative and quality positive influence; perceived value directly and indirectly, through satisfaction, affects repurchase intentions; and satisfaction has a direct influence on intended future behavior, including intent to repurchase and recommend to others.
Kashyap and Bojanic (2000)	The study investigates the relationship between travelers’ perception of quality, price, value, and intentions to revisit hotel. The results showed that perceived quality has a positive impact while perceived price has a negative impact on perceived value, and perceived value continues to affect revisit intentions in both business and leisure travelers segments.
Petrick, Morais, and Norman (2001)	The study was conducted in the tourism sector, with results which suggested that perceived value, satisfaction, and past behavior are sound predictors of vacationers’ intentions to revisit a destination. The findings suggest that travelers’ satisfaction is an antecedent to perceived value in the prediction of intentions to revisit destination.
Tam (2004)	The results of the study in the hospitality sector showed that perceived quality has a direct positive impact on perceived value and satisfaction; perceived costs (monetary and nonmonetary) have a direct negative impact on perceived value; perceived value has a direct impact on satisfaction and postpurchase behavior, while satisfaction has a direct impact on intended future behavior. Postpurchase behavior is measured by attitudes regarding loyalty, repurchase intentions, frequency of consumption, and recommendations to others.
Petrick (2004)	The study found that quality, perceived value, and satisfaction would be good predictors of cruise passengers’ behavioral intentions. Results suggested that quality is a better predictor of repurchase intentions than perceived value, and perceived value is a better predictor than satisfaction. Besides quality, this study included the other dimensions of value: emotional response, monetary cost, nonmonetary cost, and reputation.
Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006)	The study found that tourists’ perceived value directly affects their satisfaction, while satisfaction has a direct impact on tourists’ loyalty as measured by the intention to return to the same destination and/or recommend it to others. The nonmonetary costs of services have a negative impact on perceived value, and service quality has a positive influence on both perceived value and tourist loyalty.
Gill, Byslma, and Ouschan (2007)	This research showed that value dimensions—quality, price, and social dimension—have a significant impact on satisfaction, as well as having both direct and indirect impacts on behavioral intentions. The study was conducted in a specific subsector of the tourism industry—wine tourism.
Lee, Petrick, and Crompton (2007)	This study is an examination of relationships between festival visitors’ service quality, perceived service value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. It was found that perceived service value was the best predictor of behavioral intentions, followed by perceived service quality and satisfaction.
He and Song (2008)	The authors investigated the relationship between tourists’ perceived service quality, value, satisfaction and intentions to repurchase packaged tour services, concluding that services quality have a positive impact on perceived value and satisfaction; secondly, perceived value which affects customer satisfaction while satisfaction have direct impacts on behavioral intentions.
Williams and Soutar (2009)	This research, which considered an adventure tourism context, showed a direct, positive, and moderate to strong relationship between perceived value and satisfaction and between perceived value and behavioral intentions. Satisfaction was also recognized as a mediator between perceived value and behavioral intentions.
Bradley and Sparks (2012)	This research analyzed the antecedents and consequences of change in consumer value in a sector of the tourism industry—timeshare. The authors concluded that, as consequences, value changes predicted shifts over time in satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Their findings provide support for the quality–value–satisfaction–repurchase intentions model.

Primarily, the analyzed studies have investigated the relationship of perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions (see Table 1). The conclusion of almost all studies (except the study of Petrick, Morais, and Norman 2001) is that the perceived value has a direct impact on satisfaction, while satisfaction affects behavioral intentions. Also, most studies conclude a direct relationship between perceived value and behavioral intentions (Oh 1999; Kashyap and Bojanic 2000; Petrick, Morais, and Norman 2001; Tam 2004; Petrick 2004; Gill, Byslma, and Ouschan 2007; Lee, Petrick, and Crompton 2007). Analyzed studies also involve some other variables, such as perceived quality, perceived cost, and other dimensions of value. A lot of studies (Oh 1999; Petrick, Morais, and Norman 2001; Tam 2004; Petrick 2004; Gill, Byslma, and Ouschan 2007; He and Song 2008; Bradley and Sparks 2012) concluded that perceived quality has a positive impact on perceived value, while research into perceived costs indicated that perceived value may be improved by lowering the perceived costs (Oh 1999; Kashyap and Bojanic 2000; Tam 2004; Gallarza and Gil Saura 2006; Gill, Byslma, and Ouschan 2007). It is important to emphasize that the perceived quality is considered the most important determinant of perceived benefits, while perceived costs are the basis of perceived sacrifices, which have already been mentioned and discussed in the previous section.

Based on a review of previous empirical findings, it is possible to design a model of the relationship between perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions (Figure 1). The model is defined based on the results of previous studies and shows that perceived quality has a direct positive impact on perceived value and satisfaction, while perceived costs negatively affect perceived value. In this model, behavioral intentions are positively influenced by perceived value and satisfaction, whereas satisfaction is positively impacted by perceived value.

Figure 1.

Model of quality, costs, perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions.

Most researchers found that perceived service quality, perceived cost, perceived value, and satisfaction are the key factors in determining service loyalty. They have not agreed, however, as to whether perceived value has a direct or indirect effect on future intentions through satisfaction, although all agree that satisfaction directly influences repurchase intentions.

