The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm

APJML
22,4
Factors influencing tourists’
revisit intentions
Vanessa A. Quintal and Aleksandra Polczynski
School of Marketing, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia
554 Abstract
Received October 2009 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how university students’ satisfaction with
Revised April 2010 perceived attractiveness, quality, value, and low risk impact on their revisit intentions (RVI) to a
Accepted June 2010 holiday destination.
Design/methodology/approach – A ten minute pen and paper questionnaire was distributed to
undergraduate and postgraduate students in a large Western Australia university through a non-
probability, convenience sampling approach. In total, 228 useable responses were collected, achieving
a 60 per cent response rate.
Findings – The empirical results from the structural model suggest that satisfaction (SAT) with the
attractiveness, quality, and value provided by the destination positively influenced RVI. Perceived
risk did not have the predicted effects on SAT and RVI.
Research limitations/implications – Convenience sampling method restricts the representativeness
of results across all university students. Future studies can examine the influences of culture, national and
multiculturism on RVI of tourist destinations. This study can also be replicated with larger sample sizes.
Practical implications – The key finding suggests that perceptions are crucial in achieving customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty and therefore must be handled proactively to develop lasting
relationships.
Originality/value – Limited research in the past has been conducted on RVI of tourism destinations.
Influence of perceived risk was also examined towards RVI.
Keywords Tourism, Consumer behaviour, Customer satisfaction, Customer loyalty, Students,
Australia
Paper type Research paper

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics
Vol. 22 No. 4, 2010
pp. 554-578
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1355-5855
DOI 10.1108/13555851011090565
Introduction
Tourism pundits have long defined tourism as a search for novel experiences that are
distinct from the routine experiences encountered at home (Li et al., 2008). Paradoxically,
there is considerable evidence in the literature to support Franklin’s (2003, p. 53) view
that ‘‘what many tourists seem to enjoy is the return to the familiar’’. It would seem that
some tourists prefer to exchange the familiarity of their home environment with the
familiarity of a holiday destination. The quest for what is familiar via repeat tourism
becomes more pronounced when ‘‘the rewards of security outweigh any possible rewards
brought by the high costs of uncertainty’’ (Burch, 1969, p. 132). It may be that tourists’
need for safety and certainty are a response to the insecurity and unpredictability of
contemporary living (Beck, 1992; Rojek, 2000). It is likely that repeat visitors enjoy a
holiday destination for either (or both) aesthetic reasons (sentimentality, memory, a sense
of belonging) or utilitarian reasons (better knowledge of geographic area for selected
activities) (Li et al., 2008). Understanding why such tourists revisit a holiday destination
is fundamental in developing effective tourism marketing and management strategies as
well as building travel motivation and decision-making theories (Hui et al., 2007; Lau and
McKercher, 2004; Oppermann, 1997; Petrick, 2004).
While many holiday destinations rely heavily on repeat visitations, until recently (e.g.
Anwar and Sohail, 2004; Fallon and Schofield, 2004; Hughes and Morrison-Saunders,
2002; Kemperman et al., 2003; Shanka and Taylor, 2004), limited research has been
conducted on revisit intentions (RVI) and its antecedents for several reasons. First,
research on repeat business has focused on repurchase intentions of products rather than
services (Kozak, 2001). While repurchase intentions of a product and/or brand are highly Tourists’
recognised in consumer behaviour research (Gitelson and Crompton, 1984), it is difficult
to measure RVI to a destination since it is a sector in which consumption is infrequent
revisit
and on occasions, tourists prefer to visit new places (Bigne et al., 2001). Second, the major intentions
stream of previous research in this area is related to the satisfaction (SAT) construct and
its antecedents, with RVI regarded as a consequence of a tourist satisfaction model
(Bigne et al., 2001). Since differences exist between first-time and repeat visitors
(Oppermann, 1997), there is a need for research to focus on modelling a repeat
555
destination choice process with the same vigour as modelling a first-time destination
choice process (Um et al., 2006). Third, where studies have examined the antecedents of
RVI, these have been limited in their operationalisation of the key constructs. For
instance, Um et al. (2006) research has utilised single-item scales to measure each
construct when a multidimensional approach needs to be adopted. Finally, while tourism
researchers have recently started to pay attention to the concept of perceived risk (PR),
the focus has been on the way PR relates to gender, previous travel experience and
affinity for novelty (Reichel et al., 2007). Few studies have examined whether repeat
visitors still perceive of risk and if so, how they cope with risk in a familiar destination.
Tourist perceptions about a holiday destination can help to determine the
destination’s success or failure (Formica, 2002; Kozak and Rimmington, 2000) since loyal
customers act as ‘‘information channels that informally link networks of friends, relatives
and other potential travellers to a destination’’ (Reid and Reid, 1993, p. 3), produce more
sales revenue (Hennig-Thurau and Hansen, 2000) and minimise marketing costs (Kozak,
2001; Lau and McKercher, 2004; Oppermann, 2000). On the one hand, the perceived
attractiveness (PA) (Um et al., 2006), quality (Atilgan et al., 2003), value (Sanchez et al.,
2006) and low risk (Aqueveque, 2006) of a holiday destination can influence repeat
visitations, contributing to increased employment and modern infrastructure (Darnell
and Johnson, 2001). On the other hand, negative occurrences that pose as high risk such
as bad weather, poorly organised events and negative word-of-mouth can distort
perceptions of the holiday destination, resulting in tourists opting to travel to other
destinations (Formica, 2002). Additionally, increased competitive market environments
offering tourists many options to satisfy their travel needs (Hui et al., 2007; Jang and
Feng, 2007) have made it crucial for destination management organisations (DMOs) to
attract, satisfy and retain loyal customers (Weaver et al., 2007).
Understanding the attributes that make a destination attractive can assist DMOs in
identifying what attracts tourists to return to a holiday destination (Um et al., 2006).
Tourists appear to be willing to spend more if they perceive the service quality to be high
and are more likely to make a repeat visitation if their expectations are fulfilled. The high
value that tourists place on their experience of a holiday destination also has the potential
to influence their return to the destination (Capon et al., 1990). Additionally, the low risk
that tourists perceive in a holiday destination can impact on its reputation for safety and
encourage repeat visitation (Kozak et al., 2007). Cultivating tourists’ satisfaction with the
PA, quality, value and low PR of a holiday destination so they return for more (Deslandes,
2003) can give tourism operators a differential advantage in the marketplace.
Given the competitive environment, it has been argued that university students can
be a significant market for the tourism industry, both now and in the future as the
number of students continues to expand (Carr, 2003, 2005). Generally, full time
employment remains a minority among students and income tends to be low (Davies and
Lea, 1995), while students have few personal commitments and over 20 weeks of leisure
time outside of the university semester-time each year. The impetus for student travel is
APJML propelled by universities who encourage travel (Smeaton et al., 1998) for its educational
benefits (Lew et al., 2003), on-campus travel agencies who promote attractive student
22,4 travel packages, peer pressure to conform to the travel-oriented image of students,
parental expectations of student travel/holiday behaviour and society’s view of the
student lifestyle (Christie and Munro, 2001). Despite the traditionally low incomes
of students in the early 1990s, 20 per cent of all international travellers were identified as
students, making the university student tourism market a multibillion dollar industry
556 (Bywater, 1993). Research conducted in the USA also indicates the relatively high travel
propensity of university students (Kale et al., 1987; Sirakaya and McLellan, 1997).
While it appears that the student population can make a significant contribution to
the travel industry, more research is required in the area for several reasons. First, there
seems to be little focus on the youth market that has ‘‘been neglected by researchers’’
(Reisinger and Mavondo, 2002, p. 55). Given the increased competition in tourism
destination marketing, understanding what drives the university student tourism
market can bring financial rewards to DMOs (Nash et al., 2006). Second, while the
majority of university students may be chronologically defined as belonging to the
youth population, they are actually distinct populations characterised by age, social
class, culture, education (Davies and Lea, 1995) and full time employment. Clearly,
while an overlap exists between the student and youth populations (Carr, 2005), it
would be interesting to delineate the motivating and benefit attributes that make both
populations return to a destination.
The present study examines the university student tourism market and how SAT
with PA, quality, value and low risk can impact on RVI to Western Australia’s (WA’s)
South-west region. The region offers varied food, wine, natural scenery, arts, cultural
and historical experiences within the state, attracting 1,966,000 domestic and 102,200
international visitors in 2006 (Southwest Australia, 2007). This paper is organised in
five sections. First, the constructs central to the present study are introduced. Then, the
research model and its hypotheses are outlined. Next, the methodology is detailed and
results of the analysis discussed. Finally, the present study’s limitations and future
directions are considered.

