Understanding the Image of Self-Contained and Serviced Apartments

Abstract

Self-contained and serviced apartments (SCSAs) are a primary offering at some destinations. To improve offerings for this type of accommodation, and consequently the competitiveness of the destination, understanding the direct or composite variables (i.e., dimensions that determine the image of SCSAs and the variables’ effect on the overall image of the accommodation product) is important. However, despite the apparent importance for commercial success, no previous research analyzed the nature of this image. This study, conducted in Gran Canaria, Canary Islands (Spain), encompasses a sample of 271 tourists, lodged at SCSAs, who completed a questionnaire at the airport departure terminal. An exploratory factor analysis examined both dimensions (cognitive and affective) followed by a logistic regression to analyze the influence of the different dimensions on the overall image of SCSAs. The empirical results suggest that, indeed, both main dimensions influence SCSAs’ overall image. For SCSAs on the Canary Islands, affective image is the formation of one factor—“SCSA’s affective image”—whereas cognitive image forms from seven factors. The logistic regression of the data further revealed that “SCSA affective image” is the most influential factor on SCSAs’ overall image, followed by four cognitive factors: “Personnel and cleanliness,” “Primary services,” “Outdoor areas,” and “Kitchen.” Such prioritizing provides destination marketing organizations with detailed information for better integrating marketing initiatives and, for owners, measures directed toward improving SCSA services and facilities.

Keywords

accommodation image condominium self-contained and serviced apartments (SCSAs)nonhotel accommodation product marketing hospitality

Self-contained and serviced apartments (SCSAs) are a primary offering at some destinations. SCSAs play a fundamental role in an ever-increasing number of major destinations’ lodging options (much of Mediterranean Europe and its alpine ski resorts, the Arabian Peninsula, Australia, and many regions in North and Central America). Issues arising for destinations, when fragmentation of “serviced apartments” dominates the market, are rejuvenation and the influence of serviced apartments for improving a destination’s image and competitiveness (Chapman & Speake, 2010). Especially in maturing destinations, an increasing prevalence of ageing accommodations become victims of a cycle of decay, forced price-cuts, and declining margins necessary for investment in renovation. This cycle progressively downgrades the destination. One of the challenges is that this product category (SCSA) remains competitive, since different types of accommodations serve specific categories of tourists (Kozak & Martin, 2012) and improve destinations’ competitiveness (Jacob, Florido, & Aguiló, 2010). However, the image of this product must achieve a high valuation, as “destinations are heavily dependent on modern and attractive images, and accommodation constitutes a critical part of the tourism product” (Warnken, Rusell, & Faulkner, 2003).

A better understanding of SCSAs’ image, its dimensions, and the effects of an accommodation’s overall image are of value to the hospitality industry and DMOs to improve commercial performance. Analyzing the image of SCSAs is vital, not only due of its relevance for the success of any hospitality company (Choi & Chu, 1999; LeBlanc & Nguyen, 1996, Tu, Yeh, Chuang, Chen, & Hu, 2011; Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996) but also because the image of SCSAs affect the destination’s image. Thus, an improvement for one improves the other (Chapman & Speake, 2010; Leung, Law, & Lee, 2011; Warnken et al., 2003). Moreover, determining the general dimensions of image enables a comparative, transnational, and cultural study of this topic (O’Neill & Mattila, 2010).

In general, SCSAs’ offerings are quite different from conventional offerings of hotels (Guilding, Warnken, Ardill, & Fredline, 2005). A characteristic that clearly differentiates SCSAs from traditional hotels, especially in Europe, is that the former include self-catering facilities¹ and usually offer fewer services. Hence, the term SCSA in this study refers to resorts consisting of apartments, bungalows, or villas with self-catering facilities, although these facilities may offer extra food and beverage services. Moreover, few researchers focused on this peculiar offering (Cassidy & Guilding, 2011; Warnken et al., 2003) and those doing so primarily employ legal and/or financial approaches rather than a marketing perspective that considers the image as perceived by customers. The previously limited investigations are a result of the wide variety of complexities and a broad range of investors’ interests in SCSAs, with little or no attention to quality control systems, branding, or centralized marketing (Warnken & Guilding, 2009). Hence, the imminent actions necessary to respond to new challenges require concentrated study of this maturing product (see Gee, 1988; Jones, 1999; Ottenbacher, Harrington, & Parsa, 2009). Many sun and beach destinations require imminent action, and the Canary Islands, in particular, are the target of this research, because SCSAs’ offerings account for more than 82% of the total number of lodging options on Gran Canaria (87,099 beds in SCSAs), and this destination confronts the challenge of necessary renovation to maintain competitiveness and improve its projected image (Moreno, 2003).

Prior research on the image of accommodations mainly focused on hotel offerings and practically ignored the nonhotel segment (Bieger, Beritelli, & Weinert, 2007; Lynch & Johns, 2007; Nicod, Mungall, & Henwood, 2007; Warnken, Bradley, & Guilding, 2005). Few researchers focused on the image of accommodations as an important aspect of resorts’ products (Chen, Ekinci, Riley, Yoon, & Tjelflaat, 2001), and most studies in the lodging industry concentrate on brand (Kandampully, Juwaheer, & Hu, 2011; Kim & Kim, 2005). Although some studies mentioned image and its attributes, they do not empirically define image’s dimensions (e.g., Chen et al., 2001; Mazanec, 1995), whereas others only consider the overall image of the accommodation (Back & Lee, 2009; Han & Kim, 2010). Other studies consider only the cognitive attributes, ignoring analysis of the affective ones (Chen et al., 2001) or only the affective image (Barsky & Nash, 2002).

Despite the importance of SCSAs, most of the literature focused on hotels; however, growing academic interest is accruing to other forms of tourism’s accommodations, such as self-catering facilities (Cassidy & Guilding, 2010). The current study is the first reported one to analyze the image of SCSAs and is consequently a significant contribution to the literature of options for tourists’ accommodation. This investigation fills a gap in the literature by identifying the attributes of cognitive and affective dimensions of accommodations’ image and determines which dimensions affect SCSAs’ overall image.

Literature Review

This section contains two subsections: the first contextualizes the term accommodation image and highlights its importance, whereas the second analyzes the dimensions comprising an SCSA’s image and its attributes.

Accommodation Image

The image of an accommodation is a key element in the success of the managing company, since image plays a leading role in tourists’ choice of hotel (Chen & Hsu, 2000; Kandampully et al., 2011; Lewis, 1984, 1985), and its importance increases for vacation hotels (Dubé & Renaghan, 2000). Furthermore, a product’s image is of great importance for attracting new customers, increasing market share, and enabling a suitable positioning of the product in the market (Chen et al., 2001; Faullant, Matzler, & Füller, 2008; Roth, 1995). Image is also vital for increasing customers’ satisfaction (Back & Lee, 2009; Mazanec, 1995), which in turn strengthens the positive attitude toward the product and intentions to purchase (Lee, Back, & Kim, 2009; Pizam & Milman, 1993) and spreads favorable word-of-mouth (Ryu, Han, & Kim, 2007). In previous studies, researchers such as Kandampully and Suhartanto (2000, 2003) and Kandampully et al. (2011) developed a model for customers of hotel chains that linked image and satisfaction to loyalty, and these researchers concluded that those factors are antecedents of loyalty. Hunt (1975); Ostrowsky, O’Brien, and Gordon (1993); Bhote (1996); and Heung, Mok, and Kwan (1996) also clearly showed the influence of an accommodation’s image on loyalty.

However, unlike destination image, accommodation image has gained nearly no attention in the literature (Barsky & Nash, 2002; Chen et al., 2001; Kandampully & Hu, 2007; Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2000; LeBlanc & Nguyen, 1996). This situation created favoritism for research from other perspectives, such as satisfaction and quality, rather than image (Chen et al., 2001; Laroche & Parsa, 2000), and no studies analyzed SCSA image.