It is important to emphasize that the measurement of loyalty can be carried through the measurement of customer behavior, measurement of customer attitudes toward the product, or using both of these (Opperman 2000). Accordingly, in analyzing tourist behavior, loyalty can also be viewed through these two aspects: tourist behavior and attitude towards tourist destination. From the aspect of behavior, repeated arrivals and more frequent arrivals at a destination are indicators of loyalty, while positive thinking and recommendations to others reveal tourists’ attitude towards the tourism product. However, because the tourism product is very different from a physical product, Chen and Gursoy (2001) raise the question of whether the return to the same destination could be a true measure of loyalty. The reason for this is that some tourists want to explore new destinations and search for new experiences and do not intend to revisit destinations that they have already visited, regardless of the level of value and satisfaction that they experienced there. Accordingly, McKercher and Guillet (2011) concluded that tourists revisit international destinations rarely. Therefore, in addition to measuring behavior, it is important to determine tourists’ attitude towards the destination, so those with a positive attitude will recommend it to others, even if they won’t revisit that destination (Opperman 2000).

Perceived Value of a Tourist Destination

Murphy, Pritchard, and Smith (2000) have emphasized the notion that perceived value represents a trade-off between the travel time and/or money invested on the one hand and the experience gained through a visit to the destination on the other. In the context of the perceived value of a tourist destination, the tourist would estimate the value of a destination based on the difference between the perceived benefits and costs arising from the destination’s offerings.

Features such as the natural environment, culture, historical heritage, climate, and other primary features (such as beach cleanliness, availability of attractions and amenities, etc.) may be primary determinants in defining the value of a destination for tourists (Murphy, Pritchard, and Smith 2000). The quality of different tourism services (accommodation, food, shopping, transport, recreation), the behavior of service providers, and their efficiency and kindness can all have a decisive influence as well (Murphy, Pritchard, and Smith 2000; Yuksel 2001). In addition, the price of services and the cost of travel can exert a heavy influence. In the process of evaluating the perceived value of a destination, emotional benefits can be very important (Sánchez et al. 2006), as they affect both the likelihood of visiting and satisfaction with the visit through factors such as enjoyment, relaxation, the chance to experience something new, etc. In accordance with that, Lee, Lee, and Choi (2011) emphasized that emotional elements “promote differentiation, value, satisfaction, trust and loyalty by satisfying human needs.” The study of Lee, Lee, and Choi. (2011) concluded that the emotional aspect of value has a stronger influence on visitors’ satisfaction and behavioral intentions than its functional aspect. We can therefore conclude that tourists’ evaluation of overall value is based on a comparison of functional and emotional benefits with the total costs as perceived before, during, and after having visited the destination.

Tourists perceive positive value when the benefits received while traveling are greater than the costs invested in travel (Williams and Soutar 2009). Tourists estimate whether the benefits gained are worth the money, time, and effort invested, which further impacts their satisfaction and intentions to return (Lee, Yoon, and Lee 2007). The particular benefits the tourist will seek out and how the travel costs will be estimated will depend on what features and benefits are important to the tourist. Tourists can perceive ample benefits while staying at the destination, but the money, time, and effort spent in traveling to the destination can reduce the overall perceived value (Gallarza and Gil Saura 2006) and thereby reduce the likelihood that they return to the destination and recommend it to others. According to Masiero and Nicolau (2012), “once tourists are at the destination, the price of the activities available becomes an attribute to determine their behavior.” In their study, Masiero and Nicolau (2012) discovered that prices of tourism activities mostly have a negative influence on tourists’ perception, but sometimes could be considered as an attraction factor with positive influence.

Some studies investigating the perceived value of specific tourist destinations have already been conducted (Murphy, Pritchard, and Smith 2000; Lee, Yoon, and Lee 2007; Jamal, Othman, and Muhammad 2011). To investigate the perceived value of the popular Canadian tourist destination of Victoria, on Vancouver Island, Murphy, Pritchard, and Smith (2000) used secondary data from a similar study, conducted six years earlier, while Lee, Yoon, and Lee (2007) generated a list of measurement items from a review of the literature about perceived value, and from in-depth interviews with tourists, to see if the items of perceived value were associated with the specific destination (Korean demilitarized zone). After that, measurement items were screened by tourism experts, who were asked to clarify these items and comment on whether they were likely to be appropriate for evaluating tourists’ value of that destination (Lee, Yoon, and Lee 2007). Jamal, Othman, and Muhammad (2011), when examining the “community-based tourism homestay” tourism in Malaysia, used mainly the measurement scales from two other studies about perceived value, after the dimensions and items were modified and changed, according to results of interviews with a group of eight tourism experts. Other studies (e.g., Gallarza and Gil 2008; Gallarza and Gil Saura 2006; Moliner et al. 2007; Sánchez et al. 2006; He and Song 2008) had no focus on one, specific destination but questioned the respondents of a target group (Gallarza and Gil 2008; Gallarza and Gil Saura 2006; He and Song 2008) or the citizens of a state about various tourist packages and destinations visited recently (Moliner et al. 2007; Sánchez et al. 2006). To define the measurement scale, these studies used existing scales derived from other studies, and also the results of qualitative research conducted by focus groups with tourists/respondents, and interviews with experts.

In order to achieve a better understanding of tourist perceived value, it is necessary to determine which factors are found to be the most important in evaluating a destination. Murphy, Pritchard, and Smith (2000) showed that perceived value is primarily affected by experience with tourism services and, subsequently, by tourists’ experiences with and within the destination environment. Sánchez et al. (2006) distinguished between the service quality, price, the emotional response, and the social dimension in evaluating the consumption of travel packages. Lee, Yoon, and Lee (2007) investigated the value of travel packages in the particular and unique context of destinations in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, finding that the levels at which tourists perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty were significantly influenced by quality, cost, and the emotional experience. Jamal, Othman, and Muhammad (2011) investigated the “community-based tourism homestay” and found that perceived value is affected by the benefit of tourist accommodation and natural environment, cost, the emotional feeling of enjoyment and the gaining of new experiences, the experiential relationship that occurs between tourist and host, experiences of culture, activities, and new insights. Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006) explored how students as a target group assessed the value of the last destination they had visited, finding that the perceived value of the destinations were most affected by the perceived quality of tourist services, the social element of the visit, the fun, the destinations’ look, and the time and effort costs incurred in order to visit the destination. It can be concluded that various studies have found different dimensions of destination perceived value. Accordingly, the organization managing a destination needs to conduct research to determine the dimensions that define the perceived value of a specific destination.