Relevant literature
To help explain the relationships between perceptions, SAT and behavioural
intentions, Lazarus’ (1991) theoretical framework was proposed. According to this
framework, attitude is linked to behavioural intentions following the sequence:
appraisal ! emotional response ! coping. Bagozzi (1992) and Yuan and Jang (2008),
in their application of the framework, asserted that individuals engage in activities (e.g.
select a holiday destination) typically because of a desire to achieve certain outcomes. If
the individual’s cognitive appraisal of that activity (e.g. perceptions of attractiveness,
quality, risk and value) indicates that the person has achieved the planned outcome, an
affective response (e.g. SAT) follows (Gotlieb et al., 1994). The emotional response is
then followed by a coping response (e.g. intention to purchase the product again) to
maintain or increase the level of SAT. The key constructs in the present study are
outlined in the following sections.
From a DMO’s perspective, a holiday destination’s PA is its apparent ability to
deliver individual benefits (e.g. Mayo and Jarvis, 1981). Such benefits include the ability
of the holiday destination to provide relaxation and entertainment that are away from
the routine at home. Destinations that can offer historical sites, spectacular scenery,
services and facilities not available in tourists’ homes (Hu and Ritchie, 1993; Um et al.,
2006) are perceived to be attractive, increasing the possibility of repeat visitations in Tourists’
the future (Mayo and Jarvis, 1981).
From a tourist’s perspective, PA is an assessment as to whether a destination can meet
revisit
specific holiday criteria (Hu and Ritchie, 1993; Um et al., 2006). PA of a holiday destination intentions
is shaped by the way in which tourists view the world (Bowie and Chang, 2005) and are
dependent on personal characteristics such as culture, age, travel experiences and marital
status (Chen and Tsai, 2007; Deslandes, 2003). Thus, PA is conceptually defined as a
cognitive evaluation that is situation-specific. For instance, the PA of a destination’s
557
attributes such as its scenic landscapes may be appreciated by leisure travellers while its
state-of-the-art meeting facilities may be appreciated by business travellers, depending
upon the context in which the judgment is made (Hu and Ritchie, 1993).
The perceived quality (PQ) construct has been a popular research topic over the
past 20 years with numerous studies in the area of services marketing dedicated to it
(e.g. Dube et al., 1994; Murphy et al., 2000; Parasuraman et al., 1988). The construct was
pioneered by Parasuraman et al. (1985) who conceptually defined PQ as an attitude
that results from the comparison of consumer expectations with the actual
performance. When extended to tourism research, the PQ of a holiday destination has
been viewed as a combination of tourists’ trip experiences and perceived service
received in relation to their expectations of the actual service performance (Bolton and
Drew, 1991). Thus, PQ can be considered as the outcome of the evaluation process of
the service in which tourists compare their expectations with the perceived service that
has been received (Brady and Robertson, 2001; Gronroos, 1984).
The service quality construct has been operationalised in several ways. At its
inception, the construct was operationalised by a SERVQUAL measure comprising five
dimensions of tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy
(Parasuraman et al., 1988). Researchers have tested the SERVQUAL framework in
restaurant (e.g. Bojanic and Rosen, 1994), lodging (e.g. Saleh and Ryan, 1992) and
destination (e.g. Pizam et al., 1978) settings. However, this operationalisation has
received some criticism in the recent years for its limited applicability, inferior
predictive validity and the psychometric problems stemming from the use of difference
scores measure (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Cronin and Taylor, 1992). Alternatively,
researchers have proposed importance-performance analysis by presenting in a grid,
the differences between consumer perceptions of certain important service attributes
and judgements of attribute performance (e.g. Hudson et al., 2004; Hudson and
Shephard, 1998). Other researchers have claimed that a superior alternative measure
might be a direct measurement of PQ (e.g. Baker and Crompton, 2000).
Consequently, in tourism research, PQ has been viewed as a positive distinguishing
characteristic that provides insights into how services meet standards set by tourists
(e.g. Murphy et al., 2000). Thus, the ‘‘visitor’s assessment of the standard of the service
delivery process in association with the trip experience’’ (Chen and Tsai, 2007, p. 1116)
determines the PQ of a holiday destination. According to these authors, such standards
relate to the quality of food, room service and other services provided at the destination.
PR was first introduced to the marketing literature by Bauer (1960, p. 24) who
observed that ‘‘consumer behaviour involves risk in the sense that any action of a
consumer will produce consequences which he cannot anticipate with any thing
approximating certainty and some of which are likely to be unpleasant’’. PR is a
subjective cognitive evaluation that influences the consumer even if the risk does not
exist in reality (Deslandes, 2003; Formica, 2002; Reichel et al., 2007). Thus, marketing
research has conceptually defined PR as the ‘‘subjective expectation of a loss’’ (Sweeney
APJML et al., 1999, p. 81). Five types of risks are associated with loss, namely financial,
performance, social, psychological and physical (e.g. Aqueveque, 2006; Kozak et al., 2007;
22,4 Yuksel and Yuksel, 2007).
Perceived financial risk is monetary loss incurred when the product needs to be
repaired, replaced or the purchase price refunded (Horton, 1976). Performance risk
relates to loss experienced when a product does not perform according to expectations
(Sweeney et al., 1999). Social risk is the fear that a purchase will not conform to the
558 standards of the reference group (DelVecchio and Smith, 2005). Psychological risk
refers to the disappointment, frustration and shame experienced should a product not
meet expectations (Forsythe and Shi, 2003). Physical risk is loss experienced if the
product is harmful, unhealthy or causes injury. Financial, performance and social risk
are most commonly associated with purchase intentions (Aqueveque, 2006).
Individuals may view risk differently due to geographical and cultural differences
(Aqueveque, 2006; Law, 2006) and travel experiences (Kozak et al., 2007), which may
affect their RVI. For instance, some tourists may avoid risk (Aqueveque, 2006), while
others may use risk as part of excitement in tourism (Lepp and Gibson, 2003). For the
latter group, this may be due to their desire to explore unknown or revisit previously
unsatisfactory experiences (Crompton, 1992; Woodside and Lynoski, 1989).
Perceived value (PV) has been conceptually defined as a consumer’s trade-off between
the quality of the benefits in which they perceive the product relative to the sacrifice they
perceive by paying the price (Monroe, 1990). This trade-off is described in terms of
salient ‘‘give’’ and ‘‘get’’ components and is viewed as a cognitive or rational model of
decision making. In this instance, PV represents the customer’s assessment of the utility
of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given (Zeithaml, 1988).
In recent years, researchers have acknowledged that tourist behaviour is better
understood when observed through value perceptions (e.g. Gallarza and Saura, 2006).
In tourism research, PV is viewed as ‘‘a measure of a provider’s output’’ (Baker and
Crompton, 2000, p. 787). Price has been used as a surrogate for the value of a holiday
destination (e.g. Murphy et al., 2000), suggesting when prices are higher, the perception
of value also increases (Dodds et al., 1991). Consequently, PV has been assessed as a
cognitive evaluation of the time and/or money invested in a trip in comparison to the
tourist experiences that were gained (Murphy et al., 2000).
SAT has been conceptually defined as a post-consumption emotion that consumers
experience following their purchase (Westbrook and Oliver, 1991; Um et al., 2006).
Contrary to the cognitive focus of perceptions, SAT is an affective response to a product
or service (Yuan and Jang, 2008). When a consumer’s pre-purchase expectation set is
compared to the level of perceived performance (post-purchase evaluation), this may
bring about a disconfirmation of beliefs (Westbrook and Newman, 1978; Westbrook and
Oliver, 1991). A consumer is considered ‘‘satisfied when his weighted sum total of
experiences shows a feeling of gratification when compared with his expectations. On
the other hand, a consumer is considered dissatisfied when his actual experiences shows
a feeling of displeasure when compared with his expectation’’ (Choi and Chu, 2001, p. 280)
In tourism research, SAT has been viewed as the tourist’s emotional state after
experiencing the trip (Baker and Crompton, 2000; Sanchez et al., 2006). SAT with a
holiday destination is the ‘‘extent of overall pleasure or contentment felt by the visitor,
resulting in the ability of the trip experience to fulfil the visitor’s desires, expectations
and needs in relation to the trip’’ (Chen and Tsai, 2007, p. 1116). Thus, SAT has been
regarded as a post-purchase measure of performance of the destination (Kozak, 2001;
Westbrook and Oliver, 1991).
 The repurchase construct has been conceptually defined as the customer’s decision Tourists’
to engage in future activity with a service provider (Hume et al., 2007). Thus, the
construct is viewed as a positive consequence of customer satisfaction (Aron, 2006). In
revisit
tourism research, the repurchase construct has been viewed as any situation where a intentions
tourist purchases the item in question more than once (Hu, 2003). Consequently, the
RVI construct has been conceptualised as the ‘‘visitor’s judgment about the likeliness to
revisit the same destination’’ (Chen and Tsai, 2007, p. 1116).
Repeat visitors are destination-aware tourists whose expectations are based on 559
previous experiences (McKercher and Wong, 2004; Reid and Reid, 1993). Previous
research suggests that while repeaters are less likely to be satisfied (McKercher and
Wong, 2004), they have a stronger intention to revisit a holiday destination in the future
(Petrick and Backman, 2002; Sonmez and Graefe, 1998). Relaxation and familiarity
were identified as the most distinctive motivations for repeat visitors (Gitelson and
Crompton, 1984; Hughes and Morrison-Saunders, 2002). Repeat visitors preferred to
participate in more social activities such as shopping, dining and visiting friends and
relatives (Anwar and Sohail, 2004; Fallon and Schofield, 2004; Lau and McKercher,
2004). Repeat visitors also stayed longer, spending more time intensively but visited a
smaller number of attractions (Lau and McKercher, 2004; Oppermann, 1997).