Most research on an accommodation’s image focused on images of brand and product (see Barich & Kotler, 1991, for a more detailed description of the differences between these types of images). Studies focusing on brands’ images (e.g., Hanna, 2008; Mangan & Collins, 2002; Morey & Dittman, 1997; Olsen, Damonte, & Jackson, 1989) outnumber those for images of products (e.g., Chen et al., 2001; LeBlanc & Nguyen, 1996; Ryu, Han, & Kim, 2008), because this perspective is useful and interesting for companies marketing accommodations at an individual level and in terms of branding policies. Moreover, few studies differentiate between “brand image” and “product image” or tend to use the generic term, image, as in Hampton, Guy, and Sinkula (1987), who defined brand and product images as a single abstract concept, consisting of individuals’ total impressions and experiences of a product or service.

Images of a travel destination are a mixture of positive and negative perceptions that represent the reality individuals face when choosing a destination. Only when the positive image outweighs the negative will the potential tourist choose (Chen & Kerstetter, 1999; Milman & Pizan, 1995). Following various authors (Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martín, 2004; Echtner & Ritchie, 1991, 1993), three main, different approaches contextualize image: (a) from a perceptual or cognitive perspective from evaluating attributes (i.e., the beliefs individuals have about the product); (b) from an affective point of view, on the basis of emotional feelings aroused by the offering; and (c) from an overall approach, or general evaluation of the product, formed from both affective and cognitive images.

The same approach that analyzes overall, affective, and cognitive images seems appropriate for examining the image of accommodations. From a general perspective, the definition of a hotel’s image hinges on customers’ overall perceptions formed by processing information and by prior or vicarious knowledge of the hotel and its attributes (Han, Li-Tzang, & Lee, 2009), and image represents the overall impression in the public’s mind of a hotel firm (Barich & Kotler, 1991; Nguyen, 2006). Extrapolating those concepts for the current study, an SCSA’s image is “the subjective representation of the set of beliefs, impressions, information, and attitudes regarding the SCSA.” The present study adopts this definition, and analyzes cognitive, affective, and overall or holistic images to determine if these dimensions apply to SCSAs.

Accommodation Image Dimensions and Attributes

The measurement of an accommodation’s image is extremely complicated due to the difficulty in adapting the language to the multiple peculiarities of the service. Chen et al. (2001) stress the need to define and refine specific scales of perceptions of accommodations because, despite the attention paid to customers’ perceptions of hotel attributes, the development of precise scales has gained little progress (Getty & Thompson, 1994; Homer, 2008). However, the task has the further complication from the necessity of introducing an extensive number of items in the measurement (Headley & Miller, 1993; Litaca, Mowen, & Chakraborty, 1995; Taylor & Cronin, 1994).

According to Dubais (1999), humans need to use underlying dimensions or attributes to organize perceptions and thereby form an image. Therefore, attention must accrue to the dimensions and attributes constituting the perception of the accommodation to allow determination of the image that forms in the consumer’s mind (Wuest, Tas, & Emenheiser, 1996).

Significantly, few studies consider accommodations’ image, with no reported research specifically addressing the image of SCSAs’ offerings. This leads to investigating the perceived dimensions and attributes of accommodations using other approaches. In the literature on hospitality, the initial study of image employs generic dimensions and attributes developed from studies of service quality (Backs, 2005; Min, Min, & Chung, 2002) and attributes of customers’ satisfaction, which may or may not coincide with the attributes determining quality of accommodations (Lockwood, Gummesson, Hubrecht, & Senior, 1992; White, 2006). Based on the literature and exercising effort to extrapolate, this study identifies the most suitable dimensions and attributes for analyzing the image of SCSAs.

This study analyzes accommodations’ macro-dimensions for perceptions of hospitality services and includes a specific analysis of accommodation micro-dimensions and attributes.

Macro-Dimensions

Although a broad consensus exists among researchers attesting to the multidimensionality of customers’ perceptions of accommodations, no such consensus exists for the number or content of dimensions and attributes, which define those perceptions. The literature suggests several different approaches, and apart from the satisfaction perspective, predominant are approaches involving brand and quality, which share a significant portions of structure without the presence of any unanimity for the more suitable to evaluate consumers’ perceptions (Ekinci, 2002; Homer, 2008).

On one hand, some of the basic macro-dimensions established for services, in general, and accommodations, in particular, are those that refer to the “Nordic School.” These dimensions differentiate between a technical dimension, which is the outcome from providing service, and a functional dimension, which encompasses the method for providing service (Grönroos, 1984). Another two dimensions of accommodations identified in the literature are tangibles and the intangibles (Ekinci, Prokopaki, & Cobanoglu, 2003; Ekinci, Riley, & Fife-Schaw, 1998). According to Richardson, Dick, and Jain (1994), image is a set of tangible, or functional factors, and psychological, or intangible elements attributable to the establishment. In other words, the identity of the intangibles rests public’s perception, rendering measurement increasingly difficult.

In empirical research, Ekinci et al. (2003) demonstrated that the generic tangible and intangible dimensions are valid for analyzing the quality of accommodations in Crete. Ekinci et al. specifically suggested application of these dimensions to other islands to validate the finding from the Crete study. Richardson et al. (1994) identified these two dimensions with other names: intrinsic signs of the product, which refer to its physical characteristics unalterable without changing the product’s physical characteristics, and extrinsic characteristics, which are not the product’s physical characteristics but apply mostly in the absence of actual experience. As Schiffman and Kanuk (1997) indicated, these signs form the basis for conceptions of the product or service.

On the other hand, the “American School” initially established 10 dimensions for consumers’ perceptions focusing on quality. An exploratory analysis conducted by Parasuraman, Zeithmal, and Berry (1985) on consumers of services resulted in a 22-item scale, SERVQUAL, with five dimensions: reliability, tangible elements, response capability, security, and empathy. The empirical evidence of studies replicating the Parasuraman et al. investigation shows that submitting the five dimensions to transversal analysis render them less generic than originally contended (Babakus & Boller, 1992; Cronin & Taylor, 1992). In fact, many studies obtained only three or even two dimensions (Oberoi & Hales, 2002). Oberoi and Hales believed the dimensionality of the scale might depend on the type of service studied.

In any case, the identification of the dimensions of customers’ perceptions of hospitality service is a complex task due to the diversity of accommodations, restaurants, and leisure companies involved (Jones, 1983; Lockwood et al., 1992). Therefore, and in spite of various earlier qualitative and quantitative studies, the success achieved in identifying the dimensions of hospitality service is marginal (Chen et al., 2001), since no studies are conclusive. Apart from the already identified macro-dimensions, undertaking an in-depth study of the possible dimensions of customers’ perceptions of different types of accommodation is necessary (Mei, Dean, & White, 1999).

Micro-Dimensions

The literature provided large accumulations of attributes in an attempt to identify the specific micro-dimensions of accommodations. However, these studies’ results involved hotels, mainly in the United States and Hong Kong, Asia’s most popular vacation destination for 30 years (Bailey, 1995), which greatly limits their universality. Recently, more studies tackled images and reputations of hotels from a global perspective. Some focused on specific products, such as luxury hotels (Kim & Kim, 2005); different marketing media, such as the Internet and social media (Kima & Mattila, 2011; O’Connor, 2010); and others considered the impact of service workers on perceptions of corporate images (Nguyen, 2006). However, studies applying to other destinations and contexts are less common, and those analyzing nonhotel accommodations are exceptions.

Both the number and the content of the dimensions and attributes used in the literature are numerous and heterogeneous (Pike, 2010). Lewis (1984) used 66 attributes to evaluate the perceptions of business and leisure customers. A study conducted by Lockwood et al. (1992) through interviews with 47 customers identified 564 separate attributes that define the quality of a budget hotel, and grouped the attributes into 25 final dimensions that represent 92% of the responses.