The SERV-PERVAL scale (Petrick 2002; Lee, Petrick, and Crompton 2007) is often mentioned as a multidimensional scale that is able to measure perceived service value, which is also used as an instrument for measuring the perceived value in tourism. The SERV-PERVAL scale operationalizes perceived value as a construct consisting of quality, monetary price, nonmonetary price, reputation, and emotional response (Petrick 2004). Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006) have also developed a scale for measuring the perceived value of a travel destination according to the generally accepted definition of perceived value as the difference between benefits and costs. Tourist perceived value was measured by both positive (benefits) and negative dimensions (costs). According to Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006), perceived value is a unique construct that is affected by efficiency, service quality, fun, the destination’s look and social dimensions as benefits, and money, perceived risk, and time and effort as costs.

Perceived value is a dynamic variable that can be perceived prior, during, and after the purchase, and it can vary at each moment of perception (Sánchez et al. 2006). In the context of tourism destinations, the factors that define the perceived value at each of the various stages of the purchasing process may differ, so that the expected value before travel can be affected by the specific features of a tourist destination and the cost of accommodation and transport, while the perceived value after having traveled can be affected by the consequences and results of the features and services that the individual tourist perceives as important.

Tourists select a destination to visit based on their preferences and desired values, taking into account the factors of the expected benefits and costs (Van der Haar, Kemp, and Omta 2001). During the visit, tourists create the perception of the specific destination’s value in their own mind, which results in either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their visit. If the value as perceived during and after the visit is not less than the expected value prior to visiting and if the benefits received are higher than the actual costs incurred, then the overall result is satisfaction (Woodruff and Gardial 1996), which in turn can lead tourists to revisit the destination or to convey their satisfaction with their positive experiences to others. The perceptions of value formed in the minds of consumers are affected by their experiences with other, competing products (Kotler and Keller 2008)—in this context, other tourist destinations. Since competition between destinations is high, a destination must offer the facilities and services that their targeted segment of the tourist population prefers and expects, in order to strengthen and enhance its market position.

Research Model

Most studies that have investigated the perceived value of tourist destinations (e.g. Gallarza and Gil 2008; Gallarza and Gil Saura 2006; Moliner et al. 2007; Sánchez et al. 2006; He and Song 2008) have focused on questioning tourists about different tourist destinations; this research instead examines the various sociodemographic groups that have visited a specific destination. In order to plan and organize marketing activities related to a particular tourist destination, it is important to first explore the perceptions existing and the potential tourists possess about that destination and, based on the results of such research, to develop and improve certain aspects of the destination’s offerings.

The tourist destination that is the subject of this study is the city of Dubrovnik, which, because of its unique features, rich historical heritage, and global reputation, is an important tourist destination in Croatia. Dubrovnik is often mentioned as one of the most popular and interesting destinations not only in Croatia but in the wider Mediterranean and in Europe, more generally (adjudged the Best European Destination in 2011 by TripAdvisor). Dubrovnik is therefore often included on public lists of the world’s top destinations to visit (such as online lists on CNN Travel, TripAdvisor, Open Travel, Directline Holidays, Bestourism, The Guardian, etc.). Dubrovnik is also often perceived as an “expensive” destination while, on the other hand, some aspects of the city’s offerings are not developed according to that perception, which opens up increased possibilities to develop better marketing strategies to position Dubrovnik as a tourist destination (according to in-depth interviews with six experts in the field of tourism).

Based on the existing theory and our working definition of perceived value, it can be assumed that the different dimensions have positive or negative impacts on the perceived value of tourist destinations. The perceived value of a tourist destination is analyzed as a trade-off between benefits and costs, where the dimensions of benefits have a positive influence and the dimensions of cost a negative impact on perceived value. Dimensions of perceived value in this research model (Figure 2) are selected, according to the research of Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006), the SERV-PERVAL scale, and results of qualitative research, which the author conducted previously, through in-depth interviews with experts in the field of tourism, and tourists that had visited or intended to visit Dubrovnik. In this research, the following are analyzed as positive dimensions: the quality of different tourist services consumed by tourists during their stay at the destination, the appearance of the destination, the emotional experience, and the destination’s reputation. The analyzed dimensions that exert a negative impact on perceived value are monetary and nonmonetary costs, including the time and effort (Cronin, Brady, and Hult 2000; Zeithaml 1988) expended in traveling to the destination. These value dimensions represent the exogenous variables in the research model, and their relationship to the perceived value of the destination is defined through the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of benefits referred to perceived quality of services are positively related to tourists’ perceived value.

Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of benefits referred to emotional experience are positively related to tourists’ perceived value.

Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of benefits referred to appearance of the destination are positively related to tourists’ perceived value.

Hypothesis 4: Perceptions of benefits referred to reputation of the destination are positively related to tourists’ perceived value.

Hypothesis 5: Perceptions of costs referred to perceived monetary costs are negatively related to tourists’ perceived value.

Hypothesis 6: Perceptions of costs referred to perceived nonmonetary costs are negatively related to tourists’ perceived value.

Figure 2.

The proposed model.

Perceived value, satisfaction, and intended future behavior are analyzed as the endogenous variables of the proposed model. Analysis of the attendant theory in the previous section provides an overview of the relationship between the concepts of perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions, and the following hypotheses have been adjusted accordingly:

Hypothesis 7: Tourists’ perceived quality has a direct positive impact on tourists’ satisfaction.