Research model and hypotheses

The present study extends the RVI model proposed by Um et al. (2006) in two ways.
First, the present study introduces the PR construct to Um et al. (2006) model which
examines PA, PQ, PV and SAT for their effects on tourists’ RVI. It was envisaged that
the added PR construct would contribute to the existing body of research on decision-
making models related to tourists’ repeat purchases. Second, the present study adopts
a multidimensional approach by introducing multiple-item scales to measure each
construct with the aim of ensuring psychometric consistency. The expected effects the
perceptual and SAT constructs have on RVI to WA’s South-West region, which led to
the various hypotheses tested in the present study, can be seen in Figure 1.
It is expected that PA associated with a holiday destination has the potential to
directly affect RVI. For instance, Um et al. (2006) and Murphy et al. (2000) have found that
PA produced a direct and positive effect on RVI. This suggests visitors who perceive
higher attractiveness in a holiday destination are more likely to revisit the destination in
the future.
Visitors’ PA associated with a holiday destination are also likely to impact on their
SAT with the destination. Some researchers (e.g. Kozak and Rimmington, 2000; Um
et al., 2006) have observed the positive effect of PA on SAT. It appears visitors who
perceive higher destination attractiveness are more likely to experience greater SAT
with the destination.
While it has been observed that visitors’ PA associated with a holiday destination have
been found to directly influence RVI, it is likely that SAT will play a mediating role in this
relationship. For example, Zaboja and Voorhees (2006) and Jones et al. (2000) have noted
the mediating effect SAT produced on the PA-RVI relationship. It seems visitors who are
more satisfied by the holiday destination’s PA are more likely to revisit it. Consequently:
H1. SAT will have a mediating effect between PA and RVI to WA’s South-west
region.
It is likely that PQ associated with a holiday destination has the potential to directly
affect RVI. For instance, Dube et al. (1994) and Murphy et al. (2000) have found that PQ
APJML
22,4

560

Figure 1.
Perceptions, SAT and
RVI – research model

produced a direct and positive effect on RVI. This suggests visitors who perceive higher
quality in a holiday destination are more likely to revisit the destination in the future.
Visitors’ PQ associated with a holiday destination are also likely to impact on their
SAT with the destination. Some researchers (e.g. Tsoukatos and Rand, 2006; Um et al.,
2006) have observed the positive effect of PQ on SAT. It appears visitors who perceive
higher destination quality are more likely to experience greater SATwith the destination.
While it has been observed that visitors’ PQ associated with a holiday destination
have been found to directly influence RVI, it is likely that SAT will play a mediating
role in this relationship. For example, Sivadas and Baker-Prewitt (2000) and Brady and
Robertson (2001) have noted the mediating effect SAT produced on the PQ-RVI
relationship. It seems visitors who are more satisfied by the holiday destination’s PQ
are more likely to revisit the destination. Thus:
H2. SAT will have a mediating effect between PQ and RVI to WA’s South-west
region.
It is expected that PR associated with a holiday destination has the potential to directly Tourists’
affect RVI. For instance, Sonmez and Graefe (1998), Gitelson and Crompton (1984) and revisit
Hu (2003) have found that PR produced a direct and negative effect on RVI. This
suggests visitors who perceive lower risk in a holiday destination are more likely to intentions
revisit the destination in the future.
Visitors’ PR associated with a holiday destination are also likely to impact on their
SAT with the destination. Some researchers (e.g. Fornell et al., 2006; Yuksel and Yuksel, 561
2007) have observed the negative effect of PR on SAT. It appears visitors who perceive
lower risk are more likely to experience greater SAT with the destination. While it has
been observed that visitors’ PR associated with a holiday destination have been found
to directly influence RVI, it is likely that SAT will play a mediating role in this
relationship. For example, Gitelson and Crompton (1984) and Pires et al. (2004) have
noted the mediating effect SAT produced on the PR-RVI relationship. It seems visitors
who are more satisfied by the holiday destination’s low risk are more likely to revisit
the destination. Consequently:
H3. SAT will have a mediating effect between PR and RVI to WA’s South-west
region.
It is likely that PV associated with a holiday destination has the potential to directly
affect RVI. For instance, Jen and Hu (2003) and Petrick (2004) have found that PV
produced a direct and positive effect on RVI. This suggests visitors who perceive
higher value in a holiday destination are more likely to revisit the destination in
the future.
Visitors’ PV associated with a holiday destination are also likely to impact on their
SAT with the destination. Some researchers (e.g. Chen and Tsai, 2007; Deslandes, 2003)
have observed the positive effect of PV on SAT. It appears visitors who perceive higher
destination value are more likely to experience greater SAT with the destination.
While it has been observed that visitors’ PV associated with a holiday destination
have been found to directly influence RVI, it is likely that SAT will play a mediating
role in this relationship. For example, Chen and Tsai (2007) and Patterson and Spreng
(1997) have noted the mediating effect SAT produced on the PV-RVI relationship. It
seems visitors who are more satisfied by the holiday destination’s PV are more likely to
revisit the destination. Thus:
H4. SAT will have a mediating effect between PV and RVI to WA’s South-west
region.
Finally, it is expected that SAT with the purchase of a product or service has the
potential to directly affect RVI. For instance, Deslandes (2003) and Alcaniz et al. (2005)
have found that SAT produced a direct and positive effect on RVI. This suggests
visitors who are highly satisfied with their holiday destination are more likely to revisit
it. Consequently:
H5. SAT will have a positive effect on RVI to WA’s South-West region.

Methodology
Survey instrument
The present study utilised a ten minute self-administered pen and paper questionnaire
using a non-probability, convenience sampling approach. The advantages of the self-
administered pen and paper questionnaire include its anonymity that enables
APJML opportunity for self-disclosure, cost savings on postage since it is self-administered on
the spot and quick turn around times. However, the disadvantages of the pen and
22,4 paper self-administered questionnaire are its lack of convenience, missed responses
and problems with the reliability of data collected in haste (Kiesler and Sproull, 1986).
Since the advantages of anonymity, cost savings, quick turnarounds and simplicity of
the self-administered questionnaire with a convenience sample outweighed the
disadvantages, the current approach was justified. The questionnaire (see Table I) was
562 organised into the following eight sections:

PA and PQ
Accommodation
Activities
Food and beverage
Service
Safety of activities
Cleanliness of beaches
Uniqueness of landscape
Wineries
Cottage industries
Climate
Accessibility
Availability of public transport
Parking facilities and space
General infrastructure
Travel information
Signs and indicators
PR
Considering the potential investment involved, the purchase of a holiday to WA’s South-west
region would be. . .
I think that the purchase of a holiday to WA’s South-west region would lead to financial risk for
me because of the possibility of such things as high petrol, accommodation and food costs
Given the potential expenses associated with purchasing a holiday to WA’s South-west region,
I think the overall financial risk associated with purchasing the holiday has. . .
PV
I enjoyed my previous visit to WA’s South-west region
I had a relaxing time there
The trip gave me greater social approval
My decision to go there gave me great pleasure
The trip was good value
The trip made me more acceptable among my friends
The trip improved the way I was perceived among my friends
The trip made a good impression among other persons
I felt good about my decision to go there
SAT
The visit was exactly what I needed
The visit did not work out as well as I thought it would
I was satisfied with my decision to visit WA’s South-west region
If I could have done it again, I would have chosen a different destination
I truly enjoyed the visit
I was not happy that I went to WA’s South-west region
Table I. The visit was a good experience
Initial 55 items RVI
measuring six constructs Please rate your intentions towards revisiting WA’s South-west region
(1) Initial questions: Respondents were asked to identify the towns within WA’s Tourists’
South-west region that they had visited previously and the time of their most revisit
recent visit.
intentions
(2) PA: Respondents were required to rate their PA of WA’s South-West region
based on their previous visit to the region. A total of 16 items relating to the PA
of the region were selected from Chen and Tsai’s (2007) and Buhalis’ (2000) PA
scale for their reliability ( ¼ 0.75 and  ¼ 0.85, respectively) and adapted to 563
fit the context of the present study (e.g. ‘‘food and beverage’’, ‘‘cleanliness of the
beaches’’ and ‘‘wineries’’). Each of the 16 items utilised a seven-point scale,
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
(3) PQ: Respondents were requested to rate their PQ of WA’s South-west region
based on their previous visit to the region. The same 16 items related to PA
were used for the PQ measure to fit the context of the present study. However
this time, these were used for measuring the PQ of the region. This allowed for
a comparison between PA and PQ. Again, each of the 16 items utilised a seven-
point scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
(4) PR: Respondents were asked to rate their perceived financial risk (PR) associated
with their previous visit to WA’s South-west region. Three statements relevant to
the financial risk literature ( Jacoby and Kaplan, 1972; Sweeney et al., 1999)
chosen for their reliability ( ¼ 0.82) were adapted to fit the context of the
present study (e.g. ‘‘Considering the potential investment involved, the purchase
of a holiday to WA’s South-west Region would be . . .’’, ‘‘I think that the purchase
of a holiday to WA’s South-west Region would lead to financial risk for me
because of the possibility of such things as high petrol, accommodation and food
costs’’ and ‘‘Given the potential expenses associated with purchasing a holiday to
WA’s South-west Region, I think the overall financial risk associated with
purchasing the holiday has. . .’’). Each of the three items utilised a seven-point
scale, ranging from not risky at all/improbable/very little risk (1) to very risky/
probable/substantial risk (7).
(5) PV: Respondents were required to rate their PV of WA’s South-west region
based on their previous visit to the region. Nine statements were selected from
Deslandes (2003) and Sweeney and Soutar (2001) for their reliability ( ¼ 0.96
and  ¼ 0.85, respectively) and adapted to fit the context of the present study
(e.g. ‘‘The trip gave me greater social approval’’, ‘‘The trip made me more
acceptable among my friends’’ and ‘‘The trip improved the way I was perceived
among my friends’’). Each of these nine statements utilised a seven-point scale,
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
(6) SAT: Respondents were requested to rate their SAT with WA’s South-west region
based on their previous visit to the region. Seven items relevant to the satisfaction
literature (Deslandes, 2003; Oliver, 1997) chosen for their reliability ( ¼ 0.90)
were adapted to fit the context of the present study (e.g. ‘‘I was satisfied with my
decision to visit WA’s South-west Region’’, ‘‘I truly enjoyed the visit’’ and ‘‘The
visit was a good experience’’). Each of the seven statements utilised a seven-point
scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Three of the seven
statements were negatively phrased and required reverse coding in the data
analysis stage.
APJML (7) RVI: Respondents were asked to rate their RVI to WA’s South-west region. Four
22,4 responses were selected from Deslandes (2003) for their reliability ( ¼ 0.92)
and adapted to fit the context of this research (e.g. ‘‘Please rate your intentions
towards revisiting WA’s South-west Region’’). Each of the four items utilised a
semantic seven-point scale, ranging from unlikely/impossible/improbable/
uncertain (1) to likely/possible/probable/certain (7).
564 (8) Demographics: Respondents were required to provide personal details relating
to their gender, residency status, age, purpose of travel and income. These
questions that required respondents’ personal data were placed in the last
section of the questionnaire so that respondents who had already taken ten min
to answer the questionnaire would be more inclined to complete it and provide
confidential information.

Sample
The questionnaire was administered to selected undergraduate and postgraduate
classes at a large university in WA that had given prior approval of the present study.
The questionnaires were distributed with a map illustrating WA’s South-west region
and its associated towns. A screening question was used to eliminate respondents who
had not visited the region previously. Respondents who completed the questionnaire
were given the incentive to enter a prize draw which offered wine from the region,
music and coffee vouchers as prizes.

Results
A total of 378 questionnaires were distributed to the convenience sample. Of this, 150
respondents were screened out as they had not visited WA’s South-west region
previously. The remaining 228 respondent were deemed as valid and useful as they had
visited the region before and successfully completed the entire self-administered pen
and paper questionnaire. This represented a 60 per cent response rate, which is
acceptable for pen and paper surveys (Sekaran, 2003).
The 55 items measuring the six constructs outlined in the previous section were
examined with exploratory factor analysis to establish their factor structures and
dimensionality. Initially, the VARIMAX rotation identified a 13-factor solution that
explained 69 per cent of the variance with a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic of 0.85
and Bartlett’s test of sphericity of 0.001. Items that cross-loaded with one another or had
communalities that were less than 0.5 were eliminated (Hair et al., 2006). This process
was iteratively conducted until 21 items were eliminated and there was minimal
overlapping among factors, suggesting all factors were independently structured.
As can be seen in Table II, the final factor analysis using a VARIMAX rotation
identified a ten-factor solution that explained 74 per cent of the variance with a KMO of
0.80 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity of 0.001. The first and second factors, each
comprising four items, identified RVI and PV, respectively. The third, with five items,
related to SAT. The fourth and fifth, each comprising four items, identified the perceived
quality of the infrastructure (PQINF) and the wineries and cottage industries (PQWIN),
respectively. The sixth and seventh, with three items each, related to PR and the
perceived attractiveness of the beaches and landscape (PABEA), respectively. The
eighth, comprising two items, identified the perceived quality of the accommodation
(PQACC). The ninth, with three items, related to the PA of the climate and accessibility
(PACLI). The final factor, comprising two items, identified the perceived quality of the
 Factor Tourists’
Eigenvalue Variance  loadings Communalities revisit
F1. RVI 7.89 10.23 0.92
intentions
Improbable RVI 0.94 0.91
Impossible RVI 0.87 0.82
Uncertain RVI 0.86 0.80
Unlikely RVI 0.76 0.74 565
F2. PV 3.70 10.07 0.92
The trip made me more acceptable to my friends 0.93 0.89
The trip improved how I was perceived
by friends 0.92 0.88
The trip made a good impression to
other persons 0.91 0.85
The trip gave me greater social approval 0.73 0.64
F3. SAT 2.82 8.74 0.83
I was not happy that I went to the region 0.83 0.77
The visit did not work out as well as
I thought 0.77 0.68
I truly enjoyed the visit 0.69 0.72
The visit was a good experience 0.63 0.61
I was satisfied with my decision to visit 0.61 0.68
the region
F4. Perceived quality infrastructure (PQINF) 2.17 8.62 0.83
PQ – general infrastructure 0.80 0.73
PQ – parking facilities/space 0.80 0.71
PA – general infrastructure 0.76 0.73
PA – parking facilities/space 0.74 0.65
F5. Perceived quality wineries (PQWIN) 1.99 8.17 0.83
PA – cottage industries 0.81 0.68
PQ – cottage industries 0.79 0.70
PA – wineries 0.73 0.66
PQ – wineries 0.72 0.73
F6. PR 1.80 6.47 0.79
Overall risk associated with purchase 0.89 0.81
Risk associated with high costs 0.83 0.72
Risk associated with potential investment 0.77 0.65
F7. Perceived attractiveness beaches (PABEA) 1.47 5.97 0.77
PQ – beaches 0.87 0.83
PA – beaches 0.81 0.81
PQ – landscape uniqueness 0.55 0.65
F8. Perceived quality accommodation (PQACC) 1.24 5.40 0.81
PQ – accommodation 0.82 0.80
PA – accommodation 0.77 0.77
F9. Perceived attractiveness climate (PACLI) 1.08 5.33 0.65
PA – accessibility 0.80 0.70
PA – climate 0.69 0.60
PQ – accessibility 0.62 0.65
Table II.
F10. Perceived attractiveness food (PQFNB) 1.05 5.14 0.82 Rotated component
PQ – food and beverage 0.85 0.85 matrix for the final
PA – food and beverage 0.80 0.80 34 items
APJML food and beverage (PQFNB). All factors demonstrated reliabilities above the acceptable
value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2006) as can be seen in Table II.
22,4 Confirmatory factor analysis was used to further test the measurement properties of
the ten factors. The unidimensional PR, PV, SAT and RVI constructs were tested as
one-factor congeneric models, while the PA and PQ constructs were tested as higher
order factors. Items with high modification index values due to correlated error terms
and low loadings were deleted (Byrne, 1998). As a result, one item each was deleted
566 from the RVI construct (‘‘Unlikely intentions towards revisiting WA’s South-west
region’’), the PV construct (‘‘The trip gave me greater social approval’’) and the PQWIN
construct (‘‘cottage industries’’). Finally, 31 items of the initial 55 items remained. The
model for each construct then fitted the data well according to the goodness of fit
indices (Hair et al., 2006). Composite reliabilities were 0.92 for RVI, 0.83 for SAT, 0.79 for
PABEA, 0.66 for PACLI, 0.83 for PQINF, 0.83 for PQWIN, 0.81 for PQACC, 0.82 for
PQFNB, 0.81 for PR and 0.94 for PV, suggesting the ten constructs demonstrated
reliability (Hair et al., 2006).