Later studies, such as Callan (1994), attempted to establish a framework, for use in research, of hotel attributes, based on the criteria that customers use when choosing a hotel. After reviewing 45 articles, Callan (1994) determined an initial group of 139 service attributes, refined and enlarged by qualitative analyses, to obtain a final group of 166 heterogeneous attributes, grouped into 10 dimensions: location and image, additional services, value for money, recreational services, service supplier, room (tangibles), tangibles (others), safety, access, and competence. However, LeBlanc and Nguyen (1996) identified only five dimensions for an accommodation’s image: personal contact, physical atmosphere, quality of service, accessibility, and corporate identity. In sum, the number of dimensions obtained ranges from a high of 13 (e.g., McCleary, Choi, & Weaver, 1998) to a low of 2 (e.g., Min & Min, 1996) for customers’ perceptions, namely, room and front office. However, the most common result ranges between five and eight dimensions. To mention some examples, the studies of Choi and Chu (2001) identified seven dimensions, Dube and Renaghan (1999 and 2000) six, Chu and Choi (2000) six, Heung (2000) eight, and Chu (2002) five.

The purpose of this study is to determine the dimensions of SCSAs through a selection of published research addressing customers’ perceptions of accommodations.² An extensive analysis of a representative, but not exhaustive selection of studies, leads to the following conclusion: Most studies use multi-attribute scales, whereas a minority use qualitative analyses, with a composition rather than a decomposition approach, focusing on analyzing accommodations’ attributes from the consumer’s perspective (Bowen & Sparks, 1998; Callan, 1994; Chen et al., 2001; Dubais, 1999) and using quality as the most common approach, followed by satisfaction and image. However, none of these studies conducts an in-depth analysis of the dimensions comprising cognitive or affective images for accommodations or the attributes importance for formulating an overall image.

Researchers simply adopting the results of these studies of hotels for the analysis of SCSA accommodations is inappropriate, as is applying high numbers of attributes, such as the 1,275 identified by Dubé and Renaghan (2000). Furthermore, a list of specific attributes is necessary to analyze each particular case (Jeong & Oh, 1998). No clearly universally accepted valid and reliable scale exists to apply to measuring the images of all different types of accommodations. A review of the literature and consideration of opinions of experts, practitioners, and customers (aspects addressed in the methodology) produces a scale that integrates all aspects of SCSA offerings. This scale is functional for measuring and evaluating perceived image of SCSAs.

The main attributes customers consider when forming an image of an SCSA are grouped into seven specific dimensions and several attributes including tangibles and intangibles (see Figure 1). This organization allows comparative investigation of different accommodations in various geographical areas by adapting the attributes to the peculiarities of a given set of circumstances. The seven dimensions are the following: (a) the establishment in general, (b) primary services, (c) secondary services, (d) accommodation unit (i.e., apartment or bungalow), (e) service personnel, (f) price, and (g) food and beverage offerings (only applicable when the SCSA offers restaurant or cafeteria service). For any particular case, the number and content of attributes can vary depending on the location of the destination. This study determines the veracity of these dimensions as applied to an SCSA’s image, and which dimensions affect overall image.

Figure 1

Dimension and Attributes Determining the Perceived Image of an SCSA’s Offering

Cognitive and affective images are both necessary to understand fully an accommodation’s image and the effect of these attributes on overall image (Lee, Hsu, Han, & Kim, 2010; Russel & Pratt, 1980). The fact that the affective component of image does not depend on an individual’s interaction with the product emphasizes its importance. Feelings may appear before, during, or after interaction, leading to estimated, perceived, or recorded evaluations, respectively. Affective perceptions are especially important in the presence of a long-lasting contact or from personal interactions, typical of accommodations. Barsky and Nash (2002) stressed on the critical role played by emotions for evaluating hotels’ services and claimed a need for further research. The emotions guests feel during residence are critical components of satisfaction and loyalty (Barsky & Nash, 2002). Affective perceptions represent an individual’s feelings toward an object, which may be favorable, unfavorable, or neutral (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). This evaluative component of image appears to be largely ignored in tourism studies (Walmsley & Young, 1998). After reviewing 142 articles concerning destinations, published between 1973 and 2000, Pike (2002) found that only six expressed explicit interest in affective image.

Russel, Ward, and Pratt (1981) proposed a structure to represent a wide variety of affective responses of individuals and argued that the affective component of image requires separate consideration from perceptual or cognitive components to understand better people’s assessment of experiences. Russel et al. (1981), used factor analyses to determine that only eight adjectives applied to dimensions of affective image, grouped in four dimensions, were sufficiently representative to warrant inclusion in the development of an affective perception. These groupings are the following: Unpleasant–Pleasant; Boring–Stimulating; Gloomy–Exciting; Distressing–Relaxing (Hanyu, 1993; Russel & Snodgrass, 1987; Walmsley & Jenkins, 1993).

On the other hand, no consensus exists for the possible influence of each dimension of cognitive and affective image on the overall, holistic, image of the accommodation. With regard to the importance customers attach to the different attributes, various studies (e.g., Chen & Hsu, 2000; Hu & Ritchie, 1993) argued that some attributes have universal importance, whereas other researchers stated that each dimension has an importance related to the specific, studied activity (Mackay & Crompton, 1990) or the specific characteristics of the tourist. Mazursky and Jacoby (1986) determined in a model of an establishment’s image that consumers, after evaluating and integrating their perceptions of the attributes of the resort, form an overall image from the process. However, remaining unclear is which attributes exercise the greatest influence on the formation of that overall image. Moreover, in Ekinci, Dawes, and Massey (2008), only 4 of the 15 analyzed attributes related to the overall perception of the hotel.

The current study seeks to enhance understanding of accommodations’ offerings, by empirically identifying the dimensions contributing to cognitive and affective images of SCSAs and the effect these dimensions have on forming tourists’ overall perceptions.

Tourism on Gran Canaria

The geographical setting for this empirical study is Gran Canaria. The Canary Islands are a leading destination for European tourists, more than 12 million a year (Canarian Government, 2010). The Canary Islands are a mature destination, and tourism accounts for approximately 27.4% of the GDP, and the hospitality industry creates 30.2% of jobs (Canarian Government and Exceltur, 2010). However, as on many Mediterranean islands, great concern focuses on accommodations (SCSAs’ offerings being preeminent), due to factors such as a quantitative and qualitative imbalance between the supply of accommodations, demand, and new regulations affecting the tourism industry (Moreno, 2003).

The importance of the SCSAs’ offering in the Canary Islands becomes clear on examining the dominance of this type of accommodation in the Canaries compared with Spain, in general, which ranks second in the world for tourism incomes. The Canary Islands account for almost 42% of domestic and international tourists overnighting in nonhotel accommodations in Spain, with 3,408,780 tourists per year, according to the National Statistics Institute (INE; 2010). That percentage is higher for international tourists; the Canary Islands receive 50% of tourists visiting Spain and staying in nonhotel accommodations. Furthermore, during seasonal months, like December, the nonhotel offerings on the Canary Islands represent 56% of operating units in Spain. SCSAs are the leading tourist accommodation on Gran Canaria, representing 82% of all establishments and 62% of all beds. On average, SCSAs have between 100 and 400 beds and are 28 years old, although some complexes have undergone renovation to improve images and services. Regarding SCSA typology, apartments (81%) are more common than bungalows or villas (19%). The most prominent categories are, in descending order, middle (52%), low (31%), and upper (16%). Notably, on Gran Canaria most SCSAs are complexes consisting of units owned by a collective of small investors, creating significant challenges for management (Guilding et al., 2005).

Methodology

The data set consists of leisure tourists, aged 18 years and older, staying in SCSAs on Gran Canaria. These individuals come from the destination’s main sources of tourism, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Scandinavia, The Netherlands, and Ireland, nationalities that account for 86.3% of the island’s tourists. The participants were 274 tourists departing from Gran Canaria Airport. Stratified random sampling guaranteed proportional representation according to nationality, age, and gender. On a survey tourists indicated if their accommodations were SCSAs. Response to this question determined their eligibility to participate in the study. The participants received a promotional carryall as an incentive to complete the questionnaire.