Hypothesis 8: Tourists’ perceived value has a direct positive impact on tourists’ satisfaction.

Hypothesis 9: Tourists’ perceived value has a direct positive impact on tourists’ behavioral intentions.

Hypothesis 10: Tourists’ satisfaction has a direct positive impact on tourists’ behavioral intentions.

In contrast with Figure 1, Figure 2 includes more value dimensions, which are the results of the tourism literature review, and the findings of qualitative research (in-depth interviews). While the first model only includes quality as an aspect of benefits, a second model, in addition to the quality of tourist services, takes into account the destination appearance, emotional experience, and reputation as destination dimensions that determine the benefits of tourism destinations. From the aspect of perceived costs, Figure 2 considers two dimensions: monetary and nonmonetary costs. The relationship among the endogenous variables (perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions) is the same in both models.

Methodology

Questioner

The value dimensions that represent exogenous variables were measured using reliable scales previously applied by Oh (1999), Yuksel (2001), Petrick (2002, 2004), Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006), Sánchez et al. (2006), and Gallarza and Gil (2008), as well as having been assessed through the results of qualitative data obtained previously by the author through in-depth interviews with six experts in the field of tourism and 25 tourists who have visited or intended to visit Dubrovnik as a tourism destination in the near future. The quality of tourist services was measured through the quality of accommodation, quality of shopping, quality of food and drinks, quality of entertainment, and quality of tourism staff; destination appearance through the cultural and historical monuments, the beauty and appeal of the natural environment, the specific and unique appearance of destinations, the layout and number of beaches, and the weather; emotional experience through the feeling of having had a new experience, feeling of having had fun, feeling of having experienced excitement, and feelings of relaxation and rest; reputation through the good reputation of the destination, the notion that the destination is appreciated, has a good status, that there is a good opinion of the destination in the society; monetary cost through the cost of travel, cost of accommodations, food and beverage costs, costs of souvenirs and gifts, and additional costs; and nonmonetary cost by the time spent in travel and planning and the physical effort invested in travel.

The endogenous variables were measured through scales previously applied elsewhere, such as by Oh (1999), Murphy, Pritchard, and Smith (2000), Tam (2004), Gallarza and Gil Saura (2006), Lee et al. (2007), He and Song (2008), and Williams and Soutar (2009). Those studies measured and analyzed the relationship between the variables perceived value, satisfaction, and future behavioral intentions in tourism.

Perceived value is measured with two items: the level of value received through travel realization relative to the invested total costs and the acceptability of invested costs in relation to the benefits and the experience provided by the journey (adapted according to: Murphy, Pritchard, and Smith 2000; Oh 1999; Williams and Soutar 2009). Satisfaction is measured by the total level of satisfaction with the destination’s offerings and the level to which the expectations tourists held prior to arriving at the destination were fulfilled (He and Song 2008; Lee et al. 2007). Behavioral intentions are measured through three items: the likelihood of the tourist returning to Dubrovnik, the likelihood that they’d recommend the destination to friends and family, and the probability that, in the same situation, they would again choose to undertake the same trip (Gallarza and Gil Saura 2006; Tam 2004).

Most of the studies mentioned in this article (Murphy, Pritchard, and Smith 2000; Tam 2004; Petrick 2004; Gallarza and Gil Saura 2006; Sánchez et al. 2006; Lee et al. 2007; Williams and Soutar 2009; Jamal, Othman, and Muhammad 2011) used a 5- or 7-point Likert-type scale, to measure investigated variables. As a result, in our research, for value dimensions, and satisfaction and intention items, tourists were asked to rate their perceptions on a 7-point Likert-type scale.

Sampling and Analysis Methods

Research for this article was conducted in Dubrovnik. In conducting this research, the fact that the tourists were located in Dubrovnik and stayed in Dubrovnik for a period longer than one day in order that they could be able to evaluate the different aspects of the tourism experience on offer in Dubrovnik had to be taken into account. These conditions excluded questioning cruise tourists, since their visits are too short to allow them to fully evaluate the overall tourism-related offerings available in Dubrovnik. The total number of collected questionnaires was 357 but, because of incomplete responses, 72 questionnaires were excluded from subsequent analyses, leaving a final sample of 285 questionnaires/respondents.

Analysis of the sample as organized by the tourists’ countries of origin shows that the majority of respondents—about 80%—were from Europe. In total, those tourists included in the final sample were drawn from 38 separate countries, with most coming, in tiers, from Great Britain and Croatia, followed by Germany, the United States, Ireland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and France, and a smaller proportion of respondents from Spain, Russia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Norway, Australia, Canada, and other countries.

The SPSS software program was used for the descriptive analysis of the sample, the testing of normality, and exploratory factor analysis, while the hypotheses were tested via a structural equation model conducted using AMOS software, version 20.

Research Results

Before designing the final structure model incorporating all of the exogenous and endogenous variables, it was first necessary to analyze separately each variable to determine the validity and reliability of the measurement scales employed. Checking the reliability of the individual scales used in measuring the latent variables was performed by analyzing the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Analysis of the variables’ reliability showed that the coefficients for each measurement scale were greater than 0.7, and ranged from 0.8 to 0.98.

To determine which variables would be used in the structural model, it was then necessary to verify the latent variables as well as the manifest variables (statements) that define them. Each measurement scale is assumed to have convergent validity if the manifest variable for measuring a specific latent variable has high factor loadings on the same factor and low loadings on other factors. To determine the load factor, we conducted exploratory factor analysis. In order to extract factors in the analysis, the method of major components was applied, along with the raw Varimax rotation, using the SPSS statistical program. Factor analyses of the factors that best explain perceived value resulted in the extraction of 6 latent variables and 23 manifest variables. The reliability of each selected factor is supported by the results of the Cronbach’s alpha analyses: for the service quality, α = 0.890; for the destination appearance, α = 0.891; for the emotional experience, α = 0.986; for the reputation, α = 0.934; for monetary costs, α = 0.835; and, for nonmonetary costs, α = 0.962. The factors featured here are able to explain 70.5% of the total variance.