Testing the RVI model

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to examine the effects PA, PQ, PR and PV
had on SAT and RVI. It was noted that introducing all of the antecedents in Figure 1
would result in identification problems in an SEM procedure since the number of arrows
pointing to the endogenous variables exceeded the number of exogenous variables (Hess,
2001). Due to the potential identification problems, the effects PA, PQ, PR and PV had on
SAT and RVI could not be tested in one model. Consequently, separate structural models
were used to assess the mediating effects SAT had between each perceptual construct
and RVI to WA’s South-west region.

The effect of SAT on the PA-RVI relationship

First, the perceived attractivness of the beaches and landscape (PABEA) was examined
for its direct and indirect effects on RVI, with SAT as the mediating variable. The model
had an acceptable fit (2 ¼ 81.64; df ¼ 32; p ¼ 0.01; RMSEA ¼ 0.08; NNFI ¼ 0.94;
CFI ¼ 0.96; GFI ¼ 0.94). As can be seen in Table III, PABEA produced a significant
positive effect on SAT (ß ¼ 0.38, p ¼ 0.001) and SAT a significant positive effect on RVI
(ß ¼ 0.51, p ¼ 0.001), supporting H5. Since PABEA did not produce a direct effect on
RVI, this suggested SAT had a mediating effect on the PABEA-RVI relationship,
supporting H1.

Path Standardised estimate Hypothesis

SAT <— PABEA 0.38***

RVI <— SAT 0.51*** H1 and H5 supported
Table III. RVI <— PABEA 0.01
Standardised parameter Model fit statistics
estimates and goodness 2 81.64
of fit measures for df 32
the structural model RMSEA 0.08
measuring effects of NNFI 0.94
PA (beaches) and CFI 0.96
SAT on RVI GFI 0.94
 Next, the perceived attractivness of the climate and accessibility (PACLI) was examined Tourists’
for its direct and indirect effects on RVI, with SAT as the mediating variable. Again, the revisit
model had an acceptable fit (2 ¼ 81.48; df ¼ 32; p ¼ 0.01; RMSEA ¼ 0.08; NNFI ¼ 0.94;
CFI ¼ 0.96; GFI ¼ 0.94). However, as can be seen in Table IV, PACLI did not produce a
intentions
significant positive effect on SAT nor did it produce a direct effect on RVI, suggesting no
mediating effect of SATon the PACLI-RVI relationship, which did not support H1.
567
The effect of SAT on the PQ-RVI relationship
First, the PQ of the infrastructure (PQINF) was examined for its direct and indirect effects
on RVI, with SAT as the mediating variable. The model had an acceptable fit (2 ¼ 94.45;
df ¼ 46; p ¼ 0.01; RMSEA ¼ 0.07; NNFI ¼ 0.93; CFI ¼ 0.96; GFI ¼ 0.94). However, as
can be seen in Table V, PQINF did not produce a significant positive effect on SAT nor did
it produce a direct effect on RVI, suggesting no mediating effect of SAT on the PQINF-RVI
relationship, which did not support H2.
Then, the PQWIN was examined for its direct and indirect effects on RVI, with SAT
as the mediating variable. Again, the model had an acceptable fit (2 ¼ 90.93; df ¼ 46;
p ¼ 0.01; RMSEA ¼ 0.07; NNFI ¼ 0.94; CFI ¼ 0.97; GFI ¼ 0.94). This time, as can be
seen in Table VI, PQWIN produced a significant positive effect on SAT (ß ¼ 0.21,
p ¼ 0.01) and SAT a significant positive effect on RVI (ß ¼ 0.47, p ¼ 0.001), again,
supporting H5. Since PQWIN did not produce a direct effect on RVI, this suggested
SAT had a mediating effect on the PQWIN-RVI relationship, supporting H2.

Path Standardised estimate Hypothesis

SAT <— PACLI 0.13

RVI <— SAT 0.52*** H1 not supported
RVI <— PACLI 0.03 Table IV.
Model fit statistics Standardised parameter
2 81.48 estimates and goodness
df 32 of fit measures for the
RMSEA 0.08 structural model
NNFI 0.94 measuring effects of
CFI 0.96 PA (climate) and SAT
GFI 0.94 on RVI

Path Standardised estimate Hypothesis

SAT <— PQINF 0.04

RVI <— SAT 0.52*** H2 not supported
RVI <— PQINF 0.01 Table V.
Model fit statistics Standardised parameter
2 94.45 estimates and goodness
df 46 of fit measures for the
RMSEA 0.07 structural model
NNFI 0.93 measuring effects of
CFI 0.96 PQ (infrastructure) and
GFI 0.94 SAT on RVI
APJML Next, the PQACC was examined for its direct and indirect effects on RVI, with SAT
as the mediating variable. The model had an acceptable fit (2 ¼ 93.73; df ¼ 46;
22,4 p ¼ 0.01; RMSEA ¼ 0.07; NNFI ¼ 0.93; CFI ¼ 0.96; GFI ¼ 0.94). As can be seen in
Table VII, PQACC produced a significant positive effect on SAT (ß ¼ 0.32, p ¼ 0.001)
and SAT a significant positive effect on RVI (ß ¼ 0.55, p ¼ 0.001), again, supporting
H5. Since PQACC did not produce a direct effect on RVI, this suggested SAT had a
mediating effect on the PQACC-RVI relationship, again, supporting H2.
568 Finally, the PQFNB was examined for its direct and indirect effects on RVI, with
SAT as the mediating variable. Again, the model had an acceptable fit (2 ¼ 94.08;
df ¼ 46; p ¼ 0.01; RMSEA ¼ 0.07; NNFI ¼ 0.93; CFI ¼ 0.96; GFI ¼ 0.94). However,
as can be seen in Table VIII, PQFNB did not produce a significant positive effect on
SAT nor did it produce a direct effect on RVI, suggesting no mediating effect of SAT
on the PQFNB-RVI relationship, which did not support H2.

The effect of SAT on the PR-RVI relationship

The perceived financial risk associated with the region (PR) was examined for its direct
and indirect effects on RVI, with SAT as the mediating variable. The model had
an acceptable fit (2 ¼ 51.79; df ¼ 25; p ¼ 0.01; RMSEA ¼ 0.07; NNFI ¼ 0.95;
CFI ¼ 0.97; GFI ¼ 0.95). However, as can be seen in Table IX, PR did not produce a
significant negative effect on SAT nor did it produce a direct effect on RVI, suggesting no
mediating effect of SAT on the PR-RVI relationship, which did not support H3. It appears
that respondents’ age (t ¼ 23 years) and their low risk perception of a familiar
destination (t ¼ 3.2) may have made safety of less consequence in the present study.