To measure the perceived, cognitive, image of accommodations, an initial selection of 51 attributes represent suggestions from the literature (Figure 1). After 10 in-depth interviews with experts and practitioners, the result is a reduced scale of 42 attributes that included different dimensions of SCSAs’ image. After a focus group, an initial pretest included personal interviews with a sample of 22 tourists of different nationalities. The pretest and interviews resulted in 32 items, measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale. The instrument, translated into Spanish, English, German, Dutch, Swedish, and Danish underwent pretesting in each language. Evaluation of the affective dimensions of accommodations’ image used a 4-item, 7-point bipolar semantic differential scale—pleasant–unpleasant, boring–stimulating, gloomy–exciting, and distressing–relaxing—based on suggestions from empirical research, such as Russel and Pratt (1980). Measurement of the overall image of accommodations’ image used a single-item 7-point Likert-type scale (very negative to very positive image).

Analysis of Results

Table 1 shows the demographic profile of the participants. The sample comprises male and female customers in equal proportions. The distribution among age intervals shows a normal distribution, with ages 25 to 34 being largest. For marital status, married individuals or those in a relationship represented 67%, and for level of education and social class, 45% of the participants were university graduates and 49% self-assessed as belonging to the middle class. Tourists from Great Britain (29%) predominated, with Germans second (28%), representing the main origins of tourists to the Canary Islands.

Table 1

Sociodemographic Characteristics.

Characteristics	Dimensions	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Male	136	50.2
	Female	135	49.8
Age	Between 18 and 24	34	12.5
	Between 25 and 34	77	28.2
	Between 35 and 44	61	22.3
	Between 45 and 54	53	19.4
	Between 55 and 64	33	12.1
	Over 64	15	5.5
Marital status	Single	77	28.7
	Married	132	49.3
	In a relationship	47	17.5
	Separated/divorced	9	3.4
	Widowed	3	1.1
Nationality	Germany	78	28.5
	United Kingdom	79	28.8
	Ireland	31	11.3
	Scandinavian countries	30	10.9
	Netherlands	29	10.6
	Spain	27	9.9
Education	No education	3	1.1
	Compulsory secondary education	67	24.9
	Noncompulsory secondary (16+)	79	29.4
	Lower university degree	83	30.9
	Higher university degree	37	13.8
Social class	Working	5	2.3
	Lower-middle	34	15.7
	Middle	107	49.5
	Upper-middle	58	26.9
	Upper	12	5.6

Accommodations’ classifications were according to typology and category. Table 2 shows the characteristics of the accommodations chosen by the individuals in the sample and the distribution of these types of accommodations on Gran Canaria. Based on the data, regardless of category, apartments (77%) represent the most frequently identified type of accommodation. On the other hand, the middle category of accommodation (54%) is the most prominent. Arguably, the conclusion is that the sample represents the population in terms of typology and distribution of categories.

Table 2

Accommodations’ Characteristics for Destination and Sample.

Characteristics	Dimensions	% Gran Canaria	% Sample
Typology	Apartments	81	77
	Bungalows	19	22
Category	Lowest category	31	26
	Middle category	52	54
	Upper category	16	20

Image Dimensions

One of the purposes of the current study is to identify the dimensions that determine cognitive and affective images of SCSAs. Given the large number of items, the scale required reduction and refinement to allow selection of the most relevant items to determine the construct. Factor analyses are the most common procedure for obtaining dimensions (Echtner & Ritchie, 1993; Fakeye & Crompton, 1991; Pearce, 1982; Walmsley & Jenkins, 1993) and refining scales. Considering no specific reported research exists for SCSAs, this study used an exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation. This analysis enables investigating the suitability of the proposed dimensions for the scales.

As Table 3 shows, the results do not include all the initial items of the original scale. Elimination of some items (accommodation architecture, bathroom size, apartment/bungalow size, air-conditioning, location, peace and quiet) was necessary because communalities appeared, factorial loading was far below 0.5 acceptance level, or similar values appeared in more than one factor. This created difficulty for interpreting the factors, giving rise to lower levels of explained variance. The overall reliability level obtained is satisfactory, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .917, and Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from .722 to .917 for the different factors.

Table 3

Factor Analysis of Accommodation’s Image.

Variables	COM	IACC1	IACC2	IACC3	IACC4	IACC5	IACC6	IACC7
Entertainment in-house	0.731	0.799	0.161	0.060	0.041	0.066	0.191	0.141
Nightlife in-house	0.729	0.783	0.210	−0.015	0.027	0.136	0.201	0.113
Health club and spa center	0.712	0.744	−0.071	0.019	0.239	0.254	0.175	0.021
Sports: tennis, squash, paddle ball, volley ball, gym, golf, windsurfing, etc.	0.594	0.723	0.125	0.046	0.079	0.217	−0.025	0.008
Facilities for children: babysitting, children’s menu, playground,	0.523	0.685	0.066	0.056	0.181	0.063	0.010	0.094
Food & beverages quality	0.849	0.109	0.873	0.205	0.094	0.095	0.117	0.024
Food & beverages variety	0.862	0.144	0.872	0.222	0.067	0.027	0.117	0.110
Food & beverages prices	0.813	0.171	0.815	0.142	0.074	0.073	0.122	0.270
Food & beverages overall	0.701	0.369	0.638	0.326	0.100	−0.007	0.202	0.017
Service friendliness and professionalism	0.773	0.106	0.166	0.823	0.109	0.154	0.121	0.088
Service speed and efficiency	0.688	0.223	0.105	0.781	0.069	0.087	0.002	0.070
Cleanliness of accommodation	0.670	−0.132	0.309	0.623	0.164	−0.033	0.275	0.257
Bathroom cleanliness	0.678	−0.132	0.443	0.615	0.201	0.011	0.177	0.117
Apartments/bungalows are clean and well-maintained	0.709	−0.052	0.361	0.604	0.294	0.086	0.342	0.029
Kitchen facilities (electrical appliances, etc.)	0.781	0.228	−0.005	0.159	0.802	−0.040	0.240	0.034
Apartment’s/bungalow’s kitchen	0.720	0.220	0.115	0.212	0.737	0.107	0.117	0.211
Apartment’s bungalows view	0.611	0.046	0.269	0.138	0.632	0.320	0.116	0.051
Size and maintenance of gardens	0.795	0.277	0.160	0.140	0.074	0.807	0.123	0.034
Private bungalow garden	0.713	0.252	−0.092	0.056	0.236	0.752	0.111	0.066
Solarium	0.631	0.499	0.162	0.090	−0.097	0.540	0.112	0.185
Mini-market	0.774	0.216	0.128	−0.015	0.200	−0.018	0.818	0.032
24-Hour reception service	0.648	0.341	0.096	0.341	0.089	0.149	0.612	0.037
Pool condition and maintenance	0.574	0.021	0.306	0.297	0.070	0.255	0.567	0.037
Accommodation’s size	0.578	0.101	0.162	0.276	0.262	0.206	0.553	0.222
Low or good prices	0.847	0.073	0.157	0.357	0.075	0.069	0.132	0.814
Discounts	0.817	0.293	0.167	0.016	0.172	0.105	0.037	0.813
% partial explained variance		14.808	13.443	12.207	8.119	7.552	8.631	6.482
% total explained variance		71.241
Cronbach’s alpha factors		.856	.917	.839	.768	.756	.746	.722
Cronbach’s alpha total	.917
KMO	.875
Bartlett’s sphericity	3547.155
Significance	.000

Note: IACC1 = “Secondary services”; IACC2 = “Food and beverage”; IACC3 = “Personnel and cleanliness”; IACC4 = “Kitchen”; IACC5 = “Outdoor areas”; IACC6 = “Primary services”; IACC7 = “Price.” Values in boldface indicate the variables that have a higher load factor.