Forming a structural model begins with analysis of the relationship between the associated latent and manifest variables and ends with the forming of a model of the relationship between the latent variables. The testing of the measured variables and the creation of the empirical structural model was undertaken in the AMOS software.

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to indentify the dimensions of perceived value. According to Byrne (2010), in AMOS output the important indicators of goodness-of-fit indices are the comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). CFI values greater than 0.9 and RMSEA less than 0.05 indicate a good fit of data (Byrne 2010). Also RMSEA values as high as 0.08 suggest a reasonable error of approximation in the population. The chi-square statistic (discrepancy between model and sample covariance) should be small and insignificant (He and Song 2009). To reduce the sensitivity of the chi-square statistic to sample size, it is suggested to use chi-square/df, where a ratio less than 3 for chi-square/df implies that the model fits the sample data adequately (He and Song 2009). Fit indices for analyzed measurement model were below recommended values: chi-square = 598.901, chi-square = 2.303, CFI = 0.858, and RMSEA = 0.69. To improve the model fit, manifest variables with low contribution in model fit were eliminated. Those eliminated were the two manifest variables of reputation, two of monetary costs, one of services quality, and one of emotional experiences. Final results of confirmatory factor analysis of modified measurement model were presented in Appendix A. The confirmatory factor analysis of modified measurement model suggested a reasonably good fit with a CFI of 0.921, an RMSEA of 0.059, and a chi-square/df of 1.97. The standard loadings of manifest variables were all found to be greater than 0.50 with p <0.01.

According to directions for modeling (per Byrne 2010), the hypothesized structural model (Figure 2) was then tested to verify its compatibility with the collected data. Results (Table 2) show that the proposed model fits relatively well to the data from the sample, since the goodness-of-fit indicators were found to be acceptable. In reviewing the goodness-of-fit statistics (Table 2), we can see that our model fits the data well, as evidenced by a CFI of 0.934, an RMSEA of 0.056, and a chi-square/df of 1.87.

Table 2.

Fit-model Indicators.

Chi-square	df	p	Chi-square/df	CFI	RMSEA
426.311	227	0.00	1.878	0.934	0.056

Path coefficients, which show the relationship between all variables (Figure 3) analyzed in the hypothetical structural model, were defined using maximum likelihood estimation methods, while the critical ratio (CR) was evaluated through the statistical significance of the parameters (based on a probability level of 0.05, the test statistic needs to be greater than ±1.96). Analysis showed that, in the empirical model, the relationship between nonmonetary costs and perceived value (path coefficient = −0.010, CR = −0.185), and relationship between quality of services and satisfaction (path coefficient = 0.061, CR = 0.545) are not significant, since the coefficient of the relationships are small and the CR is less than ±1.96. Although the path coefficients are not small, the relationship between reputation and perceived value (path coefficient = 0.105, CR = 1.594, p > 0.05), and relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intentions (path coefficient = 0.161, CR = 0.653, p > 0.05) are not significant because the statistical significance of the path coefficients are not relevant (p > 0.05). The relationships among the other variables were found to be statistically significant with test statistic greater than ±1.96 (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Empirical structural model.

The path coefficients indicate the strength of direct relationships between the variables in the proposed model. Analysis of the test statistic revealed that the paths between nonmonetary costs and perceived value, quality and satisfaction, reputation and perceived value, and satisfaction and behavioral intentions were not significant (p > 0.05). The other paths were significant (p < 0.05), suggesting that those paths assist the prediction of future behavioral intentions. Accordingly, hypothesis 4, that reputation has a significant positive impact on the perceived value of tourist destinations; hypothesis 6, that nonmonetary costs have a significant negative impact on the perceived value of tourist destinations; hypothesis 7, that perceived quality is an antecedent of satisfaction; and hypothesis 10, that satisfaction is an antecedent of behavioral intentions and are not supported, were not proven. All other hypotheses can be accepted. Consistent with the prediction of the perceived quality of services, emotional experience, and appearance of destination are positive antecedents of perceived value (hypotheses 1, 2, and 3). Monetary costs are only a dimension of costs and have a negative impact on perceived value (hypothesis 5). Perceived value is the antecedent of satisfaction and behavioral intention (hypotheses 8 and 9).

The results show that tourists’ perceived value of Dubrovnik was affected most strongly by destination appearance (0.466), followed by the emotional experience (0.337) and the quality of tourist services (0.314). The impact of monetary costs is significant but not strong (–0.180). In the relationship of service quality with perceived value and satisfaction, it can be noted that quality has a strong impact on perceived value (0.314), while the impact on satisfaction (0.061) is not significant.

In terms of the connections between the endogenous variables, the strongest impact identified was that which occurs between perceived value on satisfaction (0.964) followed by future intentions (0.716), which shows the strong influence of perceived value. According to results of empirical research, satisfaction is not the antecedent of behavioral intentions (p >0.05).

The proposed model explains 71% of the variance of perceived value, 86% of the variance of satisfaction, and 70% of the variance of behavioral intentions (R² in the model). Since the variances explained in all of endogenous variable are high, it can be concluded that the model demonstrates acceptable reliability.