Path Standardised estimate Hypothesis

SAT <— PQWIN 0.21**

RVI <— SAT 0.47*** H2 and H5 supported
Table VI. RVI <— PQWIN 0.12
Standardised parameter Model fit statistics
estimates and goodness 2 90.93
of fit measures for the df 46
structural model RMSEA 0.07
measuring effects of NNFI 0.94
PQ (wineries) and SAT CFI 0.97
on RVI GFI 0.94

Path Standardised estimate Hypothesis

SAT <— PQACC 0.32***

RVI <— SAT 0.55*** H2 and H5 supported
Table VII. RVI <— PQACC 0.06
Standardised parameter Model fit statistics
estimates and goodness 2 93.75
of fit measures for df 46
the structural model RMSEA .0.7
measuring effects of NNFI 0.93
PQ (accommodation) CFI 0.96
and SAT on RVI GFI 0.94
The effect of SAT on the PV-RVI relationship Tourists’
Finally, the perceived social value of visiting the region (PV) were examined for their revisit
direct and indirect effects on RVI, with SAT as the mediating variable. The model had an intentions
acceptable fit (2 ¼ 52.93; df ¼ 25; p ¼ 0.01; RMSEA ¼ 0.07; NNFI ¼ 0.95; CFI ¼ 0.97;
GFI ¼ 0.95). As can be seen in Table X, PV produced a significant positive effect on SAT
(ß ¼ 0.28, p ¼ 0.001) and SAT a significant positive effect on RVI (ß ¼ 0.52, p ¼ 0.01),
again, supporting H5. Since PV did not produce a direct effect on RVI, this suggested SAT
569
had a mediating effect on the PV-RVI relationship, supporting H4.

Path Standardised estimate Hypothesis

SAT <— PQFNB 0.14

RVI <— SAT 0.50*** H2 not supported
RVI <— PQFNB 0.04 Table VIII.
Model fit statistics Standardised parameter
2 94.08 estimates and goodness
df 46 of fit measures for the
RMSEA 0.07 structural model
NNFI 0.93 measuring effects of PQ
CFI 0.96 (food and beverage) and
GFI 0.94 SAT on RVI

Path Standardised estimate Hypothesis

SAT <— PR 0.09

RVI <— SAT 0.50*** H3 not supported
RVI <— PR 0.08
Model fit statistics Table IX.
2 51.79 Standardised parameter
df 25 estimates and goodness
RMSEA 0.07 of fit measures for the
NNFI 0.95 structural model
CFI 0.97 measuring effects of
GFI 0.95 PR and SAT on RVI

Path Standardised estimate Hypothesis

SAT <— PV 0.28***

RVI <— SAT 0.52*** H4 and H5 supported
RVI <— PV 0.05
Model fit statistics Table X.
2 52.93 Standardised parameter
df 25 estimates and goodness
RMSEA 0.07 of fit measures for the
NNFI 0.95 structural model
CFI 0.97 measuring effects of
GFI 0.95 PV and SAT on RVI
APJML The findings suggest that a model predicting university students’ RVI to WA’s South-
22,4 West region will need to take into account visitors’ PABEA, the PQWIN, its PQACC, its
PV and their SAT with these attributes. As can be seen in Figure 2, a final model that
tested these constructs met with most of the goodness of fit criteria (2 ¼ 117.78;
df ¼ 42; p ¼ 0.01; RMSEA ¼ 0.09; NNFI ¼ 0.90; CFI ¼ 0.93; GFI ¼ 0.92).

570 Implications
Theoretical implications
The empirical results of the present study provided tenable evidence that the proposed
structural equation model designed to simultaneously examine PA, PQ, PR, PV, SAT

Figure 2.
Perceptions, SAT and
RVI – final model
and RVI to WA’s South-west region was generally acceptable. RVI had causal Tourists’
relationships with perceptions and SAT, showing support for Lazarus’ (1991) sequence
appraisal (perceptions) ! emotional response (SAT) ! coping (RVI). Clearly,
revisit
perceptions are crucial in achieving customer satisfaction and customer loyalty must intentions
be handled proactively to develop it into a lasting relationship.
More specifically, the present study suggests SAT with the PA of the destination
influenced RVI, supporting the hypothesised PA ! SAT ! RVI relationship. The
more attraction and SAT the university students derived from the destination’s
571
beaches and landscape, the more likely they were to revisit it. As a next step, the
research would need to identify what elements of the landscape are deemed most
attractive to visitors. It would also be interesting to compare domestic and
international student populations for their RVI. Unless international visitors are very
attracted by a holiday destination’s attributes, they may be unlikely to revisit it
because of reduced novelty and opportunity costs (Um et al., 2006).
As expected, SAT was enhanced by higher perceptions of quality, which is
consistent with the predicted PQ ! SAT ! RVI relationship. The university students
who had higher perceptions of quality and were more satisfied with the destination’s
wineries and its accommodation were also more likely to revisit it. Thus, it is crucial to
establish what technical or functional attributes might best explain the PQ (Gronroos,
1984) of holiday destinations. This may prove to be no mean feat since there are
complexities in measuring a quality experience that encompasses accommodation,
transport, leisure and information sources (Bigne et al., 2001).
The added PR construct to Um et al. (2006) model did not have the predicted
effects on SAT and RVI in the present study. It is likely that WA’s South-west region is
considered to be safe and having visited it previously, the university students may
have perceived all aspects of risk, including financial ones, to be low. However,
the construct requires further investigation across destinations perceived to be less
safe since it is acknowledged that the ‘‘psychology of an individual plays a more
important role in determining interest in leisure travel’’ (Plog, 2002, p. 247).
How risk associated with war and terrorism, politics and religion, health and
food, petty crime and cross-cultural differences (Lepp and Gibson, 2008) may repel or
attract university students requires more consideration in travel decision-making
models.
As expected, SAT was enhanced by higher perceptions of value, which is consistent
with the hypothesised PV ! SAT ! RVI relationship. The more value and SAT the
university students derived from the destination, the more likely they were to revisit it.
While PV is commonly viewed from a financial perspective of providing value-for-
money (Um et al., 2006), the university students in the present study appeared to view
the construct from a social perspective. Establishing specific social and financial
aspects that represent value for university students could help researchers better
understand the reasons why visitors continue to return to holiday destinations.

Managerial implications
If the PA of a holiday destination’s attributes are easy to categorise, this makes it easily
differentiated from other destinations, increasing the likelihood of it being considered
and chosen in the travel decision process (Mayo and Jarvis, 1981). In the present study,
images of the beach, sun and ocean in WA’s South-west region offer a distinct
competitive advantage for the region. A positioning statement for the region would do
well to incorporate this imagery.
APJML DMOs that are able to ascertain what specific attributes of PQ predict SAT can
better serve their customers by moving resources to these areas. In the present study,
22,4 the quality of the wineries and accommodation were the strongest predictors of SAT
and RVI to WA’s South-west region. Thus, the greatest potential for strengthening
repeat visitation is by ensuring tourism operators in the region continue to upgrade the
accommodation and surrounding wineries.
While the impact of PR was not evident in the present study, identifying customers
572 who are risk-seeking and risk-avoiding can help tourism marketers to design specific
campaigns for their market segments. For instance, promotional literature that
highlights the adventure of an ecotourism package may appeal to risk-seeking
individuals but discourage risk-avoiding individuals. However, the same package
presented as an opportunity to participate in the conservation of an ecologically
valuable area may appeal to risk-avoiding individuals (Lepp and Gibson, 2008).
Since PV appears to be commonly viewed in monetary terms (Murphy et al., 2000;
Um et al., 2006), it is likely that fluctuating exchange rates will impact on the number of
international visitors to a holiday destination (McCleary et al., 2007). DMOs keen to
retain loyal international customers may need to adopt a proactive approach by
designing packages that offer value-for-money in overseas markets.