The factor analysis allowed extraction of seven clearly defined dimensions, which received labels of “Secondary services” (IACC1), “Food and beverage” (IACC2), “Personnel and cleanliness” (IACC3), “Kitchen” (IACC4), “Outdoor areas” (IACC5), “Primary services” (IACC6), and “Price” (IACC7). The results of the factor analysis appear satisfactory since they jointly explain 71.24% of variance, and individually, each dimension explains between 6.48% and 14.81% of variance, with all eigenvalues above 1.0. The correlations between the factors and the different items, expressed by means of factorial loads, are highly significant, insofar as they all have levels above 0.5 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Blanc, 1987). These dimensions largely coincide and include those found in studies of hotels’ image (no previous studies of SCSAs’ image exist), such as Chen et al. (2001), who identified two dimensions related to employees (friendliness and skills), safety, and availability of out-of-room facilities. Similarly, Kandampully and Suhartanto (2003) identified dimensions of Reception, Food and Beverage, Housekeeping, and Price. Arguably, the factors obtained adequately represent the cognitive image of SCSAs.

The first dimension encompasses secondary services (entertainment, sports, nightlife, wellness, and children’s facilities) offered by the accommodation, and all items have similar weight. The dimension corresponding to food and beverage also has equally distributed weight among quality, variety, and price of the offering. The third factor is defined by the service personnel and by general and units’ cleanliness. This dimension, containing solely intangible elements, groups cleanliness with personnel; combining aspects is a result of cleaning personnel and customers having close contact. Tourists usually spend more time in the apartment or bungalow, rendering housekeeping personnel as the key workers in the SCSA. The fourth dimension refers to the kitchen, a fundamental element in an accommodation of a self-catering establishment and includes the panorama from the accommodation’s windows or porches. The fifth dimension includes outdoor areas of the premises, specifically gardens and solarium. The sixth dimension defines the primary services of SCSAs and encompasses 24-hour reception and mini-market, while also including the swimming pool and the accommodation’s size, although, the last two had very low loadings, but represented important considerations among some tourists in the focus group. The final dimension combines price and discounts.

The dimensions obtained largely coincide with those initially proposed (e.g., price, restaurant, secondary services), although some differences appear. Service personnel include the aspect of cleanliness, which shows the importance of housekeeping personnel in this type of establishment where direct and frequent contact occurs. The kitchen plays a leading role in evaluation of the accommodation, since it is often the reason tourists choose this type of resort, perceive it as a singular dimension. Finally, the analysis did not determine the dimension of the establishment; in general, the replacement is outdoor areas, which constitute a generic image of the resort, since most activities occur outdoors at this kind of destination. In any case, these dimensions of cognitive image confirm their importance and coincide with those obtained in other contexts in the hospitality literature (Hyun & Kim, 2011; Kim & Kim, 2005; Nguyen, 2006). However, contrasting SCSAs with the literature is inappropriate because this is the first study of its specific kind.

Similarly, an exploratory factor analysis of the four variables that determine the affective components of tourists’ perceptions of image produced one single factor (AI; see Table 4). Obtaining one single affective dimension of image is a consistent and repeated result in tourism’s literature (Baloglu & Mangaloglu, 2001; Baloglu & McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martín, 2004). This factor, “SCSA Affective Image,” contains all four items included in the scale, all with factorial loadings above 0.5. The overall level of reliability is satisfactory, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .825 and explains 65.7% of variance.

Table 4

Factor Analysis of Accommodation’s Affective Image.

Variables	COM	AI
Unpleasant–pleasant accommodation	0.538	0.734
Boring–stimulating accommodation	0.746	0.863
Gloomy–exciting accommodation	0.679	0.824
Distressing–relaxing accommodation	0.667	0.816
% total explained variance	65.735
Cronbach’s alpha total	.825
KMO	.780
Bartlett	397.683
Significance	.000

Influence of Dimensions of Image on Overall Image

A logistic regression determined which of the seven factors obtained really define the overall holistic image of an SCSA resort as perceived by tourists after direct experience. Following Ekinci et al. (2003), a newly created dichotomous variable, based on the average value, allowed identifying two groups of tourists: those who evaluated the accommodation’s image below the average and those who evaluated it above the average. The first group contains 50.2% of the sample and the second group 49.8%.

A logistic regression used the dichotomous variable as the dependent variable and the previously described seven factors of establishment image as the independent variables. The results of that analysis (see Table 5) reveals that the factors that best define the overall image of accommodation are “personnel and cleanliness,” “kitchen,” “outdoor areas,” and “primary services.” The regression shows that 60.5% of individuals in the first group and 64.9% in the second have correct classifications, meaning correct classification accounts for 62.7% of the total.

Table 5

Logistic Regression of Accommodation’s Overall Image Depending on Accommodation’s Cognitive Image.

Factor	B	Exp(B)	Wald	Significance (p)
Secondary services	−0.009	0.991	0.004	.949
Food and beverage	0.057	1.058	0.149	.699
Personnel and cleanliness	0.297	1.345	3.848	.050
Kitchen	0.300	1.350	4.117	.042
Outdoor areas	0.363	1.437	6.418	.011
Primary services	0.462	1.588	9.406	.002
Price	0.191	1.211	1.716	.190
Case classification	−2 log likelihood: 289.826
% with accommodation image below the average	60.5
% with accommodation image above the average	64.9
% total of cases	62.7

Therefore, a conclusion is that the dimensions of the cognitive image for an SCSA differ in importance for explaining the overall image, with the dimensions of “price” and “food and beverage” offerings and secondary services being of little importance in formation of the overall image. However, the dimensions of “personnel and cleanliness,” “kitchen,” “outdoor areas,” and “primary services” can change the overall image of the resort as perceived by tourists.

A new explicative variable included in the logistic regression analyzed the extent to which affective image contributes to explaining the overall image of the accommodation as perceived by tourists. This new variable is the only factor of affective image obtained in the exploratory factor analysis. As shown in Table 6, an improvement is apparent in the explicative power of the model: (a) both groups show an increase in percentage of correctly classified individuals (64.0% and 67.5%), (b) a three-point increase in total percentage of correctly classified individuals (65.8%) occurred, and (c) affective image of the accommodation is the variable with most explicative power for overall image, confirming the importance of this dimension for formation of overall image.

Table 6

Logistic Regression of Accommodation’s Overall Image Depending on the Accommodation’s Cognitive and Affective Images.

Factor	B	Exp(B)	Wald	Significance (p)
Secondary services	0.005	1.005	0.001	.971
Food and beverage	0.018	1.018	0.015	.902
Personnel and cleanliness	0.227	1.255	2.182	.140
Kitchen	0.264	1.303	2.996	.083
Outdoor areas	0.367	1.444	6.381	.012
Primary services	0.408	1.503	7.232	.007
Price	0.158	1.172	1.141	.285
Affective image	0.500	1.648	9.417	.002
Case classification		−2 log likelihood: 279.408
% with accommodation image below the average	64.0
% with accommodation image above the average	67.5
% total of cases	65.8

Influence of SCSA Typology and Category on Cognitive, Affective, and Overall SCSAs’ image

Since characteristics of an accommodation can determine the image perceived by tourists, analysis becomes important for significant differences in the three dimensions of an accommodation’s image (cognitive, affective, and overall) depending on the type of accommodation. Accommodations were grouped according to (a) apartment versus bungalow and (b) low, middle, or upper categories, according to stars. The mean difference test (Table 7) lead to concluding that (a) tourists staying in apartments have a less positive image for “Outdoor areas” and “Primary services” than tourists staying in bungalows do; (b) increased categories of accommodations lead tourists to be more critical of “Secondary services” and less critical of “Food and beverage”; (c) no differences appear for affective and overall image of accommodations based on typology. These results show that the dimensions obtained for SCSAs are consistent, since no differences exist for their influences on overall image based on product or category. Thus, these dimensions are useful for evaluating images of SCSAs, in general.

Table 7

Significance Levels of Mean Difference Test for Dimensions of Accommodation’s Image, According to Typology.

Dimensions	Apartment vs. Bungalow, p	Category, p
Cognitive Image
Secondary services	.787	.085
Food and beverage	.897	.074
Personnel and cleanliness	.290	.278
Kitchen	.506	.351
Outdoor areas	.000	.573
Primary services	.090	.188
Price	.882	.330
Affective Image	.486	.935
Overall Image	.667	.475

Conclusions

SCSAs are of great importance for many tourists’ destinations throughout the world, and especially in many sun and beach destinations. However, the attention received in the literature, compared with hotel offerings, does not reflect the importance. Moreover, studies of accommodations’ image are scarce, despite the relevance of image for improving offerings and for indirectly improving the image of the destination. Nonetheless, improving product and destination images requires knowing the dimensions and the dimensions affecting overall image.