Conclusion

Researchers in tourism (Murphy, Pritchard, and Smith 2000; Petrick 2004; Gallarza and Gil Saura 2006; Lee et al. 2007; He and Song 2008; Williams and Soutar 2009; Jamal, Othman, and Muhammad 2011; Bradley and Sparks 2012) acknowledge the significance of value in shaping tourist satisfaction, and future behavioral intentions. It is necessary to investigate the relationships between these variables, in order to understand the decision-making process of visitors. Analysis of the data collected in this study has shown that perceived value has a direct effect on both future intentions and satisfaction. In this study, perceived value has a strong impact on future behavior while the relationship between the satisfactions on behavioral intentions is not significant. That means that focus should be on perceived value research rather than satisfaction in order to make a long-term relationship with consumer-tourists. It is important to emphasize that while some other research in the field of tourism (Gallarza and Gil Saura 2006; Gill, Byslma, and Ouschan 2007; He and Song 2008; Bradley and Sparks 2012) point out that satisfaction is a mediator between the perceived value and loyalty, this study not only shows that the perceived value affects intentions directly; nevertheless, the future behavior of tourists’ intention is affected only by perceived value.

Unlike other studies (Oh 1999; Petrick 2004; He and Song 2008), this research concluded that quality of services did not have a significant impact on satisfaction and that perceived value is a mediator between quality and satisfaction.

Since the positive intentions of behavior are the basis upon which long-term and profitable relationships with consumers are built, it is important to isolate and analyze the major sources of perceived value. Accordingly, the tourist’s perception of value can be seen as a determinant in efforts to improve and develop a destination’s offerings and a primary factor in shaping a destination’s marketing programs. The perceived value of Dubrovnik is strongly affected by destination appearance followed by the emotional experience and quality of tourist services, which means that marketing activities should be focused upon those dimensions. The analysis has also shown that monetary costs affect tourists’ perceived value, but that this impact is not so strong, while the impact of the nonmonetary costs is not significant. But, in analyzing the impact of monetary and nonmonetary costs one should still be careful, since in our sample there were 18% business travelers (Table 3), which could certainly affect the results. Most business travelers did not pay for their trip to Dubrovnik, so for them, the perceived sacrifice of money, time, and effort was evidently reduced.

Table 3.

The Analysis of the General Characteristics of the Sample.

Characteristic	Percentages
Sex
Female	52
Male	48
Age
18–24	7.4
25–34	36.5
35–44	17.2
45–54	18.2
55–64	14.3
≥65	6.4
Travel frequency
Less than once a year	2.1
Once a year	21.4
2–3 times a year	47.3
4 or more times a year	29.2
Personal monthly income
500 EUR or below	6.3
500–,1000 EUR	14.4
1,000–2,000 EUR	24.2
2,000–3,000 EUR	18.6
3,000–4,000 EUR	15.2
4,000–5,000 EUR	4.2
>5,000 EUR	6.7
No answer	10.4
Accommodation
Hotel	55.8
Private accommodation	35.8
Own apartment/house	1.1
With friend/family	2.5
Hostel	4.9
Number of visits
First visit	66.9
Repeated visit	33.1
Travel arrangement
Private arrangement	66.1
With tourism agency	15.9
Business travel	18.0

This study has made several contributions to the understanding of perceived value of tourist destination and its relationship to satisfaction and future behavioral intentions of the tourists. Theoretical contribution is evident in the literature review of findings concerning tourists’ destination perceived value. The analysis concludes that every destination management should conduct the research about perceived value and value dimensions of individual destination in order to discover what aspects of tourist offerings should be improved or changed. Methodologically, this study provides the measurement model that can be used to measure dimensions of destination perceived value. The measurement scale used in this study is formed based on existing measurement scales but also on the basis of results of qualitative research with tourists that have visited Dubrovnik. That helps to separate the most important dimensions and specific variables to measure the perceived value of the selected tourist destinations. This means that the measurement scale was adapted to the specific destination. Second, this study provides evidence that satisfaction and future behavioral intentions are consequences of perceived value and that behavioral intentions are affected only by the perceived value. Consequently, the destination management organization (DMO) of Dubrovnik could assume that the level of tourist loyalty, both with respect to repeat visits and positive recommendation to others, comes from a higher level of perceived value. Thus, if the DMO is able to determine which attributes best predicted perceived value, it should allocate resources to these areas. The results of this research suggest that visitors’ value perceptions depend mostly on destination appearance, emotional experience, and services’ quality perception, while costs are not that important. Destination management can therefore increase the perceived value of Dubrovnik only by providing additional benefits to tourists and not by reducing the costs. So, destination managers should continue to emphasize primary value in terms of appearance and number of beaches, feelings of fun, quality of shopping, quality of entertainment, and quality of food and beverages.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Modified Measurement Model

Items	Standardized Loadings	CR (t Values)
Factor 1: Quality of tourist services
Quality of shopping	.64	8.751
Quality of food and beverages	.60	8.014
Quality of entertainment	.77	10.224
Quality of tourism staff	.70	NA
Factor 2: Destination appearance
Beautiful weather	.67	NA
Appearance and number of beaches	.66	7.446
The beauty of natural environment	.62	7.056
Cultural and historical monuments	.55	7.228
Specific and unique appearance	.58	6.979
Factor 3: Emotional experience
A great new experience	.79	NA
Feeling of fun	.83	14.913
Feeling of excitement	.80	13.535
Factor 4: Reputation
Good reputation	.82	6.602
Appreciated destination	.85	NA
Factor 5: Monetary costs
Food and beverage costs	.57	6.659
Costs of souvenirs and gifts	.60	6.918
Additional costs at destination	.77	NA
Factor 6: Nonmonetary costs
Time spent in travel and trip planning	.95	NA
Physical effort invested in travel	.71	4.937
Factor 7: Perceived value
Value received through travel realization relative to the invested total costs	.75	12.840
Acceptability of invested costs in relation to the received benefits	.79	NA
Factor 8: Satisfaction
Satisfaction with destination’s offerings	.85	NA
Fulfillment of expectations	.91	18.822
Factor 9: Behavioral intentions
Likelihood of tourist returning to destination	.74	13.569
Likelihood to recommend destination	.81	15.198
Probability that, in the same situation, the tourist would choose or undertake the same trip	.86	NA

Note: All factor loadings are significant at p <.000. Parameters are fixed at 1.0 for the maximum-likelihood estimation, so t values are not obtained for those fixes at 1.0 (NA).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Irena Pandža Bajs is Senior Teaching and Research Assistant in the Marketing Department at Faculty of Business and Economics University of Zagreb, Croatia. She conducts research on perceived value, satisfaction, customer loyalty and destination marketing. Dr. Pandža Bajs published numerous scientific and professional papers as author and coauthor and actively participates at the national and international conferences.

References

Ashton

Ann S.

Scott

Noel

Solnet

David

Breakey

Noreen

. (2010). “Hotel Restaurant Dining: The Relationship between Perceived Value and Intention to Purchase.” Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10 (3): 206-18.

Best

Roger J.

(1997). Market-Based Management. London: Prentice Hall.

Bolton

Ruth N.

Drew

James H.

(1991). “A Multistage Model of Customers’ Assessment of Service Quality and Value.” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4): 375-84.

Boranić-Živoder

Snježana

. (2009). Tourism Destination Management for Sustainable Development of Tourism. Zagreb: Faculty of Business and Economics University in Zagreb.

Bradley

Graham L.

Sparks

Beverley

. (2012). “Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Value: A Longitudinal Study of Timeshare Owners.” Journal of Travel Research, 51 (2): 191-204.

Byrne

Barbara M.

(2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. New York: Routledge.

Chen

Joseph S.

Gursoy

Dogan

. (2001). “An Investigation of Tourists’ Destination Loyalty and Preferences.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13 (2): 79-85.

Chen

Zhan

Dubinsky

Alan J.

(2003). “A Conceptual Model of Perceived Customer Value in E-commerce: A Preliminary Investigation.” Psychology and Marketing, 20 (4): 323-47.

Crompton

John L.

(1992). “Structure of Vacation Destination Choice Sets.” Annals of Tourism Research, 19 (3): 420-34.

10.

Cronin

J. Joseph

Jr. Brady

Michael K.

Hult

G. Tomas M.

(2000). “Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments.” Journal of Retailing, 76 (2): 193-218.

11.

Fandos

Roig

Carlos

Juan

Garcia

Javier Sanchez

Tena

Miguel Angel Moliner

Monzonis

Jaume Llorens

. (2006). “Customer Perceived Value in Banking Services.” International Journal of Bank Marketing, 24 (5): 266-83.

12.

Gale

Bradley T.

(1994). Managing Customer Value: Creating Quality and Service That Customers Can See. New York: Free Press.

13.

Gallarza

Martina G.

Gil Saura

Irene

. (2006). “Value Dimensions, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Investigation of University Students’ Travel Behavior.” Tourism Management, 27 (3): 437-52.

14.

Gallarza

Martina G.

Gil

Irene

. (2008). “The Concept of Value and Its Dimensions: A Tool for Analysing Tourism Experiences.” Tourism Review, 63 (3): 4-20.

15.

Gill

Dona

Byslma

Brett

Ouschan

Robyn

. (2007). “Customer Perceived Value in a Cellar Door Visit: The Impact on Behavioural Intentions.” International Journal of Wine Business Research, 19 (4): 257-75.

16.

Yanqun

Song

Haiyan

. (2008). “A Mediation Model of Tourists’ Repurchase Intentions for Packaged Tour Services.” Journal of Travel Research, 47 (3): 317-31.

17.

Holbrook

Morris B.

(1999). Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research. London: Routledge.

18.

Jamal

Salamiah A.

Othman

Nor’Ain

Muhammad

Nik Maheran Nik

. (2011). “Tourist Perceived Value in a Community-Based Homestay Visit: An Investigation into the Functional and Experiential Aspect of Value.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 17 (1): 5-15.

19.

Kashyap

Rajiv

Bojanic

David C.

(2000). “A Structural Analysis of Value, Quality, and Price Perceptions of Business and Leisure Travelers.” Journal of Travel Research, 39:45-51.

20.

Kotler

Philip

Keller

Kevin L.

(2008). Marketing Management, 12th edition. Zagreb: MATE.

21.

Lai

Albert Wenben

. (1995). “Consumer Values, Product Benefits and Customer Value: A Consumption Behaviour Approach.” Advances in Consumer Research, 22 (1): 381-88.

22.

Lapierre

Jozée

. (2000). “Customer-Perceived Value in Industrial Contexts.” Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 15 (2/3): 122-45.

23.

Lee

Choong-Ki

Yoon

Yoo-Shik

Lee

Seung-Kon

. (2007). “Investigating the Relationships among Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Recommendations: The Case of the Korean DMZ.” Tourism Management, 28 (1): 204-14.

24.

Lee

Jin-Soo

Lee

Choong-Ki

Choi

Youngjoon

. (2011). “Examining the Role of Emotional and Functional Values in Festival Evaluation.” Journal of Travel Research, 50 (6): 685-96.

25.

Lee

So Yon

Petrick

James F.

Crompton

John

. (2007). “The Roles of Quality and Intermediary Constructs in Determining Festival Attendees’ Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Travel Research, 45 (4): 402-12.

26.

Masiero

Lorenzo

Nicolau

Juan L.

(2012). “Tourism Market Segmentation Based on Price Sensitivity: Finding Similar Price Preferences on Tourism Activities.” Journal of Travel Research, 51 (4): 426-35.

27.

McDougall

Gordon H. G.

Levesque

Terrence

. (2000). “Customer Satisfaction with Services: Putting Perceived Value into the Equation.” Journal of Services Marketing, 14 (5): 392-410.

28.

McKercher

Bob

Guillet

Basak D.

(2011). “Are Tourists or Markets Destination Loyal?” Journal of Travel Research, 50 (2): 121-32.

29.

Moliner

Miguel A.

Sánchez

Javier

Rodríguez

Rosa M.

Callarisa

Luís

. (2007). “Relationship Quality with a Travel Agency: The Influence of the Post-purchase Perceived Value of a Tourism Package.” Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7 (3-4): 194-211.

30.

Murphy

Peter

Pritchard

Mark P.

Smith

Brock

. (2000). “The Destination Product and Its Impact on Traveller Perceptions.” Tourism Management, 21 (1): 43-52.

31.

Haemoon

. (1999). “Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Value: A Holistic Perspective.” International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18 (1): 67-82.

32.

Haemoon

. (2003). “Price Fairness and Its Asymmetric Effects on Overall Price, Quality, and Value Judgments: The Case of an Upscale Hotel.” Tourism Management, 24 (4): 387-99.

33.

Oliver

Richard L.

(1999). “Value as Excellence in the Consumption Experience.” In Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, edited by Holbrook

Morris B.

London: Routledge, pp. 43-62.

34.

Opperman

Martin

(2000). “Tourism Destination Loyalty.” Journal of Travel Research, 39:78-84.

35.

Parasuraman

Grewal

Dhruv

. (2000). “The Impact of Technology on the Quality-Value-Loyalty Chain: A Research Agenda.” Journal of Academic of Marketing Science, 28 (1): 168-74.

36.

Petrick

James F.

(2002). “Development of a Multi-dimensional Scale for Measuring the Perceived Value of a Service.” Journal of Leisure Research, 34 (2): 119-34.

37.

Petrick

James F.

(2004). “The Role of Quality, Value, Satisfaction in Predicting Cruise Passengers’ Behavioral Intentions.” Journal of Travel Research, 42:397-407.

38.

Petrick

James F.

Morais

Duarte D.

Norman

William C.

(2001). “An Examination of the Determinants of Entertainments Vacationers’ Intentions to Revisit.” Journal of Travel Research, 40:41-48.

39.

Piri Rajh

Sunčana

. (2006). The Impact of Quality and Costs on Value Perception and Purchase Intentions. Zagreb: Faculty of Business and Economics University in Zagreb.

40.

Ravald

Annika

Grönroos

Christian

. (1996). “The Value Concept and Relationship Marketing.” European Journal of Marketing, 30 (2): 19-30.

41.

Sánchez

Javier

Callarisa

Luís

Rodríguez

Rosa M.

Moliner

Miguel A.

(2006). “Perceived Value of the Purchase of a Tourism Product.” Tourism Management, 27 (3):394-409.

42.

Sánchez-Fernandez

Raquel

Iniesta-Bonillo

M. Ángeles

. (2006). “Consumer Perception of Value: Literature Review and a New Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 19:40-53.

43.

Sánchez-Fernandez

Raquel

Iniesta-Bonillo

M. Ángeles

. (2007). “The Concept of Perceived Value: A Systematic Review of the Research.” Marketing Theory, 7 (4): 427-51.

44.

Sheth

Jagdish N.

Newman

Bruce I.

Gross

Barbara L.

(1991). “Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption Values.” Journal of Business Research, 22 (2): 159-70.

45.

Snoj

Boris

Korda

Aleksandra Pisnik

Mumel

Damijan

. (2004). “The Relationships among Perceived Quality, Perceived Risk and Perceived Product Value.” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13 (3): 156-67.

46.

Sweeney

Jillian C.

Soutar

Geoffrey N.

(2001). “Consumer Perceived Value: The Development of a Multiple Item Scale.” Journal of Retailing, 77 (2): 203-20.

47.

Sweeney

Jillian C.

Soutar

Geoffrey N.

Johnson

Lester W.

(1999). “The Role of Perceived Risk in the Quality-Value Relationship: A Study in a Retail Environment.” Journal of Retailing, 75 (1): 77-105.

48.

Tam

Jackie L. M.

(2004). “Customer Satisfaction, Service Quality and Perceived Value: An Integrative Model.” Journal of Marketing Management, 20:897-917.

49.

Van der Haar

J. W.

Kemp

R. G. M.

Omta

(2001). “Creating Value That Cannot Be Copied.” Industrial Marketing Management, 30 (8): 627-36.

50.

Vranešević

Tihomir

. (2000). Customers’ Satisfaction Management. Zagreb: Golden Marketing.

51.

Williams

Paul

Soutar

Geoffrey N.

(2009). “Value, Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions in an Adventure Tourism Context.” Annals of Tourism Research, 36 (3): 413-38.

52.

Woodruff

Robert B.

Gardial

Sarah Fisher

. (1996). Know Your Customer: New Approaches to Understanding Customer Value and Satisfaction. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

53.

World Tourism Organization. (2011). Tourism Highlights - 2011 Edition. http://www.e-unwto.org/content/u27062/fulltext?p=ef08e0cc0d6a4d8a8795e242921548c3&pi=0#section=918160&page=1&locus=0 (accessed August 31, 2011).

54.

Yuksel

Atila

. (2001). “Managing Customer Satisfaction and Retention: A Case of Tourist Destinations, Turkey.” Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7 (2): 153-68.

55.

Zeithaml

Valarie A.

(1988). “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence.” Journal of Marketing, 52:2-22.

56.

Zeithaml

Valarie A.

Bitner

Mary Jo

. (2003). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm. New York: McGraw-Hill Irvin.