Limitations and future research recommendations

The questionnaire used a convenience sampling method, thus the sample could not be
treated as representative of all university students from the destination’s major source
markets. For further study, data collected from a heterogeneous random sample could
examine cross-cultural issues related to the perceptual and attitudinal constructs.
While research has found a perception of similar behaviour based on nationality, there
is also evidence that sub-cultural differences in tourist behaviour within countries exist
(McCleary et al., 2007). The impacts of culture, nationality and multiculturalism on the
RVI decision-making model needs more study.
One of the limitations of the present study is related to its sample size, which
constituted 228 respondents. Kline (2005) suggested that an ideal goal for the ratio of
the number of observations to the number of free parameters in SEM is 20 and a
realistic minimum target is 10. The present study falls short of the suggested ideal
goals, which suggests that the study be replicated with a larger population.
Another limitation is the exploratory nature of the present study. The perceptual
antecedents of SAT accounted for 28 per cent of the explained variance, while the effect of
SAT on RVI accounted for 23 per cent. Since the present study follows a new research
direction for understanding RVI, there remains a great scope for further research to
explore other antecedents in the model such as the specific time frame to revisit a
destination, distance in travelling to a previously visited destination and the costs incurred.
Finally, data collected from the present study were neither experimental nor
longitudinal. Future research could benefit from the collection of longitudinal data that
precisely measure change across time and the direction of causality among relationships.
Ideally, it may be useful to manipulate factors of interest experimentally, thereby enabling
more definite conclusions about causal relationships to be drawn (Chi and Qu, 2008).