This study reviews the theoretical concept of image and the dimensions that comprise tourists’ perceptions of accommodations, and it is the first empirical study to analyze the image of SCSAs. This project contributes to the literature by (a) identifying the dimensions and attributes of SCSAs’ image (cognitive and affective) and (b) identifying the dimensions of image that affect the formation of an overall image of SCSAs.

The study used a multicultural sample of tourists in Gran Canaria (Canary Islands, Spain), where SCSAs are pervasive offering. The empirical results show that the multidimensional nature of overall image forms mainly from cognitive and affective dimensions. Cognitive image consists of seven factors: “Secondary services” (entertainment, sports, nightlife, wellness, and children facilities), “Food and beverage” (quality, variety, and price of the offering), “Personnel and cleanliness” (integrating housekeeping personnel and general cleanliness), “Kitchen” (includes SCSAs’ panoramic views), “Outdoor areas” (specifically, gardens and solarium), “Primary services” (24-hour reception, mini-market, swimming pool, and unit’s size), and “Price” (including discounts). One single factor, “SCSA affective image,” forms the affective image, integrating the various engendered from the accommodation (Pleasant, Stimulating, Exciting, and Relaxing).

This study empirically demonstrates which dimensions explain the formation of overall image of SCSAs, and require more attention. The cognitive factors that influence the overall image are “personnel and cleanliness,” “kitchen,” “outdoor areas,” and “primary services.” Moreover, affective image is a key factor for forming an overall image of the accommodation. Affective image is the variable with the greatest explicative power for overall image. This relationship is worthy of further investigation.

On the other hand, the analysis of the differences among the several dimensions of image, based on typology (apartments and bungalows) and category (low, middle, upper), shows no statistically significant difference for any of the dimensions identified (seven cognitive dimensions, affective dimension, and overall image dimension). These results lead to the conclusion that the dimensions of SCSAs’ image obtained in the analysis are constant, regardless of typology or category. Thus, these dimensions are useful for evaluating SCSAs’ image, in general.

The results obtained have significant academic and practical implications. On one hand, the proposed scale shows good measures of fit, and the influences of the factors for overall image remains constant, regardless of the SCSA’s typology and category, suggesting that the scale is useful for analyzing SCSAs in other tourist destinations. Consequently, comparative studies among resorts in different geographical areas are possible by simply adapting the attributes to the peculiarities of the accommodations. The results also suggest some differences among the several dimensions for image for explaining the overall image perceived by tourists. In any case, further studies are necessary to confirm the dimensions that form the image of the SCSA and their importance. This study demonstrates that the affective image’s dimension has application to SCSAs. Both image dimensions, cognitive and affective, influence an SCSA’s image. From available research, this is the first study testing the influence of these dimensions on the overall image of SCSAs.

On the other hand, the results enable practitioners to understand better the image of an SCSA image as perceived by tourists and to identify the factors that ultimately influence the final image, thereby prioritizing improvements in management. For instance, (a) housekeeping staff and performance play an important role in forming an overall image, due to close and frequent contact with the customers. Thus, specific, internal training is advisable for personnel who interact with the customers. (b) The kitchen and its equipment are key elements in the design of SCSAs; the design and scenery from the kitchen should be considerations, since they are main reasons for choosing this type of accommodation. (c) The main services of SCSAs in sun and beach destinations include 24-hour reception service, mini-market, and maintenance of the swimming pool. (d) The basis for the general image of the resort is mainly outdoor areas (e.g., gardens, solarium). However, the dimensions the SCSA, in general, and price are not determinants for formation of image. In addition, apart from focusing on cognitive factors, SCSAs should be sensitive to affective image and aspire to generating specific feelings to improve the SCSA’s image in the market. These guidelines can benefit managers of SCSAs for prioritizing investments to refurbish and modernize their products. These findings assist managers in selecting the best promotional materials, which highlight those dimensions that have a greatest promotional influence on the destination’s overall image.

The results are also useful for DMOs. By understanding the perceived accommodation image and its dimensions, as well as the effect of these dimensions on formation of overall image, public institutions can improve products and project the desired perceptions to targeted markets. These findings are useful, as a destination’s image depends, to a great extent, on the image of accommodations. Without intervention from DMOs and public authorities, in many destinations the worsening of SCSAs’ image can determine the obsolescence of a whole destination. These results also help public authorities to prioritize funding of major reinvestments in SCSAs to regain attractiveness and incentive clustering of similar image dimensions, fully integrating the different agents, instead of the classic (typology or category) classifications. Public authorities and business consortiums should consider these results for strategies to improve SCSAs and destinations’ image.

From a conceptual point a view, a limitation of this study is excluding several factors that might affect the process of image formation, such as customers’ personal characteristics and the specific characteristics of the accommodation. In this respect, further research should consider these aspects when developing a general model for formation of images of accommodations. Moreover, future research could analyze tourists’ perceptions of different theoretical concepts (satisfaction, quality, and image) as well as the dimensions of those concepts and their relationships. From a methodological perspective, limitations of this research, such as its transversal nature, which recommends longitudinal studies that address the process of image formation and the changes in the image and their relationships, affect evaluation and generalization of the results. Similarly, interesting future research could include the characteristics of size and age of establishments. Finally, as the results only apply to the population of the sample and to the tourist destination of Gran Canaria, replication of this research for other destinations would broaden its value. Future studies could improve the understanding of the dimensions of different types of accommodations and destinations. Dimensions of accommodations’ image are very different in structure and composition compared with those for a destination’s image. However, an interesting analysis would entail the relationship of those dimensions and the influence of accommodation’s image on destination’s image.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology (Projects ECO2012-35112 and ECO2009-12629) for this research.

Notes

Sergio Moreno-Gil (e-mail: smoreno@dede.ulpgc.es) is the managing director of the Institute of Tourism and Sustainable Development Economics, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. Josefa D. Martín-Santana (e-mail: jsantana@dede.ulpgc.es) is an associate professor of marketing at Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain.

References

Babakus

Boller

G. W.

(1992). An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Business Research, 24, 253-268.

Back

Lee

(2009). Country club members’ perceptions of value, image congruence, and switching costs: An exploratory study of country club members’ loyalty. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33, 528-546.

Backs

K. J.

(2005). The effects of image congruence on customers’ brand loyalty in the upper middle-class hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29, 448-467.

Bailey

(1995). Hong Kong EIU International. Tourism Reports, 4, 5-21.

Baloglu

Mangaloglu

(2001). Tourism destination images of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and Italy as perceived by US-based tour operators and travel agents. Tourism Management, 22(1), 1-9.

Baloglu

McCleary

K. W.

(1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26, 868-897.

Barich

Kotler

(1991). A framework for marketing image management. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 94-104.

Barsky

Labagh

(1992). A strategy for customer satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 32-40.

Barsky

Nash

(2002). Evoking emotion. Affective keys to hotel loyalty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 39-46.

10.

Beerli

Martín

J. D.

(2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 657-681.

11.

Bhote

K. R.

(1996). Beyond customer satisfaction to customer loyalty (AMA Management Briefing). New York, NY: American Management Association.

12.

Bieger

Beritelli

Weinert

(2007). Understanding second home owners who do not rent—Insights on the proprietors of self-catered accommodation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 263-276.

13.

Bowen

J. T.

Sparks

B. A.

(1998). Hospitality marketing research: A content analysis and implications for future research. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17, 125-144.

14.

Callan

R. J.

(1994). Development of a framework for the determination of attributes used for hotel selection—Indications from focus group and in-depth interviews. Hospitality Research Journal, 18(2), 53-74.

15.

Callan

R. J.

Bowman

(2000). Selecting a hotel and determining salient quality attributes: A preliminary study of mature British travelers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 2(2), 97-118.

16.

Canarian Government (2010). Informe de llegadas de turistas anuales a Canarias [Report of annual tourist arrivals to the Canary Islands]. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain: ISTAC.

17.

Canarian Government and Exceltur. (2010). Impactur. Cuentas de impacto turístico de Canarias. [Impactur. Accounts islands tourism impact]. Madrid, Spain: Exceltur and Gobierno de Canarias.

18.

Cassidy

Guilding

(2010). Defining an emerging tourism industry sub-sector: Who are the strata titled tourism accommodation stakeholders? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 421-431.

19.

Cassidy

Guilding

(2011). Management models and differential agency challenges arising in Australian multi-titled tourism accommodation properties. Tourism Management, 32, 1271-1281.

20.

Chapman

Speake

(2010). Regeneration in a mass-tourism resort: The changing fortunes of Bugibba, Malta. Tourism Management, 32, 482-491.

21.

Chen

J. S.

Hsu

C. H.

(2000). Measurement of Korean tourists’ perceived images of overseas destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 411-416.

22.

Chen

J. S.

Ekinci

Riley

Yoon

Tjelflaat

(2001). What do Norwegians think of US lodging services? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13, 280-284.

23.

Chen

P. J.

Kerstetter

D. L.

(1999). International students’ image of rural Pennsylvania as a travel destination. Journal of Travel Research, 37, 256-266.

24.

Choi

T. Y.

Chu

(2001). Determinants of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage in the Hong Kong hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 20, 277-297.

25.

Choi

T. Y.

Chu

R. K. S.

(1999). Consumer perceptions of the quality of services in three hotel categories in Hong Kong. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5, 176-189.

26.

Chu

(2002). Stated-importance versus derived-importance customer satisfaction measurement. Journal of Services Marketing, 16, 285-301.

27.

Chu

R. K. S.

Choi

(2000). An importance-performance analysis of hotel selection factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: A comparison of business and leisure travelers. Tourism Management, 21, 363-377.

28.

Cronin

J. J.

Taylor

S. A.

(1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.

29.

Dubais

(1999). Consumer behavior. Madrid, Spain: Prentice Hall.

30.

Dubé

Renaghan

L. M.

(1999). Building customer loyalty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 78-88.

31.

Dubé

Renaghan

L. M.

(2000). Creating visible customer value. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 62-72.

32.

Echtner

C. M.

Ritchie

J. R.

(1991). The meaning and measurement of destination image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(2), 2-12.

33.

Echtner

C. M.

Ritchie

J. R.

(1993). The measurement of destination image: An empirical assessment. Journal of Travel Research, 31(4), 3-13.

34.

Ekinci

(2002). A review of theoretical debates on the measurement of service quality: Implications for hospitality research. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 26, 199-216.

35.

Ekinci

Dawes

P. L.

Massey

G. R.

(2008). An extended model of the antecedents and consequences of consumer satisfaction for hospitality services. European Journal of Marketing, 42(1-2), 35-68.

36.

Ekinci

Prokopaki

Cobanoglu

(2003). Service quality in Cretan accommodations: Marketing strategies for the UK holiday market. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 22(1), 47-66.

37.

Ekinci

Riley

Fife-Schaw

(1998). Which school of thought? The dimensions of resort hotel quality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(2), 63-67.

38.

Fakeye

P. C.

Crompton

J. L.

(1991). Image differences between prospective, first-time, and repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 10-16.

39.

Faullant

Matzler

Füller

(2008). The impact of satisfaction and image on loyalty: The case of Alpine ski resorts. Managing Service Quality, 18, 163-178.

40.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

41.

Gee

C. Y.

(1988). Resort development and management. East Lansing, MI: Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Motel Association.

42.

Getty

J. M.

Thompson

K. N.

(1994). A procedure for scaling perceptions of lodging quality. Hospitality Research Journal, 18(2), 75-96.

43.

Grönroos

(1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36-44.

44.

Guilding

Warnken

Ardill

Fredline

(2005). An agency theory perspective on the owner/manager relationship in tourism-based condominiums. Tourism Management, 26, 409-420.

45.

Hair

J. K.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

T. L.

Blanc

W. C.

(1987). Análisis Multivariante [Multivariate analysis]. Madrid, Spain: Prentice Hall.

46.

Hampton

R. D.

Guy

B. S.

Sinkula

J. M.

(1987). Consumer images of financial institutions: A comparative study of banks versus savings and loans. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 2(3), 83-100.

47.

Han

Kim

(2010). An investigation of green hotel customers’ decision formation: Developing an extended model of the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 659-668.

48.

Han

Li-Tzang

Lee

J. S.

(2009). Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 519-528.

49.

Hanna

(2008).The importance of branding when buying. Hotel & Motel Management, 223(9), 42-42.

50.

Hanyu

(1993). The affective meaning of Tokyo: verbal and nonverbal approaches. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 161-172.

51.

Headley

D. E.

Miller

S. J.

(1993). Measuring service quality and its relationship to future consumer behavior. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 13(4), 32-41.

52.

Heide

Gronhaug

Engset

M. G.

(1999). Industry specific measurement of consumer satisfaction: Experiences from the business traveling industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18, 201-213.

53.

Heung

V. C. S.

(2000). Satisfaction levels of mainland Chinese travelers with Hong Kong hotel services. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12, 308-315.

54.

Heung

V. C. S.

Mok

Kwan

(1996). Brand loyalty in hotels: An exploratory study of overseas visitors to Hong Kong. Australian Journal of Hospitality Management, 3(1), 1-11.

55.

Homer

P. M.

(2008). Perceived quality and image: When all is not “rosy.” Journal of Business Research, 61, 715-723.

56.

Ritchie

J. R. B.

(1993). Measuring destination attractiveness: A contextual approach. Journal of Travel Research, 32(2), 25-34.

57.

Hunt

J. D.

(1975). Images as a factor in tourism development. Journal of Travel Research, 13(3), 1-7.

58.

Hyun

S. S.

Kim

S. W.

(2011). Dimensions of brand equity in the chain restaurant industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52, 429-437.

59.

INE. (2010). Encuesta de Ocupación en Apartamentos Turísticos EOAP [Occupancy survey in tourist apartments EOAP]. Madrid, Spain: Instituto Nacional de Estadística.

60.

Jacob

Florido

Aguiló

(2010). Research note: Environmental innovation as a competitiveness factor in the Balearic Islands. Tourism Economics, 16, 755-764.

61.

Jeong

(1998). Quality function deployment: an extended framework for service quality and customer satisfaction in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 17, 375-390.

62.

Jones

(1983). The restaurant. A place for quality control and product maintenance. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 2(2), 93-100.

63.

Jones

(1999). Multi-unit management in the hospitality industry: A late twentieth century phenomenon. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11, 155-164.

64.

Kandampully

(2007). Do hoteliers need to manage image to retain loyal customers? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19, 435-443.

65.

Kandampully

Juwaheer

T. D.

(2011). The influence of a hotel firm’s quality of service and image and its effect on tourism customer loyalty. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 12(1), 21-42.

66.

Kandampully

Suhartanto

(2000). Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: The role of customer satisfaction and image. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12, 346-351.

67.

Kandampully

Suhartanto

(2003). The role of customer satisfaction and image in gaining customer loyalty in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 10(1/2), 3-25.

68.

Kim

H.-B.

Kim

W. G.

(2005). The relationship between brand equity and firms’ performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants, Tourism Management, 26, 549-560.

69.

Kima

Mattila

A. S.

(2011). An examination of electronic video clips in the context of hotel Websites. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 612-618.

70.

Kozak

Martin

(2012). Tourism life cycle and sustainability analysis: Profit-focused strategies for mature destinations. Tourism Management, 33, 188-194.

71.

Laroche

Parsa

H. G.

(2000). Brand management in hospitality: An empirical test of the Brisoux-Laroche model. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24, 200-222.

72.

LeBlanc

Nguyen

(1996). An examination of the factors that signal hotel image to travelers. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 3(1), 32-42.

73.

Lee

Hsu

Han

Kim

(2010). Understanding how consumers view green hotels: How a hotel’s green image can influence behavioural intentions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 901-914.

74.

Lee

Back

Kim

(2009). Family restaurant brand personality and its impact on customer’s eMotion, satisfaction, and brand loyalty. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33, 305-328.

75.

Leung

Law

Lee

H. A.

(2011). The perceived destination image of Hong Kong on Ctrip.com. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13, 124-140.

76.

Lewis

R. C.

(1984). The basis of hotel selection. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(6), 54-59.

77.

Lewis

R. C.

(1985). Getting the most from marketing research (Part V). Predicting hotel choice: The factors underlying perception. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 25(4), 82-96.

78.

Litaca

J. W.

Mowen

J. C.

Chakraborty

(1995). Diagnosing perceived quality: The medical service channel. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 15(4), 42-49.

79.

Lockwood

Gummesson

Hubrecht

Senior

(1992). Developing and maintaining a strategy for service quality. In Teare

Olsen

(Eds.), International hospitality management corporate strategy in practice (pp. 312-339). London, England: Pitman.

80.

Lynch

Johns

(2007). Self-catering accommodation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 241-243.

81.

Mackay

K. J.

Crompton

J. L.

(1990). Measuring the quality of recreation services. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 8(3), 47-56.

82.

Mangan

Collins

(2002). Threats to brand integrity in the hospitality sector: Evidence from a tourist brand. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14, 286-293.

83.

Mattila

(1999). Consumers’ value judgments. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 40-46.

84.

Mazanec

J. A.

(1995). Positioning analysis with self-organizing maps: An exploratory study on luxury hotels. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(6), 80-95.

85.

Mazursky

Jacoby

(1986). Exploring the development of store images. Journal of Retailing, 62, 145-165.

86.

McCleary

K. W.

Choi

B. M.

Weaver

P. A.

(1998). A comparison of hotel selection criteria between U.S. and Korean business travelers. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 22(1), 25-38.

87.

Mei

A. W. O.

Dean

A. M.

White

C. J.

(1999). Analyzing service quality in the hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality, 9, 136-143.

88.

Milman

Pizan

(1995). The role of awareness and familiarity with a destination: The central Florida case. Journal of Travel Research, 33(3), 21-27.

89.

Min

(1996). Competitive benchmarking of Korean luxury hotels using the analytic hierarchy process and competitive gap analysis. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(3), 58-72.

90.

Min

Chung

(2002). Dynamic benchmarking of hotel service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 16, 302-321.

91.

Moreno

G. S.

(2003). Tourism development in the Canary Islands. Annals of Tourism Research, 30, 744-747.

92.

Morey

R. C.

Dittman

D. A.

(1997). An aid in selecting brand, size, and other strategic choices for a hotel. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21, 71-99.

93.

Nguyen

(2006). The collective impact of service workers and servicescape on the corporate image formation. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25, 227-244.

94.

Nicod

Mungall

Henwood

(2007). Self-catering accommodation in Switzerland. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 244-262.

95.

Oberoi

Hales

(2002). Assessing the quality of the conference hotel service product: Towards an empirically based model. Service Industries Journal, 10, 700-721.

96.

O’Connor

(2010). Managing a hotel’s image on tripadvisor. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 19, 754-772.

97.

(1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer value: A holistic perspective. Hospitality Management, 18(1), 67-82.

98.

Olsen

Damonte

Jackson

G. A.

(1989). Segmentation in the lodging industry is doomed to failure? American Hotel and Motel Association Newsletter.

99.

O’Neill

J. W.

Mattila

A. S.

(2010). Hotel brand strategy. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51(1), 27-34.

100.

Ostrowsky

P. L.

O’Brien

T. V.

Gordon

G. L.

(1993). Service quality and customer satisfaction in the commercial airline industry. Journal of Travel Research, 32(2), 16-24.

101.

Ottenbacher

Harrington

Parsa

H. G.

(2009). Defining the hospitality discipline: A discussion of pedagogical and research implications. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33, 263-283.

102.

Parasuraman

Zeithaml

V. A.

Berry

L. L.

(1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(41), 41-50.

103.

Pearce

P. L.

(1982). Perceived changes in holiday destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 145-164.

104.

Pike

(2002). Destination image analysis—A review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000. Tourism Management, 23, 541-549.

105.

Pike

(2010). Destination branding case study: Tracking brand equity for an emerging destination between 2003 and 2007. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 34, 124-139.

106.

Pizam

Milman

(1993). Predicting satisfaction among first time visitors to a destination by using the expectancy disconfirmation theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 12, 197-209.

107.

Tsang

(1998). Service quality gap in China’s hotel industry: A study of tourist perceptions and expectations. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 22, 252-267.

108.

Richardson

P. S.

Dick

A. S.

Jain

A. K.

(1994). Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 28-36.

109.

Roth

M. S.

(1995). The effects of culture and socioeconomics on the performance of global brand image strategies. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 163-175.

110.

Russel

J. A.

Pratt

(1980). A description of affective quality attributed to environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 848-856.

111.

Russel

J. A.

Snodgrass

(1987). Emotion and environment. In Stockols

Altman

(Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 245-280). New York, NY: Wiley.

112.

Russel

J. A.

Ward

L. M.

Pratt

(1981). Affective quality attributed to environments: A factor analytic study. Environment and Behavior, 13, 259-288.

113.

Ryu

Han

Kim

(2007). The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 459-469.

114.

Ryu

Han

Kim

T.-H.

(2008). The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant image, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 459-469.

115.

Schaefer

Illum

Margavio

(1995). The relative importance of hotel attributes to motorcoach tour operators. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 3(1), 65-79.

116.

Schiffman

L. G.

Kanuk

L. L.

(1997). Comportamiento del consumidor [Consumer behavior]. Madrid, Spain: Prentice Hall.

117.

Taylor

S. A.

Cronin

J. J.

(1994). Modeling patient satisfaction and service quality. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 14(1), 34-44.

118.

Tsang

(2000). Service quality in China’s hotel industry: A perspective from tourists and hotel managers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12, 316-326.

119.

Y.-T.

Yeh

Chuang

N.-K.

Chen

S.-M.

(2011). Effects of employees’ uniform on company image and employees, self-perceptions and customers’ perceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16, 635-648.

120.

Walmsley

D. J.

Jenkins

J. M.

(1993). Appraisive images of tourist areas: Application of personal construct. Australian Geographer, 24(2), 1-13.

121.

Walmsley

D. J.

Young

(1998). Evaluative images and tourism: The use of personal constructs to describe the structure of destination images. Journal of Travel Research, 36(3), 65-69.

122.

Warnken

Bradley

Guilding

(2005). Eco-resorts vs. mainstream accommodation providers: an investigation of the viability of benchmarking environmental performance. Tourism Management, 26, 367-379.

123.

Warnken

Guilding

(2009). Multi-ownership of tourism accommodation complexes: A critique of types, relative merits, and challenges arising. Tourism Management, 30, 704-714.

124.

Warnken

Rusell

Faulkner

(2003). Condominium developments in maturing destinations: Potentials and problems of long-term sustainability. Tourism Management, 24, 155-168.

125.

White

C. J.

(2006). Towards an understanding of the relationship between mood, emotions, service quality and customer loyalty intentions. Service Industries Journal, 26, 837-847.

126.

Wuest

B. E. S.

Tas

R. F.

Emenheiser

D. A.

(1996). What do mature travelers perceive as important hotel/motel customer service? Hospitality Research Journal, 20(2), 77-93.

127.

Yoon

T. H.

Ekinci

(2003). An examination of the Servqual dimensions using the Guttman scaling procedure. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 27, 3-23.

128.

Yucelt

Marcella

(1995). Perception of service quality in the U.S. lodging industry. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 3(2), 45-70.

129.

Zeithaml

V. A.

Bitner

M. J.

(1996). Services marketing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.