References
Alcaniz, E., Garcia, I. and Blas, S. (2005), ‘‘Relationships among residents’ image, evaluation of
the stay and post-purchase behaviour’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 291-302.
Anwar, S. and Sohail, M. (2004), ‘‘Festival tourism in the United Arab Emirates: first-time versus Tourists’
repeat visitor perceptions’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 161-70.
revisit
Aqueveque, C. (2006), ‘‘Extrinsic cues and perceived risk: the influence of consumption
satisfaction’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 237-47. intentions
Aron, D. (2006), ‘‘The effect of counter-experiential marketing communication on satisfaction and
repurchase intention’’, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining
Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 1-17.
573
Atilgan, E., Akinci, S. and Aksoy, S. (2003), ‘‘Mapping service quality in the tourism industry’’,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 412-22.
Bagozzi, R. (1992), ‘‘The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior’’, Social Psychology
Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 178-204.
Baker, D. and Crompton, L. (2000), ‘‘Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 758-804.
Bauer, R. (1960), ‘‘Consumer behavior as risk-taking’’, paper presented at Dynamic Marketing for
a Changing World, Chicago, IL.
Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society, Sage, London.
Bigne, J., Sanchez, M. and Sanchez, J. (2001), ‘‘Tourism image, evaluation variables and after
purchase behavior: inter-relationship’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 607-16.
Bojanic, D. and Rosen, L. (1994), ‘‘Measuring service quality in restaurants: an application of the
SERVQUAL instrument’’, Hospitality Research Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Bolton, R. and Drew, J. (1991), ‘‘A multistage model of customers’ assessments of service quality
and value’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 357-84.
Bowie, D. and Chang, C. (2005), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction: a view from a mixed international packaged
tour’’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 303-22.
Brady, M. and Robertson, C. (2001), ‘‘Searching for a consensus on the antecedent role of service
quality and satisfaction: an exploratory cross-national study’’, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 53-60.
Buhalis, D. (2000), ‘‘Marketing competitive destinations of the future’’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 97-116.
Burch, W. (1969), ‘‘The social circles of leisure: competing explanations’’, Journal of Leisure
Research, Vol. 1, pp. 125-47.
Byrne, B. (1998), Structural Equation Modeling with Lisrel, Prelis, and Simplis, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bywater, M. (1993), ‘‘Market segments: the youth and student travel market’’, Travel and Tourism
Analyst, Vol. 3, pp. 35-50.
Capon, W., Farley, J. and Hoenig, S. (1990), ‘‘Determinants of financial performance: a meta-
analysis’’, Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1143-9.
Carr, N. (2003), ‘‘University and college students’ tourism’’, in Ritchie, B., Carr, N. and Cooper, C.
(Eds), Managing Educational Tourism, Chapter 5, Channel View Publications, Clevedon.
Carr, N. (2005), ‘‘Poverty, debt, and conspicuous consumption: university students tourism
experiences’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 297-806.
Chen, C. and Tsai, D. (2007), ‘‘How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioural
intentions’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1115-22.
Chi, C. and Qu, H. (2008), ‘‘Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist
satisfaction and destination loyalty: an integrated approach’’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 29, pp. 624-36.
APJML Choi, T. and Chu, R. (2001), ‘‘Determining of hotel guests’ satisfaction and repeat patronage in
the Hong Kong hotel industry’’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 20,
22,4 pp. 277-97.
Christie, H. and Munro, M. (2001), ‘‘Making ends meet: student incomes and debt’’, Studies in
Higher Education, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 363-83.
Crompton, L. (1992), ‘‘Structure of vacation destination choice sets’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 19, pp. 420-34.
574
Cronin, J. and Taylor, S. (1992), ‘‘Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-67.
Darnell, A. and Johnson, P. (2001), ‘‘Repeat visits to attractions: a preliminary economic analysis’’,
Tourism Management, Vol. 22, pp. 119-25.
Davies, E. and Lea, S. (1995), ‘‘Student attitudes to student debt’’, Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 663-79.
DelVecchio, D. and Smith, C. (2005), ‘‘Brand-extension price premiums: the effects of perceived fit
and extension product category risk’’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 184-93.
Deslandes, D. (2003), ‘‘Assessing consumer perceptions of destinations: a necessary first step in
destination branding’’, Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University College of Business,
Florida, FL.
Dodds, W., Monroe, K. and Grewal, D. (1991), ‘‘Effects of price, brand and store information on
buyer’s product evaluations’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-19.
Dube, L., Renaghan, L. and Miller, J. (1994), ‘‘Measuring customer satisfaction for strategic
measurement’’, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 39-47.
Fallon, P. and Schofield, P. (2004), ‘‘First-time and repeat visitors to Orlando, Florida: a
comparative analysis of destination satisfaction’’, in Crouch, G., Perdue, R., Timmermans,
H. and Uysal, M. (Eds), Consumer Psychology of Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure, CABI
Publishing, Wallingford, pp. 203-14.
Formica, S. (2002), ‘‘Measuring destination attractiveness: a proposed framework’’, Journal of
American Academy of Business, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 350-5.
Fornell, C., Mithas, S., Morgeson, I., Forrest, V. and Krishnan, M. (2006), ‘‘Customer satisfaction
and stock prices: high returns low risk’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Forsythe, S. and Shi, B. (2003), ‘‘Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in internet shopping’’,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 867-75.
Franklin, A. (2003), Tourism: An Introduction, Sage, London.
Gallarza, M. and Saura, I. (2006), ‘‘Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty:
an investigation of university students’ travel behaviour’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 437-52.
Gitelson, R. and Crompton, L. (1984), ‘‘Insights into the repeat vacation phenomenon’’, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 11, pp. 199-217.
Gotlieb, J., Grewal, D. and Brown, S. (1994), ‘‘Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality:
complementary or divergent constructs?’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 6,
pp. 875-85.
Gronroos, S. (1984), ‘‘A service quality model and its marketing implications’’, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hennig-Thurau, T. and Hansen, U. (2000), ‘‘Relationship marketing – some reflections on the state- Tourists’
of-the-art of the relational concept’’, in Hennig-Thurau, T. and Hansen, U. (Eds), Relationship
Marketing: Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Customer Satisfaction and Customer revisit
Retention, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 3-27. intentions
Hess, J. (2001), ‘‘Unidentifiable relationships in conceptual marketing models’’, Review of
Marketing Science WP, No. 316.
Horton, R. (1976), ‘‘The structure of perceived risk’’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 694-706.
575
Hu, B. (2003), ‘‘The impact of destination involvement on travellers’ revisit intentions’’, Doctoral
dissertation, The Faculty of Purdue University Graduate School, West Lafayette, IN.
Hu, Y. and Ritchie, J. (1993), ‘‘Measuring destination attractiveness: a contextual approach’’,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 32, pp. 25-34.
Hudson, S. and Shephard, G. (1998), ‘‘Measuring service quality at tourist destinations: an
application of importance-performance analysis to an alpine ski resort’’, Journal of Travel
and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 61-77.
Hudson, S., Hudson, P. and Miller, G. (2004), ‘‘The measurement of service quality in the tour
operating sector: a methodological comparison’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42,
pp. 305-12.
Hughes, M. and Morrison-Saunders, A. (2002), ‘‘Repeat and first time visitation in an experience
specific context: the valley of the giants tree top walk’’, Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 20-5.
Hui, T., Wan, D. and Ho, A. (2007), ‘‘Tourists’ satisfaction, recommendations and revisiting
Singapore’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 965-75.
Hume, M., Mort, G. and Winzar, H. (2007), ‘‘Exploring repurchase intention in a performing arts
context: who comes and why do they come back?’’, International Journal of Non-profit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 135-48.
Jacoby, J. and Kaplan, L. (1972), ‘‘The components of perceived risk’’, paper presented at 3rd
Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Chicago, IL.
Jang, S. and Feng, R. (2007), ‘‘Temporal destination revisit intention: the effects of novelty seeking
and satisfaction’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 580-90.
Jen, W. and Hu, K. (2003), ‘‘Application of perceived value model to identify factors affecting
passengers’ repurchase intentions on city bus: a case of the Taipei metropolitan area’’,
Transportation, Vol. 30 No. 3, p. 307.
Jones, M., Mothersbaugh, D. and Beatty, S. (2000), ‘‘Switching barriers and repurchase intentions
in services’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 259-74.
Kale, S., McIntyre, R. and Weir, K. (1987), ‘‘Marketing overseas tour packages to the youth
segment: an empirical analysis’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 20-4.
Kemperman, A., Joh, C. and Timmermans, H. (2003), ‘‘Comparing first-time and repeat visitors’
activity patterns’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 159-64.
Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. (1986), ‘‘Response effects in the electronic survey’’, The Public Opinion
Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 402-13.
Kline, R. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The Guilford
Press, New York, NY.
Kozak, M. (2001), ‘‘Repeaters’ behavior at two distinct destinations’’, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 784-807.
Kozak, M. and Rimmington, M. (2000), ‘‘Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-
season holiday destination’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 38, pp. 260-9.
APJML Kozak, M., Crotts, J. and Law, R. (2007), ‘‘The impact of the perception of risk on international
travelers’’, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 233-42.
22,4
Lau, A. and McKercher, B. (2004), ‘‘Exploration versus acquisition: a comparison of first-time and
repeat visitors’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 279-85.
Law, R. (2006), ‘‘The perceived impact of risks on travel decisions’’, International Journal of
Tourism Research, Vol. 8, pp. 289-300.
576 Lazarus, R. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Lepp, A. and Gibson, H. (2003), ‘‘Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism’’, Annals
of Tourism Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 606-24.
Lepp, A. and Gibson, H. (2008), ‘‘Sensation seeking and tourism: tourist role, perception of risk
and destination choice’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 740-50.
Lew, A., Yu, L., Ap, J. and Guangrui, Z. (2003), Tourism in China, The Haworth Press, New York,
NY.
Li, X., Cheng, C.-K., Kim, H. and Petrick, J. (2008), ‘‘A systematic comparison of first-time and
repeat visitors via a two-phase survey’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29, pp. 278-93.
McCleary, K., Weaver, P. and Hsu, C. (2007), ‘‘The relationship between international leisure
travelers’ origin country and product satisfaction, value, service quality and intent to
return’’, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 21 Nos 2/3, pp. 117-30.
McKercher, B. and Wong, D. (2004), ‘‘Understanding tourism behaviour: examining the combined
effects of prior visitation history and destination status’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43
No. 2, pp. 171-9.
Mayo, E. and Jarvis, L. (1981), Psychology of Leisure Travel, CBI Publishing Co, Boston, MA.
Monroe, K. (1990), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. and Smith, B. (2000), ‘‘The destination product and its impact on
traveller perceptions’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 43-52.
Nash, R., Thyne, M. and Davies, S. (2006), ‘‘An investigation into customer satisfaction levels in
the budget accommodation sector in Scotland: a case study of backpacker tourists and the
Scottish Youth Hostels Association’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27, pp. 525-32.
Oliver, R. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Oppermann, M. (1997), ‘‘First-time and repeat visitors to New Zealand’’, Tourism Management,
Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 177-81.
Oppermann, M. (2000), ‘‘Tourism destination loyalty’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39, pp. 78-84.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1985), ‘‘A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1988), ‘‘SERVQUAL: a multi-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 5-6.
Patterson, P. and Spreng, R. (1997), ‘‘Modelling the relationship between perceived value,
satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: an
empirical examination’’, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 8 No. 5,
p. 414.
Petrick, J. (2004), ‘‘First timers’ and repeaters’ perceived value’’, Journal of Travel Research,
Vol. 43, pp. 29-39.
Petrick, J. and Backman, S. (2002), ‘‘An examination of the construct of perceived value for the
prediction of golf travelers’ intentions to revisit’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 38-45.
Pires, G., Stanton, J. and Eckford, A. (2004), ‘‘Influences on the perceived risk of purchasing Tourists’
online’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 1118-31.
revisit
Pizam, A., Neumann, Y. and Richel, A. (1978), ‘‘Dimensions of tourist satisfaction with a
destination’’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 5, pp. 314-22. intentions
Plog, S. (2002), ‘‘The power of psychographics and the concept of venturesomeness’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 40, pp. 244-51.
Reichel, A., Fuchs, G. and Uriely, N. (2007), ‘‘Perceived risk and the non-institutionalized tourist 577
role: the case of Israeli student ex-backpackers’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46,
pp. 217-26.
Reid, L. and Reid, S. (1993), ‘‘Communicating tourism supplier services: building repeat visitor
relationships’’, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 2 Nos 2/3, pp. 3-19.
Reisinger, Y. and Mavondo, F. (2002), ‘‘Determinants of youth travel markets; perceptions of
tourism destinations’’, Tourism Analysis, Vol. 7, pp. 55-6.
Rojek, C. (2000), Leisure and Culture, MacMillan Press, London.
Saleh, F. and Ryan, C. (1992), ‘‘Client perceptions of hotels’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 13, June,
pp. 163-8.
Sanchez, J., Callarisa, L., Rodriguez, R. and Moliner, M. (2006), ‘‘Perceived value of the purchase of
a tourism product’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 394-409.
Sekaran, U. (2003), Research Methods for Business – A Skill Building Approach, Wiley, New York,
NY.
Shanka, T. and Taylor, R. (2004), ‘‘Discriminating factors of first-time and repeat visitors to wine
festivals’’, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 134-45.
Sirakaya, E. and McLellan, R. (1997), ‘‘Factors affecting vacation destination choices of college
students’’, Anatolia, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 31-44.
Sivadas, E. and Baker-Prewitt, J. (2000), ‘‘An examination of the relationship between service
quality, customer satisfaction, and store loyalty’’, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, p. 73.
Smeaton, G., Josiam, B. and Dietrich, U. (1998), ‘‘College students’ binge drinking at a beachfront
destination during spring break’’, Journal of American College Health, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 247-54.
Sonmez, S. and Graefe, A. (1998), ‘‘Determining future travel behaviour from past travel
experiences and perceptions of risk and safety’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 171-7.
Southwest Australia (2007), available at: www.australiassouthwest.com
Sweeney, J. and Soutar, G. (2001), ‘‘Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item
scale’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 203-20.
Sweeney, J., Soutar, G. and Johnson, W. (1999), ‘‘The role of perceived risk in the quality-value
relationship: a study in a retail environment’’, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 77-105.
Tsoukatos, E. and Rand, G. (2006), ‘‘Path analysis of perceived service quality, satisfaction and
loyalty in Greek insurance’’, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16 No. 5, p. 501.
Um, S., Chon, K. and Ro, Y. (2006), ‘‘Antecedents of revisit intention’’, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1141-58.
Weaver, P., Weber, K. and McCleary, K. (2007), ‘‘Destination evaluation: the role of previous travel
experience and trip characteristics’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 333-44.
Westbrook, R. and Newman, J. (1978), ‘‘An analysis of shopper dissatisfaction for major
household appliances’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 456-66.
Westbrook, R. and Oliver, R. (1991), ‘‘The dimensionality of consumption on emotion patterns
and consumer satisfaction’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 84-91.
APJML Woodside, A. and Lynoski, S. (1989), ‘‘A general mode of traveler destination choice’’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 8-14.
22,4 Yuan, J. and Jang, S. (2008), ‘‘The effects of quality and satisfaction on awareness and behavioral
intentions: exploring the role of a wine festival’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46, pp. 279-88.
Yuksel, A. and Yuksel, F. (2007), ‘‘Shopping risk perceptions: effects on tourists’ emotions,
satisfaction and expressed loyalty intentions’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, pp. 703-13.
578 Zaboja, J. and Voorhees, C. (2006), ‘‘The impact of brand trust and satisfaction retailer repurchase
intentions’’, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 381-90.
Zeithaml, V. (1988), ‘‘Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.

Corresponding author
Vanessa A. Quintal can be contacted at: Vanessa.Quintal@cbs.curtin.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints